The Feminization of Man

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Mon Feb 09, 2009 5:05 pm

Has anybody else other than me ever noticed...

1) Women never exceed themselves.

If this occurs, then I have not yet witnessed it *ANYWHERE* throughout my entire life. Yes, Satyr, you are correct to say that women do not "think outside of the box" ... but I think there is much, much more to it. Not only do women not "think outside of the box", but women do not "think" at all! For example, on ILP, many females would attempt to show that there were a great many famous "women thinkers" throughout human history. They will pull up a list, but then concede on the point that these "women thinkers" were as revolutionary or influential as, say, Plato, Pythagorean, Newton, or Einstein. Thus, if women are such "great thinkers", then how come history demonstrates otherwise? Failing to prove this point, many women will resort to the idiotic maryshelley statement: "well you just need to take your blinkers off!" So, let us men entertain this point...

Could it be that my man-covered glasses distract me from observing or valuing the "enormous" contributions made by females throughout civilized history??? Well, if you grant women this point, then a comparison has to be made why people conceptualize a 'thinker' as Einstein rather than, say, a toothbrush, a mouse, or a computer program. What defines 'thought' after all? What defines 'intelligence'? This is about the time that women, and men-without-brains will make a mad dash to the Dictionary before attempting to think about 'thought' or 'intelligence' on their own. In other words, the feminine minds immediately-cede authority to another, because honestly, they have no idea what they are saying. This moves the concepts of 'thought' and 'intelligence' to a problem of Authority & Knowledge. Who knows what words mean; do Meriam-Webster have a clue? Who should people grant authority when it comes to, say, a Divine Word?

2) Women are not "real" authorities on anything.

Because the female mind functions in a way that immediately-cedes authority to another, upon being seriously-questioned, there is no reason to believe this particular mind is either responsible for anything it says or any actions it may perform. Essentially-then, the feminine mind is a mind being controlled by strings from a more authoritative source, notably, a Man of Power. And feminized males act in the same way as a female will, ceding his authority to the next-up on the ladder of Social Hierarchy. So, we must ask ourselves again: who authorizes words? Who owns the Word?

Reason is a complicated thing, or, at least it can become very complicated if you let it. A philosopher's natural inclination toward philosophy is driven by both his base desires (as instincts), through blood, and these passions manifest themselves as Reason by-in-which a male-engendered-mind will *COMPETE* to excel in this domain against all others. For men & women, the world is seen through very different eyes, one-in-which women cannot necessarily-understand. The simple reason for it is ... women were never meant to understand the World. Women & children are meant to remain women & children. The feminized mind is the result of this process. Rather than our Sociality spawning, indoctrinating, and manufacturing adults, Western Ideology is producing adult-children instead. Such examples can be seen through: maryshelley, drone, creasy, Kriswest, and almost-everybody from other Philosophy websites, especially the other women at ILP. Because, if said individuals could 'think' at all, then they would at least know how to establish a point, utilize Reason, and attempt to prove some points around here or anywhere else within their "real" lives. Instead, they do no such thing.

Living does not require 'thought' and this is the real-problem at hand. Somewhere along the course of Human Evolution and the building of Socialities as collective, living supraorganisms, the concept & action of 'thinking' became a specialized task. And necessarily, when it comes to specialization, men are predominantly-better at specializing than women are. The reasons for this fact-of-life is many, as you-yourself have mentioned in the past Satyr, women are more fit to change their identities in order to be absorbed & assimilated into different cultural settings. If a war party raided a tribe, then the women must assimilate themselves, and become raped by, the new tribe in order to survive. Men would see this as cowardice, a betrayal, and an utter lack of honor. This is because the notion of Honor & Loyalty are concepts known to men, but not to women. Women memetically-absorb said-concepts, but only where they are practical to her. This is what I call the "Essence of Superficiality"; men tend to be more absolutist-thinkers when it comes to abstracting thoughts and assimilating identities.

3) Women cannot truly-compete with anybody about anything.

When viewed from the perspective of men, women are non-competitive insofar as they are non-thinkers. What women do is imitate male-competition. What they do not truly-understand is the passion, motivation, and bloodlust that drives males to action. This is a fundamental curiosity in the minds of *ALL* women. Because women do not have the physio-mental capability to abstract thoughts, when a man is inspired to violent action, this both surprises & scares female minds. It does this, because the violence was, by definition, a surprise! Who saw it coming??? (except for the men who engaged it) Women are amazed by this spectacle and it is one repeated an infinite number of times between men and women. The actions of Man draw out the curiosity of women. This is because women do not know what men are going to say, do, or feel next. Therefore, in order to control men, women must emotionally-dominate the male-beast. If she cannot do this, then she will continue to fear her male-counterparts. This fear often manifests itself in the form of intense/insane lust & love.

What women would enjoy the most out of everything in their simplistic, childish lives, is to fully-emulate the Mind of Mankind. But, she cannot do this by both definition and her body. Her mind was not genetically-predetermined to ordain such tasks. She can be taught how to "act like a man", yes, but she will never truly-become a man without entirely-enveloping his actions. A woman then subconsciously-attracts-herself to a particular man for these very reasons. She erroneously-feels that if she can get close to such a man, or emulate his words (after they are spoken by the way ... after-the-fact), that she is successful in "becoming a man". This is Freud's notion of "penis envy". A woman is lacking a penis; a man is lacking sexual satisfaction. So listen well maryshelley, *THIS* is where the twain-shall-meet! A woman is only good for her sex after all, to a man. He does not give a shit about anything else except this. And this is what I call the "Woman's Problem". In turn, a woman will attempt to control a man's emotions, and if she is successful, then she can break, tame, and domesticate her beast, a Horse. If she cannot, then she becomes effeminated, just like a man can become emasculated after failing a goal through Social Assimilation. And I plan to investigate the notion of effeminated women in due time. -- this is when women become "hyper-feminine" just like men can become "hyper-masculine".

Women do compete, yes, but it is entirely-superficial from the eyes of men. It is emotional warfare that women play with both men & women alike. On the internet, this void becomes completely-overridden by masculine-thinking. After all, if the internet is thus contrived, to remove the sentimentality behind idiocy, then what can a female even do on the internet except post naked pictures of herself. Other than this, what worth does she have to any men? I do not see anything else from my personal point-of-view. Sure, she can practicalize and make ideologies into forms of pragmatism, by her nature, but this has very little to do with Philosophy-proper. In fact, I would call a woman's contribution & association with Philosophy something like: Philosophy-improper. The feminine mind does the inverse and exact-contrary to what the masculine mind does. And this can be seen, observed, recorded, analyzed, tested, and proven by what kind of people post what words and when. For example, I am typing all this shit you see on your screen. A woman is not. A woman is reactive to my action. I produce & create thought; she copies it into a lesser-form of itself. She slanders me by her nature, but the difference between men & women is one of blame. Again, women & children are irresponsible for themselves. Men are not. This is why women do not belong on or in Philosophy Forums anywhere in the world. And I would kick them all out, but then I would have nobody to talk to except myself, which leads me to my final point...

4) Women are only Good for their sex.

If a woman is not giving sex to a man, then what good is she? What can she possibly-do that is of any worth to men? Well, as I said, she can become a great tool for making an ideology into a pragmatic one. And this is useful-by-definition. In fact, this is where unintentional allegiances are formed between male & female pairs. A man & woman working in concert makes the most powerful team. Have you ever witnessed a pair of male-female ballet dancers? Have you ever witnessed a pair of male-female business executives? Have you ever seen the team-dynamic at all? All team dynamics, and subsequently-power relations, are naturally-compelled to the male-female archetype. And why? -- there is no reason except sex. In the back of every man's mind is the vain hope for sex no matter how far-removed it is from the source (urge), which is procreation & self-replication. And women cannot cognize this fact by their very own superficial minds.

Women always find it a mystery the actions & thoughts of men, and men are almost-always confounded by this. Men know the Painful Truth, so-to-speak. We are simple. We want food. We want a comfortable living. We want sex. That is it; there is no big mystery to life outside of this. The only mystery appears when women, as a whole --fucking-- specie, cannot figure out something so simple. And why cannot they figure out this fact of life except for their blind refusal to submit to the ultimate Authority of Man ... women cannot abstract their thoughts, because they have no 'thoughts'. And this is where the Past comes crumbling down. When men & women start realizing this, then the Age of Reason is going to begin as I have foreseen long ago. But people will continue to fail listening to me, because people's selfish egos are tied up into being Right. Nobody wants me to be Right; everybody wants to be Right themselves without necessitating it. It is a matter of simple spite. It does not even matter whether God exists or not...

People are going to disagree to any Proof, no matter how powerful, just to please their own broken egos.

Where are all the *REAL* Philosophers? All I see are a very few particularly-intelligent men around here; that is it.

Conclusion) Based on utility, gender breaks itself into Individuality & Sociality.

There is no way around it. The Individual exists as the Mind of Man, the concept we call "God". Sociality exists as the Body of Woman, the concept we call "Nature". And duality is not even necessary to distinguish the two. These notions are not about contradictions or contraries; they just are. At the very least, these are just category differentiations that I use, as a man, coinciding with my masculine, rational, and/or reasonable thoughts --thinking- via abstraction. I am the creator of differentiation, category, and words, because I discriminate everything. Fuck you if you want to be "equal".

I want to tell you people something important... The only time anybody ever wishes, desires, or signifies anything about Equality, it is because they are lesser than somebody else. The only time 1+1=2 is when 1+1 is *LACKING* the unity of '2', as a whole concept. Two lessers want to become One; they want to Merge! Why does God not care for Equality? He does not care, because everybody is lesser than Him. Everybody is a slave to Him. Thus, when women make any statement about Equality, then everything I say, or Satyr says, can be proven outright. Do women receive less-than-equal pay for their work? Well, that is because they are not equal to men, and never should be thought to be so. Women only desire equality, because if they reject the concept, then they have no hope after realizing Man will forever dominate Woman. And that is acceptable, because history is a powerful thing. Time will tell. And time already-does tell. Time tells us that Man leads (the dance for example) and Woman follows His lead. This has always been true. Man is action. Woman is reaction. Stagnation is inaction. Woman is lesser than Man. Man is greater than his rivals. This is Competition.

Therefore, my actions dictate that when a woman/child speaks on terms of Equality, Fairness, or Justice, then they should not be listened to without Reason. If a woman or child can demonstrate Reason as clearly as the most powerful male-philosopher in the world, at any given time, then they have no Authority compared to Him. They do not even know what they are saying or why. It is similar to this phrase: "The dog ran away, because, an angel has 3302 sides." If you can make sense of that statement, then you are either an idiot or the world's greatest genius that has ever lived. And this is where Reason-itself begins: investigating causes, learning to look, and defining thyself. Yet, here we are in the 21st Century after the death of Christ, and people by-and-large have not figured out a single god-damned thing! That is just pathetic; there is no excuse for it.

Thank God for putting Satyr on this planet ... I would be lost without his guidance thus far.

And fuck the rest of you that have slandered/insulted/assaulted/demeaned me in the past; I am tired of this bullshit.

I am off to my cave now. Everybody I meet tends to piss me off and I have to restrain myself from assaulting you/them.

Thank God for Solace.

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:51 am

Unreasonable wrote:: H
I am off to my cave now. Everybody I meet tends to piss me off and I have to restrain myself from assaulting you/them.

Thank God for Solace.

Everybody?

