Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

[Ataraxia]

...but you'll end up not agreeing with them in practise because you're not an obsessively rational metaphysicist

I'm still not as yet at the point of even ascertaining whether all the metaphysical things he says are true or not.Early indications are he says a number of things that are true.

Whether i decide to then 'live it',remains to be seen.I'll cross that bridge when i come to it.

[Greg Shantz]

Suppressing sex from a biologically high drive human, I believe, does harm to the spirit.

The word suppression indicates that the drive would still be there, active but now underground. Indeed it would only manifest in other ways.

Ths is interesting because Dave Sim has recently mentioned that he hasn't allowed himself to masturbate for three years, while the motif of his primary sexual focus being cute teenaged girls is recurring quite often in his weblog and other recent writings. Look at the cover of his latest book!

[edit-changed "erotic" to "sexual".]

[skipair]

David,

S: Now here is where there is variability as to whether there is a relation between seduction and enlightenment. Maybe his real interests are surfing, or business, or family, or...should I say it...enlightenment. My view is that a man can fuck, but never for a second forget the context in which he fucks. :)

DQ: You're still describing a lot of time and effort there. I can understand a person whose main interest is business or surfing being prepared to put in the effort, but I can't think of a reason why a person intent upon enlightenment would want to do it.

I can’t think of a reason why such a person wouldn’t want to do it! Except for maybe limiting beliefs that he can’t.

Maybe in the early stages of the spiritual path it would be useful to go down the seducer's path for a short time, as it can provide much insight into human psychology. But after a time, it would start to get repetitive, and so to keep on doing it over and over would indicate that an addiction has been formed.

I don’t see how this is any different from exercising everyday, in terms of addiction. Do you necessarily need to do either to achieve and propagate wisdom? Not exactly, but they actually might help.

There are also karmic consequences to consider. How does a person intent upon becoming wise and rational reconcile the negative consequences of his seductive behaviour - such as encouraging people to become more heavily addicted to sexual pleasure and even more trapped inside the animal mentality? Even if you are merely intending to experiment with seduction for a short time, such issues will have to be considered.

I agree, much needs to be considered. My view is that sex in and of itself is amoral. It is, of course, the person behind the sexual act that really matters.

I also believe that everyone’s mentality IS animal. I make this claim based on our needs for survival – food, water, shelter, etc. – and also the hardwired conditions of our rational mind – nervous system, hormone levels, DNA etc. – not to mention that none of us would be here without sex! No one can escape this animal framework – you are an animal!

S: Time is against women in this regard but not with men. Appearance might get your foot in the door, but its effect is miniscule compared to the effectiveness of emotional patterns a seducer creates in a woman's brain.

DQ: You may be right, but still the ethical content of this behaviour remains highly questionable.

I very much agree. I would even go so far to say the ethical content of NOT behaving like this is highly questionable. It is one thing for men to take the time to carefully examine their values for the benefit of the future. However, given that women are biologically and socially programmed to avoid taking responsibility, this kind of wisdom for their half of the population is impossible. The true role of women as a nurturing and sexual creature is to find her place in a man’s world – but good luck leading her to do ANYTHING ethically supportive without seduction skills.

S: The best seducers I've been in contact with are usually around 50 years old. Experience is the major commanding principle for gaining seduction skills.

DQ: Perhaps you could give us a specific case study here. Can you give an example of one of these seducers - outlining how he lives, what his job is, how he dresses, how he spends his time, what kind of women he seduces, what kind of tricks he uses, what his values are, etc. That would help the discussion a lot, I think.

At the risk of spamming and to respect the anonymous, for now I will say that there are many communities (internet included) that deeply discuss the phenomenology of seduction. That being said, I encourage anyone interested in participating in these communities not to comment unless it can be regarded as actual field-tested advice. As with enlightenment, it is one thing to read about the path, but it is another to actually walk the path and have true knowledge of it.

The individuals I respect within these communities are rare, and at least partially anonymous. The only things I know about their private lives are what they’ve shared in the context of seduction advice – I assume it is the same case here but with wisdom.

In regards to seducers in general, their jobs and dress cover everything under the sun. The same goes for values and lifestyle in general. The only constant is that they consistently approach girls and learn what works and what doesn’t. Out of these men, those I respect the most appear to value what I personally believe every man should value – honesty, courage, truth, focus, creativity, and so on. And ironically or not (I think not), these are also the men who make the best seducers.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I also believe that everyone’s mentality IS animal. I make this claim based on our needs for survival – food, water, shelter, etc. – and also the hardwired conditions of our rational mind – nervous system, hormone levels, DNA etc. – not to mention that none of us would be here without sex! No one can escape this animal framework – you are an animal!

Is/ought fallacy.

"I am an animal, therefore I should behave like an animal" is unclear thinking.

"So far as I must behave like an animal, I will. But where I can avoid behaving like an animal, I will avoid doing so," is Buddha-thought.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Skipair wrote:

I also believe that everyone’s mentality IS animal. I make this claim based on our needs for survival – food, water, shelter, etc. – and also the hardwired conditions of our rational mind – nervous system, hormone levels, DNA etc. – not to mention that none of us would be here without sex! No one can escape this animal framework – you are an animal!

I actually have to agree with you here to a point, there is no escape from the animal framework and the hormonal urges such as sexual desire, although I think you’re seducer philosophy would get old quick. It’s just too much effort. I would only be game if I didn’t have to compromise what I am, and there was no attachment or anything like that.

It seems to me that we are sensual creatures by nature, and that is one of the virtues that makes us human, our ability to feel pleasure through the senses. There is so much self-loathing and hatred for that part of us on this board. And I’m guilty of it too, although I agree that hedonism should be handled carefully, one must be wise not be get addicted to anything, or allow oneself to become dishonest as means to attain something.

