Honestly; I wish to ask something to all ye females out there...

I've seen many women call men pigs because they 'use' women for sex... dragging them along and pretending to feel something for them and then just dumping them...

but if a guy came up to you and asked if you wanted to have a physical, no feelings involved, relationship... would you admire his straightforward-ness? or still consider him a pig?

You mean if a woman would say it to me or when I would say it to a woman?

I think that women view men who are so direct as socially inept. They can't figure out a way to charm the pants of her and so they have to resort to simply asking. Some women like it, most don't. It's a sign of weakness and women don't like weak men.

Yeah, most women donīt like it (says one who tried it sometimes)

any male have a view on this? =P

I've had women come up to me and suggest the same - a physical only relationship.

I can tell you from my experience that a 'physical only' relationship is impossible.

From my experience, emotional feelings almost always develop.

Sure, the first time is great and you feel no attachment and that's why you do it again, then again, then again and suddenly you realize you have feelings. That's when things change. One always uses the 'it was only a physical relationship' argument while the other can't accept that.

Honestly, from my experience, 'fuq' friends' relationships are doomed from the first time.

Spell color wrong, Jaded? :p

I was thinking of even more directly than your example. I was thinking more along the lines of just saying, "Hey, let's go get nasty." Without any warmup at all. He tried to charm you and stimulate your erogenous zones. Even though he didn't seem to go the full nine yards. I still think many women would have seen that as inept and weak. Note your hysterical reaction... Did you accept? That's key to the issue. What was the conversation like beforehand? You're a smart girl. Was he trying to turn you on intellectually before he started sucking your fingers?

From my experience, emotional feelings almost always develop.

Yeah, usually the first time you see her with another guy, or vice versa...

Yeah, usually the first time you see her with another guy, or vice versa...

You have me figured for someone else. Truth be told, I'm open sexually and don't allow the primal 'jealousy' emotion rule my thoughts.


hmm.... I don't think it'll end up in sex... but hey; it feels good... and when it ends we'll have lost nothing... =P

Perfect attitude, in my opinion. :)

what if it's an open relationship? i.e. they can flirt at will

That's the thing. It's easy to say open relationship, but hard to live that way. Possessiveness (I have a feeling that's too many s's) get's in the way. There are certainly times that you won't get possessive. For instance, if you don't care a thing about the person. But, even in the case of mere friendship sex, it's hard to escape that feeling. We're wired wrong. We're programmed to own our mates, to not allow others to defile our temples.

It can be done, but it's hard.


hmm.... I don't think it'll end up in sex... but hey; it feels good... and when it ends we'll have lost nothing... =P

Ahhh, see. He tried the direct approach and it didn't work. Next he'll have to try flowers or stimulating you in other ways. Unless he's the kind of guy that will just keep pestering you until you give in. Cmon... C'mon... Your breasts are like down-filled pillows and your eyes are eyes are deep enough to drown in... C'mon... :p (Sorry for the crappy metaphors... I couldn't think of anything better on the spot... What did he say to you? Was it better than that?)

And what have you lost? Well, perhaps a friendship in the end... It's hard to take rejection sometimes.

You have me figured for someone else.

I'll accept that. There are people who don't get the jealousy bug. Attachment has similar effects though. Just less drastic.


it's not letting me post!!!!

It's not? :D

He turns me on intelectually too... but I'm thinking of ending it. Just I'm not quite sure how to do this!!!

Kick him in the balls... that ought to do it... :p

Seriously, it's hard when it's a friend. You could just pull out the dreaded friend card. And, you might actually be telling the truth. Unfortunately, if he's persistant and really wants you then it might ruin the friendship anyway. Those hurt looks from across the room and such.

Let's get nasty doesn't work for you??? What?? It works everytime over here in the states. :p Actually, I don't think I've ever used that particular phrase in more than jest. Usually, when I try the direct approach it's more like "Wanna go... ?" and leave it at that. That way, she fills in her own words.


Edit:
I hope in real life you're more romantic. That's kinda =P =P

I did apologize for the lame metaphors... :p I don't go in for the romance bit, too much. No poetry from this boy.

I don't generally hop around too much. I've been in this thread for a while now. Playing my guitar at the same time. I'll pop out every now and again, but I don't feel too intellectual today, so am staying away from the more philosophical threads for the moment.

And I don't like being tracked... :D I'd never try to track you...

"Wanna go...?" might work for me if it were a one night thing and I was feeling particularly depressed and in need of something a little more [insert your own word].

That's when I use it... And when I don't really care if it's accepted or not. Though I generally try to stay away from depressed women. I've missed out on several scores because I couldn't take advantage of emotional instability of the poor girl. I'm far too nice of a guy for my own good.

JADED...

It sounds, from your posts, that this guy wants you in a nice way: without the usual pathetic attempts to flatter (insert any one-liner here). And it sounds like you're keen on him too, not to mention you've known each other for years.... Go for it! But beware if the hook-up is purely physical.

Awww....

I've tried, but it generally ends up far worse than the lines I printed a while back. I just don't have the poetic touch. I just end up rehashing bits of old poems I've heard and doing a dreadful job of it.

And as to your last examples, yup, that's how they come out. So I don't even try.


I'm really not this type of girl. Hmm... wonder what's gotten into me

Must be the scientific influence... :p

apart from that; what do you mean?

I was just joking that perhaps sciforums is having a "bad" effect on you.

Or were you referring to your indecision about how to deal with the boy? If that's the case, maybe you should go for it.


Now please; off the topic of me and on to what I originally wanted this to be about

I agree. Sorry about that... :D

Alright, now I'm confused. I'm making personal observations, from what I read in your posts, as to the chemistry you and this fellow have..... I may bo off in my interpretation of the situation (that's a lot of ...tion's).

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is: do what you like.
:m:

Ahh, ok, now I get you. And so this is where the crux of difficulty lies. Is it possible for you to get involved in a strictly physical sense without emotions coming into play. I'll let you answer this yourself, since we're no longer talking about you. ;) Something to consider though. As an aside, it is generally a good thing to attempt to learn all the aspects of your self. Physical and emotional. A little fling might do you good if you can keep emotions out of it.

Obviouslly

May I suggest, "obvious-silly". :)

Jaded:

Actually; I found it rather attractive when it happened to me...

Uh-huh


He took my hand and began sucking my fingers (in a rather sexy way), said some beautiful things about my body and then told me it was all he was interested in.
I really didn't know whether to be shocked; angry or flattered.
No, girly.
What you should have been is worried if your fingers smelled like tuna, considering this image I have of you sticking your fist up your pisshole.
How do I know you're lonely?
Hmm.....




but if a guy came up to you and asked if you wanted to have a physical, no feelings involved, relationship... would you admire his straightforward-ness? or still consider him a pig?
Or ask him for a pen to scribble his name on a bullet.
Only if he's ugly. Of course.

Ah, Gendanken... I wonder what will happen when you someday fall in love. You'll make some lucky man a wonderful nagging wife someday... :p :D


...considering this image I have of you sticking your fist up your pisshole.

Is it an erotic image?

I only wish women would be that straight forward... or that I could instantly know if a woman would be receptive to me being that straight forward.

Certainly would make life easier.

As for the thread question:

Anything that is less than burning passionate love
is a waste of your time.

I don't feel that way... burning passion sure but love just complicates the feelings after that burning passion.

Not everyone has the desire to be "in love" in their life at all times. Sometimes it is nice to just be with someone without all the mess that comes with being "in love." Like jealousy or feeling like you are owned in a particular way.

I prefer the much simpler relationship. We do what feels good or makes us happy and neither one has say over what the other can or can't do with their lives.

Rosa:

As for the thread question:

Anything that is less than burning passionate love
is a waste of your time.
You do realize its this 'burning' we find in passionate love that
incenerates one's logic and puts crabs in one's privates?

Meaning: if a human wishes to lose his identity, let him burn with passion until he explodes and loses his Self in the cinders.
What you should have said was anything that is less than burning passionate love is a safety measure. It keeps us from whoring.

Invert:

Ah, Gendanken... I wonder what will happen when you someday fall in love. You'll make some lucky man a wonderful nagging wife someday...
And you'd make a wonderful tampon.
I'm not a 'nag', but you're welcome to think so.



“ ...considering this image I have of you sticking your fist up your pisshole. ”

Is it an erotic image?
For you, maybe.
For me its a likelier image of how Jadedflower spends the lonely hours Friday nights.
And Saturday nights.
And Tuesday nights.
Thursdays, Wednesdays and Mondays.

You do realize its this 'burning' we find in passionate love that
incenerates one's logic and puts crabs in one's privates?

Meaning: if a human wishes to lose his identity, let him burn with passion until he explodes and loses his Self in the cinders.
What you should have said was anything that is less than burning passionate love is a safety measure. It keeps us from whoring.


Oh, what would I do without you?!

But I'm starting to think that there are more kinds of passion. One is such that indeed turns the passionate into cinder. The other one ... is something of a much nobler kind.

Jaded:
How do I know you're lonely?
Hmm.....

Why so green and lonely?


Radiohead, "There There"

Rosa:

Why so green and lonely?

Perdon?

Jadedflower here is cackling about her body being *ahem* drooled after in a place where we can't even see her damn face.
Says more about her than she does. Yes?

jade, now seriously...

If girls would like nice and honest guys, why would most guys be "bad boys"? Do you knwo why guys treat girls like that? Because girls like it. I mean... have you ever heard any story of a girl being mistreated by her boyfriend nd coming back to him over and over again? Girls like it. That's why most guys are jerks... girls keep rewarding them for being jerks.

If nice, romantic, straighforward guys were popular, you would see them everywhere... ;)

Truthseeker:

No, they don't like it you fucking moron.
Half the time, she can't do any better and for the other half she's too stupid to realize he's an asshole.

Your logic is the earmark of the babyfaced little boy who plays 'nice' for pussy.
You will dote and dote and dote til she breaks and when she doesn't you coddle yourself with niceguysfinishlast bullshit.
Just becuase the girl inside of you is biggger than your penis does not mean girls are enamored of abuse, Truth. It simply means the girl inside of you is bigger than your penis, you oversized twat.
And girls pick up on it.

Gendanken,


The line "Why so green and lonely?" is from that Radiohead song. Jadedflower's avatars are lately green, so ... a vague reference to that song.
A more sublime reference from there: Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there. Must be played real loud.



Says more about her than she does. Yes?

Yes, fortunately, or unfortunately. I think she's bragging, to make certain men here think of her. To make them envy that other guy who sucked her fingers. So that she can enjoy in the envy she gets here, and think herself *so* sexy.




TruthSeeker,



If nice, romantic, straighforward guys were popular, you would see them everywhere...

If it would be *easy* to be nice, romantic and straightforward, people would be so.


It's easy to laugh,
It's so easy to hate,
It takes strength to be gentle and kind.

The Smiths

gend...


Your logic is the earmark of the babyfaced little boy who plays 'nice' for pussy.
You will dote and dote and dote til she breaks and when she doesn't you coddle yourself with niceguysfinishlast bullshit.
Just becuase the girl inside of you is biggger than your penis does not mean girls are enamored of abuse, Truth. It simply means the girl inside of you is bigger than your penis, you oversized twat.
And girls pick up on it.

Wow, we actually do agree on some things gendy...

The 'nice-guys-finish-last' logic is BS and gendy... clearly explains why - I can't believe I just typed something which agrees with gendy's... 'wisdom'.

If it would be *easy* to be nice, romantic and straightforward, people would be so.

Some do find it easy.

And you'd make a wonderful tampon.
I'm not a 'nag', but you're welcome to think so.

Nag isn't quite the right word, but I was unable to find a better one. I was thinking fishwife, but I don't think that's it either. Harrying, perhaps? Not that's a bad thing. :D

And tampon? Nah, I would think of myself as a more of a maxipad... with wings. :D

Rosa:

Yes, fortunately, or unfortunately. I think she's bragging, to make certain men here think of her. To make them envy that other guy who sucked her fingers. So that she can enjoy in the envy she gets here, and think herself *so* sexy.

*grin*

Oh, the games titties play. HA!

Fire:

Wow, we actually do agree on some things gendy...

The 'nice-guys-finish-last' logic is BS and gendy... clearly explains why - I can't believe I just typed something which agrees with gendy's... 'wisdom'.
You've been agreeing with me since your sign up date.

Invert:

Nag isn't quite the right word, but I was unable to find a better one. I was thinking fishwife, but I don't think that's it either. Harrying, perhaps? Not that's a bad thing.


Try 'submissive'.
Or 'docile' and 'tender'.

Its my virginal modesty, my fucking feminine charms that so sweet, lovely and docile have you all tounge tied.
So quiet and unassuming, that gendanken, like Canada with overies and long hair.

Try 'submissive'.
Or 'docile' and 'tender'.

Gendanken, dear, why don't you run down to the corner store and fetch me a six-pack? And when you get back, I sure could use a foot rub...

Because I'm far too busy pissing in your coffee.
Try Jadedflower, she's got a hot-bod.

Muahhahahahaha......my.

"Great coffee, Gendy!" *Giving the classic folgers moment smile*

I should put that in the film quote thread.

why not put danken on ignore????

In answer to the thread title girls dont like direct guys no matter what they are after, they seem to get a kick out of screwing with your mind and if your direct they cant do that, there really isnt a point to it, and this is where the nice guys finish last thing comes from, nice guys will put up with the game for a while only to most likely find shes not interested whereas bad boys will wanna fuck and move on, without any games so she says yes or loses her chance, the nice guys finish last thing is coz playing their games wont get you laid.

No, they don't like it you fucking moron.
Oh, really? Then why 95% of the guys nowdays are complete jerks? Maybe it is because it works...? :rolleyes:

Honestly, why would a guy be a jerk if he wasn't rewarded in any way? Being nice is out of date. Unless you pretend to be nice. Then, most girls are dumb enough to fall for it...



Half the time, she can't do any better and for the other half she's too stupid to realize he's an asshole.
That is sad, but true....



Your logic is the earmark of the babyfaced little boy who plays 'nice' for pussy.
If I played nice, I would have lots of "pussy", but guess what? I don't "play" nice. I am nice with them, and they totally don't see it, because it is too subtle. Then there are the guys that are only nice so that they can sleep with the girl. They completely exagerate their "niceness" so that they can be seen. It is not my case. In fact, I even hide the fact that I'm nice. Hiding in my shell. How pathetic. Maybe I should just screw everything and become a jerk. Maybe then I would have something to live for... :bugeye:

If it would be *easy* to be nice, romantic and straightforward, people would be so.
Maybe it is genetic... :confused:
I'm not straightforward. I wish I were, but my earlier attempts have been completely rejected... :/
Yeah, well... whatever... Maybe I should become a jerk...



It's easy to laugh,
It's so easy to hate,
It takes strength to be gentle and kind.

The Smiths
Yes, it does.... even more when you are treated badly.... :/

why not put danken on ignore????
Good idea, eh? :rolleyes: :D ;)

No, I'm not going to waste my time putting him on ignore; I'll just assume he's retarded and pitty him.

Anyhow; my 2 cents on males is...

Nice guys; I mean, real nice guys are great. Really. But the asshole does have his appeal. Life is to boring to settle for something that's just 'nice'. You want something exciting, something to break the monotony... something that some of the idiots seem to provide. Nice guys are nice, but sometimes... you don't want nice.
Maybe we should be more radical? Maybe we (nice guys) should be a little bit more exciting? Is that what you want? It is funny... cause I was talking with my roomate today, and she asked me if I've ever done something stupid or exciting, and I said no. I said that I was too nice and behaved to well. And then she said that is boring and that I should do something exciting and I agreed with her... And she got all happy and wanting to help me to workout.... :D

Maybe... I-should... do something.................
........stupid? :D

Please flower... give me some insight, some ideas on how I can be more exciting.... :D

aw... and hey, look... my first thread in the Cesspool =( So much for wanting honest discussion.
Noooooooooooooo!!!! You made it and I didn't!!! Awwwwwww.... :( :(

:D

Oh! Ok...
*cross out "punching a mirror" out of the list*

Truth:

Oh, really? Then why 95% of the guys nowdays are complete jerks? Maybe it is because it works...?
"Jerks" is a word that circulates among the incompetent.

While the men conquer you boys sit on the sidelines, benchwarming, nursing a bruised ego and "Jerk" is your band-aid, you nice guy you!!!


I am nice with them, and they totally don't see it, because it is too subtle
No, but what *is* subtle is the faint whiff of menstrual blood we girls pick up from guys like you, buncha pussies.

Which reminds me-

Gendanken is reeeeeeally removing the will I have to post in here.
Actually; he's done it already.



No, I'm not going to waste my time putting him on ignore; I'll just assume he's retarded and pitty him.

Gendanken's a bitch, bitch.

*Put me on ignore. On thy mark, get set, go....

This thread is sad. I do not like being condescending but this thread is just sad.


Please flower... give me some insight, some ideas on how I can be more exciting....

Geez man...are you the most desperate man alive?


If I played nice, I would have lots of "pussy", but guess what? I don't "play" nice. I am nice with them, and they totally don't see it, because it is too subtle. Then there are the guys that are only nice so that they can sleep with the girl. They completely exagerate their "niceness" so that they can be seen. It is not my case. In fact, I even hide the fact that I'm nice. Hiding in my shell. How pathetic. Maybe I should just screw everything and become a jerk. Maybe then I would have something to live for...

I mean DAMN man....seriously, do you think before you type...on an PUBLIC FORUM???? You caught me in a bad mood but seriously....you come off as someone not even a drunk girl would fuck.

"I am nice, I am not a jerk, I get no ass blah blah blah fucking blah. I want some ass because I act like a clean precious snowflake with girls...blahbidy fucking blah"

Others guys aren't as much of jerks as you say they are, they just aren't as desperate as you or they hide it well under the visage of what people like to call CHARM AND PERSONALITY....works wonders for the "Jerks".

TruthSeeker,


I'm not straightforward. I wish I were, but my earlier attempts have been completely rejected... :/
Yeah, well... whatever... Maybe I should become a jerk...


Yes, it does.... even more when you are treated badly.... :/

Aha, so it is because you were treated badly that you now believe that being a jerk is a good solution?
What a pathetic twit you are.

JadedFlower,


Nice guys; I mean, real nice guys are great. Really. But the asshole does have his appeal. Life is to boring to settle for something that's just 'nice'. You want something exciting, something to break the monotony... something that some of the idiots seem to provide. Nice guys are nice, but sometimes... you don't want nice.

Nope, girl. The only one who is being monotonous, who is not exciting, who is "just nice" -- is *you*, not life.

You can do all you want, you can hook up with as many "bad boys" as you can manage, smoke tons of pot, it won't help a bit. Unless *you* become more interesting, more exciting, more passionate, you'll still want *somebody else* to drag you from your loneliness and your monotony.

What a bunch of jerks... :rolleyes:

...
Where were we again? Oh, yeah...

what else is on the list? :D
Just stuff like pretending to be cool, acting like an asshole, scratching some parts of my body, bullying people on sciforums, spitting in the ground, telling stupid jokes, acting silly........................... :D

Rosa:

Unless *you* become more interesting, more exciting, more passionate, you'll still want *somebody else* to drag you from your loneliness and your monotony.
*snap*

And unless we do something exiting we can never drag our pride back up from finding, once again, we've ended up in the Cesspool.
I say we pick on Jadedflower.
Yes, this should be lucrative.

Barring my embittered jealousy at being up against such a hottie, and thus depriving her of ammunition (you hottie you! Jadedflowers!!)... I say we discuss the reasons why women are
One: Beastly bores.
Two: Parasites
Three: Perfect prey.

No need to be viscious, we can make this political.

Gendanken,



I say we discuss the reasons why women are
One: Beastly bores.
Two: Parasites
Three: Perfect prey.

I shall let my tissue to the ground ...



One: Beastly bores.

a) To do away with the trivial first: Many women spend so much time grooming themselves, thinking of grooming themselves, comparing one's own grooming oneself with the grooming of others -- that little time is left to study, have intelligent conversation; in short little time is left to make oneself interesting.
The time I spent on reading beauty magazines -- if I had spend at least a third of that time on studying books on informal logics and sound argumentation, I bet I'd be a lot more interesting, and have a lot more to say.

b) There are two things in this: BEASTLY and BORES.

As for bores: A part of it can be blamed on the way the typical female brain works (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,937913,00.html). It just doesn't want to think in systems, it does not choose analysis first.
(Anyone remember the scene in "The War of the Roses" where a wife, Kathleen Turner, tries to explain how they got the Baccarat glasses, and then, as everybody gets bored, her husband, played by Michael Douglas, steps in and explains the same thing in a few words? Now that's a typical example of male vs. female thinking.)

Secondly, women are traditionally seen as the ones that ought to be quiet in mixed society. It does not surprise they are often bores, as it is simply not expected for a woman to have something to say, in fact, it has long been prevented.


As for beastly: Once more, the patriarchat, in order to ensure "purity of race and rank", had to make sure that women would not whore (" ") around. This is why an idealized image of a woman was pursued (and still is): a *beautiful object*. Made to please. Perfectly passive. Completely harmless.
However, these are unnatural restraints -- for a woman can and does see for herself that she is not as powerless as men want her to think. She is not pleased with merely nicely sitting there -- if passiveness would really be all she can be: why does it feel so wrong?
And as a *compensation* to those forceful restraints, women turned into beasts.