I would suggest that you reach inside
and provide a pliant female response
to your masculine chest-thump

Why are women designed
not to compete with men?

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:58 am

Is it true the ribs can tell
The kick of a beast from a
Lover's fist? The bruised
Bones recorded well
The sudden shock, the
Hard impact. Then swollen lids,
Sorry eyes, spoke not
Of lost romance, but hurt.

Hate often is confused. Its
Limits are in zones beyond itself. And
Sadists will not learn that
Love by nature, exacts a pain
Unequalled on the rack.

MA - a woman with experience
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What lies beyond reason
Lies beneath.
Heavily guarded,
secrets
exposed by every reasoned word.

KM - a woman with history
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Avec Merci, Mother

From her perch of beauty
posing lofty,
Sustained upon the plaudits
of the crowd,

She praises all who kneel and
whispers softly,
"A genuflection's better
with head bowed."

Among the mass of people who adore her
A solitary figure
holds her eyes.

His salty tears invoke
her sweet reaction,
"He's so much like his daddy
when he cries."

MA - a woman

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:43 am

MagnetMan wrote:: Everybody?

I would suggest that you reach inside
and provide a pliant female response
to your masculine chest-thump

Why are women designed
not to compete with men?

The physical bodies of men and women were designed for different purposes: specialization.

Woman cannot compete in Man's physical domain: violence, strength of arms.

Thus, they engage in a more duplicitous and underminded form of war: manipulation.

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:49 am

Quote :: Satyr is a persona; an aspect of who I am.
It's not an ideal.

No it certainly isn't.

Quote :: And if you and I are determined solely by our pasts then we may as well lay down and do nothing ever again for you imply that we cannot ever get beyond what has been.

Quote :: Once more you use absolutes to attempt to escape the truth.

"If" is not an absolute.

Quote :: Replace "solely", with predominately, and "cannot ever" with slow incremental changes using the will, directing becomnig towards an ideal, and exerting much effort in discipline and resistance and work.

Laughs. OK What is this 'ideal' of womanhood that you like to tout? That some might attain with much will and resistance and work?

I am working hard towards being the best me that I can be and thus away from other people's 'narrow' definitions of woman. Get it?

Quote :: Are you acting dumb or are you so?

I'm reflecting.

Quote :: Your lineage is as you say...but both are human beings with whatever that lineage determines how the female and male types are characterized by.

Are you dumb or are you acting so? I know a fair amount about how humans have been characterised and shaped by their pasts; historical and genetic.

Quote :: My grandparents never tasted a banana. How will I determine whether or not I will like bananas?

Quote :: Taste it.

I did.

Quote :: The past, fool, reveals itself in the present.
I need not know the entire history of an individual to see the final outcome and deduce it from it.

Did I like the taste of bananas?

Quote :: Bananas, you little child - because now you are using childish tactics to escape - represents an amalgamation of nutrients, with a past as it has developed within a particular environment.
How you react to it is determined by your lineage and the needs you have and the tastes this has determined.

Your grandma need have tasted a banana to have determined how you would be inclined to react to it.
Your reaction is her own.

Funny how I prefer the savoury to the sweet; unlike the rest of my family. Must have got that from my father's side. I do like bananas, though. How odd. That must have come from my Mother's side. But she hates them so!

Quote :: My grandma loved spicy foods. My mother doesn't.
I do.
I've inherited that taste from her, even if she may not have ever tasted some of the spicy foods I have access to.

Things do sometimes skip generations. And humans only inherit genes from one set of grandparents. But which the male side or the female side??

Quote :: Did I say they can determine their own destiny or that they can slightly alter it, if they will to do so, with great effort?

Any given life is influenced but not determined by its past. That is what I have been saying.

Have you seen what happens to humans and chimps that are not nurtured?

Quote :: They get spoiled.

They die and sometimes take others with them. As do the spoiled.

Quote :: You can teach it to imitate, yes.
There are billions imitating civility without understanding it.

Does one need to understand it to know it serves a purpose? Does one need to understand how the hand works in order to grasp? Insightful though such understanding is.
Children imitate their parents. It's how they learn until they are old enough to find out for themselves. There would be no language without imitation.
Would you remove the fakery that is civility, then? Is it a smile or the aggressive baring of teeth? Loads gun just in case.

Quote :: A chimp: A phenomenon, based on a consistent pattern, replicating itself, and exhibiting consistent reactions and behaviors in reference to specific simulations.
A phenomenon that has split off a family tree due to some prolonged period of genetic isolation.

Sounds almost human.

Quote :: You are so foolish it's becomnig frustrating.

I know. That is frustrating isn't it?

Quote :: Sexual divergence is how repressed sexuality depressurizes.
Sex, as was already noted, has also evolved to play social roles of relationship building, and reinforcing status and bonding individuals so as to facilitate cooperation.

Look at the word 'divergence' again. It has a different meaning to deviance. Divergence is very useful to genes.
Co-operation, again? How can I escape it???

Quote :: You like the idea of a humanity that is so diverse that nothing definite can be said about it, as can be said about chimp or alligator behavior.
It offers you the comforting notion that you cannot be understood or placed in a box and then manipulated. Yet, marketing and politics speaks otherwise.

Watch the documentary Century of Self, and get back to me.

I've read the book. Quite a number on the subject of manipulation. Very interesting reading.

Now then are humans diverse or uniform, which is it again?

Quote :: Humans, and especially women, are not as complicated or mysterious,a s you would like to think.
They are but another species with particular traits, potentials and behavioral patterns.

Uniform, then?

The human brain is the most complex 'machine' in the known universe. When you understand it. Get back to me.

Monogamy exists in nature. Polygamy exists in nature. Promiscuity exists in nature. All different sexual behaviours in the general scheme of things.

Quote :: Yes, there are species that exhibit monogamous reproductive behavior....none of them are primates.
There are also species that can breath under water...not humans.

Insert word 'primate' for 'nature'. Go and look again at primate behaviour.
Out of interest, do you think I am a fan of monogamy? My genes god they are so selfish!
Children appear to want two parents but is that just appearances; for appearance sake?

Quote :: There are also creatures that eat only one kind of leaf.

Diverge and survive.

Quote :: Spoken like a true female.

Knowledge is power, you would say.

So would a true male deny that humans possess emotion? Because a true male would be wrong and we can't possibly have that can we?

Do only females possess emotion? And only males possess reason. Or is it all a just a matter of degree?

Quote :: Emotion is an ingrained reaction to specific stimuli, offering the advantage of efficiency or a mechanism of forcing a particular kind of behavior that may go against preexisting behavior...an evolution that overrides previous genetic programming.

Wow. Powerful thing emotion. In the right context. An evolution that over-rides evolution. Where's the reason in that? Oh unless it is a survival trait....a divergence.

Given enough time, of course, other mammals may also develop these characteristics; hell! Such characteristics may already exist in other mammals (hint: they do!). You see once you remove the 'sacred' from the human you are back to being, well animals, after all. So what may appear to be uniquely human suddenly begins to look uniquely primate; uniquely mammalian; uniquely vertebrate; uniquely earthly.

You can boil down or ratchet up the definitions. At whim. So if you boil down the female better do it to the male too. Or the species or the genus, etc, etc.

Quote :: And, still, degree makes all the difference, as the Butterfly Effect teaches us that slight modifications result, in time, in huge differentiation.

A chimp differs from a human in a few percentage points, but look what kind of the difference that makes.

Now let us say one human being differs from another in 1/1000%.
What a difference that makes.

Uniform or diverse then; humans?

I can read. We are all having a hard time of it. Aren't we? So...let's just carry on with that.... or change.

Quote :: Translation: Let us ignore these uncomfortable, for me, insights and return to the delusion of uniformity and equal potentials, as the culture urges us to do.
We'll be happier if we just stop resisting the norm.

Now, THAT'S the difference between a male and a female attitude.

Do you understand the meaning of "let's just carry on with that...or change?"

And now the crux of the matter.

Potentials - interesting word. Equal potential or just potential? Reach full potential given past limitations.

Has anyone ever failed to reach their potential? Or achieved above their potential?

Uniform or diverse? Humans.

Quote :: You are simply preaching ignoring them so as to find gender peace...or some such bullshit.

If I preach at all. I preach this: CHANGE IS NECESSARY. No change no gain. It is sometimes painful.

Quote :: There is no gender war, as you've been taught to believe.
Women simply represent the tool, the method, males use to dominate each other and what they use to determine human destiny.

Clever beasts those men. Where are they taking us, satyr?

Good luck with your not needing and your autonomy, though. I'll carry on with mine. Our species doen't need us so why should we worry about it?

Quote :: "Worry about it"?!

But your willingness to remain as dependent as you are, is also indicative of your gender's psychological leanings...is it not?
Did I not explain your kind well?

Oh dear a misinterpretation here. I meant you carry on with your not needing and your autonomy and I'll carry on with my (not needing and autonomy). Our species does not favour autonomy. Never has.

Quote :: That many women proved my points by trying to persuade me that their uniformity is best and a sure way to happiness, as if such a thing is even possible, was perfect.
That many of you women proved my every word while trying to disprove them, was particularly entertaining.

They serve well your need to 'prove' yourself dominant, then, these women?

There is no such thing as perfection in nature.
Happiness; like unhappiness is temporary. Necessarily so.

Quote :: Did I not state that females do well under authority, accepting education and accomplishing much within social contexts, while never, ever exhibiting any thinking outside the box, contrary to social convention and only doing so when influenced by another male ideal?

Accepting education? They demanded it. Education is dangerous in a woman.

So what male ideal has influenced you, satyr? Towards your unique perspective? Or was it a woman who influenced you thusly?

Quote :: Where a college graduate equates to an Einstein or a Kant or a Michelangelo, I don't know.
But what a conveniently comforting idea.

Or a Curie. Or a Hepworth. Or a Fossey. Or a Franklin. Or a Woolf. Or a Plath. Or a Freund. Or a Meitner. Or a Hodgkin. Or a Hopper. Or a Kovalevskaia. Or a Ayrton. Or a Pankhurst. Or an Angelou. Or a Burnell. Or a Dickinson. Or a Bronte. Or a Morrisson. Or a Blackwell. Or a Garrett Anderson. Or a Nightingale. Or a Thatcher. Or a Seacole. Or a Truth. Or a Stuart/Cavell. Or an Elizabeth I. Or a Mier. Or a Ghandi.

Doubt that any of these women were comforted by much.

Flatter all you will. The tree cannot not hear you. Cut it down and burn it. Exploit it by all means and when you have cut down and exploited it do the same to the one next to it now that you have understood it so perfectly. All those very inconvenient trees why not cut them all down and what will you have...? Deforestation. But do carry on exploiting by all means. Plenty of trees left, aren't there?

Quote :: See what i mean about female emotinoal thinking and the falling back on exaggeration when reasoning fails?

did I advocate deforestation or uncontrolled exploitation?
Did I not say that instincts must be controlled?

Not at all. I want you to keep on posting. it provides real-time evidence of everything I've ever said about male/female intellectual differences.

You never actually say anything, though, do you? You post only absolutes. Of which there aren't any.

Quote :: Has the system acheived that then?

[quote]no, and it never will. As I said there are no absolutes and one is characterized by the towards an ideal.

"It never will." Absolutely not.

