the word genius is stupid.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Who claims to be a genius? Show me a man who claims to be a genius, and I’ll show you someone who is deluded.

No one is genius….

Genius implies there is something to gain in this life, there is nothing to gain…. To claim to be anything is self-deception… as soon as you assert yourself with a label you’re a complacent smug human being….

How do you know what you are, you don’t, you can never know what you are….

Using lofty terms such as genius, wise man, sage, mystic is a sign of immaturity.

It is like a child who loves to impress his mother by riding with no hands on his bicycle… sure its cute, but it wont get you anywhere…

Does anyone actually take this death of the self seriously or are we all just playing with words here?

Playing with big words only delays a biological transformation…

And I’ll even admit I’m still a neurotically insecure, lewd animal on a daily basis, there is no pride. There is no concern for what you people think. I’m not trying to please, show off, or prove myself to anyone, because there is nothing to prove.

The man who constantly talks about this sage and that sage only does it because he is insecure. Trust me I know because I do it.

To compare yourself with anyone is a sign of a terror of death…

Cosmic gossip is just as superficial as any other gossip. When fear ends, we stop taking about other teachers period. Comparing sages is an addiction, no different than a crack addict.

We crave orientation so we cling on to Jesus, Socrates, Buddha, Jiddu Krishnamurti, UG Krishnamurti, and all the others….

they make us feel that we have a gang, Invisible allies, but the truth is that we are completely alone... freedom is the most terrifying thing in the world...

As long as we’re constantly comparing guru's lives, we’re afraid of a complete ending of the self….

Forget about the teachers, forget about impressing and pleasing people in this forum and just die already…

Actually the above statement isn’t clearly expressed. There is no act of will that will bring about that change, as a frightened ego, all you can do is give up…

Actually every moment you spend in intellectual debate is another moment wasted.

Intellectual debate is a sign of immaturity. It is only a violent mind that desires to battle with people and prove himself as a sage, king, god or whatever he is trying to be…

you cant change people, so stop trying, give up. there is nobody to change, you can't even change yourself... so who are you to change other people?

do you forgot that there is no "you" doing the changing. the change happens independently of "you". "you" actually prevent the change. and my point here is that it is the "you" that claims to be a genius...

if there is no "you" there is no genius. there is nothing.

[David Quinn]

If you believe all this, then why have you written to this forum with the intention of trying to change people? Why are you making authoritative statements like a sage?

Your message seems to be, "I am greater and more mature than all of you, because I hypocritically pretend that I am not a wise person - even though, deep down, I believe I am. "

Thanks for that.

-

[David Quinn]

The cosmic prostitute wrote:

Who claims to be a genius? Show me a man who claims to be a genius, and I’ll show you someone who is deluded.

No one is genius….

Genius implies there is something to gain in this life, there is nothing to gain…. To claim to be anything is self-deception… as soon as you assert yourself with a label you’re a complacent smug human being….

This comment, and indeed all of your comments, only applies to foolish people.

How do you know what you are, you don’t, you can never know what you are….

Fools certainly can't, no. Some people, however, are able to uncover their infnite nature, which is what they really are.

Using lofty terms such as genius, wise man, sage, mystic is a sign of immaturity.

It can be .... when fools use them.

It is like a child who loves to impress his mother by riding with no hands on his bicycle… sure its cute, but it wont get you anywhere…

Does anyone actually take this death of the self seriously or are we all just playing with words here?

Are you actually interested in finding out, or are you itching to tar everyone prematurely with a broad insecure brush?

Playing with big words only delays a biological transformation…

And I’ll even admit I’m still a neurotically insecure, lewd animal on a daily basis, there is no pride. There is no concern for what you people think. I’m not trying to please, show off, or prove myself to anyone, because there is nothing to prove.

The man who constantly talks about this sage and that sage only does it because he is insecure. Trust me I know because I do it.

It sounds as though you are placing yourself on a pedestal here and making yourself the be-all and end-all of humanity. Some people might consider this to be a sign of immaturity.

Actually every moment you spend in intellectual debate is another moment wasted.

It can be, for fools.

Intellectual debate is a sign of immaturity. It is only a violent mind that desires to battle with people and prove himself as a sage, king, god or whatever he is trying to be…

This is certainly the case with fools. For others, intellectual debate can be very stimulating and informative, if you open yourself up to it.