There is a more farfetched explanation for the beauty and the beast, but it probably has some merit: To be able to tell good from evil, one must know both. To be able to be beautiful, one must also know what it means to be ugly. In order to be a beauty, one must also be a beast -- all in the same body+mind. The separation of "the beauty" and "the beast" is artficial, an ill idealization. One is either both, or neither.



Two: Parasites

Three: Perfect prey.

From what I gathered, this seems to be the case: Women are often brought up with the idea that a woman must please people and if they don't like her or if they don't appreciate her, then it is all her fault, and she has to do everything to make it better -- while her own feelings don't matter one bit in this, as she is meant only to please. To live through other people. She should be happy if others think well of her, and she should try to make others think well of her. No matter how much pain, suffering, self-loathing and hate this may cost her. This is also another reason for the beastiness, if not the main one.

It comes as no suprise that with such lessons, it is impossible to develop something like a healthy personality or strength of character. Such a woman is an alias. A shell.
As such, she needs other people to suck on, she needs other people to tell her that she has worth -- she is a parasite.

But at the same time, being so dependent of others, she also makes the perfect prey. She was brought up with the idea that she cannot live by herself and for herself.
While it is true that one simply cannot live all by oneself and for oneself, I think that in women, this trait is being brought to extremes: either live for others and through others -- or live in shame / die. There is no balance, no other option -- so the classical teaching.

Unless a woman somehow manages to overcome this painful duality (be it by inertia, or a happy coincidence of wealth and genius), she is bound to remain a shell. A shiny, pleasing, depressed and depressing, beautiful, ugly shell.


Of course, not all women are as described above; we are only dealing with the typical repesentative of the traditional kind of a woman.

>(you hottie you! Jadedflowers!!)

Are you calling me a hottie? =P God, that's so degrading. Make me sound like an American Bimbo. Garrrgh.


You say we discuss the reasons why women are
One: Beastly bores.
Two: Parasites
Three: Perfect prey.

Hm....
Give us your view perhaps?

Bores? Maybe. Or maybe you're the bore and they can't be bothered to do anything fun around you.
Parasites? Clearly you don't know enough women.
Perfect Prey? Dunno. You tell me so I have something to debate against.

One: Beastly bores.
Two: Parasites
Three: Perfect prey.

This should be fun....

1- Beastly Bores- Hardly. Reading posts here, specifically rosa... 's, has perked my interest. Do women really feel this way? All the while I thought that smile was due to thoughts of strawberry fields forever.

2- Parasites - Yes, at times. But that's okay, parasites are at times too.

3- Perfect Prey- In what context? This is a loaded fuq'n phrase - it begs mercy.

*looking skyward with squinted eyes wondering where this came from*

EDIT: It came from the cesspool! :D

So that she can enjoy in the envy she gets here, and think herself *so* sexy.


I've just been reading half the things posted here, honestly Rosa, I had a good impression of you... but you seem to think that I need to make men I can't even see jealous of a guy I don't even care about. I mean, honestly... you're all strangers to me... so what the fuck do I care?

you seem happy.

Uh, just read through this thread, and found out again, how enlightening Gendankenīs posts are. :D

yes, quite thrilling.

JadedFlower,


Don't take this personally, but for the sake of this thread and its topic I will analyze a bit what you said -- I will make it impersonal by using the name Girl X as the author of your text, and Girl R for my part:



I've just been reading half the things posted here, honestly Rosa, I had a good impression of you...

Traditional point one: "Honestly Rosa, I had a good impression of you" -- attempt of emotional blackmail, a try to play on the moral feelings of the other.

Girl R is not responsible if things she says or does do not fit the picture someone has made themselves of her. Girl X is trying to make Girl R guilty of not being as good as Girl X thought Girl R to be.



but you seem to think that I need to make men I can't even see jealous of a guy I don't even care about.

Traditional point two: Diverting attention. Girl X can't see these men, but she can very well read what they have to say. And they have a lot to say. Expressing and wanting admiration is not limited to real life, sweetie.


Traditional point three: Denial. "A guy you don't even care about."
Those people who really don't give a shit -- don't even bother to say that they don't give a shit. Because ... well, they don't give a shit.
If Girl X wouldn't care about that guy or what he did, she wouldn't start talking about him or it.


Traditional point four: More denial.

I mean, honestly... you're all strangers to me... so what the fuck do I care?

Girl X DOES care, or she wouldn't start talking about herself in this thread. If her intentions would really be purely orientated in general debate, she would at least turn that example of the boy sucking her fingers into "My friend Anna told me that a guy sucked her fingers and ..." We could suspect that it probably has to do with Girl X, but few would actually have the nerve to say something *against her*.

We are NOT strangers to you: If Girl X can say about someone "honestly Rosa, I had a good impression of you... " -- then Rosa is not exactly a stranger to Girl X anymore.

And how many PMs has Girl X exchanged with people here? How many posts has she made? Has she you come up with a new nickname for someone? ... Yah, strangers they, we, are to Girl X ...

By "So what the fuck do I care" Girl X is trying to convince herself that she doesn't care -- while she is so painfully aware that she does care, more than she thinks she should.

Why do you analize this? (better question, why do I read this? must be boredom)

Why do you analize this? (better question, why do I read this? must be boredom)

We've decided to analyze woman behaviour and shed some light on the issue of "being direct".

uh..

Analizing the behaviour of women? Every woman is different anyway...
Who cares about being direct or not? Those who are indirect are liars anyway. They perform an act, to keep up a certain image, they do it to please their ego and their libido. They just do it on a more dramatic way than those that are direct.

Your attempt at being impersonal was rather pathetic, Rosa. You can't pretend to analyze what I say and make a judgment of character and then tell me to not take it personally. I can take a direct insult, I'll have you know that I'm not 3 years old anymore. Thanks.

So let's see... where to start replying to your bunch of crap.

a try to play on the moral feelings of the other and Girl X is trying to make Girl R guilty of not being as good as Girl X thought Girl R to be.

Err... no. If you're paranoid, don't blame me.
Your moral feelings. That one's priceless. I just couldn't quite believe you had me down as a Bimbo in need of exterior validation from random strangers. That's all. But whatever...

Expressing and wanting admiration is not limited to real life, sweetie.Deary, darling, honey, baby... maybe for some people expressing and wanting admiration is not limited to real life, but to me it is, sweets, sugar, treasure, princess...

Those people who really don't give a shit -- don't even bother to say that they don't give a shit. Because ... well, they don't give a shit.
If Girl X wouldn't care about that guy or what he did, she wouldn't start talking about him or it.
Right, well... someone's going off on a pretty little tangent here.
I started the thread because the situation I was in led me to wonder what other females thought of a particular subject. The conversation quickly took an unexpected turn and I put it back on track. Whether I care about the person I know in reality (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=reality) or not is really not the question.

but few would actually have the nerve to say something *against her*.
Following the attribution of inteligent cover names such as Girl X and Girl R, here, RosaMagika continues to reveal how childish she is by invoking the use of the old "my friend" tactic Warning: Look out for instances of the infamour "my friend" tactic in further RosaMagika posts, because now we can all be pretty sure it'll be herself she is refering to

We are NOT strangers to you
Excuse me but we have different definitions of the word stranger. I think you've been spending too much time online. Let me guess, you're registered in an online dating service? You think you can meet your soul-mate online? *sigh* God give me strength. We are strangers.

then Rosa is not exactly a stranger to Girl X anymore.
I had a good impression of you but I was wrong. The fact I was wrong just goes to prove that we are strangers and that I don't know you from Fred, Bob or Mary Ann Sue.

And how many PMs has Girl X exchanged with people here?
Many. Does that make us friends? Will I invite you over for Christmas or call you over for tea?

How many posts has she made?
1,368

Has she you come up with a new nickname for someone?
What? I'll go out on a limb here and say No but I'm not quite sure what you mean, dear Rosa.

while she is so painfully aware that she does care, more than she thinks she should
My, my... if I ever feel the need to find a psychologist, I'll PM you, Rosa. Actually, I won't. Why? Because you fail miserably at it and I dearly hope that this is not what you intend to do for a living. Dearly hope, not because I care about whatever it is that you intend to do in life... but because I believe that anyone who takes advice from you deserves better.
Painfully aware? Ohh ooooh the pain. Not.

Please woman, grow up.

Rosa:


Of course, not all women are as described above; we are only dealing with the typical repesentative of the traditional kind of a woman.
*funeral grin*
Suuure.

Thesis:
Jadedflower sayz:

Are you calling me a hottie? =P God, that's so degrading. Make me sound like an American Bimbo. Garrrgh.
Notice the subject's clever insinuations of ingnorance towards motive.
What are you talking about, Gendanken? This thread, stinking to hell of allusions towards person and sexual exploits, has nothing to do with self image. How could you possibly conclude what these little boys around here with the social skills of an eggplant already have concluded about me, as planned? Hottie???!! How could you?


Hm....
Give us your view perhaps?
Bores? Maybe. Or maybe you're the bore and they can't be bothered to do anything fun around you.
Surely.

Girl Y, like you, barely peeks her head in a room unless a penis is in it. Girl Y has barely peeked her head in this thread.......'til the boys showed up.
Girl Y is a trifling menace when not in the company of men, so she chases littley boys around spraying them with allusions and the scent of her pussy.
This keeps her sane, online and offline, and her uselessness becomes tolerable to her so long as she feels desired.
A walking contraditction in a push up bra...........welcome to hell, Jadedflower.


Bores? Maybe. Or maybe you're the bore and they can't be bothered to do anything fun around you.
No, I'd be tolerable to them if I *was* a bore- weaklings love camoflouge.

They'd love me had I been a man, but no, the female cannot stand to be in the company of other females unelss brought together by an Avon lady or fresh gossip...about men.
She wants to talk of her romance, she wants to let you know she is desired.
She needs to maintain her only shred of significance and will do so by devouring herself with love thoughts and inanity concernnig her vanity- men, makeup, motherhood.
The triple M's.
Now where would girls like you be without children, boys, and like *flips hair* makeup? Totally.


Parasites? Clearly you don't know enough women.
I know them quite well.


Perfect Prey? Dunno. You tell me so I have something to debate against
There's a mouse shrieking in the moonlight. Something must be torturing it.
Wonder why.

Edit:
Subject will now state she cares not for makeup, men, or motherhood.

JadedFlower,


You started this thread with.


Honestly; I wish to ask something to all ye females out there...

I've seen many women call men pigs because they 'use' women for sex... dragging them along and pretending to feel something for them and then just dumping them...

but if a guy came up to you and asked if you wanted to have a physical, no feelings involved, relationship... would you admire his straightforward-ness? or still consider him a pig?


Some thoughts and analysis followed. Then, it got personal about you. Then, some of us tried to give this thread some substance by analyzing female behaviour -- when Gendanken summoned to debate why women are (or aren't) beastly bores, parasites and perfect prey.

So, I sticked to the new spin of the thread, as I thought it could shed light on the feeling of "many women call men pigs because they 'use' women for sex". I used your own text, rewrote it into a more impersonal form -- to point at the reasons why women fall prey and get used.

You refused to see it that way -- so be it. You've proven that you are unable to separate between the thread topic, the analysis of it, and yourself.

Okies then.

Ta-ta.

Catfight! *Miaaauw!*

Seriously, I wish I got here earlier while things were still interesting.


Anything that is less than burning passionate love
is a waste of your time.
This caught my attention. It's somewhat of an academic topic that keeps popping up ever three years of my life: Passion (and ambition).

People think that passion involves an impulsive, irresponsible, purely emotional ambition - not to mention its association with sexual ambition. It's a kind of breathless word, gasped at the beginning of subjects that light up the eyes, and certain Ferrari discussions. But does it have a gentler approach? A side that isn't going nowhere fast, but somewhere, very deliberately and carefully?

Speaking once again of the direct approach. There's definitely a rhetoric involved, and different folks prefer different strokes. Some girls would empty their drink down your pants if you approached them with such obvious disrespect. Others would be immediately be aroused (to interest. please people) by such a bold display of masculine assertiveness (another of my pet peeves). But what would the post mortem reveal? A man that approaches any and all women this way and a girl who only responds to excitement? Or a genuine relationship?

My big question is: What should the initial level of commitment be? Does 'passion' allow for realism and rational decision-making, or is it an exclusively romantic notion that feeds on roses and red wine and dies without them?

A lasting relationship (assuming that's what one wants - I hear prostitutes generally respond well to "come on baby let's go") will require more than a bold approach and a manly display of guts (no, guts! sheesh) - because fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Of course, I personally know a happily married couple who met when the one threw up and passed out in the other's lap at a party. I don't know how they managed to talk to each other seriously after that, but somehow they did. Maybe the direct approach is subject to atmosphere as well. Passion is a wild thing.

A walking contraditction in a push up bra...........welcome to hell, Jadedflower.


You seem my idea of hell. Hellish boredom, idiotic conclusions from fake propositions. *yawn*
Oh; and "push up bra"? *female pride kicks in*



Edit:
Subject will now state she cares not for makeup, men, or motherhood.

2/3 Correct.
I neither wear makeup nor care in the slightest bit for motherhood.
As for men; guilty... but not the whore you make me sound like. I have hormones, like other normal people my age also do... and as such, showing an interst in the opposite sex is only natural.
Oh; and my hair isn't long enough to flip back :p so fuck off. You're wrong with everything you say.

Jenyar:

Does 'passion' allow for realism and rational decision-making, or is it an exclusively romantic notion that feeds on roses and red wine and dies without them?

No, it allows for Pygmalion's creation with big tits.


Jadedflower:

You seem my idea of hell. Hellish boredom, idiotic conclusions from fake propositions. *yawn*
Oh; and "push up bra"? *female pride kicks in*

Translation:

That was, like, so totally wrong. I can totally show you how wrong you are, missy, by totally getting wicked humorous on your hinny. Stupid bitch, god you bore me, I am woman hear me Yawn. Grrrrrl Power!!!!!
Here it goes again you fat bitch.......yawwwwwwwwwwwn.

(Lolololo, and lmao, and ha ha ha and whatever else you teenaged imbeciles type in chatrooms)



As for men; guilty... but not the whore you make me sound like. I have hormones, like other normal people my age also do... and as such, showing an interst in the opposite sex is only natural.

Translation:

*queef* I've also, got like, an interest in deleting incriminating posts that clearly show motive. *queef* I totally was not looking for, you know, attention. I'm totally not like that. I only fuck offline men, gendanken!!
You stupid, wrong, bitch you!! *queef*

Seriously, I believe for what its worth at least half the little boys in here now realize your cute games.

I like bitching women, it can be quite entertaining.

*leans back and enjoys the show*


Oh, and what is this "queef" supposed to mean, if I may ask?

gendanken... It didn't cross my mind that you were actually female. I stand by my initial affirmation that you are yet to say anything that is actually correct about my character and that you are infact a pathetic excuse for a debater, and indeed very boring.
Your arguments are not arguments but just long lines of gibberish strung together by something resembling punctuation.
Go bash your head against a brick wall, or get run over or something... it'd be a big favour.

Oh, and what is this "queef" supposed to mean, if I may ask?
Vaginal fart.
Common in girls shifting around in their nervousness.

Jaded:

Your arguments are not arguments but just long lines of gibberish strung together by something resembling punctuation.
Go bash your head against a brick wall, or get run over or something... it'd be a big favour.
Ooohh.
If anything is getting bashed around here its a little girl's games slamming against the might of Real Women.
Go play, tootsie pop.

Real Women? You think you're a real woman? You wouldn't know a real woman if she walked up to you and slapped you in the face.
The might... the "might you be mistaken" in all your affirmations and incapable of saying anything decent? The might you actually be a retarded, emotionally repressed female who feels a need to bitch just because she can? What is it then? PMS? Menopause? I haven't a clue how old you are but you're acting like a three year old.

"oh yeah? Well... I'm better and you're 'badded'"...

Whatcha gonna do next, push me in the sand-box?

Whatcha gonna do next, push me in the sand-box?
Nope.
Tie your pigtails into a noose and then hang you from my porch.
Then we'll, like, you know, have a slumber party and talk about boys and shit, yah?!!

your (non existent) levels of maturity astonish me.

Argh, my voyeurism draws me back here... Keep it up girls, this is getting really productive.

Dreamwalker! How could you?! Calling her a girl like that... *shiver* No. Didn't you hear her *Roar*? She's a Real Woman remember?
Well... if that's a real woman, I never want to be one. The prospect is too sickening. To be like gendanken? God Help Me.

Huh? I like Gendi, sheīs always so damn entertaining. And I call people by whatever expression I like. Bitching women, bitching girls, whereīs the difference.

I was being sarcastic, Dream.

Yeah, I noticed. I saw that sarcastic smile of yours.

meh. I didn't put it in the post, but lately, most of what I say is sarcastic. Some people suck of the fun out of me

He, never happened to me, everything is funny if you look at it from the right perspective.
And those suckers, I just make them stop sucking if I feel like it :D

I guess I can always laugh at how pathetic they are. Ha. Ha. Ha. Hmm... no.

Ah, who cares? Some day, theyīll just endure are more or less horrible death, so why should they matter?

Doesnīt this thought lighten your day up?

If not, just look for something else that is funny and ignore them.

Or go out and bash someone...nah, probably not a good idea...is it?

it doesn't make that big a difference to me. Actually, it makes none.

Too bad, I am laughing for hours... well, mostly because I am reading entertaining websites like this http://www.i-mockery.com/main.asp instead of caring about people.

But just out of curiousity, why are you so pissed off by some people?

Pissed off??? No no no. Bored.

Ah, nearly the same thing, boredom pisses me off.
And people manage to be boring 24/7, nothing new about that. Only way out, make fun of them, make them really mad at you. :D

You can do all you want, you can hook up with as many "bad boys" as you can manage, smoke tons of pot, it won't help a bit. Unless *you* become more interesting, more exciting, more passionate, you'll still want *somebody else* to drag you from your loneliness and your monotony.
Not bad, Rosa.

Has it occured to you, Jaded, that your actions in this last page or so reinforce more what Gendanken and Rosa have been saying than what has preceeded them?

Fenris, no. It hasn't. Why is that so?

Jenyar,



Catfight! *Miaaauw!*

Nope, this ain't no catfight.
Poking a dead mouse is not catfight.



Seriously, I wish I got here earlier while things were still interesting.

Speak your mind, or forever be quiet. Make things interesting then. Dead mice aren't exactly entertaining, you know.



People think that passion involves an impulsive, irresponsible, purely emotional ambition - not to mention its association with sexual ambition. It's a kind of breathless word, gasped at the beginning of subjects that light up the eyes, and certain Ferrari discussions. But does it have a gentler approach? A side that isn't going nowhere fast, but somewhere, very deliberately and carefully?

Very briefly, 2 kinds of passion have been addressed earlier in this thread. Maybe you can make comments on that?



Speaking once again of the direct approach. There's definitely a rhetoric involved, and different folks prefer different strokes.

Calling it "rhetoric" is a a cop-out used by those who don't understand communication well. Think of this "rhetoric" as *trying out the field*, *sending probes into unknown territory* -- and it immediately makes sense.

Of course, some people don't care for looking first whereto they are about to step ...



Some girls would empty their drink down your pants if you approached them with such obvious disrespect.

If the man himself thinks of his behaviour as disrespectful -- why does he do it then? Because he hates the woman? Women in general? Himself? Because he simply lacks all tact?
If you know that you are being disrespectful, then you should ask yourself *why* you are doing it?



My big question is: What should the initial level of commitment be? Does 'passion' allow for realism and rational decision-making, or is it an exclusively romantic notion that feeds on roses and red wine and dies without them?

It all depends on whether the two believe in "true love" or not. This has a vast series of implications. If they do believe in "true love", they will most likely be somewhat slow and careful, feel out the terrain first -- and not go on the first ball.
"True love" does not just miracolously happen. The two each have to believe that there is something like "true love", and they also have to find out whether they are compatible or not. This, however, takes some time.



A lasting relationship (assuming that's what one wants

Ah, if people really knew what they want, life would be simple.



Of course, I personally know a happily married couple who met when the one threw up and passed out in the other's lap at a party. I don't know how they managed to talk to each other seriously after that, but somehow they did. Maybe the direct approach is subject to atmosphere as well.

Watch Speed 1 -- what does Sandra Bullock say to Keanu Reeves when the subway crashes out into the street, and they are in the wrecks of it?



Passion is a wild thing.

It does not exists just so per se. Humans are feeding it, raising it, taking care of it -- or denying it, killing it, painting it with some other, *safer* colours ...

JadedFlower to Gendanken:


I haven't a clue how old you are but you're acting like a three year old.

Gendanken, you have been caught in flagranti! You act like a three-year old!
Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiih!


*switches herself into the Mona Lisa mode*

Jaded:

Fenris, no. It hasn't. Why is that so?
Because- hear that eery sound of air whistling through a thick skull?
Do you hear those gentle queefs of a flirty idiot chatting with another one? Because its male?

All those noises are yours, you fucking miscarriage.

Rosa:

Gendanken, you have been caught in flagranti! You act like a three-year old!
Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiih!