Quote :: what characterizes this system, you, and those like you 9majority) is yuor idealization of uniformity...a hidden self-hatred and dissatisfaction with the world - a death wish, really.
Like the Christian desire to find 'life after death". An oxymoron, to say the least.
Like saying, to find "black, whiteness" or "strong weakness".

And repeat.

Quote :: No shit!!!
Now this is turning into a debate over the degree of exploitation?

The difference between the term exploit and interact is mainly one of degree, where both parties use each other in relatively equal measure, but still one dominates the other.
This last is unavoidable.

Keep exploiting by degree. And, by degree, you shall run out. The smaller the degree, the longer it will take but you will run out.

Thermodynamics dictates it.

Have fun dominating your broken mirror.

Quote :: Just as the difference between a whore and a lady is the price she requires to spread her legs and offer herself up to please and to be pleasured - to be used and to receive recompense for it.
Economics, babes, is also based on natural preexisting phenomena.

Evolution.

Quote :: Nothing is ever invented from the ether....it is based on soemthing else.
Gender was not invented by men...it was morphed, shaped, manipulated out of preexisting sexual roles.

Ah, all tis but an invention, then. A role. To be played. And played out. Fits like a glove or a uniform. Or a straighjacket.

Quote :: Reason knows of no feelings, if it hopes to be objective.

Deny feelings and see where that gets you.

Quote :: As for the emotional angle I say this:

From an early age i realized that not all deserve my understanding, my help, my compassion or my love and friendship.

I offer it all with care and discrimiantion.

Bully, for you! I give you a gold star. You'd be a very busy person if you offered all that to just anyone. And greatly disappointed, from an early age.

Quote :: Cooperation, as was already noted, is a compromise.

One only compromises out of need or if the returns promise to be greater in the long-run.

All is selfishness, dear naive woman.
Even your altruism and fake egalitarianism is a forces concession.

All is give and take. As was already noted.

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:52 am

Unreasonable wrote:: Woman cannot compete in Man's physical domain: violence, strength of arms.

Do they want to?

Ever been beaten by a woman at anything. How does that feel?

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:13 am

Same crap, except for these parts:

maryshelley wrote:: Funny how I prefer the savoury to the sweet; unlike the rest of my family. Must have got that from my father's side. I do like bananas, though. How odd. That must have come from my Mother's side. But she hates them so!

The combination makes all the difference.

Quote :: Any given life is influenced but not determined by its past. That is what I have been saying.

What a clever little game of semantics.

Let's say it's 90% past (nature) and 10% experience (nurture) - in the best case scenario, because how much you can overcome your past is determined by your intelligence and your character....which is, again, determined by your past.

Quote :: Have you seen what happens to humans and chimps that are not nurtured?

Have you seen what happens to them when they are overly nurtured?

Look around you.

Quote :: Does one need to understand it to know it serves a purpose? Does one need to understand how the hand works in order to grasp? Insightful though such understanding is.

Yes, I need to understand.
You, can live in your ignorant blissfulness and then wonder why your hand fails to do what it was supposed to.
Then prey to God or dance for the spirits.

Quote :: I know. That is frustrating isn't it?

You have no idea.
Like discussing physics with a ten year old.

Quote :: Look at the word 'divergence' again. It has a different meaning to deviance. Divergence is very useful to genes.
Co-operation, again? How can I escape it???

Conflict and selfishness and violence are just as useful...funny that you don't worship them, also.

Quote :: Now then are humans diverse or uniform, which is it again?

Simpleton - because this is like force feeding a child trying to twist itself into a pretzel - nature is multiplicity, with patterns...man intervenes to create uniformity, order, so as to find control.

Humans are diverse manifestation of the same genetic pattern.
If they were all that unique from one another they could not have been included under the label of human.

Society, human intervention, tries to make them even more uniform so as to better control them.
It limits their behavior by making some activities sinful or wrong and certain traits uncivil or impolite. This creates an ever greater behavioral uniformity, since nobody is allowed, either through trainnig or force or social pressures to go beyond certain limits of acceptable behavior or thinking.

Now, you keep on displaying the same thickness and I may have to stop responding to it.

Quote :: Uniform, then?

God these little girlish games are damn fatiguing.
With what desperation you cling to your delusions.

Reminds me of how some retard once took strength to mean omnipotence so as to defend his opinion that we are all equally weak.
No nuance in your thinking, woman.
Not more uniformity, versus more diversion, but absolute uniformity versus absolute diversity...and either/or proposition, in a desperate attempt to make of uniformity into a virtue rather than what it is.

Quote :: The human brain is the most complex 'machine' in the known universe. When you understand it. Get back to me.

I do understand it and here I am describing it.

This, once more, is an argument based on ignorance....like God exists because the universe is too large or too complex for us to fully comprehend and so dismiss any possibility.

Ergo all is possible and so, then, God is also so. Voila, the absurd is given a reason,a hope, to continue.

Dear woman, if human beings are that complicated for you, this does not mean that they are so for everyone.
Knowing yourself helps a lot. Being honest with yourself, goes a long way. Being aware and sensitive, is necessary.

Bernays manipulated the masses with his propaganda and insights into social behavior not because humans were so vastly complex for him,a s they were for many of his contemporaries, but because they were simple for him.

See, little girl, the usage of the word complex, as with chaos, only defines yuor reaction to a phenomenon.
Chaos, for example, is a description of what the mind cannot find a pattern in, and so considers baffling and unknowable.

Like the term generalization, it only denotes a specific inability to percive a pattern to make it comprehensible.

You provide a good example of what a feminine mind thinks like.

Quote :: Insert word 'primate' for 'nature'. Go and look again at primate behaviour.
Out of interest, do you think I am a fan of monogamy? My genes god they are so selfish!
Children appear to want two parents but is that just appearances; for appearance sake?

Ah, the argument from the social perspective.
The pretense of happiness, for the neighbor's sake.
Let's stay together for the kids, dear.

Wow!!!

Quote :: So would a true male deny that humans possess emotion? Because a true male would be wrong and we can't possibly have that can we?

Do only females possess emotion? And only males possess reason. Or is it all a just a matter of degree?

Shit, this is like pulling teeth.

I've already provided the answer to these questions.
I will not go in circles.

Quote :: Wow. Powerful thing emotion. In the right context. An evolution that over-rides evolution. Where's the reason in that? Oh unless it is a survival trait....a divergence.

Incredible. Like talking to a wall.

Did I say to elimiante emotions?
I don't know, I'm losing interest in this futility.
I need a drink.

If I lash out in anger I will be accused, as I have been on ILP, of only having anger on my side.
I guess I have to learn to ignore certain minds.
There's no way to communicate with them, productively.
I say one thing, the other understands another, puts words in my mouth, jumps to erroneous conclusions and then replies thinking they have made a valid counter-point.

Quote :: You can boil down or ratchet up the definitions. At whim. So if you boil down the female better do it to the male too. Or the species or the genus, etc, etc.

Have I not "boiled down" the male, as well?

Hell, this is ridiculous.

I think I'm outa here, very, very soon.

Quote :: Uniform or diverse then; humans?

Look at this mind grasping upon a straw, in her straw-man, thinking she's onto something.

Fuckin' incredible.

Quote :: Potentials - interesting word. Equal potential or just potential? Reach full potential given past limitations.

Has anyone ever failed to reach their potential? Or achieved above their potential?

>Potential - Yes - No<

I say a chimp reaching its fullest potential may be superior to a man having never reached his.
This still does not negate the presence of potential determined by a genetic type.

The desperate plea to preserve the possibility of overcoming the genetic limits.
Let's talk about the exceptions, the exceptional ones, and disregard the rule.

When talking about black bears let's use albino ones as evidence that everything we think about this species is false or a generalization.

Quote :: Uniform or diverse? Humans.

Yes, keep repeating this.

Quote :: They serve well your need to 'prove' yourself dominant, then, these women?

My, another example of female redirection.

Avoid the issue and redirect the topic upon the speaker, the author.
Seek the soft spot.

Need, if you have ever read anything I've written and understood it, is part of the human condition.
Now tell me how I am afraid of women. That will just complete the process.
I've been to this play before.

Twisting and turning; turning and twisting...All to avoid the topic and return it to where a female is most comfortable...psychological manipulation, insinuation and defaming an opinion by casting aspersions on the opinion holder.

Too bad I have trained myself in feminine ways.
I am a master in them.

This is why what I say hits such a sensitive nerve.

Quote :: So what male ideal has influenced you, satyr? Towards your unique perspective? Or was it a woman who influenced you thusly?

Everything and everyone I've had contact with, influenced me. I am a product of my time.

I'm just more sensitive to the influences, for various reasons.

Quote :: Or a Curie. Or a Hepworth. Or a Fossey. Or a Franklin. Or a Woolf. Or a Plath. Or a Freund. Or a Meitner. Or a Hodgkin. Or a Hopper. Or a Kovalevskaia. Or a Ayrton. Or a Pankhurst. Or an Angelou. Or a Burnell. Or a Dickinson. Or a Bronte. Or a Morrisson. Or a Blackwell. Or a Garrett Anderson. Or a Nightingale. Or a Thatcher. Or a Seacole. Or a Truth. Or a Stuart/Cavell. Or an Elizabeth I. Or a Mier. Or a Ghandi.

Doubt that any of these women were comforted by much.

One of these is the equal to an Einstein, a Plato, a Kant, a Michelangelo, a Beethoven, a Schopenhauer, a Heidegger, a Newton, a Galileo, a Heraclitus, a Lao Tzu, a Confucius, a Marx, a Buddha, a Nietzsche, a Spinoza, a Sartre, a Socrates, a Copernicus, a Shakespeare etc.?

One of those, you mention, revolutionized human thought?
You've gotta be kidding me.

AnitaS?

You seriously consider these women at par with these male minds that revolutionized human thought and art and science, and changed human history?

Angelou?!
Are you serious?
Watching too much Oprah haven't you?
This is pathetic...Angelou?!!!! ANGELOU?!!!
Mier?!!!
Nightingale?!!!

THATCHER?!!!! Shocked

Did you just include Thatcher in the pantheon of human intellectual achievement?
Why, because she got elected and she's female? Are you serious?
What about Reagan, was he brilliant, also, and was George W. an intellectual?

Are you for real?!!!

Yes, I think this exchange is nearing its end.
I've had enough.
This can only lead to greater and greater frustration.

Where the fuck is my Metaxa?!!!

Quote :: Flatter all you will. The tree cannot not hear you. Cut it down and burn it. Exploit it by all means and when you have cut down and exploited it do the same to the one next to it now that you have understood it so perfectly. All those very inconvenient trees why not cut them all down and what will you have...? Deforestation. But do carry on exploiting by all means. Plenty of trees left, aren't there?

Everything is a resource.

Keeping the herd happy, makes for a more productive cow.
Keeping the forest healthy, makes for a more productive tree.

This is how mass manipulation turned from force to indoctrination and the manipulation of instincts.

Quote :: Keep exploiting by degree. And, by degree, you shall run out. The smaller the degree, the longer it will take but you will run out.

Thermodynamics dictates it.

Have fun dominating your broken mirror.

You have no idea what exploitation means. You've equated it with waste or an exaggerated idea so as to defend the ideals you depend upon to remain righteous.

Exploiting trees is not the same as deforestation, you fool, no more than empathy equals compassion.

What modern simple cultural prejudices you suffer from.

You remind me of unoriginal who has to make sex into rape so as to defend his indefensible positions.

Evoking the extreme to support an opposing ideal is a clear-cut case (excuse the pun) of feminine dramatics.