-

[Sapius]

I'm a little hard of hearing. Did something bark in the opening post?

[Ryan Rudolph]

David Quinn wrote: Your message seems to be, "I am greater and more mature than all of you, because I hypocritically pretend that I am not a wise person - even though, deep down, I believe I am. "

I suspect I'm somehow in contradiction, but so is everyone in this room. my point is that to pretend to be a sage or a genius is just silly.

do you have the audicity to admit that your a weak pathetic human being like everyone else?

or are you going to continue portraying an image of a big strong man? that is masculinity in its wrong place.

You critisize women, only because you are afraid of the feminine force. men are just as weak as ignorate women.

to be human is to be feeble. how do I believe I am superior if I clearly see we are all infinitely foolish...

to be stuck with this ape brain is an unfortunate situation to find oneself...

my point is that to call yourself genius is just an attempt to be special, distinct, different, important, secure, and all the rest. there is nothing to become. not a genius or a sage...
[/quote]

[hsandman]

cosmic_prostitute,



I would like to retort to some of your proposed claims.



"Who claims to be a genius? Show me a man who claims to be a genius, and I’ll show you



someone who is deluded.



No one is genius….

Genius implies there is something to gain in this life, there is nothing to gain…. To



claim to be anything is self-deception… as soon as you assert yourself with a label



you’re a complacent smug human being…. "



Genius is a term used for somone with iq over 150. As with other labels such as



(teacher,soldier,captain,sailor,imbicile etc)It is a label or designation for person who



meets a certain criteria.



By your reasoning "as soon as you assert yourself with a label you’re a complacent



smug human being…. " you can't be compacent and smug geniushuman being?



"It is like a child who loves to impress his mother by riding with no hands on his



bicycle… sure its cute, but it wont get you anywhere… "



If child's parents reward his display of inteligence (or what you compare to"riding with



no hands") by praise the child will continue on the path to enlightenment which



superior intelect can provide.

(you are like that little insecure voice that gnaws at you in the recasess of your brain about your successs and makes you trip just before the finish line, projecting your insecurity in the form of verbal bubblegum . thy name is a woman :P)

Can you explain a colour to a congenitaly blind man? Do you belive him when he tells you that he understands what "green" is? sometimes i write this and press "submit" and sometimes i press "delete" because i don't belive that anyone will understand it , and that scares me. what is "green" to you, might be someting else to me. Your stupidity scares me young girl as im sure mine does same to somone :(

[Dan Rowden]

David Quinn: Your message seems to be, "I am greater and more mature than all of you, because I hypocritically pretend that I am not a wise person - even though, deep down, I believe I am".

cosmic-prostitute: I suspect I'm somehow in contradiction, but so is everyone in this room.

You're not in contradiction; you're in a deep pit of hypocrisy.

my point is that to pretend to be a sage or a genius is just silly.

Well, yes, naturally to pretend that one is such a thing would be silly. But one may indeed be a genius and to acknowledge it is just a statement of simple fact.

do you have the audicity to admit that your a weak pathetic human being like everyone else?

What makes everyone weak and pathetic? And, why does it have to follow, necessarily, that David Quinn, or anybody else here is like everyone else? Because there's no self and therefore no genius? Please prove your case.

or are you going to continue portraying an image of a big strong man?

It doesn't take much to point out your intellectual and emotional inadequacies. You have a complex.

that is masculinity in its wrong place.

What is masculinity in its right place?

You critisize women,

We point out the limitations of the feminine dimension of mind with respect to the spiritual path. That's not exactly the same thing as being critical of women.

only because you are afraid of the feminine force.

Well sure we're afraid, because the feminine force is a thing to be feared. So, I say: be afeared; be very afeared.

men are just as weak as ignorate women.

Generally that's true, but men have potential that women tend to lack.

to be human is to be feeble.

What do you mean by "feeble" in this context?

how do I believe I am superior if I clearly see we are all infinitely foolish...

On what basis can you claim that we are all infinitely foolish? Do you know what the limitations of inductive reasoning are, or is this some kind of truth by definition thing?

to be stuck with this ape brain is an unfortunate situation to find oneself...

Speak for yourself.

my point is that to call yourself genius is just an attempt to be special, distinct, different, important, secure, and all the rest.

This is all only true if one is not a genius.

there is nothing to become. not a genius or a sage...