YE GOTHS, NO!!

What's an embittered three year old greasy bitch to do, Rosa??!!

Hehehe....

"Speak your mind, or forever be quiet. Make things interesting then. Dead mice aren't exactly entertaining, you know.

- Rosa.

Sweeeeet.

You heard the woman, Dreamer. Speak up, or shutup.

You mean me? Or Jenyar, for Rosaīs answer was directed at him.

Me speak up? For what? Should I go and ridicule one of you or would it suffice to just rant about something?

YE GOTHS, NO!!

What's an embittered three year old greasy bitch to do, Rosa??!!

I don't know ... pick a suitable name ... like ... jjjjjjjjjaaaaaaaadddddddeeeeeedddddd flower, and then -- and then -- and then --.

Ah, her RAM ran out. Too bad, now it's all lost and we'll have to start all over again.

Dreamer:


Me speak up? For what? Should I go and ridicule one of you or would it suffice to just rant about something?
Yes, you.
Speak up. About anything.
Ridicule or no ridicule- no matter.

Anthying besides you sitting there with your thumb in your mouth 'chatting' with Jadedflower, that gorgous hottie with her fingers in men's mouths!!

You can think real hard on why women are:
One: beastly bores.
Two: parasites
Three: perfect prey.

Anything beats chatting, its a low art fit for vegetables. Like your little friend, Jaded. (but she's hot so stupidity looks *flips hair* totally good on her.)

Hmm, okay, Iīll write something.

Let me see, women are... well, they are boring most of the time. Of course, this depends on the individual woman, I personally like foul-mouthed, violent and hard drinking women. They are fun most of the time. Then, there are those boring teenage chicks that donīt posses more than one brain cell; they are easy to fuck, but not interesting in any other way.
Damn, there are so many different kinds of women it would take me the better part of a year to characterize them. So I will generalize.

Women are useless parasites, just like every other human being. And I really donīt give a flying fuck about any of them. Some manage to amuse me for some time, but people in general are rather boring and sometimes I would like to cut them down one by one.

And as a matter of fact, I think that some of the behaviour displayed here is just fucking stupid; but hey, I am not going to complain, it is the way of humanity.
The only reason to fuck women that are not whores, is to reproduce, to continue this damned species. Nothing I really advocate. I could not care less about the fact that women and men exist. We will all just die at some point, but most just donīt want to die without giving their pathetic lifes some meaning. And those crazy people see a child as something tremendously important. They center their lifes on that child, men and women alike, to mask their own unimportance.

As a result, I can say that I donīt care much for women, they can be entertaining for a while, but in the end, they will just fade away like everyone else.

This bores me a bit; I think I will go to sleep.

Ah, Nihilism. It used to be my watch word too. Now it seems more an old jacket one puts on and then takes off again because it doesn't quite fit anymore, but still keeps because it's the best jacket one ever had.

Wolf:

Ah, Nihilism. It used to be my watch word too. Now it seems more an old jacket one puts on and then takes off again because it doesn't quite fit anymore, but still keeps because it's the best jacket one ever had.
Yes, but on some it keeps them nice and warm in senility.
They at least get to sneer at the world comfortably.
Think Bazarov.
Schopenhaeur.
Weininger.

Dreamer:

And as a matter of fact, I think that some of the behaviour displayed here is just fucking stupid;
Uh-huh.

And why are you here?

"They at least get to sneer at the world comfortably."
Precisely. Not to mention wearing it out where they can be seen to be comfortable wearing it.

Weininger... I'll have to look that one up.

Speak your mind, or forever be quiet. Make things interesting then. Dead mice aren't exactly entertaining, you know.
I thought that's what I was doing.


Very briefly, 2 kinds of passion have been addressed earlier in this thread. Maybe you can make comments on that?
I assume you refer to:

But I'm starting to think that there are more kinds of passion. One is such that indeed turns the passionate into cinder. The other one ... is something of a much nobler kind.
My post was thinking aloud about exactly that. The side that goes nowhere fast (burns to a cinder and fades away) vs. the side that goes somewhere slowly (a flame somehow kept alive).


Calling it "rhetoric" is a a cop-out used by those who don't understand communication well. Think of this "rhetoric" as *trying out the field*, *sending probes into unknown territory* -- and it immediately makes sense.
Start from the abstract, work my way to the specific. Check.


Of course, some people don't care for looking first whereto they are about to step ...
Passionate fools.


If the man himself thinks of his behaviour as disrespectful -- why does he do it then? Because he hates the woman? Women in general? Himself? Because he simply lacks all tact?
If you know that you are being disrespectful, then you should ask yourself *why* you are doing it?
Because he has a twisted idea of a woman's expectation of "passion". Many men have the romanticized passion in mind when trying to appeal to womankind - who insists on passionate, i.e. not boring, men. Hence where they wouldn normally think of approaching a woman "as himself", for the sake of being succesful he throws all caution to the wind, and with that goes his mundane, everyday personality. He might succeed, but can the woman trust him after that?


It all depends on whether the two believe in "true love" or not. This has a vast series of implications. If they do believe in "true love", they will most likely be somewhat slow and careful, feel out the terrain first -- and not go on the first ball.
"True love" does not just miracolously happen. The two each have to believe that there is something like "true love", and they also have to find out whether they are compatible or not. This, however, takes some time.
And that leaves the direct approach far behind. At least in the 'pick her up at the bar' sense. Have we changed the context since then? But it shouldn't leave passion behind. My question still stands: what should the initial level of commitment be, especially if it's to be true love?


Ah, if people really knew what they want, life would be simple.
True love knows what it wants. I'm representing that corner.


Watch Speed 1 -- what does Sandra Bullock say to Keanu Reeves when the subway crashes out into the street, and they are in the wrecks of it?
Relationships that form under traumatic conditions never work out. Something to that effect. It's because the conditions are unnatural, and you'll have to spend most of the relationship under natural conditions. Events sometimes force people together (maybe nature favours the direct approach), but a flame that burns brightly in an oxygen-rich environment might lose its intensity in a normal earth atmosphere. That's why I favour passion that can survive on more than candlelit dinners - let's call it resilient passion.


It does not exists just so per se. Humans are feeding it, raising it, taking care of it -- or denying it, killing it, painting it with some other, *safer* colours ...
Taming it?

And why are you here?

Why? As I said, this is somewhat entertaining.

As for boredom: Henry James, in the novel "The portrait of a lady" wrote this:


You've no excuse for being bored anywhere.


That's my mantra.

well thats a pile of crap (in most cases)
of course its easily refutable, even if i used that 'box with white walls and no doors youd get bored then' thing, cause then people say this:
*kev voice* id think how to get out UUUUUUURHRHRHRHRHRHRHRHH *kev voice stops*

well thats a pile of crap (in most cases)
of course its easily refutable, even if i used that 'box with white walls and no doors youd get bored then' thing, cause then people say this:
*kev voice* id think how to get out UUUUUUURHRHRHRHRHRHRHRHH *kev voice stops*

In which case, you need to climb up on that pile of crap -- see what panoramic view you'll get from there ...

what the fuck is that supposed to mean?
(im in a bad mood today)
thats just extending a metaphor for no good fucking reason to make yourself feel better that your capable of doing so.

As for boredom: Henry James, in the novel "The portrait of a lady" wrote this:

You've no excuse for being bored anywhere.
I found that rather ironic, since big parts of the book were quite boring!

[QUOTE=gendanken]Jaded[QUOTE]

Jaded? Ohhh... pwetty word. I'm a two year old... I'm whatever you say I am. Goo Goo Goo Goo Goo Goo Goo Goo Goo...
Where did I leave my dollies?
Flowers... pwetty flowers... flowers and dollies.
Yep. Whatever you say, dear... I'll listen to you. Un hun. Right-O.

Jenyar,


I found that rather ironic, since big parts of the book were quite boring!

Why ironic? Maybe the book was boring to you, but that doesn't make the book boring as such.

Jenyar,



My question still stands: what should the initial level of commitment be, especially if it's to be true love?

It's so simple that people often refuse to see it.

Nowadays, sex is a thing that goes without saying. Yet think: What if she gets pregnant before you two have figured out whether this is to be the real thing or not? What will you do?

Keep the child and stay together -- because of the child?
Keep the child and not stay together?
Have an abortion and stay together?
Have an abortion and break up?

The fact that sex is regarded as a must, as a thing that goes without saying shows how reckless and choosy we are with our instincts and our bodies. We act as if having sex and making babies are to be two completely separate things.
As if we are entitled to have sex without getting pregnant.

And here's the beastiness of the modern woman: Contraceptives are not something one could really depend on. So before she has sex, she decides that if she gets pregnant, she'll have an abortion.

Now this makes her a beast: she is following her reproductive instinct and has sex, but at the same time she has scheduled to annull the natural outcome of this instinct.
It is nowadays regarded as normal for women to do that. Those who have problems accepting this "normalcy" are regarded as "frigid".

But it is *not* normal in the eyes of nature and natural instincts -- this is why women turn out to be such beasts.

And this is why so many relationships don't work out. People think they can really trick their bodies and their instincts. For a woman, being prepared to sacrifice your body like that and go against your instincts demands a lot of denial, and this makes the woman very insensitive and edgy, a beast.
Nobody wants to be with a beast -- but at the same time the modern condition to have a relationship makes the woman to become a beast.


To answer your question: In an ideal case, I think both should first know what they want out of the relationship and have compatible views on having children. And have sex only *after* they have figured out whether what they have is the real thing or not.

But it is modern to be irresponsible, choosy and reckless when it comes to instincts and bodies ... but then one shouldn't be surprised if things *don't* work out.

Jaded:

Jaded? Ohhh... pwetty word. I'm a two year old... I'm whatever you say I am. Goo Goo Goo Goo Goo Goo Goo Goo Goo...
Where did I leave my dollies?
Flowers... pwetty flowers... flowers and dollies.
Yep. Whatever you say, dear... I'll listen to you. Un hun. Right-O.
How's this for a pweety, pwetty word:

AvrilLavignefuckingwannabe.

Rosa:

Now this makes her a beast: she is following her reproductive instinct and has sex, but at the same time she has scheduled to annull the natural outcome of this instinct.
It is nowadays regarded as normal for women to do that. Those who have problems accepting this "normalcy" are regarded as "frigid".

Are you not mistaking frigid for whore?


But it is *not* normal in the eyes of nature and natural instincts -- this is why women turn out to be such beasts.

Then explain the bonobo who's sexual intimacies rival ours in uselessness.
Explain the oranguntan masturbating with a tool she just made.
Explain the chimpanzee performing fellatio and cunnilingus on his partner.
Or the canine trying to hump one's leg.

Explain to me "Biologial Exhuberance"

Sex is a stimulant- its got its purpose but why frown on it, when used properly, by those using it for pleasure?
While not advocating abortion since I rally to no cause, a woman does have a right to her body.
As do men.


And this is why so many relationships don't work out. People think they can really trick their bodies and their instincts.
Civilzation, morality, goodness- all these exist as soon as humans "trick" their bodies.

Gendanken,


Then explain the bonobo who's sexual intimacies rival ours in uselessness.
Explain the oranguntan masturbating with a tool she just made.
Explain the chimpanzee performing fellatio and cunnilingus on his partner.
Or the canine trying to hump one's leg.

Explain to me "Biologial Exhuberance"

I think that alongside of developing intelligence (in the sense of using tools or elaborate hunting techniques) reproductive instincts (and possibly those of feeding too) and/or the activities that come along with them somehow had to make up for a balance. It seems that the more intelligent the species, the more degenerated (degenerated in the sense of: not being used strictly for reproductive matters) the reproductive instincts.
I can imagine that dolphins and orcas also pursue sexual activities that are not directly about reproduction.



While not advocating abortion since I rally to no cause, a woman does have a right to her body.

The difference between a human female and a bonobo female is that the bonobo is fertile once a year, while the human 12 times.
Explain this then.
Also, do bonobos, chimpanzees etc. have abortions?



As do men.

What are you trying to say? That they are entitled to have sex, and that women are supposed to give it to them?



Civilzation, morality, goodness- all these exist as soon as humans "trick" their bodies.

But take primitive cultures. There, instincts are rationalized in a religious way, and they are sacred and tabooed. True, they "trick their bodies", but it seems to be in a healther way than in Western culture.
While in Western culture, instincts are rationalized in a secular way, degraded and most of all, we are extremely choosy about them.
We like to eat sweets, but we don't want cavities (so medicine figures out a way to fix the problem).

The thing is that just because we can do something, doesn't mean that it is okay to do it. It seems that Westerners have greatly lost the sense of this balance.
-- Look at how many people are obese, smoke, are alcoholics, do drugs ...

AvrilLavignefuckingwannabe.

How about this one; HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHHAHAHAHA *pause for breath* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAIamn otHAHAHAHAHA?

Wait, or this one;

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHA

Yeah! Exactally! AVRIL WANNABE! My dream since I was 3 is to be a wannabe blonde, wannabe guitar player in a wannabe punk rock band with wannabe songs and wannabe fans who dress just like me! EXACTALLY! I mean; I've always wanted to dress up in pink and leather, rub coal round my eyes, sound like a cat being stepped on when I sing and ABOVE ALL make amazingly pathetic rhymes like; get outta my head that's what I said, lalala... upset... make me go Oh Oh (I appologize if the lyrics are wrong, I try my best to not hear her bloody songs).

YOU'VE hit the nail on the head! An AVRIL WANNABE!!! MY LIFE'S DREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAM!

Hah, the typical denial. :p

Yeah, most women donīt like it (says one who tried it sometimes)

The question is though: Did it ever work?

I've heard 1 in 10 are receptive.

*shrug*

I just don't have the stomach for the 9 rejections. :)

Hmm, it works on some (when they are drunk).

But I suppose there are better ways. Never done statistics on this theme. :D

Rosa:

The difference between a human female and a bonobo female is that the bonobo is fertile once a year, while the human 12 times.
Explain this then.

Pardon, but you've picked the wrong primate:

"Bonobos are highly "promiscuous", often engaging in sexual behaviors outside of that for reproduction. This is thought to be one of the main reasons that bonobos are so infrequently aggresive as the sexual interactions reduces tensions. Mating postures include face to face and dorsoventral as well as others. There is also a large occurence of female-female genital (G-G) rubbing throught the age groups, again including face-to-face positions. The only aparent sexual "taboo" being mothers mating with their mature sons."

That said, the use of 'normal' is not only highly subjective, it limits discussion.
Broken record: a 12 year old boy learning to lick your clit dry with his tounge is degenerate to you, but its the perfect norm for a Mangaian boy.

http://www.bigeye.com/sexeducation/mangaia.html


What are you trying to say? That they are entitled to have sex, and that women are supposed to give it to them?


No, that he is as entitled to fuck her as she is entitled to fuck him or fuck off.


But take primitive cultures. There, instincts are rationalized in a religious way, and they are sacred and tabooed. True, they "trick their bodies", but it seems to be in a healther way than in Western culture.
While in Western culture, instincts are rationalized in a secular way, degraded and most of all, we are extremely choosy about them.
We like to eat sweets, but we don't want cavities (so medicine figures out a way to fix the problem).

The thing is that just because we can do something, doesn't mean that it is okay to do it. It seems that Westerners have greatly lost the sense of this balance.
-- Look at how many people are obese, smoke, are alcoholics, do drugs ...
Well, you speak as if half the Western world is "degenerate."

On every corner a Baptist, and the 700 Club is blasting across the whole Southeast America.
In his creature comforts, mingled with variants of culture shock, the conservative recoils furhter back in his shell and what he clings on to *is* religion.
The American has his las vegas as he does his church, and the San tribesman has his cannabis and his rituals. Same thing.

We're having revivals here on Wednesday, and you're all invited.




Jadedflower:

SHOO.

I have come back to this thread late (perhaps a bit ashamed of my earlier posts... I did briefly wonder of the scent of the finger, but I think I was trying to offer advice to a situation Jaded found herself in. It was personal question to her, hence it becoming personal so quickly.) I must say, that it has turned into a wonderful debate. Perhaps a move out of the cesspool and into philosophy or human science? Philosophy would probably be better. It should be a requirement of the cesspool that intelligent threads are reverse trashed.

Jaded,

No offense, but can you see how this has turned into a productive conversation. I give no opinion on your initial intent behind this thread (I had a share of leading it off course, from the impersonal to the personal.) But, now might be a time that you can get decent debate about the original topic. Why don't you join in instead of nursing your wounded pride? Pride can be the greatest obstacle to learning.


Why? As I said, this is somewhat entertaining.

Perhaps playtime is over and now the real fun begins?


I guess I should try to catch up by first addressing Gendanken's questions.


One: Beastly bores.

I think others here have mentioned the way women are "different". That they focus on more emotional affairs than hands-on practical application. But, at the same time, many men are unable to organize themselves in the aspects that a woman (in her standard role) excels. Running the home, keeping track of the kids, etc... You can name a long list of stereotypical womanly behavior that stereotypical man fail miserably in. Does this make them boring? To a man who can't envision that level of awareness it does. And women who are adept in these womanly tasks are apt to chatter about them. How much more boring can you get? If you're not interested that is...

But, women are far from boring to the opposite sex when the sexes meet in their biologic manner. Maybe immediately after the fact, they become boring once again. Perhaps even more boring because of the "pillow talk" while the man would rather just go to sleep.


Two: Parasites

I'd say this has to do with the roles in which they have been placed. The early hunter-gatherer societies are far more indiscriminate in this manner. In fact, the women probably did more to feed the tribe than the men. Nowadays, women are becoming free from this stigma once more. But, it is hard to shake several thousand years of ingrained behaviour patterns.


Three: Perfect prey.

Mating ritual. Again, stereotypes. The woman should be docile and subject to the beastly intentions of the man. In fact, many believe they shouldn't even enjoy it. It should be a chore, just like any other.

So, all these three are due to stereotypes. The niche in which woman has found herself. How they struggle to free themselves (some) but at the same time, many feel that it is proper for it to be so. That they will have to settle down and hatch a family. Nurture.

Now on to the good stuff. I'm going to go through and find this and that to comment on. I've come into this discussion far too late to attempt a complete response.


a) To do away with the trivial first: Many women spend so much time grooming themselves, thinking of grooming themselves, comparing one's own grooming oneself with the grooming of others -- that little time is left to study, have intelligent conversation; in short little time is left to make oneself interesting.

Funny you should mention this. There is speculation that we are hairless apes because of our addiction to grooming. We eventually picked ourselves bare. Other apes are just as addicted to grooming. It is a social requirement to strengthen group bonds.

And what about "time to make oneself interesting."? Is that not also a trait of woman? To make themselves interesting because they aren't by nature? I think the most interesting people are those who don't give a shit about being interesting. It's about passion for the subject at hand that sparks interest. Not some constructed design.


Women are often brought up with the idea that a woman must please people and if they don't like her or if they don't appreciate her, then it is all her fault, and she has to do everything to make it better -- while her own feelings don't matter one bit in this, as she is meant only to please.

Exactly. And so insidious is this compulsion that they don't even realize they are doing it...


Are you calling me a hottie? =P God, that's so degrading. Make me sound like an American Bimbo. Garrrgh.

What's wrong with an American Bimbo? They have their place. ;) But, seriously, they are trying to draw you out Jaded. To see what you're made of. Let go of your pride and join in.


I've just been reading half the things posted here, honestly Rosa, I had a good impression of you...

I admit that I thought of the earlier posts as a bit brutal as well, but in not reading because of your anger, you're missing out.

Enough chiding of Jaded... I am not trying to hurt you. Merely open your eyes a bit.


Notice the subject's clever insinuations of ingnorance towards motive.

Perhaps the subject is unaware of this as well. We do things for reasons known not even to ourselves... at times...


I was tempted to respond to some of Jenyar's posts, but they seem to deal with love and the nature of true love... I'll hold off in case it turns elsewhere.


Your arguments are not arguments but just long lines of gibberish strung together by something resembling punctuation.

I disagree. Look closer. Remove yourself from the picture and see what she's trying to say about stereotypical behavior. You may not be the ideal of the idea she's putting forth, but your responses echo her mockery. Seek this out within yourself and eradicate it if it offends you. Gendanken has a brutal way of pointing this out, and most likely doesn't care if you succeed or not. (Ok, I said I was done chiding... That's the last one I promise.)


If the man himself thinks of his behaviour as disrespectful -- why does he do it then? Because he hates the woman? Women in general? Himself? Because he simply lacks all tact?
If you know that you are being disrespectful, then you should ask yourself *why* you are doing it?

Because so often, that very trait is rewarded by women. A woman (stereotypical...) feels validated by contempt. The idea of "Anyone who loves me is not worth loving." They are often self-critical and seek validation of that self-criticism. Yet, at the same time they want to be cajoled and told that they don't look fat in those pants. An enigma is woman. A furious lashing between opposite ideals.

It is a subtle thing. You can't just go out and call a woman a bitch and degrade her and expect nookie (well, in most cases, there are some...). It is a delicate art that women demand from their men. Neither too much of one nor too much of the other. Balancing on the edge of the sword. Or perhaps even the point of the sword.