Yeah, I think I'm wasting my time enough, for now.

I need a break.
I may explode and get banned form this forum...and then what will I do?

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:40 am

Satyr, the Philosophy King wrote:: Incredible. Like talking to a wall.

Did I say to elimiante emotions?
I don't know, I'm losing interest in this futility.

If I lash out in anger I will be accused, as I have been on ILP, of only having anger on my side.
I guess I have to learn to ignore certain minds.
There's no way to communicate with them, productively.
I say one thing, the other understands another, puts words in my mouth, jumps to erroneous conclusions and then replies thinking they have made a valid counter-point.

just for the sake of curiosity:

when and where have you found 'minds' brilliant enough to be able to understand your points?

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:45 pm

Ee'rr'yum so...

I'm starting to like this library. There's a way you can request books from the others in the county which broadens the amount to choose from. This one is super small. They have like 3 from Derrick Jensen and similar authors. He's dead-on but my problem is I already agree and I feel that I'm constantly wasting my time just reading instead of getting things done.

In other news, you people are arguing the same crap.

I would like to make something of you, realun. Risk taking would serve you well.

It's sad to witness young bodies go to waste on mental masturbation, especially those with less to lose.

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:46 pm

Satyr,

I argue that sex is rape, because nobody can explain to me the difference of Consent from otherwise. And the reason that people cannot explain this to me is because I know the concept better than them. If a woman can authorize words, then the phenomenon of "Sex" and "Rape" become very, very apparent. I could explain it to a child. What is Consent; do you even know what it is? It is a woman *NOT* saying "no" to sex. I mean, think about it ... it is "not-no". That is not a positive affirmation! It is a neutral one at best. Therefore, a woman never really agrees to sex to begin with. She cannot Consent by definition. She can only say "no", which is a refusal, a negative. And when you put this under a context of Reason & Logic, it becomes apparent that Consent is often a confused notion. Men are just trying to get laid. Women are just trying to refuse this impulse unless it is on their terms, to their advantage. Consent then becomes a part of Sociality, and that is my point. When a guy goes to get his "fuck on", then he is going to engage his culture & society. And there are rules to this Game. Thus, what he is consenting to is not the particular woman, rather, the particular Sociality. Women are tied to it by their social groupings.

However ... you keep bringing up this topic outside of my threads, and make attacks toward me on this issue from afar.

If you want to talk/debate/discuss it with me, then just do it already. I don't really give a shit.

You are obviously-interested in what I have to say about it, otherwise you would not have mentioned it.

SilentSoliloquy wrote:: In other news, you people are arguing the same crap.

Coming from you, SS, that isn't saying much. What have you brought to this table recently? -- anything at all?

SilentSoliloquy wrote:: I would like to make something of you, realun. Risk taking would serve you well.

It's sad to witness young bodies go to waste on mental masturbation, especially those with less to lose.

You would like to make something of me, or is it your boy-toy who needs ammo to start his Anarchist Revolution??

Besides, I don't take Risks. If you own the House, then you profit in every direction, no matter where you step. Risks are always unnecessary when you transcend the possibilities & probabilities behind them. If you know the answers & actions in advance, then the game loses its fun. It becomes boring. What human animals think becomes boring. Perhaps this is why Silence is so common on this forum and in everybody's daily life. Nobody truly has anything to say, because the words are not worth saying. Thinking defaults to a select few. Yet, somehow, you think that you have a relationship with this thought, this action of thinking?? -- really?

I find very few people interesting when they are incapable of reasoning to the slightest degree. I won't hold my breath.

As far as everybody else is concerned, speak your minds. People are waiting...

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:16 am

Unreasonable wrote:: The physical bodies of men and women were designed for different purposes: specialization.

And for physical perspective
erotica is one view

Quote :: Woman cannot compete in Man's physical domain: violence, strength of arms.

I have seen a 100 Lb women
carry a 100lb load on her head
for half a day

Quote :: Thus, they engage in a more duplicitous and underminded form of war: manipulation.

Of course
and invariably for the good
of the family.

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:29 am

MagnetMan wrote:

Quote :: Woman cannot compete in Man's physical domain: violence, strength of arms.

I have seen a 100 Lb women
carry a 100lb load on her head
for half a day

So your implied point is that this 100 lb. woman can stand against a 6'5" 250 lb. man in warfare and hand-to-hand combat...

I obviously-disagree.

MagnetMan wrote:

Quote :: Thus, they engage in a more duplicitous and underminded form of war: manipulation.

Of course
and invariably for the good
of the family.

So the destruction of the family at the hands of Feminism is a good thing?

Who is it good for, the Individual or the Sociality?

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:23 am

Unreasonable wrote:: Satyr,

I argue that sex is rape, because nobody can explain to me the difference of Consent from otherwise. And the reason that people cannot explain this to me is because I know the concept better than them. If a woman can authorize words, then the phenomenon of "Sex" and "Rape" become very, very apparent. I could explain it to a child. What is Consent; do you even know what it is? It is a woman *NOT* saying "no" to sex. I mean, think about it ... it is "not-no". That is not a positive affirmation! It is a neutral one at best. Therefore, a woman never really agrees to sex to begin with. She cannot Consent by definition. She can only say "no", which is a refusal, a negative. And when you put this under a context of Reason & Logic, it becomes apparent that Consent is often a confused notion. Men are just trying to get laid. Women are just trying to refuse this impulse unless it is on their terms, to their advantage. Consent then becomes a part of Sociality, and that is my point. When a guy goes to get his "fuck on", then he is going to engage his culture & society. And there are rules to this Game. Thus, what he is consenting to is not the particular woman, rather, the particular Sociality. Women are tied to it by their social groupings.

However ... you keep bringing up this topic outside of my threads, and make attacks toward me on this issue from afar.

If you want to talk/debate/discuss it with me, then just do it already. I don't really give a shit.

You are obviously-interested in what I have to say about it, otherwise you would not have mentioned it.
.

Dear child, I am interested in the many facets of human delusion and foolishness, because it affects me and I seek to understand it so as to protect my self from it.
I am also interested in ants and wolves and mice.
The human animal is far more fascinating because it is more complex and it dominates my environment.

If you wish to twist this interest into a self-flattering delusion, then do so.
I'm sure a dog being patted on the head feels that the human being is his own kind.

Sexual desire, dear child, is not an exclusively male impulse.

Females feel no less the need to copulate and are attracted by male health, virility and other markers of health/fitness, including intelligence and attitude.
A woman's impulse must be more controlled because the act is more demanding/risky for her and she faces far greater burdens because of it.
The current greater female promiscuity is due to technological controls on fertility and the diminished repercussions of many of these risks and burdens of gestation and weening.

Therefore a female's consent is more, instinctively, careful and she must retain the option of changing her mind when new information becomes available.
A woman must remain sexually skeptical.

Your foolishness rests on the assumption that women have no will or do not think, as you put it, or have no intelligence.
Here, instead of acknowledging a differentiation in quality, a degree, you resort to extremes because they are the only way you can understand things. The mark of a thick skull.
You perceive females as being completely passive, when the Will to Power, and some maculine disposition, can be found in them. Their power is redirected through others. The female way is one of indirect pathways and ambiguity.
She seeks power through association, where males seek individual power.

Do animals have a will?
Yes they do.
Do animals think?
Obviously.
Is animal thinking equal to human thinking?
Of course not.

If you place human females beneath animals, then you should seek the reasons for it in your past, that has created hatred to such a degree that it clouds your feeble reasoning.

The sexual game where women play the part of reluctant sexual participant, you foolish child, is an act.
It is part of the sexual game, offering the male the illusion that he conquers her, when both are interested and she too desires it, no less.
The game has also been shaped by previous romanticism, where female sexual purity had to be placed on a pedestal and female sexual drives had to be repressed.

Little hint, you simple child, women instigate sexual encounters. They are in cotnrol sexually.
it has to be that way.
Rape then is that taking away of that natural control over her ovum and who gets to fertilize it.

Males pick up on the signals, if they are sensitive to them, and respond. Then the female, having instigated the encounter, plays the part of reluctant damsel who doesn't just give it away to just about anyone.
A subtle way of letting the male know that whatever offspring come from the encounter will be his.

Still nothing goes through your skull. Do you even see the little subtle games played?
No, I guess not.

Women have power over sex and that is why they had to be controlled by men to create stable civilizations.
You've been fooled by an act and because your brain is unable to compute nuances.
Little flexibility.

There's more bullshit going on than you can imagine and men are not always on top. The masculine drive is the desire to be on top, to control, to dominate.

The passivity I speak of as being part of the female type is one towards what dominates. It is an acceptance of fate - fatalism.
Where a male resists, even to death, a female gives in, adapts more readily, tries to survive within any authority.
Power through association.
This feminine disposition is also found in males, to varying degrees.
This is why all social behavior demands a certain degree of feminization.

The Feminization of Man, as I've described it, occurs when the social group reaches such a size and demands such compromises and tolerance as to render maleness, altogether, obsolete, and masculinity, in both biological males and females, detrimental to group cohesion.
The size of the system forces a need for a lowest common denominator, and male attributes are not part of them because they are resisting, rejecting and so obstructing, negating.

The way you describe consent can be applied to male consent or all consent.

This is how it goes, you fool, and be flattered by this momentary attention.

Consciousness is a negative mechanism.
It is discriminatory.

I am that which I am not.
I am that which I reject as not I.
This because we are part of a flow, a universe. An emerging unity trying, TRYING, to cut away from the entropy and complete itself, is the self. It is a rejection, a resistance, a distancing, so it is a negation of wholeness.
Individuality, self, ego, is a negation of wholeness and so these nihilistic religions and ideals are a return to it, a surrender to it, and a negation of negation - a negation of resistance, rejection ....unconsciousness.

Your icon Mcmiserable , as well as all these holistic, humanitarians and Christians, are suffering from this disease.
The desire to obliterate self, because resistance/rejection/discrimination creates friction, suffering.
a desire to become more unconscious and simply feeeeeel the flow, as a passive non-resisting part of it.

That is the payback they call enlightenment or a higher consciousness. An oxymoron - consciuosness of unconsciousness - the life after death. The idea rests on compartmentalization and selective reasoning.

I am that which negates my negation. This is my positive identity.
An intelligent man is more negating; more discrimination...as in discriminating tastes - because he is more aware.
So, his identity is more firmly estalbished and conscious and this makes him more reluctant to give it away or submit it to another.
Ego!!!

For females this is more intuitive than conscious. They sense weakness in another but cannot explain what it is or why they sense it.
They sense themselves, but cannot bring it into focus, in the conscious mind. They feel it as they feel everything. Emotion, for them, is superior to intellect.

Nihilism is a step further.
I negate that which negates the negation. A return to the negative side - a self-denial.

This is why a human being must have both the feminine and masculine attitudes, one under the control of the other.
Instinct and intellect, where instinct is not denied but acknowledged, known and controlled.

Like I've said courage is not the absence of fear. This is either ignorance or some kind of mental dysfunction.
Fear is a useful, a necessary, attribute, just as the feminine traits are useful and necessary.
Fear keeps you alert, interested and careful. Fear can be constructive, just as hate is identifying.

I hate that which i do not want to be like or I negate or I resist/reject.

If you do not accept the feminine in you, you will never understand women.

Consent, you child, is by itself a giving-in.
Even males who acquiesce are giving in to something greater or stronger than themselves.