Ok, so how did you figure this one out? And having figured it out, didn't you thereby become a less ignorant person than you were? That's a dynamic and fact that seems to contradict your whole schema.


Dan Rowden

[Pye]

Dan writes:

So, I say: be afeared; be very afeared.

Well Dan, there just wasn't a thing I could do about the great bursting belly laugh you provoked with this - the good-natured one.

and

but men have potential that women tend to lack.

I tend to think that the problem lies in the amount of obstacles to be removed, and not in 'potential' at all. That potential, so say the Buddha, is in us all.

[Ryan Rudolph]

What makes everyone weak and pathetic?
What do you mean by "feeble" in this context?

since these are the same question, I'll go into them together. most of us appear to have some level of biological conditioning, in terms of the instinctive drives, sexual conditioning, fears, etc...I question whether we can ever be free from these things as long as we reside in the human body. teachers say yes, but I am skeptical of the teachers because there very lives illustrated otherwise.

What is masculinity in its right place?

I will devote a longer response to this.

On what basis can you claim that we are all infinitely foolish?
didn't you thereby become a less ignorant person than you were? That's a dynamic and fact that seems to contradict your whole schema.

these are similar questions, my only point there is that if there is no end to learning, then I can never make the statement "I am a wiseman", or "I am a sage", because a conclusion or label implies a finish line. I dont see a finish line. there is always inner work to be done. there is never going to be a point in my life where I reach a state of perfection, and then I say "great I've finally reached this state, now I'm finsihed."

so if there is no final state of perfection, then there must be an infinite journey of learning the subtlety of imperfection. if this is the case, then to call myself a sage is not appropiate and rather vain anyhow. isnt vanity something to be free from?

[sschaula]

Enlightenment, sagehood, genius....it's all about an unravelling of notions to come to the conclusion that there isn't an inherent self. The conclusion is not the end of your life, or the end of learning. It isn't even the end of delusions. There is always more work to be done, and it's probable that no one will ever finish the work until the day they die. That doesn't mean genius, enlightenment, sagehood, etc, don't exist...or that we shouldn't say that one is a sage, a genius or that they are enlightened.

I don't know why this topic was posted.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan: men have potential that women tend to lack.

Pye: I tend to think that the problem lies in the amount of obstacles to be removed, and not in 'potential' at all. That potential, so say the Buddha, is in us all.

I'm happy enough with that description of things. But I don't think it's unreasonble to see matters as: more obstacles = less potential. All things may have potential, but it's a matter of degree. For me. women will find it incredibly difficult to realise what potential they have whilst men continue to ignore theirs.

Does this make men responsible for women's philosophical/spiritual progress? Yes and no. Yes in the sense that men can proactively take on that responsibility and will indeed see the reasons for doing so as their own potential becomes increasingly realised.

Oh, and I'm glad you got a laugh out of my "be afeared; be very afeared" line, but, of course, I wasn't really kidding.


Dan Rowden

[Pye]

Dan writes:

but, of course, I wasn't really kidding.

Yes, hence the best laughter (recognition) . . . :)

and

For me. women will find it incredibly difficult to realise what potential they have whilst men continue to ignore theirs.

This does not go far enough for me, Dan. It keeps in place a dynamic in need of uprooting, and that is the mimetic, conforming, and hence inauthentic response to things. It cannot promote genuine awareness from the inside out, which is the only way anyone can ever do this. Thus cast, I would say that men are also one of the obstacles that needs removed -- or at least, women's need-for, reliance-upon, looking-to, etc. I get what you're saying, but in essence, it dooms women to the same old same old monkey-do reflecting of someone else's values and the desire to emulate them. It's just not good enough, and further, entirely insincere.

I think you might be surprised what a lot of women are willing to be confronted with, at least this has been my experience. They might not admit their duplicity and inauthenticity in front of the subject of their desires (to please), but I have found that with the right moment - and that great compassion (Kevin's kind) behind the eyes and in the throat - women are quick to recognize these duplicities and inauthenticities when confronted with them, and that is the least and most thing necessary for any genuine movement to occur at all. Just as with men :)

[Dan Rowden]

Dan: For me, women will find it incredibly difficult to realise what potential they have whilst men continue to ignore theirs.