Men are not delicate (stereotypically), we are blatant and crude in our affairs (especially emotional). It is a difficult thing to maintain the balance required. Many have been driven mad by it.


Anything beats chatting, its a low art fit for vegetables.

We cannot wholely give up our chatty nature. It does serve a purpose. It's just important to realize what that purpose is. Don't try to make it more than it is.

Urgh, this getting long. I've removed several points that were not entirely conducive to discussion. Perhaps I should remove the chiding as well? No, I'll leave it in in hopes that Jaded might be made to understand.

I'll just add one more thing. Bonobo's and Chimp (and others) sexual behavior. Chimps have sex all day every day. (They take occasional breaks of course...) It is another reinforcement of the social instinct. Many times there is not even penetration but some times there is. What are we to make of this. Are women bestial because they have evolved to hide their fertility. That they can be impregnated practically at any time? It is a trick of the body. An evolutionary tactic. And it works rather well.

By the way, did you know that women are more likely to get pregnant while cheating on their mate? They are "hotter" and "wetter". Another evolutionary tactic.

I don't understand what you're saying about primitive cultures and their taboos and such, Rosa. Are you saying that primitive cultures are chaste because of taboos? What about the South Pacific Islanders, The Bari tribe in South America? And those kooky kats, the mangaians. (I have an article on the Bari I wanted to throw in, but this is too long so I'll fill it in later.)

Savages get it on like bunnies. Sometimes...

The Mangaian link reminds me of the irony in men reaching their sexual peak at 17 or so while women hit theirs in their mid 30s... Funny old thing evolution, what?

Nobody wants to be with a beast -- but at the same time the modern condition to have a relationship makes the woman to become a beast.
Not to mention the brute of a man - he's not the one getting pregnant, he does not have the mother instinct, he can distance himself from the responsibility. It's a damn scary thought. The problem is not in not wanting to be with a beast, it's in being comfortable being a beast.


To answer your question: In an ideal case, I think both should first know what they want out of the relationship and have compatible views on having children. And have sex only *after* they have figured out whether what they have is the real thing or not.
I think even more than that is necessary. At the beginning of a relationship, especially one where the chemistry is hot, people want to ge comfortable with each other physically first - they accept the other person's personality on intuition (and physical clues) at that point. The "real thing" can be just a mental construction based on wishful thinking and mutual attraction. The only truly responsible option is to wait with intercourse until a promise has at least been made, and that promise has traditionally been made before the altar - marriage. Of course, that depends on what you consider to be the real thing, or true love. Otherwise you're just fooling yourself by making a physical commitment that isn't yet matched with a mental commitment.

Invert Nexus,


I think the most interesting people are those who don't give a shit about being interesting.

Yup, I think we can generalize the formula for personality traits thus:

Wanting to be xy makes one extremely un-xy.

Eg. Wanting to be cool makes one extremely uncool. Wanting to be a nerd makes one an un-nerd. &tc, &tc ...

Gendanken,


You didn't answer my question:
Do bonobos, chimpanzees etc. have abortions? Do they eat certain plants etc. with the purpose to cause a miscarrige?

I don't care what practices humans or animals perform, I don't consider any of them degenerated or not normal. (EDIT: That is, I don't cosider them degenerated or not normal in the sense of morality; as morality is arbitrary and depending on the society in question.)


I am only interested into what a female does to
1. an unborn in her body, 2. newborn.


I only consider it beastiness in a woman if killing (abortion) the offspring is well-planned ahead and considred as normal.

*shuts up and reads quietly*

Invert Nexus,

When I spoke of grooming oneself, I didn't say it's bad! I only said that it takes up a lot of time. So, there's less time for other acitvities -- like studying ...




Jenyar,



I think even more than that is necessary. At the beginning of a relationship, especially one where the chemistry is hot, people want to ge comfortable with each other physically first - they accept the other person's personality on intuition (and physical clues) at that point. The "real thing" can be just a mental construction based on wishful thinking and mutual attraction. The only truly responsible option is to wait with intercourse until a promise has at least been made, and that promise has traditionally been made before the altar - marriage. Of course, that depends on what you consider to be the real thing, or true love. Otherwise you're just fooling yourself by making a physical commitment that isn't yet matched with a mental commitment.

It is fascinating, in an depressing way, that we humans consider ourselves to be so reasonable and so rational -- and when it comes to things that matter most in our lives, all wisdom and all reasonability that we are otherwise so proud to proclaim, vanish into thin air. At, best, only traces of them are left.

"I followed my heart, I thought it was right," we hear ourselves say after the damage has been done. Fact is that we want things to be easy, and to make them so, we are most willing to bend our perception of reality.
It is not about controlling your instincts: it is about respecting them.

While not advocating abortion since I rally to no cause, a woman does have a right to her body.


To all women here:

Yes, we certainly have a right to our bodies. And we have the right to have abortions.

But I am wondering this: When you are about to have sex, and you know that if you should get pregnant, you will have to have an aboriton -- Doesn't knowing this cause you at least a little discomfort? Doesn't it give the sex at least a little bitterness?
How is a woman supposed to look forward to having sex if she knows that she may have to have an abortion because of it?

And later on, when it does happen, and she goes to have an abortion -- yes, we have the right to have an abortion we are told. But how does it feel? Do you feel happy, glad, lying in the operation room, having the fetus removed?

If it is a right -- are you proud of it? Are you happy about it?
One can certainly be happy about not being obliged to raise unwanted children.
But are you happy when the procedure actually takes place? Is it fun? Is it fun to know that this is what is awaiting you? Do you feel totally okay about it?

Namely, I think this is exactly why women become beasts: They are told it is okay to have an abortion, and that they must look forward to having sex.
In most relationships, having sex also implies a possible abortion -- looking forward to sex implies looking forward to have an abortion.

How do you do that? How do you manage to be so insensitive?

How is a woman then supposed to be happy in a relationship that includes sex, but excludes having children? Unless she becomes a beast, she can't stay in such a relationship.

It's because immediate gratification has become idolized, and I do mean idolized. When we submit to no higher moral than pleasure, choices like abortion become an inevitable necessity - a "law" of pleasure. By that law, women have the right to an abortion. And men have a "licence" to roam around. Freedom? More like freedom from responsibility!

Rosa:

You didn't answer my question:
Do bonobos, chimpanzees etc. have abortions? Do they eat certain plants etc. with the purpose to cause a miscarrige?
Do they have to?

For a species like the bonobo who only think in immediates, why would they?
Abortion is a technological luxury- its only you with your nose up thinking of it as degenerate.
And its only the stupid who plan to remedy a simple mistake not with a simple condom but with the needless complexeties of abortion.

I am only interested into what a female does to
1. an unborn in her body, 2. newborn.
For every death, 6-10 are born to replace it.
Malthus has it the population increases in geometric ratio to sustenance.
The planet is swollen with humans.

Its her unborn. Her newborn, not yours.



How do you do that? How do you manage to be so insensitive?

And now you've mixed up 'insensitive' with 'stupid'.

For the promiscuous who walks down a hall bloated with posters against HIV and goes home to watch an infected, crying dimwit warning the world about safe sex, and then this person knowing the consequences and risks yet still have unprotected sex killing both self and offspring..... is an idiot. Not insensitive.
You are being far too kind in calling this insensitivity when its blatant stupidity.

To all women here:

Have I blundered in where I'm not wanted? I shall part then. But first...

Animal abortion. Seems to me that I have heard of some animals eating certain plants that cause an abortion. The animal also has the ability (somewhat) to abort a pregnancy naturally through some unknown process. And, even if the child is born. Many animals will kill their infants if the conditions aren't "good" for them. Would you rather we allow a more chinese outlook? Outlaw abortion and practice infanticide instead?


In most relationships, having sex also implies a possible abortion -- looking forward to sex implies looking forward to have an abortion.

I disagree. In most relationships, a baby is the last thing they're thinking of when they get down on all fours and satisfy their lust. And in most cases, the decision to have an abortion is an agonizing affair.

Gendanken,



And its only the stupid who plan to remedy a simple mistake not with a simple condom but with the needless complexeties of abortion.

Contraceptives are not 100% safe. This is all I'm saying.
No matter what you use (apart from sterilization), you have to make your mind up what you will do if the contraceptive doesn't work.



Its her unborn. Her newborn, not yours.

This is the kind of argument that really pisses me off. Diverting attention. I don't care about other people's fetuses or babies.


What about when it comes to you, Gendanken? What about when it comes to me?
Do *you* feel perfectly okay about having an abortion? I don't feel okay having one. I'm not looking forward to one, and I'm not indifferent either -- even though the sexual education is trying to tell me that I should feel okay about it.



For the promiscuous who walks down a hall bloated with posters against HIV and goes home to watch an infected, crying dimwit warning the world about safe sex, and then this person knowing the consequences and risks yet still have unprotected sex killing both self and offspring..... is an idiot. Not insensitive.
You are being far too kind in calling this insensitivity when its blatant stupidity.

I am completely ruling out these people from my argument.

I am only interested into those that do use proper contraceptives, and the contraceptives don't work.
You may use both the pill and the condom -- but it's still not 100% safe. And you know it. You know that if you get pregnant inspite using contraceptives, you'll have to have an abortion. Doesn't this make you at least a bit uncomfortable?





Invert Nexus,


I disagree. In most relationships, a baby is the last thing they're thinking of when they get down on all fours and satisfy their lust.

*You*, the man, arent' thinking of it. But the woman most likely is. She knows that even inspite using contraceptives, she can still get pregnant.




And in most cases, the decision to have an abortion is an agonizing affair.


Why an agonizing affair? If it is so normal, so natural, if it is a RIGHT -- why then should it be an agonizing affair?

Invert:

I think others here have mentioned the way women are "different". That they focus on more emotional affairs than hands-on practical application. But, at the same time, many men are unable to organize themselves in the aspects that a woman (in her standard role) excels.= Running the home, keeping track of the kids, etc... You can name a long list of stereotypical womanly behavior that stereotypical man fail miserably in. Does this make them boring? To a man who can't envision that level of awareness it does. And women who are adept in these womanly tasks are apt to chatter about them. How much more boring can you get? If you're not interested that is...
Yet in his exellence he uncovers nature's secrets and puts a man on the moon. Her excellence ensures the diapers get changed and toilets won't clog.

Lastly, he can be a beastly bore as well but at least he minds his own business.


But, women are far from boring to the opposite sex when the sexes meet in their biologic manner. Maybe immediately after the fact, they become boring once again. Perhaps even more boring because of the "pillow talk" while the man would rather just go to sleep.

Boredom, I'm sure you know, fizzles as soon as the genitals flair.
I even have a mind to say monogamy is burglary for some reason- the importance placed on loyalty is beneficial short term as it gives humans incentive to breed responsiblty but with time it...... suffocates people.
Kills the spirit.
No?


Gend: Three: Perfect prey. ”


Mating ritual. Again, stereotypes. The woman should be docile and subject to the beastly intentions of the man. In fact, many believe they shouldn't even enjoy it. It should be a chore, just like any other.


Then why do people want to gouge her eyes out, yet not wish to mate with her?
She is something like the Jew- a group of presumably humble people but inside there lurks a calculating serpent you wish to stamp out with both feet.

You yourself had experience with this type that hides its viciousness behind complacency- this is why the female is perfect prey, my dear.


And so insidious is this compulsion that they don't even realize they are doing it...

D.o.u.b.l.e.s.p.e.a.k

Rosa:
Your argument is null and void considering its narrowness:
In most relationships, having sex also implies a possible abortion -- looking forward to sex implies looking forward to have an abortion. - Rosa

You are being far to extreme and to further it, you aggravate it with blatant assumptions.
You commented on bonobos, yet knew nothing about them.
What's more invertebrates of all kinds practice cannibalism of their young- you find these practices all across the rest of the animal kingdom from the anthropod to the mammal.
Do you realize sometimes a gorilla mother will kill her child to mate again or her mate will kill her child to force her in mating again?
Invert has pointed some of this out as well.


Contraceptives are not 100% safe. This is all I'm saying.
No matter what you use (apart from sterilization), you have to make your mind up what you will do if the contraceptive doesn't work.


No, you are saying that abortion is 'degenerate'.
And it colors your abilities to understand what we're saying here.


This is the kind of argument that really pisses me off. Diverting attention. I don't care about other people's fetuses or babies.
Diverting attention is personalizing things when one's pissy.

Like so:

What about when it comes to you, Gendanken? What about when it comes to me?
Do *you* feel perfectly okay about having an abortion? I don't feel okay having one. I'm not looking forward to one, and I'm not indifferent either -- even though the sexual education is trying to tell me that I should feel okay about it.
See?

To wit- anyone here when pressed by adverstity would kill to save their own life.
Anyone saying otherwise is a liar. (I'm not including those in 'love' or protecting their young)
Sexual health is the privelege of those responsible in their lifestyles, but nothing is foolproof. You've said as much.
If pregnancy means detriment to these cautious few, then only those tight enough to sacrifice needlessly despite their caution have all the freedom in the world to destroy themselves with their morals.

Nuff said.

*stops her intensive accompanying of the converation for a moment and ponders*

Isn't this going off topic?

Isn't this going off topic?
Not really.

I still have you in a chokehold, mon cherry.

*checks self* Not really ma cheri.

And you are rather off topic. New borns and who's got the right the who's body is really not what it's all about.

You have a point, Jaded. The thread was hijacked earlier from being direct to the beastliness of women. Now would you have us return to being direct? Perhaps the beastliness of women is somehow related to the uselessness of being direct in romantic affairs? I was thinking the exact same thing as you concerning abortions, though.

Please, Jaded, take control and point us in the right direction. Surely we can direct our prodigious brains (:D) towards the topic. We just need a little gentle (or not so gentle) guidance upon occasion.


Lastly, he can be a beastly bore as well but at least he minds his own business.

Doublespeak? Or paranoid misunderstanding on my part? Is this telling me to butt out?

I'll go with it being paranoid for now. :p This is quite insightful. Man is bored by woman when she tries to involve him in things that are not his business. Woman also bores man when she involves herself in things that are not her business. But, this is not to say that a woman's business cannot be other than her stereotypical role. If she is truly interested in something that might be considered man's business, then it becomes her business as well. She must struggle against stereotypes, because we are ingrained with these stereotypes so as to save thought and trouble when dealing with these issues. Rosalind Franklin of course comes to mind here. She never get credit for her work. I feel the younger group of men are more able to shed these stereotypes. We did not grow up with Leave it to Beaver (well, we did, but it was a humorous affair not to be taken seriously in any way.) We grew up with the bomb and are more than willing (in more enlightened individuals) to forgo stereotypes. It is at times a struggle. Even women stereotype themselves...


Boredom, I'm sure you know, fizzles as soon as the genitals flair.
I even have a mind to say monogamy is burglary for some reason- the importance placed on loyalty is beneficial short term as it gives humans incentive to breed responsiblty but with time it...... suffocates people.
Kills the spirit.
No?

This brings to mind once more the Bari tribe of South America... I'm hurt (:p) that no one asked me to share... So, I will anyway, a bit anyway.

The Bari don't believe that there is a single father for their children. The women can be serviced by several men during her pregnancy. And each of these men must accept responsibility for the child. The child being formed is "washed" by the semen of the various men and nourished by it. It is not necessarily common (especially after missionaries have had their way with the people) but it's not uncommon either. It seems that the Bari have stopped talking about it much because they know it is not our way, but they still practice it. They even have a saying about why it is good. It seems that the woman becomes sexually voracious during pregnancy. And if only one man (her "husband") were to satisfy her, he would wear himself out. Look, they say, she gets fat because she he's doing all the work. He get's skinny because she's just laying there. Now, I hope that they're exagerrating and the women do more than just lay there (Seems like they enjoy it, so why would they just "lay" there?) But, they have a point. They also have sexual freedom. Once a child has completed puberty, they can have sex with anyone they want, as long as they don't break the incest taboo.

The article also mentions the Na of Yunnan Province in China. They have a society that is based around the female. The children never leave the house. The fathers are wandering lovers who have no responsibility for their offspring.


Then why do people want to gouge her eyes out, yet not wish to mate with her?
She is something like the Jew- a group of presumably humble people but inside there lurks a calculating serpent you wish to stamp out with both feet.

You yourself had experience with this type that hides its viciousness behind complacency- this is why the female is perfect prey, my dear.

True. But, perhaps it is the pointless social boredom that draws towards the mating ritual that bores me in this case. I would probably not turn away from the nitwits if I were able to be more direct and still get what I want. But, I guess you're right. That's what makes them perfect prey isn't it? The boredom of dealing with the stereotypical woman means a male (who is bored by the stereotype) wants only the end result and not the meaningless dribble that builds up to it. Therefore, she is removed from the situation and it's only her genitals that are desired. Perhaps that is the reason that being direct doesn't work? The woman wants to be assured that it's her (boring as she may be) that is desired (even if it's merely a convincing lie.)

As an aside, the past few nights, there has been a peculiar mating ritual taking place outside my window. The little teenage hottie from upstairs has found a teenage male with which to practice the ritual. I don't actually spy on them, I just can't help but to hear their "conversation" as it's taking place right outside my window. Or rather, I don't hear the full inanity of the conversation as it's muffled by the intervening space. All I can hear is "hahahahah"... pause... "teehehehe" pause "hahahahaha". Just endless chuckling and giggling with murmured "words" in between. I suspect that even if I could make out the words the concept would be the same. Pointless and inane. It's somewhat funny in that the girl is a slut who even teases the older men in the complex (trouble waiting to happen) and I am assuming that the boy is so caught up in hormones that he doesn't realize that all he's got to do is give her a little stroke and she'd probably spread her legs like the Red Sea. I wonder if he will get some before she get's tired of waiting. Sometimes this pointless ritual works the other way around. There is the "magic moment" when it is possible. Delay too long and you're finished.


D.o.u.b.l.e.s.p.e.a.k

Not at all, look at the quote and then the quote above. (In my original post.) You'll see that I pointed out that Rosa was following the stereotype by saying that women should make themselves interesting. And that it was possible that she wasn't even aware of it... See?

One last thing about animal abortion. I have been reading "The Naked Neuron" (at someone's suggestion) and have come across a reference to female mice aborting their pregnancy when subjected to the hormones of a new male mouse.

When I spoke of grooming oneself, I didn't say it's bad! I only said that it takes up a lot of time. So, there's less time for other acitvities -- like studying ...

It can be bad. If the addiction becomes too powerful. Look at us, we've picked ourselves practically bald! There is a psychological problem that mirrors this phenomenon. People actually do pick themselves bald. But, they pick themselves bald. Not picked by others. I do wonder as to the veracity of the grooming/loss of fur trend. You can see it chimpanzee's though. Quite often, their fur is patchy because of overgrooming.

DISCLAIMER: Upon seeing that the argument we were facing was possibly implying many unclear premises, I decided to take the method of many hypotheses and many questions -- 'If the classical methods of solving a problem or making an argument don't work, make as many hipotheses and ask as many questions as possible, even though they are extreme or improbable. Then *refute* them. These refutations should then give a clearer picture of where the problem actually is and help define it, thereby making it easier to solve.'
I now see that my mistake was that I hadn't made this intent clear to the public here, and for this I apologize. I know that I came across as viscious. Gawd, if you only knew how harmless I am.
****************
Otherwise, I have 3 points to make:


1.

You commented on bonobos, yet knew nothing about them.
What's more invertebrates of all kinds practice cannibalism of their young- you find these practices all across the rest of the animal kingdom from the anthropod to the mammal.
Do you realize sometimes a gorilla mother will kill her child to mate again or her mate will kill her child to force her in mating again?
Invert has pointed some of this out as well.

Don't accuse me of ignorance where it was none or unclarity about your implications:
It seems that you are saying "If it is happening, then it is normal." -- "If gorillas kill their babies, then this is normal. They don't do it all the time, but sometimes they do."

The implied premise is "It is a *natural* thing to sometimes kill offspring." Not everyone is aware of this implied premise.

If you want to refute "traditional philistine morals", you have to make the above premise clear.


2.
You came with the "Its her unborn. Her newborn, not yours." -- this is the typical "It's not in my body so I don't care about it." argument, that one poster has used here before.
While this argument is true, it unfortunately is a double-edge sword: It supports general insensitivity -- that men can use as a justification for not using condoms. Call them stupid and insensitive -- but it has to do with why women are perfect prey: they have accepted to bear the whole burden of contraception by using only the pill. They *let* men to do whatever they want, while she secretly suffers.
I suppose the advice you would give here is to be more determinent and more choosy -- an be less of a perfect prey.


3.

Sexual health is the privelege of those responsible in their lifestyles, but nothing is foolproof.

Yes -- but *health* by whose standards or morals?
You seem to be judging health by some standards, but don't clearly define them.

So we come back to the thread question of being direct -- it was basically asked what standards are there or should be there when engaging in a relationship -- what is healthy?

If women are "beastly bores", "parasites" and "perfect prey" -- is this healthy or not? Is it *natural* or not? Is it a result of patriarchat or something else?


Also: Why are women beastly bores -- the question is *when*, in *what situation* or *context* are women bores?
When among eachother, do women feel as beastly bores? Or only when around men? Or only when in a relationship with a man?

Vert:


Doublespeak? Or paranoid misunderstanding on my part? Is this telling me to butt out?