I give consent either because I am dominated or I acknowledge a greater need which forces me to offer consent to an inferior.
It is a product of weakness and not exclusively feminine or masculine - it is an existential position.
In the case of sex the consent is towards mortality.

I give sexual consent, driven by a primal drive, - even if unconscious - because I am to die.
I must compromise.
In a female this is doubly so because her sexual role forces her to surrender to more risks and compromises than a male.

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:52 am

[quote="Satyr"]

Quote :: Let's say it's 90% past (nature) and 10% experience (nurture) - in the best case scenario, because how much you can overcome your past is determined by your intelligence and your character....which is, again, determined by your past.

A little understanding is indeed a dangerous thing.

The estimated figure is more like 60% nature 40% nurture BUT we are not yet sure how much a part nutrition plays. So if 50% of the genes are from mummy and 50% genes from daddy and only one set of grandparents contribute genes. xx xy all female in the womb until the hormones kick in. Wow that's a lot of influencial factors going on.

And what if mummy and daddy are wealthy? Or poor? Or devout? What effect could such things have on a child? Ah, the future is predicted.

'Education' is wasted on the stupid. And girls.

Quote :: Have you seen what happens to them when they are overly nurtured?

Oh yes I have. Balance and boundaries. Spare the 'rod', spoil the child? Carrot and stick? Right and wrong? Teach by example? The world is cruel. Be prepared?
There are many ways to 'spoil' a child and over-nuturing is not the only way. It should be avoided. If you

Quote :: care

.

Does one need to understand it to know it serves a purpose? Does one need to understand how the hand works in order to grasp? Insightful though such understanding is.

Quote :: Yes, I need to understand.
You, can live in your ignorant blissfulness and then wonder why your hand fails to do what it was supposed to.
Then prey to God or dance for the spirits.

My hand may never fail to grasp but then I may be really stuck when my nose bleeds.

If it does I could go to a specialist Doctor because I have the wisdom to know that I cannot be an expert in all things. I also know that Doctors, like all humans, are fallible.

Until Florence Nightingale came along Doctors hadn't made the connection between dirt and disease? Dear Florence revolutionised hospitals and patient care so while the men were out on the battlefield dominating each other over a disputed piece of land she and her team where patching them up again. Hardly Plato though, eh?

Quote :: You have no idea.
Like discussing physics with a ten year old.

Ten year olds can be remarkably good at physics. Would you like to talk about physics? You only have to say so.

Quote :: Conflict and selfishness and violence are just as useful...funny that you don't worship them, also.

I don't worship anything. Evolution will take care of it; if it ceases to be useful. Or work. Cause and effect. Butterflies? Flap?

Quote :: so as to find control.

At last there it is CONTROL.

Quote :: Humans are diverse manifestation of the same genetic pattern.
If they were all that unique from one another they could not have been included under the label of human.

Uniquely diverse, then? Or evolving? All on the scale of 1 to 10 that is human.

Quote :: Society, human intervention, tries to make them even more uniform so as to better control them.
It limits their behavior by making some activities sinful or wrong and certain traits uncivil or impolite. This creates an ever greater behavioral uniformity, since nobody is allowed, either through trainnig or force or social pressures to go beyond certain limits of acceptable behavior or thinking.

Humans trying to control humans? Where does that urge come from? And what are we to do about it? It's only natural, isn't it? Should some humans resist such control? How should they? How might they?

Quote :: Now, you keep on displaying the same thickness and I may have to stop responding to it.

Don't worry, I will. Thickness useful against slings and arrows.

Quote :: God these little girlish games are damn fatiguing.
With what desperation you cling to your delusions.

Deluded, she is.

Quote :: Not more uniformity, versus more diversion, but absolute uniformity versus absolute diversity...and either/or proposition, in a desperate attempt to make of uniformity into a virtue rather than what it is.

Humans trying to exert control. Can absolute uniformity ever be achieved, satyr, for humans to remain human? PLEASE PLEASE JUST SAY NO.

Quote :: I do understand it and here I am describing it.

You are attempting to understand it.

Quote :: This, once more, is an argument based on ignorance....like God exists because the universe is too large or too complex for us to fully comprehend and so dismiss any possibility.

God exists because men want god to exist. God serves a purpose to man. Without god what will man do? TO CONTROL? Understand yet?

Quote :: Chaos, for example, is a description of what the mind cannot find a pattern in, and so considers baffling and unknowable.

Show me some chaos.

Quote :: You provide a good example of what a feminine mind thinks like.

And that is no bad thing.

Quote :: Insert word 'primate' for 'nature'. Go and look again at primate behaviour.
Out of interest, do you think I am a fan of monogamy? My genes god they are so selfish!

Children appear to want two parents but is that just appearances; for appearance sake?

Quote :: Ah, the argument from the social perspective.
The pretense of happiness, for the neighbor's sake.
Let's stay together for the kids, dear.

Wow!!!

I asked you a question about what children appear to want. You have been bemoaning the loss of the family, have you not? And blaming feminists and the capitalist machine. I'll reframe it for you.

What do you think children need? And if children need something (anything?) how are they to get it? And, more importantly, as you purport to have a child how will you provide what it needs?

There are single parents in nature too. Males just provide the seeds.

Quote :: Did I say to elimiante emotions?
I don't know, I'm losing interest in this futility.
I need a drink.

If I lash out in anger I will be accused, as I have been on ILP, of only having anger on my side.
I guess I have to learn to ignore certain minds.
There's no way to communicate with them, productively.
I say one thing, the other understands another, puts words in my mouth, jumps to erroneous conclusions and then replies thinking they have made a valid counter-point.

Pot calls kettle black. With emotion.

Quote :: You can boil down or ratchet up the definitions. At whim. So if you boil down the female better do it to the male too. Or the species or the genus, etc, etc.

Quote :: Have I not "boiled down" the male, as well?

Boil it again, satyr. Advantage male.

Quote :: Potentials - interesting word. Equal potential or just potential? Reach full potential given past limitations.

Has anyone ever failed to reach their potential? Or achieved above their potential?

>Potential - Yes - No<

Quote :: I say a chimp reaching its fullest potential may be superior to a man having never reached his.
This still does not negate the presence of potential determined by a genetic type.

The desperate plea to preserve the possibility of overcoming the genetic limits.
Let's talk about the exceptions, the exceptional ones, and disregard the rule.

Now. Show me your potential. Woman. Do you have any? Stupid, stupid woman. Like a chimp you do not have the capacity for education therefore we will not educate you. (AH BUT CHIMPS CAN BE EDUCATED CAN'T THEY MS FOSSEY?) We will use acid to blind you and other tactics AS IS IN OUR NATURE. When you mewl and curse that you want education. We will spit in your face and beat you. AS IS IN OUR NATURE. When you learn from your environment or secretly gain access to books or knowledge we will demean you and laugh and belittle your pathetic efforts. AS IS OUR NATURE. When you compete with us in the workplace and abandon our children. We will chide you for GOING AGAINST YOUR NATURE, AS IS OUR NATURE. When we turn away from the gods we will curse you for siding with the devil AS IS OUR NATURE. When we dismiss the things that you find important you ridicule us for our limitations AS IS YOUR NATURE. When we no longer care what you think you do what is according to YOUR NATURE we will blame your sex or your genes AS IS OUR NATURE.

CONTROL, AS IS OUR NATURE.

But don't be surprised when some try to OVERCOME.

Quote :: When talking about black bears let's use albino ones as evidence that everything we think about this species is false or a generalization.

Diverse or uniform; bears? White bears are black bears gone north in search of resources to EXPLOIT by degree.

Quote :: I am a master in them.

Yes you are, truly woman.

Quote :: I'm just more sensitive to the influences, for various reasons.

How very female of you.

Quote :: Or a Curie. Or a Hepworth. Or a Fossey. Or a Franklin. Or a Woolf. Or a Plath. Or a Freund. Or a Meitner. Or a Hodgkin. Or a Hopper. Or a Kovalevskaia. Or a Ayrton. Or a Pankhurst. Or an Angelou. Or a Burnell. Or a Dickinson. Or a Bronte. Or a Morrisson. Or a Blackwell. Or a Garrett Anderson. Or a Nightingale. Or a Thatcher. Or a Seacole. Or a Truth. Or a Stuart/Cavell. Or an Elizabeth I. Or a Mier. Or a Ghandi.

Doubt that any of these women were comforted by much.

One of these is the equal to an Einstein, a Plato, a Kant, a Michelangelo, a Beethoven, a Schopenhauer, a Heidegger, a Newton, a Galileo, a Heraclitus, a Lao Tzu, a Confucius, a Marx, a Buddha, a Nietzsche, a Spinoza, a Sartre, a Socrates, a Copernicus, a Shakespeare etc.?

Quote :: One of those, you mention, revolutionized human thought?
You've gotta be kidding me.

One and All. Revolutionised human thought on a subject. You may have heard of some of them.
Tell me. If somebody thinks about something that is at a later date proven wrong. Does that make them a great thinker? Or deluded? Or just plain wrong? What if a woman points out that something is correct. Or something is incorrect. Is it in the grand scheme of things just another thing to think about? If there are only a few exceptions do those exceptions matter a lot or not at all?

Is it the thinking that is important? Or the result? Or what you are thinking about? Importance. Is it an absolute?

Am I philosophising yet? Am i asking the right questions? Or the wrong ones?

Do only the answers matter?

Quote :: You seriously consider these women at par with these male minds that revolutionized human thought and art and science, and changed human history?

Maya Angelou and Oprah Winfrey. You should meet them.

Quote :: THATCHER?!!!!
Did you just include Thatcher in the pantheon of human intellectual achievement?

Influence. Changed human thought. Yes. Very much so. The most intelligent person in the world? No. But tell me who was the most intelligent person in the world? A man, probably. And that is important isn't it?

Flatter all you will. The tree cannot not hear you. Cut it down and burn it. Exploit it by all means and when you have cut down and exploited it do the same to the one next to it now that you have understood it so perfectly. All those very inconvenient trees why not cut them all down and what will you have...? Deforestation. But do carry on exploiting by all means. Plenty of trees left, aren't there?

Quote :: Everything is a resource.

Keeping the herd happy, makes for a more productive cow.
Keeping the forest healthy, makes for a more productive tree.

This is how mass manipulation turned from force to indoctrination and the manipulation of instincts.

Does the forest require human intervention to keep it healthy?

Exploit, by all means it is in our nature; as you say. All a matter of degree; as you say.

Keep exploiting. Tell me when your luck runs out.

The results of the mass manipulation that you speak of. Can you see them around you?

Mental illness. Stress. Broken families. Habitat destruction. Species extinction. The inexorable march of man. successful man. Intelligent man. I say again. Oh but I'm just deluded. This is how it's meant to be. It's in our nature.
Oh there I go deluded again. There is none of the this it's all just fear promoted by the machine to keep us fearful and happy.

WHERE HAS MAN GOTTEN HIMSELF? RIGHT WHERE HE'S AT. IT's IN HIS NATURE.

Keep exploiting by degree. And, by degree, you shall run out. The smaller the degree, the longer it will take but you will run out.

Unless you change something.

Now. Will you strap a bomb to me and send me out amongst the dumb humans? Females are deadlier than the males, you know.

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:09 am

Satyr wrote:: Dear child, I am interested in the many facets of human delusion and foolishness, because it affects me and I seek to understand it so as to protect my self from it.

