Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world

The lion and the tiger 'avoid' each other because they do not live on the same continent in nature.

Once humans start trying to raise themselves above the pack; divorce themselves from their 'animosity' it becomes all the more easy to justify berating, justify violence, justify extiction, justify genocide.

That which is not as 'good' (or fit?) as I deserves not my empathy or tolerance?


So easy to crush the ant that is 'beneath' you.

I came across this amongst some of my scribbles. Obviously taken out of context. Perhaps someone could remind me who said it??

'A civilization can rise no higher than the status to which it accords its women.'

Something to consider here perhaps.

maryshelley wrote:

The lion and the tiger 'avoid' each other because they do not live on the same continent in nature.

Once humans start trying to raise themselves above the pack; divorce themselves from their 'animosity' it becomes all the more easy to justify berating, justify violence, justify extiction, justify genocide.

That which is not as 'good' (or fit?) as I deserves not my empathy or tolerance?


So easy to crush the ant that is 'beneath' you.

And why does the ease make it immoral?

At heart the humanitarian is a Christian that has rejected the God, as authority, and made man sacred.
He keeps morality as a code of behaviour against blaspheming the holy.

I have no such idols.

Quote :

I came across this amongst some of my scribbles. Obviously taken out of context. Perhaps someone could remind me who said it??

'A civilization can rise no higher than the status to which it accords its women.'

Something to consider here perhaps.

Is this the same as
"A civilization is judged by how it treats its animals?"

Dear God, who wants this civilization that enforces respect for what cannot earn it on its own, just to make it feel safe and so make it more productive?

Alexi wrote:

That's fine if sex is a ready-made for you; but original sex is always for the first time, always between the inexperienced.

Sure.

Quote :

creasy, he already has someone equal to himself: himself.

Why not get involved with a lemur, then?

Quote :

Why avoid females not your age? What is the dread about them for you? What is the origin of this compartmentalized fetish for you?

No dread. It has happened. No compartmentalization on my part. But I tend to prefer women who can meet me as equals on a variety of levels. Those younger than me who have been attractive to me were exceptions. Not because of a rule in my head, get it?

creasy wrote:

whore

Don't use that word, or I'll have to explain to you why.[/quote]I was feeding back the word he was using. He seemed to have a dichotomy

Virgin: potential wife vs. whore.

Perhaps he needs your explanation.

Satyr wrote:

The lion and tiger avoid each other so as to not get hurt; to avoid testing themselves against what they are not sure they can defeat and also what they cannot eat.

They come across a lamb, it's dinner time!!!

Now are you as sheep or a tiger, because I am a wolf and we come in packs?

I don't know what sort of animal I am. But I am fairly sure that (I believe) cruelty is not a virtue.

I'm sure you don't mean to say I ought to crush and consume everything weaker than myself?


___________________________

creasy wrote:

Alexi wrote:

creasy, he already has someone equal to himself: himself.

Why not get involved with a lemur, then?

I'm wondering about this too.

creasy wrote:

Alexi wrote:

Why avoid females not your age? What is the dread about them for you? What is the origin of this compartmentalized fetish for you?

No dread. It has happened. No compartmentalization on my part. But I tend to prefer women who can meet me as equals on a variety of levels. Those younger than me who have been attractive to me were exceptions. Not because of a rule in my head, get it?

No, I don't get it. That is a very strange and narrow age of attraction.

So easy to crush the ant that is 'beneath' you.

[quoteSatyr]And why does the ease make it immoral? [/quote]

I didn't say it was immoral. I see it as akin to crushing oneself. Each deliberate act of crushing....is an act of self harm.

Quote :

At heart the humanitarian is a Christian that has rejected the God, as authority, and made man sacred.
He keeps morality as a code of behaviour against blaspheming the holy.

I have no such idols.

Nor do I. We are all animals we are all related. Kill one (without eating it); kill a part of oneself.

Quote :

I came across this amongst some of my scribbles. Obviously taken out of context. Perhaps someone could remind me who said it??

'A civilization can rise no higher than the status to which it accords its women.'

Something to consider here perhaps.

Quote :

Is this the same as
"A civilization is judged by how it treats its animals?"

The sentiments are the same and it's onto something.

Quote :

Dear God, who wants this civilization that enforces respect for what cannot earn it on its own, just to make it feel safe and so make it more productive?

What is here has already earned the 'right' to be here.

maryshelley wrote:

We are all animals we are all related. Kill one (without eating it); kill a part of oneself.

God tells Bear and Tiger that if they can stay in a cave for one-hundred days, and eat only garlic and ginger, he will make them human. Bear and Tiger go into the cave, they stay many days eating only garlic and ginger -- then Tiger can take it no more, he leaves the cave. After one-hundred days, Bear comes out. God makes him into man. The first man, Dangun.

Bear and Tiger behave more or less indifferently towards one another, Satyr, even though they are in competition, and in the close quarters of the cave.

(What is really dreadful on a BBS is the ambiguity; is something straight-forward, or is it sarcastic, and how many layers of sarcasm?)

creasy wrote:

Why not get involved with a lemur, then?