Paranoid misunderstandings on your part, bubba.
Not at all.

What I would like for you to do is come up with one instance of a male busybody, bouncing on the edge of his seat spewing out useless gossip about uselessness. Good luck- this specimen has ovaries.
Men are evolutionary equipped to be distant, aloof.
This is what I meant by saying when he is a bore, at least he minds his business

(homosexuals don't count, so don't go there)


But, this is not to say that a woman's business cannot be other than her stereotypical role.
And when it is, she is ridiculed or belittled.

And each of these men must accept responsibility for the child. The child being formed is "washed" by the semen of the various men and nourished by it. It is not necessarily common (especially after missionaries have had their way with the people) but it's not uncommon either. It seems that the Bari have stopped talking about it much because they know it is not our way, but they still practice it. They even have a saying about why it is good. It seems that the woman becomes sexually voracious during pregnancy. And if only one man (her "husband") were to satisfy her, he would wear himself out.
Cumshowers.......ick.

But Chinese lotharios? And a society built around the female................in China?. The place where the Geisha is tied up and bound? Do tell.


True. But, perhaps it is the pointless social boredom that draws towards the mating ritual that bores me in this case. I would probably not turn away from the nitwits if I were able to be more direct and still get what I want. But, I guess you're right. That's what makes them perfect prey isn't it? The boredom of dealing with the stereotypical woman means a male (who is bored by the stereotype) wants only the end result and not the meaningless dribble that builds up to it. Therefore, she is removed from the situation and it's only her genitals that are desired. Perhaps that is the reason that being direct doesn't work? The woman wants to be assured that it's her (boring as she may be) that is desired (even if it's merely a convincing lie.)

Yup.
But its a cross-genedered phenomena, though. The human has a tendency to think too much of himself and so demands that external considerations parallel the internal ones he lavishes on himself.
No one but the drunken youth (usually male) would desire the being treated like meat- this pleasure, however, cools with age and he finds himself regretful and cold in his loneliness.
Remember always though - directness is sexier than any mindgame, no matter how fancy and erudite.


One last thing about animal abortion. I have been reading "The Naked Neuron" (at someone's suggestion) and have come across a reference to female mice aborting their pregnancy when subjected to the hormones of a new male mouse.
BAH!
I have no clue where the mice are.
Page please. I have the book right here.

Rosa:

'If the classical methods of solving a problem or making an argument don't work, make as many hipotheses and ask as many questions as possible, even though they are extreme or improbable. Then *refute* them. These refutations should then give a clearer picture of where the problem actually is and help define it, thereby making it easier to solve.'
Hypothesis are good.
So are questions.
And opinions.
And feedback.

What is not is assumptions on things one knows little about.
That aside, I am not accusing you of ignorance. I'm accusing you of tweaking.
For example:
Rosa sayz:

It seems that you are saying "If it is happening, then it is normal." -- "If gorillas kill their babies, then this is normal. They don't do it all the time, but sometimes they do."

When it has been *you* not only implying the word normal but using it outright.
Should I quote you?

There *is* no such thing as normal, it does not exist. There is only 'relatively functional' in realtionship to one's social structures.
The problem is simple- your views of abortion are that its something 'degenerate' and quite frankly, abnormal.
And its clouding your thinking on human sexuality.


The implied premise is "It is a *natural* thing to sometimes kill offspring." Not everyone is aware of this implied premise.

Negetive- you are the source of the implication.

Say something like this:

"But it is *not* normal in the eyes of nature and natural instincts -- this is why women turn out to be such beasts." - Rosa

.....and you'll have it called out on you, that's all. We're stuck at an impasse becuase you don't seem to see the catalyst was a grevious assumption- yours.


Yes -- but *health* by whose standards or morals?
You seem to be judging health by some standards, but don't clearly define them.

So we come back to the thread question of being direct -- it was basically asked what standards are there or should be there when engaging in a relationship -- what is healthy?

Hmm.
Well let's see here- health.
Would it not be a state of responsible wellness?
Applicable to any culture, wellness is defined by the subject in his context, not mine.
Never once would I think what I feel as healthy validates globally- a Mangaian woman is perfectly fine with a twelve year old boy's penis in her vagina whereas I would be squirming.
Half the time its her son or grandson's.
Ick.

Increasingly off topic and getting worse and less productive by the post!

Jadedflower:

Increasingly off topic and getting worse and less productive by the post
Allright, I'm game.

How about it little girl- there's a boy in here with his dick out wanting to paw your gigantic tits.
He asks me- "tell me what she's like so we can have something to talk about. Does she like NIN?
Metallica?
Jessica Simpson?
How about philosophers- is she one for Kant or Nietzche?
Please don't say Kant- I'm going to have crash at night through his tomes and lie my way to her pussy."

What should I tell him? He'd love to suck your fingers you know, but wait! You love directness. He wants ass but how should he go for it?
His left or his right hand?
Or........poetry?

Nietzsche would be convenient, Kant for the most part is not that interesting. :p
And a preference for Heavy Metal would also be good... :D

"Nietzsche would be convenient,"

Of course it would be- blabbing about 'ubermensche' gives you that special sparkle in your eye that makes it look as if you fucking care about you're even talking about.
Throw in a 'paradigmn shift' or a 'dichotomy' for effect and, dude, she's as good as cum on your hands.

Yeah, I know, Nietzsche is the ladykiller material. I always manage to get some cunts when I throw in a line or two from his works.
But when I use Kant, they all go like: Aww, really, that is so interresting :o

And quotes from Plato also work pretty fine :D

Hmm.
Anyway.

Next time punch her through the thorax- there is no faster way to a woman's heart than through her ribcage.
Women love abuse. Makes life interesting.

Someone push Gendanken off a cliff, please.

Hmm.
Anyway.

Next time try knocking her teeth out and punching her through the thorax- there is no faster way to a woman's heart than through her ribcage.
Women love abuse. Makes life interesting.


I find it more interesting to flay them with a whip first, and then brake some ribs... :cool:

I find it more interesting to flay them with a whip first, and then brake some ribs... :cool:
Absolute turn on. Always.

Hey, some even pay for the forst part...

Why do you want Gendanken dead? She ainīt so bad.

Damn, this is getting chatty again, better bail out...

yes, yes... you've said. I don't want her dead... just... baddly injured :D

Squirt:

Someone push Gendanken off a cliff, please.
GASP.

Why? Don't you like me?!
This boy here likes you- he really wants to stick his meatpole up your you know where but he's like *flips hair* getting all poetic about it, you know?
You're just not that kind of girl!!!

Dreamwalker:

I find it more interesting to flay them with a whip first, and then brake some ribs
Why don't you just push me off a cliff like your little pixie here suggests you do?

What's wrong with Pixies anyhow?

Why don't you just push me off a cliff like your little pixie here suggests you do?

Why should I? There isnīt much in it for me. Furthermore, it would take away a big source of entertainment (meaning you Gendanken) from this site. I could never do that. Your posts are always quite refreshing.

Anyway, I donīt like pixies that much...they are a bit flighty and fragile...

Thanks a lot Dream! :cries:

You hear that, girlfriend?

Pixies are gossamer. Flaky crackpowder.
Seriously- don't you find yourself disgusted? When you look upon yourself, hearing the words coming out your mouth that reinforce your weakness and gullibility in tandem with the derision others show around your stupidity and/or girlish ways..... does it not bother you at all?

Pixies are a bit childish, which is why only Logically Unsound refers to me like that. Oh, and you because you like to tease... but then again, they're only as childish as the person who invokes them.
Inkoves is a bad word to you, I don't know how to spell it and I didn't have an alternative. No, I don't believe in pixies and I don't really know why you hate me so much. But heck! Flame wars are fun even if they are pathetic, so bring it on, bitchy lady =P =P =P

Eat my shit.

Wait... did she just give up? Woohoo! Permit me to be childish (I know you will cause you love me so much) but I WIN! ;)

Jaded:

? Woohoo! Permit me to be childish (I know you will cause you love me so much) but I WIN!
No, you don't.
I've still got you in a chokehold.
You never answered whether or not you either felt disgusted or ashamed of your girlish lack.

You know I can tear you apart and put you together again brand new? I'm not being childish here, I'm dead serious. Take you into my circle and give you a makeover.

Now look at this, you've made a chatty imbecile out of me, like your little friend Dreamwalker.

>I've still got you in a chokehold.
You do so like that word. But I think after your last post... when you were almost speechless, you lose ;)

>You never answered whether or not you either felt disgusted or ashamed of your girlish lack.
Girlish lack? What girlish lack? I see no girlish lack.

>You know I can tear you apart and put you together again brand new?
She's feisty.

>I'm not being childish here, I'm dead serious.
Tear your screen apart, put that together brand new... that's all you can do. Sorry.

>imbecile out of me
Don't worry. I don't have that power, you've always been an imbecile, I've just made you notice ;)

>like your little friend Dreamwalker.
Don't be mean to those who like you... it's not very nice, is it?

Blah-

Don't be mean to those who like you... it's not very nice, is it?


He finds me 'entertaining'.
This is not the same as liking me.

I'm outtie, this thread has served my boredom for today. Ta.

>This is not the same as liking me.
I think he's said he likes you in an earlier post...

>I'm outtie, this thread has served my boredom for today. Ta.
Goodnight... do come back tomorrow and we can begin scratching each other's eyes out again.

What I would like for you to do is come up with one instance of a male busybody, bouncing on the edge of his seat spewing out useless gossip about uselessness.

Logically Unsound might be an example. However, I don't know if he's gay. Or even if he's really a guy. However he is a child and not a man, so...


And when it is, she is ridiculed or belittled.

I disagree. It is difficult to get past the stereotypes that permeate our awareness, but we are not as hidebound as our predecessors. Of course, many of our predecessors are still around. The problem of course is sex. It's hard for a man to take his eyes off the prize long enough to take her seriously. I imagine the owman has a harder road to tow, but she can still get there. And whatever doesn't kill us makes us stronger.


Cumshowers.......ick.

You know you like it... :P


But Chinese lotharios? And a society built around the female................in China?. The place where the Geisha is tied up and bound? Do tell.

Not much more to tell really. You might try doing a google search or something. The article was about the Bari and only mentioned the Na in passing. I'll quote the whole paragraph.

The Na of Yunnan Province in China, for example, have a female-centric society in which husbands are not part of the picture. Women grow up and continue to live with their mothers, sisters, and brothers; they never marry or move away from the family compound. As a result, sisters and brothers rather than married pairs are the economic unit that farms and fishes together. Male lovers in the this system are simply visitors. They have no place or power in the household, and children are brought up by their mothers and by the mothers' brothers. A father is identified only if their is a resemblance between him and the child, and even so, the father has no responsibilities toward the child. Often women have sex with so many partners that the biological father is unknown. "I have not found any term that would cover the notion of father in the Na language," writes Chenese anthropologist Cai Hua in his book A Society Without Fathers or Husbands: The Na of China. In this case, women have complete control over their children, property, and sexuality.

By the way, geishas are from Japan. Chinese women tend to be authoritarian in me experience.


I have no clue where the mice are.
Page please. I have the book right here.

It's just a sentence really. p 64. Sex and Pheremonal Sequences. However, among certain groups of mammals, such as mice, the odor of a strange male can act to terminate the pregnancy of a female. There is a reference. Maybe you could locate the original source if interested.


Increasingly off topic and getting worse and less productive by the post!

Perhaps you missed this?

But its a cross-genedered phenomena, though. The human has a tendency to think too much of himself and so demands that external considerations parallel the internal ones he lavishes on himself.
No one but the drunken youth (usually male) would desire the being treated like meat- this pleasure, however, cools with age and he finds himself regretful and cold in his loneliness.
Remember always though - directness is sexier than any mindgame, no matter how fancy and erudite.

I have a feeling that the topic is one that can't be expounded on at great length. I tried to work up some way to reply to Gendanken's statement here, and I couldn't. It's all too self-explanatory.

Jaded, you still haven't taken control of the direction of the thread. Just popping in and saying that it's not going the direction you like doesn't count, you know. ;) Why don't you post something that will lead us in future conversation? Surely you have gleaned a tidbit or two on the subject of being direct amongst all the extras. Surely you have thought more on the subject yourself and might have some thoughts or questions to share. Lead by example.

And, by the way, Gendanken herself is a lesson in directness. Although, I think it's a different kind of directness than you had in mind...

And, it's funny that you will object to off-topic discussion and then "win" a debate on pixies in the ensuing moments. :p


You never answered whether or not you either felt disgusted or ashamed of your girlish lack.

She's right, Jaded, you never did. Perhaps lack should be redefined. Note my comment on coming in and pointing out that things aren't going your way in here but not doing anything specific about it. Why don't you add content to this thread? I imagine Gendanken could add more, but I think that perhaps she has repealed her offer. And, I don't blame her. She offers her service and you spit in her face. (playfully, but playfulness can hurt just the same.)


You know I can tear you apart and put you together again brand new? I'm not being childish here, I'm dead serious. Take you into my circle and give you a makeover.

heheh, Gendanken giving a makeover... :D Sorry, that's probably childish, isn't it?


Now look at this, you've made a chatty imbecile out of me, like your little friend Dreamwalker.

I wonder who would makeover who? Grrl power! :P


Goodnight... do come back tomorrow and we can begin scratching each other's eyes out again.

You tempt fate, Jaded. She's been rather nice in here today, you know.

And what does scratching each other's eyes out have to do with being direct?

>And what does scratching each other's eyes out have to do with being direct?

Everything. It means I'll be doing it, not like before where I asked *someone* to push her off a cliff for me.

About all the rest.... mnha. Every time I sit down to write something productive, I remember how this is in the cesspool and I don't really want to be bothered by her (points down) if I'm gonna try be serious.

edit: Oh, and about her being nice... (if you call that nice). I was nice too... =P (God that word is annoying, "nice", *shivers*)

Now look at this, you've made a chatty imbecile out of me, like your little friend Dreamwalker.

You see, it is contagious. Better keep away. But somehow, you canīt deny that you brought this on yourself. You could have ignored her. But obviously you are intend on responding in this little "catfight" even when you have to display a lack of intelligent and elaborate replies.It might be possible that you where indeed a "chatty imbecile" before you ever talked with Jadedflower, you just masked this with long posts.

But obviously this thread is still about "directness"; some of the participants seem to be interested in directly attacking the ego of each other.

The resulting question is: Why do they do this?

Probably because both of these bitches think they are right or better than the other one, although it somehow looks like they are not that different from one another.



(I sure know how to make me unpopular, donīt I?)

JadedFlower,



>And what does scratching each other's eyes out have to do with being direct?

Everything. It means I'll be doing it, not like before where I asked *someone* to push her off a cliff for me.

You intend to scratch out Gendy's eyes?! That's not fair, sugarcakes.
Anyway, how are you going to do that? You will need manicured fingernails for this -- but I understand you're not a make-up girl ...
Or do you intend to bore her so much that she falls into stupor, and then you'll take some pliers, screws etc. to scratch Gendy's supa-dupa-ultra-mega eyes out?
Heh.

Oh, Pixies ... I thought Jaded was a Pixies fan, you know, the "Monkey gone to heaven" and "Where is my mind" and "Ed is dead" Pixies ...

Gendanken,


Finally, I think we have arrived.


There *is* no such thing as normal, it does not exist. There is only 'relatively functional' in realtionship to one's social structures.
/.../
Well let's see here- health.
Would it not be a state of responsible wellness?
Applicable to any culture, wellness is defined by the subject in his context, not mine.


Well, that's the thing.
If we agree that there is no such thing as "normal", we have to go for the "'relatively functional' in realtionship to one's social structures".

Now, we're trying to figure out what this "'relatively functional' in realtionship to one's social structures" is. If this would be obvious, this thread would never even be started, would it?

And if we measure everything by "'relatively functional' in realtionship to one's social structures", then can we ever call anyone a beastly bore, a parasite or perfect prey?

The suicidal thinks the best thing he can do is kill himself, a "typical traditional woman" thinks it is best to behave the way she does etc. etc.

On what basis do we make claims and judgements about them?

If we want a debate, we have to have some common ground to start from -- and I don't know what this common ground is here. "Absolute natural morality"? "Humanity"? Whose brands of it?


Or is this a place to show off with one's wit and [shite, I don't know all those fancy English words that describe verbosity, heh]?


Dude, I wish all arguments would have the structure

premise A
premise B
-----------
conclusion C.

Yes, I love simplicity and clarity.

Ta.

Oh, Pixies ... I thought Jaded was a Pixies fan, you know, the "Monkey gone to heaven" and "Where is my mind" and "Ed is dead" Pixies ...

Oh course I'm a Pixies fan! (check out the Art&Culture section... I wrote about the concert in there somewhere).

You will need manicured fingernails for this -- but I understand you're not a make-up girl ...

Make-up and manicures have nothing to do with each other... and I'm sure plain ol'non-varnished nails will do fine, thanks.

heyheyhey, i try not to post in this thread, for fear of getting my head ripped off, yet i see disrespect everywhere...


Logically Unsound might be an example. However, I don't know if he's gay. Or even if he's really a guy. However he is a child and not a man, so...

let me put it this way:
- i am straight
- i am a guy
- i am 15 (thats child really- so fair enough)
- as for to stupidity and random posting etc, that just goes to show how little you have noticed :bugeye:
in real life i am a half way depressive who is one of the cleverer people in my school (not being egotistical or anything ;) ), i say little, except when needed, and hate pretty much everyone equally, since they all drive me mad.

there seems to be some idea that i am a happy person who talks too much and is gay :eek: nope, invert all of that invert, and thats about right.

you... you... you hate us?

HA, not really you lot.
for i dont know you that well
due to the fact i am not in that much contact with you (since most threads in a forum are not that deep) i dont hate you.

heyheyhey, i try not to post in this thread, for fear of getting my head ripped off, yet i see disrespect everywhere...


Disrespect? Everywhere?
Point out, please.

'hurumph'
goddam, one slight exaggeration and everyone.... jumps on you.

while i said 'everywhere' i dd in fact mean 'twice', yet i felt it necessary to post so as to stop it happening again.

i fear i hear the sound of knives sharpening, so im going to leave now *backs away slowly and shuts the door*

Logically Unsound,

Quite right, old man. Sorry about that. I believe your name leaped to mind because you had previously been mentioned. But, you must admit that you foot the bill (at least in your online persona.) Not many people around here have come across the 30 second barrier quite so much as you seem to have. :p I'll give you this though, you mostly keep your logically unsound interjections to the "chat" threads.

And, we would never slice you up. Just bash you around a little. Tenderizes the meat, don't you know. We prefer to swallow our victims whole... :D

ha, if you tried to bash me around in real life i would probably try to kill you :) no hard feelings though.

i am quite proud (in some obscure way) that i managed to play this weirdo to the point where you thought it was me... not hard though, but i feel good.
meh. i am leaving now, since no doubtr danke, pixie and rosa are gonna start a catfight at some point.

Dream:

You could have ignored her. But obviously you are intend on responding in this little "catfight" even when you have to display a lack of intelligent and elaborate replies.It might be possible that you where indeed a "chatty imbecile" before you ever talked with Jadedflower, you just masked this with long posts.

Reading way too much into a small comment, deary.
But of course, lol, :rolleyes: i'm a chatty imbecile, can't u tell?
IMO, i'm like totally buzzed u can't tell y'know? :eek: ;) ROTFLMAO!!!


Probably because both of these bitches think they are right or better than the other one, although it somehow looks like they are not that different from one another.

You are just mad someone called you an idiot.
That's all.

Vert:

By the way, geishas are from Japan. Chinese women tend to be authoritarian in me experience.

So they are.
And so Na it is, what a thrilling society. To think that in the strictest nation besides Russia or Iran can we find so much liberty- there must be a catch in there somewhere.
The women must be miserable, kept at home to breed. I doubt they've ever known the power of status in the workforce.
But at least they flicked him from the vocabulary:
""I have not found any term that would cover the notion of father in the Na language," writes Chenese anthropologist Cai Hua in his book A Society Without Fathers or Husbands: The Na of China.

Sweeeeeeet.


I disagree. It is difficult to get past the stereotypes that permeate our awareness, but we are not as hidebound as our predecessors. Of course, many of our predecessors are still around. The problem of course is sex. It's hard for a man to take his eyes off the prize long enough to take her seriously. I imagine the owman has a harder road to tow, but she can still get there. And whatever doesn't kill us makes us stronger.
Oh shut up.

I said ridiculed or belittled.
If she's bulky like Reno, she is ridiculed.
Cute, she's belittled.
And this follows her to.the.grave.period.
Shove the 'whatever doesn't kill us makes us stronger' rot up Jade's colon.
She likes that, you know.


It's just a sentence really. p 64. Sex and Pheremonal Sequences. However, among certain groups of mammals, such as mice, the odor of a strange male can act to terminate the pregnancy of a female. There is a reference. Maybe you could locate the original source if interested.

AH.

Chapter 2, "The Language of Smell", also talks about this phenomena accross species. Meaning: Fido can, with his pheremones, upset the menstrual cycles of the women in the household.
Well, my- I was just looking around for the page where I read this and found it on page 64. Look on top.


heheh, Gendanken giving a makeover... Sorry, that's probably childish, isn't it?