Don't forget to turn that interest on yourself every so often.

Satyr wrote:: Sexual desire, dear child, is not an exclusively male impulse.

It must be, because of how the male/masculine-body (penis) interacts with the female/feminine-body (vagina).

The sexual desire can be described by action (Will), reaction (Submission), and inaction (Stagnation). A woman does not act in the 'masculine' sense. I mean, by definition, the penis seeks out the vagina. A man seeks out a home. He only becomes a Wanderer if he cannot find a home. This is the way it has always been since the beginning of Mankind. The social group, representing Nature-as-Woman, is only loosely-mobile compared to Man. Man can break off from his Sociality and start his own tribe/clan, or, integrate into another. He has few choices, but at least he has a choice. Man is free; woman is tied down. Thus, a woman has neither the inclination nor knowledge to escape her Sociality or deviate from its Ideals. This is why Woman latches onto Man for all her knowledge. The sex act is a passing-on of this knowledge. But, the sex act-itself hinges upon the action and Will of man. It is not the woman who seeks the man, actually-quite the contrary...

And Woman, as a biological creature & entity, desires this Freedom of Man, although she will never know it by definition. She is ultimately-tied down to her social group. She knows no world beyond its edges, and she cannot. Even after Globalization completes itself, and everywhere on Earth is made safe for Womankind, she will *STILL* not know of Freedom. Because Freedom is a relationship with death that Woman cannot relate with if she is to be valued for her natural-purpose ... childbirthing. Once upon a time, Womankind knew of this, but not anymore. The stress of death will more-than-likely kill the child (of today). Thus, it is not until Woman is removed from her label & association with Womankind that she can "become Man" once again. Although, as I have mentioned in the past, this is a regression and not a progression of her spirit. Man & Woman divided for specific purposes. She is utilized based on her use, which is bearing children for men. In time, things will change, not all of which I can predict or foresee.

Satyr wrote:: Females feel no less the need to copulate and are attracted by male health, virility and markers of health, including intelligence.
A woman's impulse must be more controlled because the act is more demanding/risky on her and she faces far greater burdens because of it.
The current greater female promiscuity is due to technological controls on fertility.

Therefore a female's consent is more careful and she must retain the option of changing her mind when new information becomes available. A woman must remain sexually skeptical.

Yes, this is true, until her task is fulfilled as a Mother.

First, I need to mention that this need to copulate on her behalf is completely-passive. She does not have a penis, so she is never compelled to Act as far as the meaning goes (i.e. Will). What will does womankind have??? A girl walks by me on the street and turns her head to look at me. I smile at her a little bit. She smiles back and continues walking. Where was the initiation of Action? It was not her turning her head. It was my smile that initiated this story. It was my initiation. Because, as author of my own actions, I am responsible for instigating all causes & effects pertaining to the circumstances. What did she do? All she did was passively-act, which I do not see to be Action-persay, at all. A woman does not "fuck". A man does. A woman neither knows the meaning of the word or how to engage it. All a woman can do, like a lesbian, is mimic and *ACT* like a man. I add: passively-true. It is a fake, a forgery, a copy of the Original action.

And it is true that a woman's consent is continually-skeptical. She feels as though she can move in-and-out of relationships at any time, especially under Feminism in the USA, because she is neither reprimanded nor punished for doing so. In Islam, she would be stoned to death (which I agree with, by the way). In fact, if she divorces, then she gains assets. Biologically-speaking, she is in a win-win situation. She can gain money on one hand, and become fucked by a superior male. Is not life grand? It is for women, in this day & age. Changes are coming though on the horizon; Mankind wants his family back and he is willing to do whatever is necessary to accomplish this task/goal. The first Ubermen/Transhumans that will transcend the gravity of Earth, en masse, in the not-so-distant future, are going to be the most Masculine men on the planet. It will be these biological males that will have fixated & firmly-entrenched the family-unit into the most stable entity of all time ... the exact-opposite of Amerikan Non-culture as it currently-stands, might I add.

Satyr wrote:: Your foolishness rests on the assumption that women have no will or do not think, as you put it, or have no intelligence.
Here, instead of acknowledging a differentiation is quality, a degree, you resort to extremes because they are the only way you can understand things.
You percive females as being completely passive, when the will to power, and some maculine disposition, can be found in them.

Really!?!? -- where & when are women ever active of their own volition? Where are the 'female' trend setters???

And I do not mean passively-active, instead, "active-active". Show & tell me as you please...!

Satyr wrote:: Do animals have a will?
Yes they do. do animals think.
Obviously.
In animal thinking equal to human thinking?
Of course not.

I already-know; these measures are by degree.

This applies to the male-female difference as well. By degree, women cannot Act whereas mankind can.

That threshold is the actual-difference between Will & Submission. What is Woman doing except housing a child?

Satyr wrote:: The sexual game where women play the part of reluctant sexual participant, you foolish child, is an act.
It is part of the sexual game, offering the male the illusion that he conquers her, when both are interested and she too desires it, no less.
The game has also been shaped by previous romanticism, where female sexual purity had to be placed on a pedestal and female sexual drives had to be repressed.

I know it is an act; it is quite easy for me to see-through whenever I interact with women.

No, it was not "female sexual purity had to be placed on a pedestal". That is not the case at all...

Roman Catholicism strictly-controlled human sexuality for the reasons you have already-mentioned several-times over. Whoever controls the womb, controls the Fate of Man. And the subsequent branches of Christianity were built on the rules set forth by said Moral Authorities. Do you prefer an 'ugly' woman or a 'beautiful' one? Do you prefer an 'obnoxious' woman or a 'subservient' one? Do you prefer a 'sloven' woman or a 'virgin' one? The aesthetic traits that predominant the feminine-female are mostly-objective. The ideal sense of beauty is shared as a strictly-social phenomenon. Whether you prefer a woman with gigantic tits or small ones does not exclude men from the fact that they share a common sense of what is attractive or not: the prefect breasts, the perfect teeth, the perfect hair, etc. These are the rules upon which Woman must live her life by ... passively-fitting into a model created for them by Man. Feminism attempted to revolt from this decades ago and failed. And this applies to Romanticism. What was romantic before was what is beautiful, today. It still applies. Beauty morphs, but the 'romantic' rules stay the same. For example...

I will take a virgin over a slut any day of the week; the reasons should be obvious correct? Not only do I avoid rampant sexual-disease, but I also do not need to contend myself with competition from other men. If I fuck her first, then she is mine. If some other guy fucks her first, then I need to kill him, otherwise he will always poise a threat to me in the future. A man faces emasculation if another man dominates his women; he will grow to despise the other and carry out revenge. But when you cease getting sex on a casual basis, then you begin to lower your standards little-by-little...

Satyr wrote:: Little hint, you simple child, women instigate sexual encounters.

No ... women create the conditions upon which the instigation occurs. Men undertake the actions, actively-speaking.

Satyr wrote:: Males pick up on the signals, if they are sensitive to them, and respond. Then the female, having instigated the encounter, plays the part of reluctant damsel who doesn't just give it away to just about anyone.
Women have power over sex and that is why they had to be controlled by men to create stable civilizatinos.

You've been fooled by an act.

I have done no such thing as be fooled by another, let alone a woman. I see right through men & women both.

It is so easy for me to read people that nobody in my shoes would find this fact humorous.

Satyr wrote:: The passivity I speak of as being part of the female type is one towards what dominates. It is an acceptance of fate - fatalism.
Where a male resists, even to death, a female gives in, adapts more readily, tries to survive within any authority.
This feminine disposition is also found in males, to varying degrees.

Yes, but her 'towards' is a passive-one. She is swept away in the river.

There is no Woman that is a Man, ever. If there were, then the definitions would be immediately-replaced by more accurate ones.

Satyr wrote:: The way you describe consent can be applied to male consent or all consent.
Consciousness is a negative mechanism.
It is discriminatory.

I am that which I am not.
I am that which I reject as not I.
This because we are part of a flow, an emerging unity trying, TRYING, to cut away from the entropy and complete itself. It is a rejection, a resistance, so it is a negation.

I am that which negates my negation. This is my positive identity.

You are correct until your conclusion.

Double-negations do not provide evidence for any-possible positive values, at all. They cannot. In fact, double-negatives only provide for more negative forces in new forms & dimensions. Once you make a decision of resistance against a path already-set-in-motion, you cannot go back on it. Your new resistance is a new direction, a new form of Reality. And this creates different levels of male-logic. Retreading old paths would lead to a severe & gross regression of your spirit. I imagine you would probably-die if this were even possible. This notion may even define Death more clearly-than current accounts of death. It would be like reliving your childhood over-and-over-and-over again: purgatory.

Satyr wrote:: An intelligent man is more negating; more discrimination...as in discriminating tastes, because it is more aware.
So, its identity is more firmly estalbished and conscious and this makes it more reluctant to give it away or submit it to another.

For females this is more intuitive than conscious. They sense weakness in another but cannot explain what it is or why they sense it.

Nihilism is a step further.
I negate that which negates the negation. A return to the negative - a self-denial.

This is why a human being must have both the feminine and masculine attitudes, one under the cotnrol of the other.
Instinct and intellect, where instinct is not negated but acknowledged, known and controlled.

Like I've said courage is not the absence of fear. This is either ignorance or some kind of mental dysfunction.
Fear is a useful, a necessary, attribute, just as the feminine traits are useful and necessary.

If you do not accept the feminine in you, you will never understand women.

I agree with all of this.

Satyr wrote:: Consent, you child, is by itself an giving-in.
Even males who acquiesce are giving in to something greater or stronger than themselves.

That is exactly-right and exactly my point from the beginning!

When a man gives into his sexual compulsion, he is buying into a Sociality. When he has sex with a woman and escapes from the responsibilities implied that come with this Sociality, then this is "rape"! And men can only rape, because Man will do what it takes to resist this assimilation-affect from the very sex act that he engages with. By giving into an Ideal, Man and Woman attempt to rape each other. And this is never Equal. Rape literally-means: taken advantage of, in retrospect. One comes to dominate. But metaphysical-characteristics aside, the penis must penetrate the vagina for the purpose of impregnation & procreation. The terms that come to define "rape" and the "sex act" cannot begin to appropriately-describe the full measure of the interaction. I label the Sex Act as Rape, because Casual Sex cannot be anything else except Rape! And that is the climate of the Non-culture I live in. It becomes accurate, fair, and just for me to say that Sex is Rape, because the actions that common men instigate, from everywhere I look, hinge on dominating The Game as if this were some sort of childish affair. Forget the feelings. Forget the frustrations. Forget the after-affects of broken families. Nobody is paying attention to the lasting effects of Casual Sex on either side for men & women. I mean, just look at these complete fucking idiots. They don't even know why Casual Sex (with strangers) entails negative consequences...

Why is sex rape? <> Because sex does not mean anything important anymore; it is not Romantic. Therefore, it must be Rape by definition.

Fuck a bitch; who cares right??? "ONS" BRUTHA, RIGHT BRO!? Pump & dump em', stupid bitches! This is Amerika, fuck yeah!

...

Satyr wrote:: I give consent either because I am dominated or I acknowledge a greater need which forces me to offer consent to an inferior.
It is a product of weakness and not exclusively feminine or masculine - it is an existential position.
In the case of sex the consent is towards mortality.

I give sexual consent, driven by a primal drive, - even if unconscious - because I am to die.
In a female this is doubly so because her sexual roles forces her to surrender to more risks and compromises than a male.