Quote :

I'm wondering about this too.

Odd, it is not something I have to wonder about. I like lemurs, the little experience I have with them, but I have no sexual or romantic attraction to them. I have no need to wonder about this.

[/quote]
No, I don't get it. That is a very strange and narrow age of attraction.[/quote]Narrow? we haven't mentioned any age range. And it is vastly less narrow than the hypothetical man we were discussing who is not attracted to women his own age. In the abstract your approach to defending him is to try to make my attractions seem wrong somehow, even though mine are more flexible than his AND also make sense emotionally, physically, etc., for the reasons I mentioned above.

creasy wrote:

creasy wrote:

Why not get involved with a lemur, then?

Vanya wrote:

I'm wondering about this too.

Odd, it is not something I have to wonder about. I like lemurs, the little experience I have with them, but I have no sexual or romantic attraction to them. I have no need to wonder about this.

I still don't get it. You can't account for your non-attraction to lemurs, just admit it.

Sometimes you read a BBS thread asking something like, 'why are you a pedo?' Many of the replys will be of the sort that someone will mention having had young girl cousins. Why this sort of cause? Because of the young girls in it obviously. But this is magical thinking: like comes from like. Do you look for other things that are white to explain why the snow is white? or look for something blue to explain the color of the sky? (Such as the sea?)

All the questions we ask ourselves about origin and cause are really ridiculous; who can account for their sexuality? Of course no one; there are a myriad of so called causes and motives and avoidances.... It is completely magical thinking that it should come from anything. "Everything has a cause?" This is contradicted everywhere one looks. Is it even a thing? And what is the cause of cause?

Alexi wrote:

I still don't get it. You can't account for your non-attraction to lemurs, just admit it.

I can not account for your interest in wondering why you are not attraced to lemurs. There seem to be much more important issues and problems pressing. Why not trust your intuition there?

I could account for it, but it´s a non-issue. The fact that the issue in relation to lemurs is a non-issue does not mean, somehow magically, that men who avoid women their own age and are attracted only to much younger women are NOT mindfucking themselves. They are.

Simply because some attractions and non-attractions are built in does not, therefore, mean that other 'attractions' do not deserve citation marks that indicate their constructed nature. Nor does it show that these 'attractions' are anything but avoidance and control patterns to keep these men from dealing with their shit.

Perhaps you have never noticed that people do things to avoid
certain feelings
certain realizations

for example,

but I see these things all around me. I would be very happy if you could demonstrate the non-determinist nature of the world, especially if you could do this for the anal retentive control freak scientists and their hangers-on, really. But I still think after such a proof we would have to acknowledge that people make choices often on short sighted avoidance motivations.[quote]

maryshelley wrote:

I didn't say it was immoral. I see it as akin to crushing oneself. Each deliberate act of crushing....is an act of self harm.

Huh?
So, when you eat you are eating yourself?

Deep.
I guess tiptoeing around and starving yourself to death would be the height of self love.

Quote :

Nor do I. We are all animals we are all related. Kill one (without eating it); kill a part of oneself.

What if I use it for a coat to survive the winter?

How ridiculous. You are implying an immorality to killing with no practical purpose because arguing that there is a thing such as a killing with no purpose would expose you as what you are.

Quote :

What is here has already earned the 'right' to be here.

Really? How?

Mommy and daddy fucking and mommy forgetting to take the pill makes one deserving?

Define a "right", because we are teetering on the edge of an absurdity precipice.

Satyr wrote:

Mommy and daddy fucking and mommy forgetting to take the pill makes one deserving?

I second this question.

Somebody please answer it.

creasy wrote:

I could account for it, but it´s a non-issue.

You can account for sex-object choice? Come now!

creasy wrote:

I would be very happy if you could demonstrate the non-determinist nature of the world...

It is free and not-free. Choose what you like. (I advise you to choose to be free.)

creasy wrote:

Perhaps you have never noticed that people do things to avoid
certain feelings
certain realizations

This I've noticed. I don't deny it -- it could be used as the operating thesis of a grand philosophy...
_________

Satyr wrote:

maryshelley wrote:

I didn't say it was immoral. I see it as akin to crushing oneself. Each deliberate act of crushing....is an act of self harm.

Huh?
So, when you eat you are eating yourself?
Deep.
I guess tiptoeing around and starving yourself to death would be the height of self love.

No, this is sound. The most difficult question to myself is, is it possible to live without "crushing" others? and if it is, then what follows, and if it isn't, what follows from that? By neither line is "crushing" a virtue.

Alexi wrote:

Satyr wrote:

maryshelley wrote:

I didn't say it was immoral. I see it as akin to crushing oneself. Each deliberate act of crushing....is an act of self harm.

Huh?
So, when you eat you are eating yourself?
Deep.
I guess tiptoeing around and starving yourself to death would be the height of self love.

No, this is sound. The most difficult question to myself is, is it possible to live without "crushing" others? and if it is, then what follows, and if it isn't, what follows from that? By neither line is "crushing" a virtue.