Shutup.

Rosa:

And if we measure everything by "'relatively functional' in realtionship to one's social structures", then can we ever call anyone a beastly bore, a parasite or perfect prey?

Oh, we most certainly can.
It called for subjective commentary.
It asked why you would think of them as beastly bores, with beastly being a simple adjective. As in 'horrible bores'. Beastly in no way was meant to invoke animalistic symbolisms.
In fact, I think she is less of an animal than a man. Which is why she, too me, is far more dangerous than otherwise.
Why you would think them parastical or prey-like; all of this is opinion based.
I don't see how this would either have to exclude or include a "relatively functional" qualifier.

Understand?


On what basis do we make claims and judgements about them?

Yours.
That's the point. Do you see?

But it ceased to be subjective when you brought abortion into the picture. There we need objectivity.


If we want a debate, we have to have some common ground to start from -- and I don't know what this common ground is here. "Absolute natural morality"? "Humanity"? Whose brands of it?

I can battle with the best of them Rosa, but you disqualify yourself by your use of 'normal' in invoking nature for comparison, One
and your quite obvious distate for abortion as degenerate, Two.


Jadedfucker:

Funny how you'll be pointing down to me.
OOHHh.
You who has never contributed anything to these forums but chatter and allusions.
You, my dear, are the reasons for coroporate suggestions in pretty pink bottles, magazines, MTV.
Don't get me wrong- I already know you're not the pretty pweety pricky kind.
You're the rocker chick most likely.
With her little fist in the air "GRRRR" the CEO's know very well.
So they give you Lilith and girl demons and punky goth get ups.
And have the rocker boys sing about the moody chicks with bad, careless attitudes.

You stink of ignorance, chicky.

Oh shut up.

I said ridiculed or belittled.
If she's bulky like Reno, she is ridiculed.
Cute, she's belittled.
And this follows her to.the.grave.period.
Shove the 'whatever doesn't kill us makes us stronger' rot up Jade's colon.
She likes that, you know.

Ok, this is true. But, men are also belittled and ridiculed. Not as much as women, I'm sure. But still, it is a common trait of mankind. Especially in such competitive fields. Every scientist wants to knock the next one to the ground and beat the shit out of his theories.

It's really a shame. Women in such fields end up becoming total hardasses. They have to overcompensate because they have tits and ovaries. But, we're slowly working our way out of it. The future's so bright I gotta wear shades. :D

There's unisex toilets in some parts of the world you know. What a strange day that will be, go into a restroom to bleed the lizard and there's some chick in the corner shoving a tampon up her kootch and you don't even blink. Weird...

By the way, speaking of whatever doesn't kill us makes us stronger. I've only heard this in the credits to Conan the Barbarian. It says it's a Nietzsche quote, but I've never found it in any of the works I've read. Do you know which work it comes from?

Gendanken,


I don't see how this would either have to exclude or include a "relatively functional" qualifier.

Understand?

Didn't know that. Okies then.

Dream:

Reading way too much into a small comment, deary.
But of course, lol, :rolleyes: i'm a chatty imbecile, can't u tell?
IMO, i'm like totally buzzed u can't tell y'know? :eek: ;) ROTFLMAO!!!


You are just mad someone called you an idiot.
That's all.



Well, perhaps you are right, I might read too much into some pages of argument...


Me mad because I was called an idiot? Ah, I have been called much worse...no really, you have to agree that you too are bitching around quite alot. -perhaps I should have used another word, but "bitch" was the only one that came to my mind at that point.

Dreamwalker:

Well, perhaps you are right, I might read too much into some pages of argument...


Me mad because I was called an idiot? Ah, I have been called much worse...no really, you have to agree that you too are bitching around quite alot. -perhaps I should have used another word, but "bitch" was the only one that came to my mind at that point.
Good.
Now that we've made up and we're lovers again, you may suck my fingers.
And comment on my beautiful body.

Smooth Operator:

By the way, speaking of whatever doesn't kill us makes us stronger. I've only heard this in the credits to Conan the Barbarian. It says it's a Nietzsche quote, but I've never found it in any of the works I've read. Do you know which work it comes from?
Funny you should quote and quote Zarathrusta and yet mention your never having read this line.

Its from "Thus Spake Zarathrusta" and spoken by the prophet. Its being used by the lonely, pathetic, embittered little white boys we call Neo Nazis as something like a battle cry for their lost cause.


But, men are also belittled and ridiculed.
Oh, cry me a river will ya?

"Thus Spoke Zarathrusta"

I'm reading that!

"Assim Falou Zarathrusta".
Cool.

Jadedfucker:


You're so witty. When I grow up, I wanna be a real witty woman, just like you. *My Idol* I'm gonna pin up your picture next to Justin Timberlake and Kelly Osbourne. You're a teen idol! How cool!


You stink of ignorance, chicky.

And you, dear friend... just stink :D :D :D
I love being mature. It gives me such a kick.
Don't you wish you could kick me?

Squirt:

Don't you wish you could kick me?
Perhaps.
I'm not ...so sure anymore.
Considering:

I'm reading that!

"Assim Falou Zarathrusta".

Are you fucking with us or not?
Give me something here, what do you think of it?

Its being used by the lonely, pathetic, embittered little white boys we call Neo Nazis as something like a battle cry for their lost cause.


Oh, thatīs why they are so hard to kill... damn. Just yesterday I met one of those fuckers, ah well....

It looks like everyone reads Nietsche these days, how boring, perhaps he was speaking unpopular once, but today, it seems to be all the rage.


BTW, I love your perfect body Gedanken...oh, and those beautiful fingers... :D

Are you fucking with us or not?

No thanks, I don't like group things.


Give me something here, what do you think of it?

Now seriously, I've just finished Plato's Republic and I've really only just begun that so I haven't formed an opinion just yet. I'll get back to you when I'm further into it.

Its from "Thus Spake Zarathrusta" and spoken by the prophet. Its being used by the lonely, pathetic, embittered little white boys we call Neo Nazis as something like a battle cry for their lost cause.

Must have missed it somewhere. Or perhaps it was altered in translation. Was it in a later book? I'm not sure I've ever made it past the second book of Zarathustra. Nietzsche bores me after a while. I should probably just try to read them one at a time with a cooling off period in between. I always get bored with it and put it down. And then pick it up months or years later and then give it another go from the beginning.


Oh, cry me a river will ya?

:( :( :( :-D It's true though. In a limited sense. I'm not equating it entirely to what women have to put up with, but it is a fact of human life. I'm not a woman so I can merely empathize to the best of my limited ability.


And Dreamwalker can have those fingers. I'll contribute my attentions to a "lower" part of the body. And what a beautiful body it is, seen from this angle especially.


I'm reading that!

"Assim Falou Zarathrusta".
Cool.

In German? Doesn't look like German. If so, I envy you. Nietzsche is said to lose much in the translation. You lucky fuck, Dreamwalker.


No thanks, I don't like group things.

Aww, come on. I bet you've never even tried. Here, I'll make room for you.

Oh, Jaded. Word of advice. Don't take Nietzsche too seriously. The reason those neonazis are so able to misuse his work is because he says things in a subtle manner. He jokes and the jokes shouldn't all be taken seriously. There's a lot of shit mixed in with the pearls, as well. Use your judgement.

In fact, Nietzshe might be a lesson in directness. In a way, he is very direct. But, at the same time he is very indirect. There is a danger in this path.

Hmmm. Strange. I just checked all the translator's notes for the four books of Zarathustra. And none of them mention "That which does not kill us makes us stronger." Unless my eye passed over it unwillingly. I would think that it would mention the catch phrase. It mentions "Beyond Good & Evil" being coined in part three chapter 4. "God is Dead" in the intro to part 1. Many other "key" phrases but not the one I'm looking for.

I did a web search to see if I could find where it says it. And I come up with lots of sites that mention the phrase, of course (fuckin' blogs, a lot of them). I add Zarathustra to the search and narrow it down. I find other phrases in german translated various ways (seemingly all copies of one web site). Telling where they are in what book. Then, they have a list called attributed and there's the phrase. No book. No chapter. Weird. You sure it's in Zarathustra?

I found some reviews of the particular book I have. It mentions the phrase, but doesn't say where it is. But, the phrase is in the book. The Portable Nietzsche. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. I've seen in the review that he has been accused of making Nietzsche his most "non-nazi." Well, that certainly confirms the view I got from reading it. :p There's another review that says: "Kaufmann practically bends Nietzsche to his will in this masterpiece from the Viking "portable" series." :p That's just what I want to hear. What version have you read, Gendanken?

Damn, I wish I could read German. Lots of other good German reading too isn't there?

Anyway, it might be interesting to find out how the Portugeuse version translates. Too bad you don't read German, Jaded. Would be interesting for you to read all three versions and give a critique.

Ah, perhaps I will get a copy on English, might be interesting. Of course, it might be hard to get the English version of an originally German book here...

Anyway, it might be interesting to find out how the Portugeuse version translates. Too bad you don't read German, Jaded. Would be interesting for you to read all three versions and give a critique.

I'm reading it in Portuguese, yeah. One of my goals in life is to learn German and read a bunch of books on my "waiting list" in their original languages.

Damn, I wish I could read German. Lots of other good German reading too isn't there?

Aha. Es ist nun einmal die Sprache der Mörder und Henker ... errrmmm .... Dichter und Denker.

Nice joke Rosa :bugeye: Havenīt heard that one before.

"It is now once the language of the murderers and Henker... errrmmm.... More closely and philosophers." Courtesy of Google's translation tool. Is Henker a name or a word that won't translate?

Dreamwalker and Rosa,

Which concepts are easier to express in German, English, (and also your native language or others you may speak, Rosa.) (and you, too, Jaded.) (Hell, I guess even Gendanken can share how it is in spanish.) I begin to feel like a cretin because I only speaka da english. :p

I think Iīll have to translate, the Google thing is crap...

Here you go:

It is the speech of murderers and executioners ...errrmmm....rather poets and thinkers (philosophers).


Which concepts are easier to express in German, English, (and also your native language or others you may speak, Rosa.) (and you, too, Jaded.) (Hell, I guess even Gendanken can share how it is in spanish.) I begin to feel like a cretin because I only speaka da english.

What do you mean with easier to express? Generally, it is easier for me to express most things in German, but I suppose that is not the question.
As far as I know, German is more flexible than English, meaning that new words can easily be formed and still be understood by most people. Therefore, it is easier to express certain concepts because it is easier to describe/nominate things while staying understandable. For the same reason, German was widely used under scientist and similar people.
If it is really true, I do not know, I read about that once. True, there are things that I can better express in German because I can "shape" the words to my liking. But perhaps I do not know enough English vocabulary to adequately express it.

Hmmm, well, take for instance a language that expresses a thought in a paragraph while another language will be able to express that paragraph in one word. I've always heard that that certain languages are better at expressing certain ideals than others. Basically, I believe it was in regards to exactly the example you gave, scientific concepts being easier to express in German.

The concept of forming new words is interesting. So that is a common occurence in German, then? I know that Nietzsche was prone to do such things, I didn't know it was widespread. I suppose english is similar in a way, we can take seperate words and combine them to form a new thing. But, more often a previously existing word is co-opted for the purpose. And it tends to confuse people until it catches on.

Well, our grammatic structure and the "character" of our language make it relatively easy to create or better construct new words that can normally be understood by most who speak a good German.
It is not rare that new words are constructed and used by others, slowly creating new words.

The funny thing is, supposedly English has way more vocables than German, but the potential of German is supposedly greater.

Dreamwalker,

Sadly, but yes, you should have heard of it. It came out big around WW2, but I don't know who made it. You can often see it in critical reviews of the German language in newspapers. Even college professors (from Germany!) tend to use it as a joke.

Only now I see how cruel that phrase really is. I am so used to it that I numbed down. I've never actually said it to a native speaker, so the phrase never felt real. Es ist ein Unwort.


Es tut mir leid.



P.S.
For those who don't speak German -- I said about German:
"Aha. Well, it is the language of the murderer and hangmen ... erm .... poets and thinkers."

"Die Sprache der Dichter und Denker" was made in the time of the German classic, I think by Goethe. German was highly highly praised. Until WW1 and 2, when it was changed into "die Sprache der Mörder und Henker".
It's been 60 years, yet the memory is still so vivid.

I'm going to guess at those later phrases and see how close I am.

Es ist ein Unwort. Is it unworthy?

Es tut mir leid. You too my lad?

Edit: Nope. It does wrong to me. And It is Unwort. Another untranslatable. Fuckin' google.

Well, I heard similar things, not in that wording, but with nearly the same meaning....

Yeah, Goethe the old tree-hugging womanizer...what a poet....errr, sorry I loose track of the things said here.

But then again, I do not know what to say right now, Iīll better shut up :D

I'm going to guess at those later phrases and see how close I am.

Es ist ein Unwort. Is it unworthy?

Es tut mir leid. You too my lad?


Ah, not that close...

1. Unwort is something you shouldnīt say, it is an indecent word.

2. Es tut mir leid means I am sorry.


:p

That's what I get for guessing... :p I got the "It is" right anyway. :D

Invert,

Since you're asking questions about language: I challenge you to start a thread on multilinguals. :)
This is such an interesting topic.

What's easier to express in Portuguese??? I haven't a clue.
Portuguese has a lot more synonyms and is a lot more poetic. English is like... a tupparware with old food, while latin languages tend to be... a fruit market =D Fresh, ripe, colourful and with variety!

Since you're asking questions about language: I challenge you to start a thread on multilinguals.

Good idea. But where? Free thoughts, I suppose. Let the mods sort it out?


Fresh, ripe, colourful and with variety!

Colorful analogy. :D Yours or borrowed?

I finished the Naked Neuron and there was something said in it about being direct. (Meanwhile back at the topic... :P) It was so simple that I'd never considered it before.

First of all, it mentions how the left brain can suppress knowledge held by the right brain and the limbic system for various reasons (modesty, morales, guilt, etc...). It's not that it stops the other parts of the brain from thinking it, but it just doesn't let that information pass into words, into conscious awareness. The example they gave was of a girl that was on a date with a guy. The girl was moral. She was saving "it" for someone who she really loved, yadda yadda. But, the guy wanted some nookie. The girl's limbic system and right brain both were fully aware of what the guy wanted because his body language and pheremones were practically screaming it in her face, but she didn't know because she didn't want to. After dinner, the guy asks her back to his place to show her his new stereo equipment. We all know that he was just working it to get some action. And her right brain and limbic system were aware of it, as well. But "she" didn't know and if she did, she would have refused to go up and instead went home. She's a "good girl" after all. So, they're in the guys room. He's got the stereo playing some Barry White, or whatever you fancy, and they're sitting on the couch chatting. He puts his hand on her knee. Now, she is so wrapped up in not knowing what the guy's about she doesn't even take this into consideration. She denies the knowledge or at least ignores it, thinking that he's just being friendly, he's been a perfect gentleman so far says her thoughts (lacking the information that the rest of her brain has. This, by the way, is one of the ways the interpreter mechanism works, in the absence of information it gets the information elsewhere and it's often wrong.) She concentrates her attention fully on his conversation. Occupies her left brain with conversation. So, he get's bolder and slides his hand up a little farther and moves in for a kiss. Now, she can't help but notice. The conversation has stopped and he's in her face. But, all this time that she's been ignoring the rest of her brain, it's been getting hornier and hornier. After all, she may be a good girl but it isn't. So, she becomes swept up by passion and bang, zoom, pow. It's lovefest time. Later, after her passion has subsided, she is wracked with guilt. She doesn't know what came over her. She places the blame on him. Dirty lecher. Taking advantage of her that way. She had too much to drink. Yadda yadda.

Interesting notion, huh?

But, that's not really being direct is it? I just thought I'd add it because it was interesting and might be worthy of conversation. Here's the real thing about being direct. Or rather indirect.

I'll just quote straight from the book:


In our culture people are often indirect in their conversations for a variety of reasons. They may be sparing the feelings of their listener, trying to hide the truth, or attempting to engage in an act of seduction. Depending on the reactions of the listener one might be emboldened to say more or to skip to a different subject altogether. This also enables the listener to exert some control. For example, in its most common and subtle manifestations, indirectness is often used as a strategy for verbal seduction. This also enables the woman the option of not understanding what is being said so that it may be ignored. Or she can respond thus showing her appreciation for the implied double entendre and her willingness for the man to continue or even use more direct tactics.
The Naked Neuron, pp. 290-291

Interesting, yes? So, being direct with a woman is like an act of aggression. It doesn't allow her a back door to escape. It also doesn't allow her a back door to sublimate knowledge of the seduction to escape the guilt should she take him up the offer as in the first example.

Still a pain in the ass, though. :p

That's great stuff invert. The practicality of denial eh? LOL.

Her self image is dependent on her "good girl" status, yet perhaps she's just as horny as her suiter. Quite contradictory. As such, the conflicting information must be avoided in direct thought such that her self-image is perserved.

Invert,


That's dreadful, what that book says, but it is true. Girls get implanted all sorts of morals into their heads, much more than boys.
In the end, girls cannot but act artful somehow, if not artificial. And it's not even their fault!

Colorful analogy. :D Yours or borrowed?

Mine. :) Or perhaps my subconcious is ripping people off :bugeye:

Men are capable of this self-deception as well. Although women are more prone to their moral implantation, and also fall prey more easily to their emotions as well. The corpus callosum and the anterior commisure connecting the left and right half of the brains are larger in women. This means women are more in touch with their emotions, but they are also more easily overwhelmed by them

Jadedflower:

What's easier to express in Portuguese??? I haven't a clue.
Portuguese has a lot more synonyms and is a lot more poetic. English is like... a tupparware with old food, while latin languages tend to be... a fruit market =D Fresh, ripe, colourful and with variety!
See?

Given any mudpuddle, twirl your hands inside combing and combing through the filth and, with time, find a small nugget of pearl.
She just made a wonderful analogy of our languages- the Indo European tongues are strange siblings. How can the ugly sausage words of German be related to the lively, tropical perfume of Spanish and Italian?
The little girl hides potential.
Bitch.


Dream

As far as I know, German is more flexible than English, meaning that new words can easily be formed and still be understood by most people. Therefore, it is easier to express certain concepts because it is easier to describe/nominate things while staying understandable. For the same reason, German was widely used under scientist and similar people.
If it is really true, I do not know, I read about that once. True, there are things that I can better express in German because I can "shape" the words to my liking. But perhaps I do not know enough English vocabulary to adequately express it.
Ditto. For example:


Vert: Which concepts are easier to express in German, English, (and also your native language or others you may speak, Rosa.) (and you, too, Jaded.) (Hell, I guess even Gendanken can share how it is in spanish.) I begin to feel like a cretin because I only speaka da english
Schadenfreude.

Its a German word untranslatable in English or any other language, meaning a lusty gratification in seeing humans miserable. It reflects the cold rigidity of German blood.
"Sangrona" is a word immediately coming to mind when I think of women, its a Spanish word with pathetic attemtpts to imitate it in English.
Only in Spanish does it carry the image of one scalping a nagging, vexing, vindictive, trifling woman with one's bare hands but when translating it to the Enlgish - nagging, vexing, vindicitve, and trifling diminishes one's passions to scalp her.
Nagging, vexing, vidicitive, and trifling are weak attempts at "sangrona", which I would usually would say through clenched teeth with her neck in my fists.

Vert:
Perfect clause from Joseph's book. I had jotted down an aphorism on the powers of ambiguity in my journals after reading that:

Being indirect allows the speaker to take samples of
reactions and then at a precise moment directy kill
his listener with the very morsels he gave freely.

...from the very idea he gave at the top of page 91. From that, I went on to interconnect indirectness with the assocation psychology of Jung, and came up with my Reaons for Why Lovers Whisper Sweet Nothings- indirectness.
I never thought of linking that chapter with this thread, since the goings on here are laughable and not taken serioulsy but this .....was a stroke of genius.
Don't ever let me compliment you again, you miserble hunk of mierrrrrrrrda!!
And women, goes Joseph, as emotionally cursed as they are do reap their benefits. They are much, much harder to lie to when in her presence. She smells it. And remembers everything.
Muhahhahahahhah.....



The corpus callosum and the anterior commisure connecting the left and right half of the brains are larger in women.
As well as there being thousands of more fibers channelings data in that structure in females than males. Estrogen, as well as the oxytocin released during pregnancy to relase breastmilk, is believed to lie behind the making more of these channels within the the collasum or lubricating it in a sense, by widening the channels. So she becomes more intuitive as a mother. This is the exact place the surgeon cuts to 'heal' an epileptic, and these people tend to lose some of their social aptitude becuase of it.



Hmmm. Strange. I just checked all the translator's notes for the four books of Zarathustra. And none of them mention "That which does not kill us makes us stronger." Unless my eye passed over it unwillingly. I would think that it would mention the catch phrase. It mentions "Beyond Good & Evil" being coined in part three chapter 4. "God is Dead" in the intro to part 1. Many other "key" phrases but not the one I'm looking for.
Trying to put my foot in my mouth, are we?