Sex precludes the male-female divide though, as I stated, the threshold of human interaction: penis/vagina.

Therefore, sex-itself necessitates the categorization of 'male' and 'female'-archetypes.

Woman cannot penetrate Man. She has no weapon. She has no point.

She has nothing to say or do, except remain passive ... the human Sex Act.

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:16 am

Unreasonable. Have you had any success finding women to fuck. Given that you and all the other men out there want only to 'eat, find comfort and have sex' as you stated somewhere once.

Just how are you doing with the raping and stoning?

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:34 am

maryshelley wrote:: Unreasonable. Have you had any success finding women to fuck. Given that you and all the other men out there want only to 'eat, find comfort and have sex' as you stated somewhere once.

Just how are you doing with the raping and stoning?

I will write a detailed progress report to you every week...

Seriously-though, it has not been going well at all. I fear for my health daily now. I have Insomnia and am deteriorating.

I would go to the doctor, but I cannot afford it. My self-motivation in life barely gets me through a day-to-day existence.

This is what happens when you become an outcast to Everything & Everybody though; I welcome the thought of death often.

I can feel myself becoming completely-cold and distant from all things, especially-toward people like you.

Thanks for your sarcasm though, appreciated...

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:03 am

maryshelley wrote:: Humans trying to control humans? Where does that urge come from? And what are we to do about it? It's only natural, isn't it? Should some humans resist such control? How should they? How might they?

Not only humans.

Control themselves, first and foremost.

Quote :: You are attempting to understand it.

Yes.

Quote :: God exists because men want god to exist. God serves a purpose to man. Without god what will man do? TO CONTROL? Understand yet?

Wow, that's quite an insight.

Without God what will certain feeble men do?
Without a parent, what shall the child do?

Quote :: Show me some chaos.

Chaos is not computable and so cannot be shown.
Chaos is the incomprehensible.

For you, human nature is chaotic....far too complex to make sense of.

The apparent, the phenomenon, is a representation of the past and so one need not know the entire past but only have a keen eye and the ability to integrate details into cohesive, not self-contradictory, models.

Your appearance is a living manifestation of yuor entire history and how it has been affected by conditions.

What parts of you are repressed or have not been allowed to flourish, retarded, can also be witnessed.

Quote :: I asked you a question about what children appear to want. You have been bemoaning the loss of the family, have you not? And blaming feminists and the capitalist machine. I'll reframe it for you.

What do you think children need? And if children need something (anything?) how are they to get it? And, more importantly, as you purport to have a child how will you provide what it needs?

There are single parents in nature too. Males just provide the seeds.

a parent is like a good teacher. The one that teaches the child to fish, rather than waiting to be given a fish, or begging for one.

Quote :: CONTROL, AS IS OUR NATURE.

But don't be surprised when some try to OVERCOME.

Oh dear woman, even your right to "overcome" is a derivative of masculine power and ideals and thinking.

Your emancipation is fake. You simply seek direct access to yuor real master's power. You emancipate yourself from the middle-man.

Your feminism is firmly rooted in Democratic ideals, themselves a product of social necessity that had to include artisans and bureaucrats and sailors into a system that excluded them from the political process and so caused strife.

Quote :: Yes you are, truly woman.

By training.
You chicks are open books to me.
What once flabbergasted me, now bores the shit out of me.

Female mystique....female complexity?
Shit, you are one of the simplest creatures on Earth.

All redirection, emotion and plausible deniabilty - speak one way and then act another.

Quote :: One and All. Revolutionised human thought on a subject. You may have heard of some of them.
Tell me. If somebody thinks about something that is at a later date proven wrong. Does that make them a great thinker? Or deluded? Or just plain wrong? What if a woman points out that something is correct. Or something is incorrect. Is it in the grand scheme of things just another thing to think about? If there are only a few exceptions do those exceptions matter a lot or not at all?

Contributing and revolutionizing are not the same thing, woman.

Quote :: Maya Angelou and Oprah Winfrey. You should meet them.

This is truly sad. When average poets and T.V. personalities are included amongst the pantheon of human intellectual achievement, it's like scraping the bottom of the pot and then reboiling it to make soup.

What about Mother Teressa and Britney Spears?

Are we talking about notoriety, fame or social accomplishments here or pure genius?
Selling your product and being communally appreciated is your idea of achievement, not mine.

Quote :: Influence. Changed human thought. Yes. Very much so. The most intelligent person in the world? No. But tell me who was the most intelligent person in the world? A man, probably. And that is important isn't it?

Thatcher?!!! She's included amongst figures like Socrates and Marx?
Was Ronald Reagen, her brother in arms, an intellectual icon then?
well, perhaps amongst the red-neck, simpletons of middle-America he is.

Then Pol Pot and Hitler were great minds owing to their effect.
But you don't want them to be included, do you?

Man, you are fucked up, woman.

Typical female mind.

REVOLUTIONIZED HUMAN THOUGHT, woman!!!
Does nay of that sentence register?

Quote :: Does the forest require human intervention to keep it healthy?

What?

What tangent are you off to now?!

Dance about, little princess.
Like I said, I've trained my self not to be affected by such female games or evasion.

Quote :: Keep exploiting. Tell me when your luck runs out.

The results of the mass manipulation that you speak of. Can you see them around you?

you self-righteous pathetic woman, you still can't understand that YOU are exploiting while you play the part of innocence.

You just avoid the responsibility for it, as all children and females do.

If you live, you are living on the misery and death of another.
When you interact you exploit another and you then allow them to exploit you, so as to retain the privilege to do so on a future date.

Quote :: Mental illness. Stress. Broken families. Habitat destruction. Species extinction. The inexorable march of man. successful man. Intelligent man. I say again. Oh but I'm just deluded. This is how it's meant to be. It's in our nature.
Oh there I go deluded again. There is none of the this it's all just fear promoted by the machine to keep us fearful and happy.

WHERE HAS MAN GOTTEN HIMSELF? RIGHT WHERE HE'S AT. IT's IN HIS NATURE.

Extinction has been happening since the beginning of life.

Here you are trying to "correct" nature's ways.
The weak perish, the strong survive.
You think man made that rule up?

If man is to protect weakness he does so for personal advantage. He gains from it.
I save the forest because it offers me oxygen and a nice place to hunt or walk in.

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:59 am

Unreasonable wrote:

maryshelley wrote:: Unreasonable. Have you had any success finding women to fuck. Given that you and all the other men out there want only to 'eat, find comfort and have sex' as you stated somewhere once.

Just how are you doing with the raping and stoning?

I will write a detailed progress report to you every week...

Seriously-though, it has not been going well at all. I fear for my health daily now. I have Insomnia and am deteriorating.

I would go to the doctor, but I cannot afford it. My self-motivation in life barely gets me through a day-to-day existence.

This is what happens when you become an outcast to Everything & Everybody though; I welcome the thought of death often.

I can feel myself becoming completely-cold and distant from all things, especially-toward people like you.

Thanks for your sarcasm though, appreciated...

When you talk about stoning and raping women. Don't be surprised if they react negatively. Just ask satyr what we're like.

Like me, won't you? You really should be more sociable. Or get treatment for what sounds very much like depression. Oh I know the machine, the machine and all that but all the same.....

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:03 am

Unreasonable wrote:: Don't forget to turn that interest on yourself every so often.

Why wouldn't I? Am I not human?

Shit, these little implied insults have no affect on me. I accept my humanity and i am not insulted by it, as you are.
I am also frequently envious and I covet my neighbors wife. Is that a sin?

Quote :: It must be, because of how the male/masculine-body (penis) interacts with the female/feminine-body (vagina).

The sexual desire can be described by action (Will), reaction (Submission), and inaction (Stagnation). A woman does not act in the 'masculine' sense. I mean, by definition, the penis seeks out the vagina. A man seeks out a home. He only becomes a Wanderer if he cannot find a home. This is the way it has always been since the beginning of Mankind. The social group, representing Nature-as-Woman, is only loosely-mobile compared to Man. Man can break off from his Sociality and start his own tribe/clan, or, integrate into another. He has few choices, but at least he has a choice. Man is free; woman is tied down. Thus, a woman has neither the inclination nor knowledge to escape her Sociality or deviate from its Ideals. This is why Woman latches onto Man for all her knowledge. The sex act is a passing-on of this knowledge. But, the sex act-itself hinges upon the action and Will of man. It is not the woman who seeks the man, actually-quite the contrary...

You are truly sad.

Little boy, no matter how it may confuse you or make you feel bad, the female has sexual control.
She welcomes the male penis within herself, takes the risk and accepts the burdens.
This is why civilization depended on subjugating this female sexual power. Her choice.

Forcing her, without her acceptance is rape.

When you are accepted it is she that does all the preliminary work.
Man just sells, woman buys.

You fool it is the girls that make the first move, with subtle ways. Are you so blind to it?

This is why the group is so important to her. Her small frame makes her vulnerable before and after impregnation.
The group provides a defense agaisnt male aggression. It protects her from rape so that she can then choose at her convenience or use the promise of her choice as a social tool and an alliance builder - social manipulation - pitting one male agaisnt another.

The penis is shaped the way it is because of what I said.
It's shape pulls out present sperm, before ejaculation occurs so as to increase the probability that his sperm will fertilize the egg.
There are even studies that indicate an increase in sperm production in a male who is separated from his mate for a long time.
Even if the male's mind is fooled or is sure that she has no cheated, his body is not. It produces more sperm knowing that females use sex as a manipulation device.

Grow the fuck up!!!!
You are not superior because you were born male, you idiot.
Your masculinity, even if questionable, is only an attitude.
Superiority is not a given, it must be earned!!!

Quote :: First, I need to mention that this need to copulate on her behalf is completely-passive.

What a sad little boy, you are.
There are women reading this, right now, laughing their asses off.

Quote :: She does not have a penis, so she is never compelled to Act as far as the meaning goes (i.e. Will). What will does womankind have???

The same will an oyster does or a cow does or a m,an does or any organism does.

What changes is the strategy and the degree. one's will is stronger than another's.
One's will is direct and another indirect.

Quote :: A girl walks by me on the street and turns her head to look at me. I smile at her a little bit. She smiles back and continues walking. Where was the initiation of Action?
It was not her turning her head. It was my smile that initiated this story. It was my initiation. Because, as author of my own actions, I am responsible for instigating all causes & effects pertaining to the circumstances. What did she do? All she did was passively-act, which I do not see to be Action-persay, at all. A woman does not "fuck". A man does. A woman neither knows the meaning of the word or how to engage it. All a woman can do, like a lesbian, is mimic and *ACT* like a man. I add: passively-true. It is a fake, a forgery, a copy of the Original action.

you smiled; made yourself available.

She smiled back: notifying you that she acknowledged your availability and is considering the offer.
Your later performance will determine her final decision.
She is evaluating you.

But before her turning her head, was she not wearing specific garments, walking in a specific way to garner male attention, one of which was yours?
Her bait.
How many have smiled at her and she's frowned back?

She's manipulating you, you sad fuck!!! and you don't even know it.
If you're going to rape her, why smile at all? Why the feminine game?
Because you are paying on her turf.

Quote :: Really!?!? -- where & when are women ever active of their own volition? Where are the 'female' trend setters???

And I do not mean passively-active, instead, "active-active". Show & tell me as you please...!

a woman is passive in regards to her willingness to accept authority and estalbished rules and beliefs.
Once there she manipulates the system from within, to her advantage.