Pye: This does not go far enough for me, Dan. It keeps in place a dynamic in need of uprooting, and that is the mimetic, conforming, and hence inauthentic response to things. It cannot promote genuine awareness from the inside out, which is the only way anyone can ever do this. Thus cast, I would say that men are also one of the obstacles that needs removed -- or at least, women's need-for, reliance-upon, looking-to, etc.

Yes, I agree with all that. This is precisely where I'm coming from. I'm not talking about men "guiding" women like children into some greater state of awareness. I'm talking about getting past the conformist, mimetic shackles that hold back both sexes. There is a kind of symbiotic enslavement going on. Forcing women into greater independence by way of transcending our egotistical attachment to "Woman" (to stop needing their comfort, to stop protecting them etc) seems the way to go - the only way to go. Whether women will respond to that challenge in a way consistent with the goal of their growth in awareness is a matter for providence. It may not work out that way but it can't be any worse than the staus quo.

I get what you're saying, but in essence, it dooms women to the same old same old monkey-do reflecting of someone else's values and the desire to emulate them. It's just not good enough, and further, entirely insincere.

I agree, but I'm not suggesting that. I'm basically talking about men leaving women the hell alone; about ceasing to adore them like we adore cute little girls. This is why men concerning themselves with their own development is so important. They have to transcend their own need of women/woman before there's any hope of them leaving women be.

I think you might be surprised what a lot of women are willing to be confronted with, at least this has been my experience.

Yes, I would be surprised as it hasn't been my experience. I hope to be proven wrong but I can't shake the feeling that women's readiness to be confronted isn't just another fashion, another dress they put on till the next fashion arrives. In short, I hope that women, by and large, aren't just mannequins.

They might not admit their duplicity and inauthenticity in front of the subject of their desires (to please), but I have found that with the right moment - and that great compassion (Kevin's kind) behind the eyes and in the throat - women are quick to recognize these duplicities and inauthenticities when confronted with them, and that is the least and most thing necessary for any genuine movement to occur at all. Just as with men :)

Hmm, I hate to be a cynic about this but I do worry that this response from women doesn't perhaps have an altogether different flavour than you suggest. The key is consistency over time. How does such a woman respond to the next man who tells her she is a glorious and authentic being? Does she blush with embarrassment or with delight? I truly wish my own experience could make me lean to the former but thus far, and I will grant you the contingency of that "thus far", it has been characterised by the latter.


Dan Rowden

[Unidian]

The simple term "philosopher" would be better than "genius," in my opinion. Sure, there's a danger of being confused with the dried-up academic types who also use that term, but it can't be any worse than the many possible misunderstands arising from "genius."

In addition, the usage of "sage" in Eastern traditions is essentially equivalent to the original (and proper) usage of "philosopher" - both terms make primary reference to wisdom. The sage of Lao-Tzu is not much different from the philosopher of Heraclitus and Socrates.

I would not call myself a "genius" because of the immediate potential for misunderstanding. Nor would I call myself a "sage" for the same reason. But "philosopher" seems appropriate enough - a lover of wisdom. Not "love" in the sense it is criticized here, of course, but that is another issue.

[Dan Rowden]

Yeah, well, labels are always just that. But, remember, this forum is not about being a mere "philosopher"; it has a higher agenda. It is, I think, unique in the expression and dedication to that higher agenda.

"Philosophy" has become a term that people spit on. Our use of "Genius" is an attempt to give a pathos to that which the term "philosopher" used to apply.

But it's just words, in the end, as you know. Once you get past the words, you get into real philosophy; you get into a life of consciousnsess.


Dan Rowden

[hsandman]

Yeah, well, labels are always just that. But, remember, this forum is not about being a mere "philosopher"; it has a higher agenda. It is, I think, unique in the expression and dedication to that higher agenda.

"Philosophy" has become a term that people spit on. Our use of "Genius" is an attempt to give a pathos to that which the term "philosopher" used to apply.

But it's just words, in the end, as you know. Once you get past the words, you get into real philosophy; you get into a life of consciousnsess.


Dan Rowden

Damn! i knew i was in the wrong forum :P

[Pye]

Dan writes:

Forcing women into greater independence by way of transcending our egotistical attachment to "Woman" (to stop needing their comfort, to stop protecting them etc) seems the way to go - the only way to go

I have something to describe that might bring me closer to understanding the direction (men first) that you see for this, and will come back and explain as soon as I am clear of the essays. For now, your post tells me we are pretty nearly on the same page with this.