Its been a long time since reading Zarathrusta- it was in fact mailed to me as a word doc. From Thomas Common's translation, the Flies in the Marketplace:



"Do not be jealous of those unyielding and impatient men, you lover of truth! Never yet did truth cling to the arm of the unyielding.
On account of those abrupt ones, return into your security: only in the market-place is one assailed by Yes? or No?
I see you exhausted by poisonous flies; I see you bleeding and torn at a hundred spots; and your pride refuses even to be angry.
They would have blood from you in all innocence; blood is what bloodless souls crave- and therefore they sting in all innocence.
What we recognize in a man, we also irritate in him. Therefore be on your guard against the small ones!
In your presence they feel themselves small, and their baseness gleams and glows against you in invisible vengeance.
You did not see how often they became silent when you approached them, and how their energy left them like the smoke of an waning fire?
Yes, my friend, you are the bad conscience of your neighbors, for they are unworthy of you. Therefore they hate you, and would rather suck your blood.
Your neighbors will always be poisonous flies; what is great in you- that itself must make them more poisonous, and always more fly-like.
Flee, my friend, into your solitude- and there, where a rough strong breeze blows. It is not your lot to shoo flies."

And I've dug and dug, no thanks to you, looking for a precise mention of "what does not kill..."- nothing. But really you cannot blame me, the prophet paraphrased would be saying in a few words that which does not kill us, the menacing stings and noise from the market flies, makes us stronger.
It seems it was said as "Out of life's school of war, what does not destroy me, makes me stronger" in Twighlights of the Idols, Kauffman, Aphorism 8.
However, just to save face I will say that many things in his works prior to the Gay Science were hinted at and alluded to before being made famous in his gayer moods. God is dead, for example, never struck a chord as when the madman uttered it in aphorism 125.
So, we can still make out how I am still right.
Ha.


And Dreamwalker can have those fingers. I'll contribute my attentions to a "lower" part of the body.
Thus Sprach the little incubus with his powerful lengua.
Mneh.

Being indirect allows the speaker to take samples of
reactions and then at a precise moment directy kill
his listener with the very morsels he gave freely.

Always so deadly. You realize that most do not even realize why they are being indirect. They don't know about these back doors and thought suppressions. They're just being themselves and attempting to get some ass. There are, of course, those who are better judges of human nature and do take advantage of these things. But, I tend to believe that these people are a rarity. Most just follow instincts and cultural conditioning.

However, very astute. And, once one is equipped with the knowledge, then one can begin to hunt with a passion. Indirectness as a means of bringing down one's foe. Or one's sweetheart.

But, it does all depend on the indirectee's actions. In the example, if her subconscious hadn't been so horny, it might have allowed her an escape. And if her moral code wasn't so strong, her subconscious could have communicated directly to her. She ignored it and paid the consequences. Who's the true hunter? The indirect man? Or the girl's subconscious?


Don't ever let me compliment you again, you miserble hunk of mierrrrrrrrda!!

But, you've done it once and I must have more. Now I must think. How to draw more compliments from the wonderful Gendanken?


And women, goes Joseph, as emotionally cursed as they are do reap their benefits. They are much, much harder to lie to when in her presence. She smells it. And remembers everything.

For instance, the woman with the left temporal stroke that damaged her language centers. She couldn't understand a damn thing anyone said, but she was able to pick up the emotional context at times. She was prone to errors, but she did better than most men in her situation. Emotional creatures that you women are.

By the way, have you been reading Sacks? Have you made it to the president's speech? The ward of left global aphasics laughing like maniacs during the president's speech? They didn't know the words he was saying, but it was obviously worth laughing at.


It seems it was said as "Out of life's school of war, what does not destroy me, makes me stronger" in Twighlights of the Idols, Kauffman, Aphorism 8.

Yup, there it is. And only 8. I tend to get bored going through his aphorisms as well. But, I would think I would have made it to 8 for god's sake.

I was thinking about in/directness today -- and rembered something (how in-direct, heh):

Have you ever tutored or gave instructions in school stuff to someone?

This isn't simply teaching; when tutoring, you have to dig into your pupil's mind, you need to figure out exactly what he doesn't know and what he surely knows.

Usually the student comes with a problem like "I don't know how to solve these equations" or "I don't know how to complete these sentences".

The reasons for the student's troubles may be many, many. This is why a interrogation method is needed, you must start a battle on several fronts at the same time, go round and round to figure out where exactly the problem is. And you need to remember *everything* the student said. You need to think several steps ahead. Ask questions that can have many answers. You need to have the whole variously forked problem solving algorhythm in your head.

At first glance, this method looks like a lot of doubletalk and manouvering and indirectness -- but it is actually necessary, as there is no simple way to figure out where your student's real lacks are. (And when tutoring, you need to even out all signifficant lacks, or you've failed to do your job.)

-- And this empathy, actually, only on a more "rational" level.

Rosamagika:

This is why a interrogation method is needed, you must start a battle on several fronts at the same time, go round and round to figure out where exactly the problem is. And you need to remember *everything* the student said. You need to think several steps ahead. Ask questions that can have many answers. You need to have the whole variously forked problem solving algorhythm in your head.

From thence comes Rosa's debating tactics, then.
Her tutoring.

Nice analogy, but indirectenss is an intersting speciemen when practiced for the detriment of others, not their betterment.
As in pscyhologically murdering a man with his very assumptions.

Vert:

There are, of course, those who are better judges of human nature and do take advantage of these things. But, I tend to believe that these people are a rarity. Most just follow instincts and cultural conditioning.

Very rare- which is why we are like timid mice when around them.
You feel naked in their presence, you mislable these few as magenetic, devious, magical even without knowing they are simply more in tune with their instincts.
They are usually called evil and deceptive when they are quite simply more voloptuous and alive than most humans.


But, it does all depend on the indirectee's actions. In the example, if her subconscious hadn't been so horny, it might have allowed her an escape. And if her moral code wasn't so strong, her subconscious could have communicated directly to her. She ignored it and paid the consequences. Who's the true hunter? The indirect man? Or the girl's subconscious?

Its not a case of 'had it not been....".
Its that it is, and becuase it is irrevocably in the sexes that the male is the perfect hunter to the female's perfect prey.

I'm talking prototypes here, though.
Pussy men are pussified, feminized.
Butch women masculanized.

Rosa,

Very interesting. I have often thought of indirectnes as it relates to teaching. The best way for one to learn is by teaching himself. By coming to the realization by his own methods rather than being forced to memorize facts and figures that are meaningless to him. Rather, teaching himself is a bit misleading. When one learns on one's own, the learning process is apt to be slow and sometimes misleading. So, a tutor of a sort should be involved in the best use of this method. But, the tutor's actions should be used indirectly. The student will seek to rebel against the tutor and this should be taken into consideration. Give the student bits and pieces of this and that. Allow the student to think independently, to think that he is rebelling and going against your teachings. But, through subtle use of indirection, the student comes to precisely the lesson that you were aiming at. In this way, the student internalizes the lesson to a far greater degree than impersonal, direct teaching. It comes from within, rather than without.

The coyote of Native American legend (I've spoken of him several times before in the past, I'm rather enamored of the analogy) is this type of teacher. He is a trickster and a joke player. But, his through his tricks one learns (if wise). He is an indirect teacher. The best kind if it is pulled off correctly. The problem is of course, that it sounds simple enough, but in practice it would be much more difficult. It would require an indepth knowledge of the human psyche. A person that can read a person like a book, in order to keep the indirection on track.

This idea is also elucidated in the Dune novels by Frank Herbert. The Bene Gesserit are these types of teachers. They are the essence of the type that are completely in tune with their instincts and minds. Both the Bene Gesserit and the Coyote are superhuman figures, I wonder if it should ever be possible in the real world to utilize this technique efficiently. We would greatly benefit by it, in my opinion. Although the potential for abuse exists, as well.


Nice analogy, but indirectenss is an intersting speciemen when practiced for the detriment of others, not their betterment.
As in pscyhologically murdering a man with his very assumptions.

I disagree. And I have an inkling that you don't believe this either. It sounds good though, doesn't it? Teaching is the most important thing in this world, I believe. Teaching must be perfected to an art form. We must not allow ourselves to become complacent(er).

And anyway, teaching is a form of psychological murder. ;)


They are usually called evil and deceptive when they are quite simply more voloptuous and alive than most humans.

I think it depends on the individual whether they are evil or not. What do they do with their gift? Do they use it to prey on people? Predators? If they don't use this power to aid humanity then they are evil. If they are completely self-centered and seek only their own gratification then they are evil. A person with this gift would be the best teacher in the world; but, do they teach? Or do they take?

Deceptive. If they are so in tune with human behavior and instincts, they should be able to appear to be normal. They should be able to stifle that fear-causing reaction in others. Would they be deceptive by doing so? Would they be evil? Sometimes the crowd needs a chill wind to blow by. To disturb the ceaseless bleating of the masses. A bug in the ear.

It all boils down to intent, I suppose. And such a person would have no excuse for being evil. He knows human nature so well, then he should be able to rise above the baser aspects of it. So when such a one is evil then he is truly evil.


Its that it is, and becuase it is irrevocably in the sexes that the male is the perfect hunter to the female's perfect prey.

Good point. Halves of the same coin. Yin and yang.

But, the terms are somewhat misleading. Prey can also hunt. And the hunter can also fall prey. It is a symbiotic relationship rather than a truly predatory one.

Don't get what you're getting at with the prototypes thing. Are you saying that pussy men and butch women are in seperate categories than the perfect hunter to the perfect prey?


***

You know, it really irks me that this thread is going to vanish in a few days time (or however long it will be.) There's a great discussion in here. There's a lot of divergent conversation as well, which might keep it from truly deserving a home in another forum, but it should at the least be preserved while the rest of the cesspool burns.

what, are they clearing out the cesspool?
(DONT KILL ME!!!!!!)

Look at WCF's thread, purging the cesspool and the female orgasm. Or something like that. I don't know how immenent it is, but the mods are pushing for it.

Yeah, somewhat sad that this thread will also be deleted, I think that it turned out quite good. Apart from some pages in the middle...

what else is in there *looks*
hmmmm some good stuff will be lost.
wesdom in large quantities also. almost forgot about that :eek:

where the hell is this thread...
were you making this up? :bugeye:

Unsound,

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=38530

Now, shoo. Stop sullying this fine thread. :D Seriously, I don't want my replies to be overlooked. So stop chatting in here, please.

i am mcsorry. i just didnt think to look in the cesspool.
????
anyway, you may continue *waves hand dismissivley*


EDIT: i am reading it and its not as bad as it was.
however, its not as good as it could be.

Gendanken,


Nice analogy, but indirectenss is an intersting speciemen when practiced for the detriment of others, not their betterment.
As in pscyhologically murdering a man with his very assumptions.

El diablo en el ojo! Schadenfreude, Schadenfreude.

"Psychologically murdering a man with his own assumptions"? That's killing a dead horse. Of course, it may be interesting, it may be revealing. In the end, like Hannibal Lecter cutting parts off of that guy's living brain, and eating them. -- But, for crying out loud, that's kuru.
Eh.
***


Invert Nexus,


And anyway, teaching is a form of psychological murder.


You've been to school, haven't you? Are you dead now?

You've been to school, haven't you? Are you dead now?

Absolutely. ;) Think about it. What is teaching but the changing of one's essence? The boy that I was when I began school didn't survive the schooling process. He was brutally murdered by the things he learned. And it's not limited to schools. We learn in life as well. And in learning we kill that which we were. We cannot survive revelation. Epiphany forever alters the soul.

Absolutely. ;) Think about it. What is teaching but the changing of one's essence? The boy that I was when I began school didn't survive the schooling process. He was brutally murdered by the things he learned. And it's not limited to schools. We learn in life as well. And in learning we kill that which we were. We cannot survive revelation. Epiphany forever alters the soul.

Oh. Then I ask: What is your essence?

Life is death, this is what you're saying?

Getting a little too metaphysical on me. What I'm referring to is the same thing I was going on about in the free will thread a while back. I am not the same person I was yesterday. (Mostly, but minor differences.) I am not the same person I was a year ago (Few more differences.) In learning, we outgrow ourselves. We become more than what we once were. Our old selves are subsumed within the onion peel of our consciousness. Teaching, rather learning, is psychological murder. Not physical murder. Though, in a sense it happens on a physical layer within the brain. But, that's nitpicky.

When someone learns truly. The knowledge that they have learned becomes part of themselves. It is incorporated in the whole. Sometimes, this knowledge conflicts with previously held knowledge. One or the other has to go. Another form of psychological murder.

Essence? Tricky. It is the present recollection of past experiences. Note that I say recollection. That is the key element. We don't remember all. Maybe somewhere deep down inside is the perfect computer storing data, but that is not I. We are a best guess, so to speak. The interpreter mechanism affects our memories as well as our present. I'm not so sure that we are the interpreter mechanism any longer though. I don't think it's a specific mechanism. It's more of a symptom.

Your holistic learning chart would work excellently for this example. When we learn, we go from black, white, grey to all-colors. We are no longer what we were. And can never go back.

Unsound:

what, are they clearing out the cesspool?
(DONT KILL ME!!!!!!)
Keep chatting, and this is a promise.

Rosa:

El diablo en el ojo! Schadenfreude, Schadenfreude.

"Psychologically murdering a man with his own assumptions"? That's killing a dead horse. Of course, it may be interesting, it may be revealing. In the end, like Hannibal Lecter cutting parts off of that guy's living brain, and eating them. -- But, for crying out loud, that's kuru.
Eh.
***

Good.
At least someone here read that part.
I wonder if you ever heard of "sangrona" or for children "esquincle".

But would not killing a dead horse be killing an idiot? What's the fun in it? I'm talking about a horse who misplaces himself into something other than a horse, attempts to confuse or impress you with his unhorseness and the thrilling experience of subtly proving to him he's only a horse....and an idiot.
That's not kuru.
That gorgeous fun.
You've stolen my word (kuru). I used it first! BITCH!


I disagree. And I have an inkling that you don't believe this either. It sounds good though, doesn't it? Teaching is the most important thing in this world, I believe. Teaching must be perfected to an art form. We must not allow ourselves to become complacent(er).
Oh?
I believe every last word of it.
I said interesting, not fullfilling. Its interesting watching someone's little games called out them, dissecting them and psychologically invading their privacy. Its perfectly useless at the of the day, admittedly. But its gorgeous fun. Interesting.
Fulfilling is the learning from brothers- learning with joy, mischief and trickery.
The coyote man.
None of this is institutionalized, so its fulfilling.

Keep chatting, and this is a promise.

And afterwards? A feast of human flesh? Do you think that he carries the prions that carry kuru? (Damn you. Of course I read it as well. I tried to think of how to comment on it, but failed. Sometimes we fail, you know. Directness is not always achieved. Sometimes even indirectness is elusive.)


I said interesting, not fullfilling. Its interesting watching someone's little games called out them, dissecting them and psychologically invading their privacy. Its perfectly useless at the of the day, admittedly. But its gorgeous fun. Interesting.
Fulfilling is the learning from brothers- learning with joy, mischief and trickery.

Now, that's interesting. You make interesting clinical. And fulfilling joyous. Yet, you speak of psychological murder as interesting rather than fulfilling. I would have thought you take pleasure in the psychological murder. Therefore it should be fulfilling rather than interesting.

Hmm.

Vert:

And fulfilling joyous. Yet, you speak of psychological murder as interesting rather than fulfilling. I would have thought you take pleasure in the psychological murder. Therefore it should be fulfilling rather than interesting
Well, consider the difference.
You sit down to a puzzle to kill time, its interesting watching the pieces come together. But you learn nothing in it- it was store bought, preformatted and all you did was piece it together again.
The fullfillment dies with itself, so its simple interest. A nice curiosity. Practice.

It doesn't compare to the grandeur of building things, learning, knowing.
Destruction is merely...cheap thrill.

It doesn't compare to the grandeur of building things, learning, knowing.
Destruction is merely...cheap thrill.

You release yourself with such statements, Gendanken. Beware that the predators don't think you're getting weak. ;)

I know what you mean now. You've always spoken with such lustful glee over such things as murder and destruction. It's nice to see that they are merely cheap thrills to you. There is more to life than cheap thrills.

Your analogy of the store-bought puzzle reflects the indirect inner learning.

You release yourself with such statements, Gendanken. Beware that the predators don't think you're getting weak
Oh, but there is nothing weak in it when the thrill is the same I imagine a crackwhore gets when she's sniffing, however short lived.

Its healthy (not crack, so don't ge there)- destruction builds character. Without it, dogma becomes an unchecked monster.
And other's assumptions of who one is becomes their triumph in seeing their objects of resentement destroyed.

True. But, like crack it can become addicting. Many have fallen prey to it's allure. Always, there are extremes. A little too much or too little. We must keep ourselves in moderation or more than dogma becomes an unchecked monster.

And, by the way, a crackwhore smokes her crack. A cokewhore sniffs it. :p You really have just said no to drugs, haven't you?

Invert Nexus,



Getting a little too metaphysical on me. What I'm referring to is the same thing I was going on about in the free will thread a while back. I am not the same person I was yesterday. (Mostly, but minor differences.) I am not the same person I was a year ago (Few more differences.) In learning, we outgrow ourselves. We become more than what we once were. Our old selves are subsumed within the onion peel of our consciousness.

But we still are ourselves, aren't we? So the continuity of identity is never broken (unless you experience serious trauma). We are ourselves. The only (?) difference is that sometimes, we like ourselves better than some other times; sometimes we are more successful than some other times.



Teaching, rather learning, is psychological murder.

I sense a strong negative emotion. I see nothing wrong with learning. It is an inavoidable phenomenon in humans. Therefore, saying that learning is bad or wrong (bad or wrong in the meaning of: it shouldn't happen) is an act of not accepting one's humanity. We suffer because we wish for the wrong things. -- We suffer, because we wish we wouldn't have learned what we've learned.



When someone learns truly. The knowledge that they have learned becomes part of themselves. It is incorporated in the whole. Sometimes, this knowledge conflicts with previously held knowledge. One or the other has to go. Another form of psychological murder.

Why so drastically? If we set out on a journey to learn -- paradigm shifts (yes, one of those inside words these days) are inavoidable. Calling a paradigm shift psychological murder is not very productive, IMO.



Essence? Tricky. It is the present recollection of past experiences. Note that I say recollection. That is the key element. We don't remember all. Maybe somewhere deep down inside is the perfect computer storing data, but that is not I. We are a best guess, so to speak. The interpreter mechanism affects our memories as well as our present. I'm not so sure that we are the interpreter mechanism any longer though. I don't think it's a specific mechanism. It's more of a symptom.

Arthur Rimbaud said in his famous letter to Georges Izambard:

"It is wrong to say: I think. We ought to say: I am being thought.
I is somebody else."



***

Gendanken,



I wonder if you ever heard of "sangrona" or for children "esquincle".

I've heard of sangrona from you, earlier in this thread. And right now, esquincle. Will store data.



But would not killing a dead horse be killing an idiot? What's the fun in it? I'm talking about a horse who misplaces himself into something other than a horse, attempts to confuse or impress you with his unhorseness and the thrilling experience of subtly proving to him he's only a horse....and an idiot.
That's not kuru.
That gorgeous fun.

How do you know when a horse is misplacing himself into something other than a horse? How do you know that he attempts to confuse or impress you with his unhorseness?



You've stolen my word (kuru). I used it first! BITCH!

You don't own words, draga moja. And you aren't the first one to use it.
And I only borrowed it, I am only using it, I didn't steal it from you -- *that* would be kuru.



Its healthy (not crack, so don't ge there)- destruction builds character. Without it, dogma becomes an unchecked monster.

I see your point. But I think I've just discovered a lack in my cognitive schemes.

Hm. I'll give an example and you please give me a comment:
I like to sew, draw, do things with my hands. If I made a bad seem, I have to rip it, and do it all over. If a drawing isn't good, I scrutinize it, see where it failed, and try again. I guess this is about destruction, but I have always perceived destruction to often be a productive endeavour, a mid-step in betterment.
But I've never seen fun in destruction. Usefulness, yes.



And other's assumptions of who one is becomes *their* triumph in seeing *their* objects of resentement destroyed.

I don't understand this. Do you mean something like:
Person A has certain assumptions about person B; A resents B.
After a while, B breaks down, and A feel good about it, A has Schadenfreude and feels trimuphant.
This is what you meant?

Rosa:

Person A has certain assumptions about person B; A resents B.
After a while, B breaks down, and A feel good about it, A has Schadenfreude and feels trimuphant.
This is what you meant?
Gorgeous. Precicely.

I've a mind to become more technical than I already am, using diagrams and dialectics, syllogisms.
Therefore, getting mathematical:
A begrudges B.
B, despite A, succeeds for every failure in A's bitterness.
And B, unschooled in silent deviance, if meek or withdrawn falls prey to A's calculations to destroy him.
B-A= less B, if B plays at humility.

Both B and A, despite protests in A of not being as evil or destructive, are mathematical equals despite A's exterior.
A- Jew
B- Roman

How do you know when a horse is misplacing himself into something other than a horse? How do you know that he attempts to confuse or impress you with his unhorseness?

Can you not tell when a human is being disengenius?


You don't own words, draga moja. And you aren't the first one to use it.
And I only borrowed it, I am only using it, I didn't steal it from you -- *that* would be kuru.