Men defended female choice so as to ensure their accessibility to it and the probabilities that the offspring produced are his own.
Female sexual control had to be wrested away so as to include males that would never be smiled at, you fool.

Quote :: This applies to the male-female difference as well. By degree, women cannot Act whereas mankind can.

That threshold is the actual-difference between Will & Submission. What is Woman doing except housing a child?

Then what is a man doing besides seeding one?

You are simple.

The fact that man can go beyond sex is due to this masculine challenging of all establishments. He questions his own sexuality and by doing so understands it and finds ways to cotnrol it. This is his advantage over a woman's blind acceptance and intuitive understanding.

Quote :: I know it is an act; it is quite easy for me to see-through whenever I interact with women.

If you really knew it was an act you wouldn't have said the stupidities you have.

Now you try to bury your error behind backtracking. so be it.

Little boy, women are right about paternalism, because it represents a cotnrol over their sexual powers.
Its elimination means a return to primal behaviors. The end to family and male inclusion.

Did you actually read my The Feminization Of Mankind?
You certainly didn't understand it.

Quote :: No ... women create the conditions upon which the instigation occurs. Men undertake the actions, actively-speaking.

That's part of the illusion.
An unwanted approach soon faces a cruel ending - rejection.

Women not only place themselves in the right venues, advertise their intent with clothing and movement, but also instigate the approach with a look.
If they have not then they either reject or they evaluate on the fly.

Quote :: I have done no such thing as be fooled by another, let alone a woman. I see right through men & women both.

It is so easy for me to read people that nobody in my shoes would find this fact humorous.

I don't think so.

You are under the impression that it is you that is in control in the sexual game, especially now when female emancipation has returned female power back to them.

You see, the system, has no cock. It is the only male entity allowed but it has no biological presence. It's representatives can be either male or female...or a child as in the case of Chinese Emperors.

So, females, under its abstracted masculinity, can only choose from amongst emasculated, subordinated males.

This is where much of female confusion and dissatisfaction stems from.
They settle, for good enough.

Quote :: Yes, but her 'towards' is a passive-one. She is swept away in the river.

we all are, you fool.

All life is resistance, not passive, to varying degrees.

When we say women re weak or passive we do not mean in an absolute way, but in reference to male weakness and passivity.
All value judgments are comparisons, not absolutes!!!!

Quote :: There is no Woman that is a Man, ever. If there were, then the definitions would be immediately-replaced by more accurate ones.

I've met females that were more masculine in thought, than you!

One of them called herself Xev and another gendanken in another forum.

That should trouble you.

Quote :: You are correct until your conclusion.

Double-negations do not provide evidence for any-possible positive values, at all. They cannot. In fact, double-negatives only provide for more negative forces in new forms & dimensions. Once you make a decision of resistance against a path already-set-in-motion, you cannot go back on it. Your new resistance is a new direction, a new form of Reality. And this creates different levels of male-logic. Retreading old paths would lead to a severe & gross regression of your spirit. I imagine you would probably-die if this were even possible. This notion may even define Death more clearly-than current accounts of death. It would be like reliving your childhood over-and-over-and-over again: purgatory.

Huh?

Your sense of self, you fool, is a product of a double negation. You negate your own negation - you are life as resisting death.
This is why you appear, as a positive, an apparent in the flow.

Entropy is constant negation and so ordering, resistance to it, is the negation of this negation.
Nihilism, again, is a return to it; a surrender to the negative.
This is why nihilists, in all their forms, deny reality and self and ego and of the world...as unreal or an illusion or a dreamworld as opposed to a wakeful world or as a preparation for real-reality, paradise.

This is a rejection of rejection, which makes one aware of existence as need/suffering.

The eastern way, the feminine, of giving in, going with the flow, surrendering will, resistance, to the entropic inevitable.
But they self-contradict as they make the choice by retaining self, in opposition to the flow.

This offers them the sensation of consciously experiencing their own unconsciousness.
They call it enlightenment.

Quote :: When a man gives into his sexual compulsion, he is buying into a Sociality.

No, you fool, to nature to his own limitations and death.
An immortal being would have no reason to replicate itself.

Reproductions offers the possibility of eternity. A false one since no ideal is ever reached.

Quote :: When he has sex with a woman and escapes from the responsibilities implied that come with this Sociality, then this is "rape"!

Huh?

Quote :: And men can only rape, because Man will do what it takes to resist this assimilation-affect from the very sex act that he engages with. By giving into an Ideal, Man and Woman attempt to rape each other. And this is never Equal. Rape literally-means: taken advantage of, in retrospect. One comes to dominate. But metaphysical-characteristics aside, the penis must penetrate the vagina for the purpose of impregnation & procreation. The terms that come to define "rape" and the "sex act" cannot begin to appropriately-describe the full measure of the interaction. I label the Sex Act as Rape, because Casual Sex cannot be anything else except Rape! And that is the climate of the Non-culture I live in. It becomes accurate, fair, and just for me to say that Sex is Rape, because the actions that common men instigate, from everywhere I look, hinge on dominating The Game as if this were some sort of childish affair. Forget the feelings. Forget the frustrations. Forget the after-affects of broken families. Nobody is paying attention to the lasting effects of Casual Sex on either side for men & women. I mean, just look at these complete fucking idiots. They don't even know why Casual Sex (with strangers) entails negative consequences...

You are truly confused.

Quote :: Why is sex rape? <> Because sex does not mean anything important anymore; it is not Romantic. Therefore, it must be Rape by definition.

Then it is a tool of social interaction, yielded by feminine minds. Therefore males are being raped, if we take your convoluted reasoning seriously.

If a man will do anything, including subjugate himself to undignified work, to gain access to sex, then this is his fault.
If he is so controlled by his nature, his instincts, then this is his weakness.

Females merely use this weakness to their advantage. They are innocent because they mostly do not know that they are doing it.
I've, personally, witnessed men stoop down low to seduce a female who was so dumb one could only admire her tits and ass, and wonder if that was enough.

Quote :: Woman cannot penetrate Man. She has no weapon. She has no point.

She has nothing to say or do, except remain passive ... the human Sex Act.

And yet she is the one that chooses by whom she will be impregnated...not you.

The sexual act is an invasive one. This is why she takes great care to feel safe and retain her respectability and his resourceful help, afterward. Her capitulation must not threaten her, too greatly.
But she decides, not you....unless you RAPE HER...you idiot!!!!...and then face the social repercussions of this violation of her sexual power.

I do believe this has gone on long enough.
Believe what you like. It is you who will face the consequences of your own misinterpretations and errors, not I.

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:10 am

maryshelley wrote:: When you talk about stoning and raping women. Don't be surprised if they react negatively. Just ask satyr what we're like.

I know exactly what females are like.

This is why this misguided boy, who dares call himself my equal, fails to impress me.

He thrashes about trying to pretend he knows, and then he says something so ludicrous like: sex is rape or a circle has a center, that just ruins the original intent.

If only he knew that in man's desire to cotnrol nature, women are but a factor representing nature.
how do males do it?

They offer ideals, memes, beliefs, playing with and manipulating female instincts and fears and hopes.

If only females knew that feminism is but another aspect of this male domination.

In man's haste to control his destiny and find stability, he's made himself obsolete.
But only as long as no accessible frontiers exist.

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:12 am

Unreasonable wrote:: Besides, I don't take Risks. If you own the House, then you profit in every direction, no matter where you step. Risks are always unnecessary when you transcend the possibilities & probabilities behind them.

k.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/articles/testosterone.shtml

Testosterone and assertiveness

In the Sex ID ultimatum task people were asked to decide how they would split £50 between themselves and a stranger. Scientists want to find out if there is a relationship between testosterone levels and assertiveness.

It is assumed that people with higher testosterone levels would drive a harder bargain and be less compromising. Research into the effects of testosterone and competitive behaviour suggests that testosterone increases competitiveness and risk taking.

Interestingly, some studies show that testosterone levels in women change according to the status of their occupations.

Satyr wrote:: Sexual desire, dear child, is not an exclusively male impulse.

I have pornographic movies in my apartment, lubricants, and amyl nitrate...
-Chloe

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:20 am

SilentSoliloquy wrote:

Unreasonable wrote:: Besides, I don't take Risks. If you own the House, then you profit in every direction, no matter where you step. Risks are always unnecessary when you transcend the possibilities & probabilities behind them.

k.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/articles/testosterone.shtml

Testosterone and assertiveness

In the Sex ID ultimatum task people were asked to decide how they would split £50 between themselves and a stranger. Scientists want to find out if there is a relationship between testosterone levels and assertiveness.

It is assumed that people with higher testosterone levels would drive a harder bargain and be less compromising. Research into the effects of testosterone and competitive behaviour suggests that testosterone increases competitiveness and risk taking.

Interestingly, some studies show that testosterone levels in women change according to the status of their occupations.

Proving, once more, that many men will do irrational things for the sake of ejaculating....like going to jail, for example.

Quote :

Satyr wrote:: Sexual desire, dear child, is not an exclusively male impulse.

I have pornographic movies in my apartment, lubricants, and amyl nitrate...
-Chloe

Do tell.

Little boy, wanting to be a man, doesn't understand that sex is where women excel.

Big and strong and smart males fall prostrate before their shapely legs and willy ways.

What depths of depravity do they not fall to, just to make themselves noticed?
All the while, she finds the indifferent one irresistibly seductive.
She feels helpless before him and this....excites her femininity.
It confronts her sense of superiority, based on sexual dominance.
She wants to know it and, in time, make it hers by gestating it, along with her own contribution, within her self.

She wishes to join with it, as one. The feminine impulse to belong to power.

Oh how men have tried to control that natural power, that means to an end, that eternal reaffirmation of life.

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:41 am

Grow the fuck up!!!!
You are not superior because you were born male, you idiot.
Your masculinity, even if questionable, is only an attitude.
Superiority is not a given, it must be earned!!!

absolutely... Twisted Evil

i wish I could be 'privileged' simply for being a male... Sad

Subject: Re: The Feminization of Man Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:00 am

Drone wrote:: Grow the fuck up!!!!
You are not superior because you were born male, you idiot.
Your masculinity, even if questionable, is only an attitude.
Superiority is not a given, it must be earned!!!

absolutely...

i wish I could be 'privileged' simply for being a male...

You aren't even that!!!
A male that is.

I wish I could be priviledged simply for being born or for simply being human.
But masculinity is the right attitude for it, as being born and being born a human offers you an advantage in comparison to not being born or being born a worm or retarded....like you.

Isn't there some other thread you can drop in and drone over inanities?

Tell us about Mcmiserable's challenging pessimism.
That's bound to interest someone.
Anyone?

I know: start by providing the premises of his ....ummmm..."thinking"?

I'm sure you, being an ..ahem....spokesperson and someone, undoubtedly, affected by his deep, profound insights of verbal declarations and repetitive "You are, admit it!!!" and "Impostor!!!" and "You are too afraid to see the truth!!!" and "All is unreal." and "Dreamworld." and "I wish I could torture you." and "I want to kill you alll!!!"

All this even while presenting not a single actual rational argument.
You know, the stuff legends are made of. What makes ILP so damn entertaining.

Well, except for that boring debate the LILP and ILO "special ones" are presently indulging their non-selfish, mature brainpower over.

And here we are spending more time on him. He must be onto something.

Something Buddhist and Nihilistically old.