I'm not talking about men "guiding" women like children into some greater state of awareness. I'm talking about getting past the conformist, mimetic shackles that hold back both sexes. There is a kind of symbiotic enslavement going on.

[Pye]

It turns out not to be such a big story, Dan. In these baby steps with the women in the "women and philosophy" setting, they are asked about their "It" -- that thing they are assumed to have; that thing that is supposed to be a tremendous source of power for them; that thing they are supposed to know how to operate in the world to their advantage. This "It" of course is the synonym of the "feminine mystique" or "Woman" or whichever way you want it said.

Pressed-to at bottom, is what it rests on -- where they get that idea. In the confused, it is a belief that they really are born with this "power" and seem to know intuitively how to use (though they cannot articulate this process by any means). With somewhat greater clarity, I've heard women identify its beginnings -- residing somewhere around an understanding of "daddy's little girl" and the special dispensation this gives them -- a dispensation that comes on the heels of all the active, motive, child's work and play which they are being subtly encouraged to abandon. Ask an 'ugly' woman if she has ever felt in natural possession of this "It." She will have to source her power in some other need of men: mothering; female approval; or just plain services-rendered.

A female child's first toy is usually a doll, something not innocently given. She has at her earliest experience now the directive to take care of something else long before she should know herself. And in some cases, her behaviour surrounding this serves as a litmus test for her future approval. No toys to develop spacial reasoning (which leads to logic) -- no toys to do things with, but rather toys to do things for.

In the best of scenarios, women will move their understanding onto the groundless being of this "It" as not belonging to them, but as belonging to men's desire for them. Perhaps beneath this is what all have assumed to be the feminine desire to please, but perhaps that pleasing, in turn, rests in all of the active, motive male subjectivities they see all around them holding all the higher-value cards. To get them back, you have to go through a man, so to speak. And of course, this renders any return of "power" false, fickle, and fleeting.

So, I get you Dan, when you say men-first only. Still, women can go it alone, though as you say, with far greater difficulty.

I would like to add one more thing to the list of things that men's reliance-upon and desire-for women seldom cares to face -- the deepest secret I've heard men own up to now and again -- the deepest and most astonishingly practical concern: Who is "gathering" (shopping) your food; preparing it; cleaning up after you. Who is washing your clothing; tending you when you are sick. Who is looking after (at least basic) hygiene in the domicile to prevent sickness and stench. I know men who at bottom have admitted freely that they marry or live around women -- even without sexual benefit or mothering-needs -- strictly for these daily living concerns.

There is a class of human projects thought more valuable for human beings; and a class of human projects considered the least. And these, I would submit, still base themselves upon the master-slave dynamic. This "great" man you might never find feeding his own face, washing his own dirty clothing, keeping the stench down and the hygiene up in his immediate surrounds. You will never catch a "great" man lowering himself to these basic matters of survival (I'm harping rhetorically). Many are still, as adults, being fed, having their diapers changed (clothes-washing), being distracted when they don't feel well (sex-play; nursing). This is the work of the "slave" -- to attend to these very necessary items of living, but to have them considered of the least value of all.

Woman must transcend their assumed value to rest in these activities; and men are going to have to start taking them on for themselves. All of them; don't you think?

The "enlightened" man sweeps his own floor, fills his own rice bowl, wipes his own ass, so to speak.

[DHodges]

A female child's first toy is usually a doll, something not innocently given. She has at her earliest experience now the directive to take care of something else long before she should know herself. And in some cases, her behaviour surrounding this serves as a litmus test for her future approval. No toys to develop spacial reasoning (which leads to logic) -- no toys to do things with, but rather toys to do things for.

from http://childrens-health.families.com/ge ... tancy-gech

Gender identification is often associated with the choice and use of toys in this age group, according to a number of studies done in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Sex differences in toy play have been found in children as young as one year of age. By age two, children begin to spontaneously choose their types of toys based on gender. Several of these studies show that by age one, boys display a more assertive reaction than girls to toy disputes. By age two, the reaction of boys is more aggressive.

How much of gender roles is socially acquired and how much is innate is, I think, still something of an open issue. It's also a heavily politicized issue.

While girls are more likely to play with dolls, I think this demonstrates a greater awareness and importance placed on social issues generally by females. Girls may do better on writing tasks, while boys do better at abstract logic tests - maybe expressing the same tendancies that go into toy selection.