And how would I know, monja mula?
I've spoken of unconscious plagariasm before, "Look of Eyes" thread
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37653&page=6&pp=20
18 posts down.
Kuru came to me in a stream of conscious writing, headnoise.
A bit of radar for sarcasm would be nice, dearest.


I see your point. But I think I've just discovered a lack in my cognitive schemes.

Hm. I'll give an example and you please give me a comment:
I like to sew, draw, do things with my hands. If I made a bad seem, I have to rip it, and do it all over. If a drawing isn't good, I scrutinize it, see where it failed, and try again. I guess this is about destruction, but I have always perceived destruction to often be a productive endeavour, a mid-step in betterment.
But I've never seen fun in destruction. Usefulness, yes.

Ah- worlds of difference.
Destruction of living flesh is simple murder, the serial killer.
Destruction of mind is intellectual homicide, the philospher.

In both these cases, the thrill is pleasing but useless. Like art, according to Orwell.
Destrcution of things one builds with one's hands in their learning is useful, therefore constructive destruction.
See now?

Rosa,

You're being far too literal with what I'm saying, I think. I liked the idea of teaching as psychological murder, but I attribute no negative emotions to the deed. It is inevitable in life. Even with no teaching we change as we progress. So, by actually learning, we achieve a better end than the slow baseless changes of mere living. A slow death compared to the quick murder, so to speak. In this instance, I feel the murder far preferable to the slow death. And, anyway, murder in this sense is a good thing. It is a defining moment. A moment that shatters our existance and reshapes us into something new. Something that did not exist moments before. And once this occurs, we can never go back. We can never undo the changes that have taken place in our psyche. Short of neurological trauma that is.


Calling a paradigm shift psychological murder is not very productive, IMO.

It's all just words. And psychological murder seems to evoke deeper emotions than paradigm shift. I like the idea, personally.


Arthur Rimbaud said in his famous letter to Georges Izambard:

"It is wrong to say: I think. We ought to say: I am being thought.
I is somebody else."

Ah ha! She begins to come around. A bit of psychological murder taking place inside, Rosa? A very short time ago you refused to even consider this possibility. Or so it seemed to me, anyway.


But we still are ourselves, aren't we? So the continuity of identity is never broken (unless you experience serious trauma). We are ourselves. The only (?) difference is that sometimes, we like ourselves better than some other times; sometimes we are more successful than some other times.

But, still she struggles. It is a hard thing, this giving up of self, isn't it? It will set you free in the end. Because we can both be ourselves and not be. One does not preclude the other.

Like has nothing to do with it. Although, maybe it does, as in the example of the moral woman earlier who refused to see that she was about to become a lusty woman. She didn't like it, and yet she did.

But, to the argument of "who am I" it is irrelevant. We change. Whether or not our former selves like our new selves (or vice versa) is irrelevant. The change occurs and that is what's important. Liking it only points out the change at key points. Would your teenage self like you? Would your childhood self? Do you like them? What about your older self? She hasn't been born yet, but she's coming. Do you think she will completely identify with your choices? With your younger selves?

And as to the continuity of awareness being constant. I'm not so sure. Trauma isn't the only thing that causes a drastic shift in consciousness. True learning does this. Not the artificial memorized learning, but the truly deep, inner learning. Someone I know described it as glass shattering. The glass is your older self breaking apart never to return.


Destruction of living flesh is simple murder, the serial killer.
Destruction of mind is intellectual homicide, the philospher.

In both these cases, the thrill is pleasing but useless. Like art, according to Orwell.

I don't know about this. The serial killer's art may be useless, but the murder by the philosopher is the stuff of life. If everyone was killed properly in this way, imagine the world. I suppose that what you may be getting at is the murder is at the hands of another. One should murder oneself, rather than be murdered by another. Another who may be unworthy, perhaps.

How about this. Rather than allowing yourself to be murdered by the philosophers (take their litany to heart), instead you take from their weapons and murder yourself.


Destrcution of things one builds with one's hands in their learning is useful, therefore constructive destruction.
See now?

Is this what I just said? Using the philosophers' weapons against yourself, rather than allowing them to do it directly?

Vert:

The serial killer's art may be useless, but the murder by the philosopher is the stuff of life
Still useless.
I could take A's brain right now in my hands and squeeze the juice out of it, forcing it to see its true nature. The idea of it is tantalizing, as it promises another excursion into the dynamics of the human mind, but in the end what am I left with?
Myself.
I've done nothing more than sharpened skill, a carpenter does as much.
What *is* useful, however, woud be the product of A's reaction to my squeezing its brain.


One should murder oneself, rather than be murdered by another. Another who may be unworthy, perhaps.
Meet you halfway.
This skill curled onto oneself kills faster- yes.
A thousand times yes.
In pscyhoanalysis, you are not allowed to be certified as one (a phychoanalyst) until you've undergone the procedure yourself.


Is this what I just said? Using the philosophers' weapons against yourself, rather than allowing them to do it directly?
Then quit saying his skill is the 'stuff of life'.
Academia tends to polish this skill and put it way like some kind of silverwear.
"Hey look at us! We can dissect you! Beware the ink in our pen!" and we're to cringe at the sight of Voltaire.
There's no use in just having it.

I could take A's brain right now in my hands and squeeze the juice out of it, forcing it to see its true nature. The idea of it is tantalizing, as it promises another excursion into the dynamics of the human mind, but in the end what am I left with?

But, that would be physical murder rather than psychological murder. You might be psychologically murdering yourself if you were to learn and change enough by the doing, but A would be dead and no relevant change would have taken place.

Stuff of life was a bad phrase. It is the stuff of mind rather. But, for those like us (me anyway) it is the most precious. Understanding, knowing, learning, these things I hold dear and precious. And this is the stuff of the philosopher, the stuff of psychological murder. Or perhaps psychological suicide. Psychological murder would be the instilling change in the mind of another. Teaching. And this too I see as important. Because, not all have the fortitude to kill themselves (psychologically) they must be murdered. Or indirectly led to murder themselves. We run the risk of them being less than they might have been had they taken the journey by themselves, but they would be more than had they never taken the journey at all.


I've done nothing more than sharpened skill (mine), a carpenter does as much.
What *is* useful, however, woud be the product of A's reaction to my squeezing its brain.

That's what I'm saying. It's not about you, proud woman. It's about the other. It's in teaching and allowing another to become more than they are. To learn something. To learn everything. To learn how to learn. That is psychological murder. Erase their old unlearning, uncaring, unthinking identity so that a new being is born. A truer being.


This skill curled onto oneself kills faster- yes.
A thousand times yes.
In pscyhoanalysis, you are not allowed to be certified as one (a phychoanalyst) until you've undergone the procedure yourself.

Which skill? The skill you sharpened by squeezing the brains out of someone's head? And kills who? Yourself or another?

Hmm, I think I took you too literally earlier with all the talk of brain squeezing. You were actually speaking about head shrinking, psychoanalysis, weren't you? That's where our misunderstanding lies, I think. A psychoanalyst is no teacher. He tries to ease a person past his mental trivia, but he imparts no true wisdom. He is no coyote. He may try to be, he may think he is, but he's not. He's only a pretender to the being I envision. The true psychological murderer. He doesn't exist yet. He is not within our grasp yet. Perhaps someday.


Then quit saying his skill is the 'stuff of life'.
Academia tends to polish this skill and put it way like some kind of silverwear.
"Hey look at us! We can dissect you! Beware the ink in our pen!" and we're to cringe at the sight of Voltaire.
There's no use in just having it.

Agreed. Stuff of life was lame. I apologize. I hope I've cleared it up.

And as to the dusty tomes of lore. This is not the way of the murderer. There is too much joy in the deed to allow it to grow dusty and cold. There is a whole world of humanity that must be murdered in order to be born.

Having it is nothing. It must be given away. Given away and altered in the doing and returned and contemplated. A neverending churning. But always churning higher. Towards something more.

Vert:

Hmm, I think I took you too literally earlier with all the talk of brain squeezing. You were actually speaking about head shrinking, psychoanalysis, weren't you?
Pause.

Like, yeah? And I'm not talking of shrinks either, I'm talking coyotes.
The psychoanalysis was used as expample in how it is required that they study themselves first before they even touch others.
Thus- suicide before homicide, this is how the teacher learns to teach.
The true teacher.


That's what I'm saying. It's not about you, proud woman. It's about the other
Well you asked me whether it was trihilling or not, therefore you personalized it my little friend.
Yes?
Also, it helped in delineating the reasons why pointing out skill in skill alone is, quite simply, useless.
That's all.

Like, yeah? And I'm not talking of shrinks either, I'm talking coyotes.

Oops, my bad. I guess. So we're basically saying the same thing then. :D


Well you asked me whether it was trihilling or not, therefore you personalized it my little friend.
Yes?
Also, it helped in delineating the reasons why pointing out skill in skill alone is, quite simply, useless.
That's all.

Accepted. I think we were saying the same thing all along just from different angles. I think it's been cleared up now.

I'll offer a peace offering. You can murder me today if I can murder you tomorrow. Deal?

I'll offer a peace offering. You can murder me today if I can murder you tomorrow. Deal?
Deal.
I prefer machetes or gerots.
You, however, have been sunkissed with cyanide since meeting.
*grin*


Oops, my bad. I guess. So we're basically saying the same thing then
Yes, again.
And let's not mince words- we both know the detriments of institutionalized anything. I scoffed once at those psychiatrists treating personality as some kind of syndrome subject to cheap pills and labels.
I scoff at the school systems- intellectual wetspots. I've learned so much more since graduating.
This agreeing is getting tiresome, no?
I disagree with all our agreements.

(aside: looked back on this thread from the very beginning. Funny how Jaded, sweet sweet complacent little Jaded, has erased all her initial posts)(ha)

Deal.
I prefer machetes or gerots.
You, however, have been sunkissed with cyanide since meeting.
*grin*

I prefer meat cleavers and piano wire.
It's a good thing I have slowly built up a tolerance for cyanide over the years. I have been dosing myself with minute amounts since early childhood. I am now quite immune to the effects. (That's probably not possible with cyanide, is it? Oh well, sounds good...)


And let's not mince words- we both know the detriments of institutionalized anything. I scoffed once at those psychiatrists treating personality as some kind of syndrome subject to cheap pills and labels.
I scoff at the school systems- intellectual wetspots. I've learned so much more since graduating.

I disagree. I think that the school system is a cerebral cumhole. I've acquired much knowledge since leaving the hallowed halls of learning.


This agreeing is getting tiresome, no?
I disagree with all our agreements.

Absolutely not. I think that our lack of disagreements is becoming quite cumbersome.

:D:D:D

Heh, that's about the funniest bit I've seen on MadTV in several years. The two politicians who "disagree" on everything by saying the same thing in different ways.


Yes, entrenched bureacracy is at the root of many of the world's problems. Dogma and narrow thinking. We must keep ourselves fresh and joyous.

And about Jaded, it's a good thing that she couldn't delete her original post or this thread would have long since vanished into the ether.

Vert:

That's probably not possible with cyanide, is it?
Actually, it is.
We can tell by striations it leaves in your hair, cyanide tends to leave something like a geological recrod of stripes in your hair that you can trace back towards the follicle like the rings in a tree trunk.
Will eventually kill you, but people have gone for months not knowing they are secretly being poison-ed.
Usually by a woman.


And speaking of Jaded, so she sends me a pm inquiring on why it is I am so bitter and why I hate everyone so much.
Again, smearing her own condition into a generalization.

So here we are Jaded.
I do not hate you- wishing to pop your eyes out with a teaspoon is not hate.
Kidding.
Seriously, you are your own disservice. A bottom feeder rotting with the Jonn Connellans and Spookies of this world.
A rarity it is to find real people with real faces willing to engage in the mysteries of the world, losing ourselves in philosophy but no- what we call friend and family is a conglomeration of the lazy ignorance that kills the child in humanity.
One would think you coming here would inspire more out of you but no- you'd rather sit there filling this place with chatty nonsense and pigshit, yes?
And you ask why someone would come and singe you with a flamewar.
Ha.

p.o.i.s.o.n.e.d
Written out without dots is
********.

I've been here a little over a year now with no answers to why this happens and a thread asking why got deleted.
FUCK YOU ALL.

Gendanken,

It's got to do with filesharing I believe. I think it's a filesharing client for the macintosh that competes with Porf's. Seems somewhat childish to ban the name. The least he could do is limit the banning to the filesharing portion of the site. In fact, it likely leads people to come to knowledge of the client rather than stifling discussion of it. But, it's his house, so whatever...


Usually by a woman.

You damnable women and your desire to poison us in our sleep. It's either slow poisoning or a frying pan to the head. Remember the Burning Bed?


Actually, it is.

What I was referring to was building up a tolerance to the poison by slowly increasing intake. I don't think much tolerance can be built for cyanide. It's too deadly.

Speaking of cyanide. And directness. Remember Waco? I saw a documentary on it. The chemical agent they used (don't remember what it was anymore) when burned gave off cyanide gas. Many of the children that were roasted alive were actually killed by cyanide poisoning. They showed the corpse of a little girl whose spine had bent backwards from muscular contractions due to the effects of the gas. Her head was practically touching her ass. The agony they must have suffered...

Jim Jones and his cyanide fun-fest. By the time the last of the suiciders poured their cups of cyanide kool-aid, the others must have already been convulsing and screaming in agony. How could they do it? While good ol' Jim, lord of the domain, took the easy way out with a bullet in the brain. Fucking coward.

Jaded,

Gendanken wants to enlighten you. Open you to a world that is so much more than you might be aware of right now.

I like to sew, draw, do things with my hands. If I made a bad seem, I have to rip it, and do it all over. If a drawing isn't good, I scrutinize it, see where it failed, and try again. I guess this is about destruction, but I have always perceived destruction to often be a productive endeavour, a mid-step in betterment.
But I've never seen fun in destruction. Usefulness, yes.
Stephen King gave this useful advice to prospective writers in his Memoirs: "kill your babies". It means that no matter how much you like what you have, or would like something to work, if it doesn't - lose it. Destruction is inherent to the creative process, but as Gendanken said, it's creative destruction. The goal is to end up with something more than just satisfactory, but with something meaningful and useful. Of course, nobody recommends character assasination. The creation of a mind or personality doesn't permit destruction, only preference and reinforcement.

When something already has more value than you can give it, you aren't justified to modify it.

Gendanken,



I've a mind to become more technical than I already am, using diagrams and dialectics, syllogisms.

Please do. I'd be much obliged.



Can you not tell when a human is being disengenius?

Hm. Good question.
1. I think I can, IRL. Although, those people then usually find me unpalatable. I don't say anything against them, but I refuse to play their disingenuous game, and this is a such a turn-off for them! I've never had a longer conversation with such people. Plus, I often think myself unpalatable anyway ...
2. Here, online: uh, tough call. I need the face and the voice too.
3. I am certainly not nearly as sure of my judgements as you are.



And how would I know, monja mula?

So I've earned myself to be a mule and a nun ... BTW, "draga moja" means 'my dear' in Slovene. I wanted to be original. Uh. Eh.



I've spoken of unconscious plagariasm before, "Look of Eyes" thread

I know this!!



A bit of radar for sarcasm would be nice, dearest.

If anything, I'm afraid my radar for sarcasm is *too* sensitive, and I have to brace myself to not read everything you say as if it were meant in sarcasm. Many things you say can so easily go both ways.
When talking to you, one must have as great a self-confidence as you, or one is bound to misread you.



Ah- worlds of difference.
/.../
See now?

I see now.

***

Smooth Operator,



I liked the idea of teaching as psychological murder, but I attribute no negative emotions to the deed. It is inevitable in life. Even with no teaching we change as we progress. So, by actually learning, we achieve a better end than the slow baseless changes of mere living. A slow death compared to the quick murder, so to speak. In this instance, I feel the murder far preferable to the slow death. And, anyway, murder in this sense is a good thing. It is a defining moment. A moment that shatters our existance and reshapes us into something new. Something that did not exist moments before. And once this occurs, we can never go back. We can never undo the changes that have taken place in our psyche. Short of neurological trauma that is.

See, this is what I explain with my 8 and holistic explosions!



It's all just words. And psychological murder seems to evoke deeper emotions than paradigm shift.

Well, I still like my holistic explosion. Yes, call me plain if you oh so must.



Ah ha! She begins to come around. A bit of psychological murder taking place inside, Rosa? A very short time ago you refused to even consider this possibility. Or so it seemed to me, anyway.

I went on and on about the holistic explosion ...



Because we can both be ourselves and not be. One does not preclude the other.

Hm?



Like has nothing to do with it.

Yes, it does. I don't like my hairdo today.



A neverending churning. But always churning higher. Towards something more.

Here's the rub!! That's the wrong thing, IMO, in reasoning: we think in terms of *more*, rather than in terms of "else" or "other", I'm not sure what exactly, but I am quite sure that *more* is a most misleading term.

Do you know Descartes' refutation of why a human cannot be perfect?
I don't remember it exactly, but it goes along the lines of this:
Pefection cannot be achieved by adding or growing; as perfection is inherently already complete and finished. As such, it is foreign to living beings.
Therefore, setting perfection as a goal, or striving to come as close to perfection as possible, is an act of misleading oneself, fooling oneself. Adding, growing, the moremoremore *does not* lead to perfection.
We must re-set our goals. Not strive for perfection, not strive for the Holy Grail, not strive for das Ding an sich (namely, perfection, the Holy Grail, das Ding an sich are all different names for the same thing!).

Now what could that "else" be? I know: the 4th option.

Heh, I'm smart today, inspite the bad hairdo. :bugeye:

Of course, nobody recommends character assasination. The creation of a mind or personality doesn't permit destruction, only preference and reinforcement.

When something already has more value than you can give it, you aren't justified to modify it.

Oh? Says who? There are times when the being might require it. Those who refuse to help themselves... But, the trick is the indirect method. To use their instincts and thoughts against them. To hand them the keys to their own salvation. To lead them to the water. The only way to creatively destroy someone's psyche in the manner which Gendanken and I have been speaking, is internally. They must do it themselves. Or it does not take. The meaning of the transformation is lessened. It's permanence and grandeur are diminished.

Not justified to modify it? So, by that statement you refute all teaching. Not just the grand teaching which we have been speaking of. In fact, you rule out all social interaction. You hold the individual sancrosanct and allow no justification of modification of the individual. You'd place that person in a box and keep him from all aspects of the world that might change him. You'd preserve the image at the cost of life. If it's not changing then it's dead.

By the way, nothing modifies a person more than a religious indoctrination. Is that justified? A person isn't allowed to come up with their own personal religion, are they? They must accept yours and no others or risk hell. How do you justify this in light of your sancrosanct individual? In this case you deem their soul more valuable than their mind?

***

I agree with what you say of destroying your work. Not necessarily in exactly the way you describe. Sometimes, it can be difficult to judge one's own work. In the case of writing, that's what an editors for. But, an artist has no editor. Such would be anathema to his nature. One must destroy his work by giving it away. By allowing others to take it into themselves.

By the way, many writers and philosophers and even artists have trouble giving their work away. Finding a home for it. This torments them. This destroys them rather than their work.

The buddhist sand paintings are an excellent example of the impermanence of things. I could never do such a thing. So much time and effort put into a thing of such exquisite beauty and then brushed aside as though it were nothing. Vanished never to return again. Sidewalk paintings are another example. There is a thread in the Arts forum that has some incredible examples of sidewalk paintings. They are a bit more permanent that the sand paintings of the buddhists, but they too fade and vanish. Graffiti and murals. The same. The improvising storyteller down at the bar. His stories come and go. Vanishing into the very air which they are born. Destruction inherent in our every breath. Each thought we think is fleeting, vanishing and transforming even as it being illuminated within our minds.

Life... Death... The same...
-Conan the Barbarian

Leaving the radio on when leaving the room

By modification I meant alteration, in the sense of destroying and rebuilding. It has to be internal and indirect - nobody's scorching synapses. I should've been clearer, maybe I was relying too much on my context for meaning. Learning is progressive, so is social interaction. It builds, or - my preference - spins meaning like a web. You don't destroy someone's will to teach them something new, you are more likely to use what they already know or understand, and elaborate from there. For instance, I'm not destroying your understanding of what I wrote, I'm clarifying, working from it - using it as a point of departure.

Indoctrination on the other hand is forceful, intrusive. It is destructive, which I said cannot be justified. It overrides "weaker" ideas and erects "stronger" ones in their place. Maybe this is a small part of education, but (ideally) only in the sense of dispelling erroneous preconceptions, but then only as a side-effect.

You mention religion. What are our ideas about God from birth? Partly intuitive, partly non-existent. In that sense religion is like any social system, like morality - acquired by interaction with it. And if it adds meaning to life - an inherent meaning, not like the meaning money or possessions or even relationships give it - then it is also productive. I am, after all, supporting a historical religion - a moral educational one - not a nondescript spiritual layer of dust that gets into all the cracks and only accumulates after years of inactivity or preconditioning, nor the sandstorm that erodes and blows away everything else. It's not my religion - Judaism isn't my religion - but that's the God who gives life. You can't wish it different.

Remember your Creator in the days of your youth... before the silver cord is severed , or the golden bowl is broken