Then the answer must be an emphatic NO!!!

To exist is to have possibility - spatial dimensions, flow- activity.
And so it is to deny possibility to another.

Even when I sit, passively, I am not passive. I occupy space and so I deny it to another...my body excludes all invaders; my skin represents the outer boundary, the porous not yet completed, limit of my will.

When I breath, I deny this breath to another. That there is enough oxygen should not fool us that if there were not the realization of my selfishness, my self-ness, would not then be apparent.

When I eat, I deny this nourishment to another and i deny life to another. I assimilate what I need and i need what I lack.

Only a deluded fool believes he is being selfless when he sucks in air and eats, contradicting himself, and when he has merely surrendered his sense of self to another, found identity through another, and so can annihilate this immediate self because he no longer identifies with it.

Even the hypocritical, cowardly nihilist contradicts his rejection of the world when he holds onto it in desperation, while denouncing it as an illusion, as unreal.
His contempt for it is based on his resentment for what necessitated him.

It is not the life he despises it is his life. It is the world as it is he riles against even while clinging to it and finding clever ways to excuse himself from dismissing it altogether.

The hypocrite nihilist, the elf-hater, is full of cleverness when it comes to using words to denounce when grasping and spit at what he is feeding off.
It is his way of claiming stake on what others covet no less.

But back to you...
If you wish to live in paradise then be clear about it.
Then explore the possibility that crushing ants distresses you because you relate to the lowly ant that is crushed by an indifferent and unknown force of nature.

Alexi wrote:

You can account for sex-object choice? Come now!

In relation to other species? yes.

creasy wrote:

Perhaps you have never noticed that people do things to avoid
certain feelings
certain realizations

Quote :

This I've noticed. I don't deny it -- it could be used as the operating thesis of a grand philosophy...

So we are left with the question in each case of sexual attraction: is there some sort of evasion or denial in this choosing?

creasy wrote:

...is there some sort of evasion or denial in this choosing?

There is some desire to fail and to be frustrated, that seems clear. A normal person would take one look at girl-love, see that it is impossible, and move along to something that could be.
______________________

Satyr wrote:

Then the answer must be an emphatic NO!!!

I'm trying to get my thoughts together on this point.

I was way above those ... animals (I don't mean that in hate, that's just how coloreds are, you don't hate a wipped buggy horse, they're just pathetic sorry beasts), and then I ended up experiencing poor whites, real poor, and those "animals" weren't colored. The animals aren't just the coloreds, but the whites too. These wretches, they are me.

I don't need to take anyone's space; he can have it, he ought to have it, he ought to have it just as much as I ought to.

Satyr wrote:

Only a deluded fool believes he is being selfless when he sucks in air and eats, contradicting himself, and when he has merely surrendered his sense of self to another, found identity through another, and so can annihilate this immediate self because he no longer identifies with it.

Not selfless... that's Buddhism, it is different, the Buddha would be happy to get out of this, but: 'it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.'

Now for the questions:

Alexi, are you a little girl lover? Have you ever 'loved' a little girl? Have you ever done things to them? Were you touched in sexual ways as a child? Do you have children, nieces, nephews?

SilentSoliloquy wrote:

Now for the questions:

Alexi, are you a little girl lover? Have you ever 'loved' a little girl? Have you ever done things to them? Were you touched in sexual ways as a child? Do you have children, nieces, nephews?

Does this really require an answer?

Who cares if Alexi fucks little girls? Everybody is "entitled to their opinion", right?

Besides, let some of us not be hypocrites on this forum...

There are a lot of little girl fuckers out there.

You seem to be slightly up in arms for it to all just be opinion, dear.

My questions aren't offensive, and I would like honest answers to them, yes.

I'm not up-in-arms.

I just find it ironic how people initially feel about men fucking little girls.

After all, who cares if girls/women are just sexual objects, then should they not be trained to please men from the moment they're born? Should not fathers have sex with their daughters, sisters, and female-friends too if they are on birth control?

I have asked these questions before; I ask them again.

I am still waiting for answers that everybody seems to think magically exist.

I want to know. Somebody tell me.

There are biologically sound reasons that seem to surpass your nonchalant attitude that goes with your new found hyper masculinity.

While having sex with little girls who are unable to reproduce is obviously pretty useless, incestual sex isn't necessarily a bad thing from a biological perspective.

In fact, you could establish a pretty good eugenics policy by, every now and then, making closely related people mate and then killing off or sterilizing the unfit ones.

The fact that it requires intervention is evidence enough that it should naturally be avoided.

Yes, naturally. Nature has also put up barriers for outbreeding as well (different song calls, odours and things). So heterozygosity isn't something necessarily natural either. It works in degrees.

But a question that I'm interested in is, what makes nature 'good'? A large part of being human is having an ability precisely to transcend nature and to impose ourselves upon it. Nature isn't infallible - it's just processes that function according to various constraints. A human is a piece of nature that can reason, that can consciously direct and manipulate things according to a goal - perhaps a better goal than nature's.

I'd like to reevaluate the notion of nature as being something good as such.