[Rhett]

.

I would like to add one more thing to the list of things that men's reliance-upon and desire-for women seldom cares to face -- the deepest secret I've heard men own up to now and again -- the deepest and most astonishingly practical concern: Who is "gathering" (shopping) your food; preparing it; cleaning up after you. Who is washing your clothing; tending you when you are sick. Who is looking after (at least basic) hygiene in the domicile to prevent sickness and stench. I know men who at bottom have admitted freely that they marry or live around women -- even without sexual benefit or mothering-needs -- strictly for these daily living concerns.

. . snip . .

Woman must transcend their assumed value to rest in these activities; and men are going to have to start taking them on for themselves. All of them; don't you think?

The "enlightened" man sweeps his own floor, fills his own rice bowl, wipes his own ass, so to speak.

Yes, i agree with you Pye, in so much as if men extract women from these tasks, then they may have more opportunity to develop. These tasks are really quite easy, men can easily take them on. The hard job is in convincing women they should develop beyond them.

And women don't necessarily do them well anyway. They often bleach your clothes till they fall apart. Wash and dry them so hot they shrink. Use chemicals that make the bathroom less healthy. Vacuum the floor ad-finitum creating noise pollution and filling the air with fine dust particles. Screech at you for wearing shoes in the house. Etc. I much rather doing it myself to save myself from that, and the rest that comes with it.

.

[Pye]

Rhett writes:

And women don't necessarily do them well anyway. They often bleach your clothes till they fall apart. Wash and dry them so hot they shrink. Use chemicals that make the bathroom less healthy. Vacuum the floor ad-finitum creating noise pollution and filling the air with fine dust particles. Screech at you for wearing shoes in the house. Etc.

Yes, and Rhett, doesn't this all speak so well of a woman's impetus to excellence in human project as well (and hence becomes ridiculous for its own limitations). And perhaps her deep frustration that this is "her" only province of remarkable activity. Well, this, and sex. This -- sex -- and being a desirable being to men, before women can desire being themselves.

[Pye]

Rhett writes as well (to which I forgot to respond):

. . . in so much as if men extract women from these tasks . . .

Women can extract themselves from these tasks. I have done it; I have seen it done with entirely no help from the surrounding male beneficiaries.

.

[Rhett]

.

Rhett writes: And women don't necessarily do them well anyway. They often bleach your clothes till they fall apart. Wash and dry them so hot they shrink. Use chemicals that make the bathroom less healthy. Vacuum the floor ad-finitum creating noise pollution and filling the air with fine dust particles. Screech at you for wearing shoes in the house. Etc.

Pye: Yes, and Rhett, doesn't this all speak so well of a woman's impetus to excellence in human project as well (and hence becomes ridiculous for its own limitations). And perhaps her deep frustration that this is "her" only province of remarkable activity. Well, this, and sex. This -- sex -- and being a desirable being to men, before women can desire being themselves.

I see the examples i gave, such as bleaching clothes till they fall apart, as an exhibition of narrow-minded mediocrity, of bland attachment to a narrow field of endeavour. Attachment to 'cleanliness', cleanliness being the absence of a narrow field of elements. It's a form of catharsis. Even worse examples are ironing and folding; women hold to these worthless tasks ever so dearly. It's very much an expression of womanliness to be worthless, and they enjoy living up to it.

What i find remarkable is that even when given such easy tasks women still often get them wrong, showing just how bereft they are of consciousness and thinking. As for sex, i again find women bland and uninteresting.

Try as they do, but i do not find them desirable, and nor, in my opinion, should they desire being themselves.

.

[Pye]

Rhett writes:

Try as they do, but i do not find them desirable, and nor, in my opinion, should they desire being themselves. [emphasis mine]

I'll extract my original meaning from this: The wholesale defining of one's (in this case "women's") value -- strictly in the desires of another (in this case men's) -- is a doomed proposition for any human being. If this is the only kind of being-of-themselves you see possible for human women, then I am even less interested in perpetuating this kind of being for women as well. And in the main, this kind of thinking dooms us to willful ignorance, for all, for both.

Your receded desire is a good start. Your underestimation is the spoon of willful ignorance still tending to this poisonous pot.

[Get Real]

Shieet. Why dont you two get a room, already!