However, there is nothing better than walking on the beach, and smelling the sea water, or biting into a ripe peach when it is in season, or a piece of watermelon, of even having sex with a woman. These all seem like natural experiences everyone should enjoy to their fullest potential, and not be attached to any of it…

Although, sex is a little different because you have a sentient being that you need to interact with, and more times than not she is a little silly to say the least. So do you pretend to be silly too as a means to influence her into having sex, or do you remain as masculine as possible. If you remain masculine as possible, she will eventually think you’re weird and boring, and tell you to get lost, but you can have sex for awhile until she figures you out, although I can see this repetitive type of behavior eventually getting old….

[David Quinn]

skipair,

S: Now here is where there is variability as to whether there is a relation between seduction and enlightenment. Maybe his real interests are surfing, or business, or family, or...should I say it...enlightenment. My view is that a man can fuck, but never for a second forget the context in which he fucks. :)

DQ: You're still describing a lot of time and effort there. I can understand a person whose main interest is business or surfing being prepared to put in the effort, but I can't think of a reason why a person intent upon enlightenment would want to do it.

S: I can’t think of a reason why such a person wouldn’t want to do it! Except for maybe limiting beliefs that he can’t.

At the very least, the time and effort devoted to seducing women might be better spent trying to comprehend Reality and eliminating deceptive thoughts and practices. There are also the ethical objections that I mentioned in my previous post, and which I will further touch on below.

DQ: Maybe in the early stages of the spiritual path it would be useful to go down the seducer's path for a short time, as it can provide much insight into human psychology. But after a time, it would start to get repetitive, and so to keep on doing it over and over would indicate that an addiction has been formed.

S: I don’t see how this is any different from exercising everyday, in terms of addiction. Do you necessarily need to do either to achieve and propagate wisdom? Not exactly, but they actually might help.

The two are different in that regular exercise is needed to maintain the health of the body, which impacts on one's ability to seek and promote wisdom. The same cannot be said for seducing women.

How would seducing women help the propagation of wisdom, in your view?

DQ: There are also karmic consequences to consider. How does a person intent upon becoming wise and rational reconcile the negative consequences of his seductive behaviour - such as encouraging people to become more heavily addicted to sexual pleasure and even more trapped inside the animal mentality? Even if you are merely intending to experiment with seduction for a short time, such issues will have to be considered.

S: I agree, much needs to be considered. My view is that sex in and of itself is amoral. It is, of course, the person behind the sexual act that really matters.

You can't really divorce the act of sex from all the emotions and illusions which surround it. People tend to think of sex in purely physical terms, but in reality at least 90% of it is emotional. Most of the pleasures and joys of sex come not from the pleasing physical sensations themselves, but from the emotional blisses generated by the perception of personal conquest.

As I mentioned in my WOMAN essays, the thrill of seduction is essentially the thrill of making a conquest. The man becomes egotistically high at the thought that he is persuading the woman to have access to her most personal and privileged areas. He is dining from the fact that a woman does not grant access to everybody. Only a few select men get the chance to sample her treasures.

For a woman, the emotional pleasure of sex also lies in conquest, but in a different way. For her, it is the conquering of conscious existence itself through submission which is the primary pleasure. Her joy is in abandoning all responsibility and anxieties. She loves to be swept off her feet by the strength of the man and to lose herself in the sensations and emotions that are generated by the sexual act. She suddenly feels safe in the security that the man, the responsible agent, is providing for her.

This is why we can't really say that sex is amoral. There are moral implications involved not only in the practice of deception and emotional persuasion which is involved in seduction, but also in the egotism which is needed to generate the pleasure in sex.

I also believe that everyone’s mentality IS animal. I make this claim based on our needs for survival – food, water, shelter, etc. – and also the hardwired conditions of our rational mind – nervous system, hormone levels, DNA etc. – not to mention that none of us would be here without sex! No one can escape this animal framework – you are an animal!

None of us would be here without our ancestors engaging in violence either, but that isn't a good enough reason to engage in the pleasures of violence ourselves. Yes, we have animal roots, but part of our evolutionary inheritance is our ability to reason and our freedom to make independent, rational decisions.

Our freedom is so extensive that we can even choose to act against our primal, animalistic urges. We can choose to commit suicide, for example, and thus act against the animalistic urge to continue living. Or we can refrain from having children and thus act against the animalistic urge to pass on our genes.

Similarly, we have the freedom to act against our animalistic urge to seduce and conquer women. We have the freedom to choose more worthy goals.

S: Time is against women in this regard but not with men. Appearance might get your foot in the door, but its effect is miniscule compared to the effectiveness of emotional patterns a seducer creates in a woman's brain.

DQ: You may be right, but still the ethical content of this behaviour remains highly questionable.

S: I very much agree. I would even go so far to say the ethical content of NOT behaving like this is highly questionable. It is one thing for men to take the time to carefully examine their values for the benefit of the future. However, given that women are biologically and socially programmed to avoid taking responsibility, this kind of wisdom for their half of the population is impossible. The true role of women as a nurturing and sexual creature is to find her place in a man’s world – but good luck leading her to do ANYTHING ethically supportive without seduction skills.

If what you say here is true, then the seducing of women becomes indistinguishable from child abuse. If women really are incapable of conscious, responsible behaviour, then they are essentially no different to children. Is it ethical to seduce children with emotional persuasion for the purposes of having sex with them?

S: The best seducers I've been in contact with are usually around 50 years old. Experience is the major commanding principle for gaining seduction skills.

DQ: Perhaps you could give us a specific case study here. Can you give an example of one of these seducers - outlining how he lives, what his job is, how he dresses, how he spends his time, what kind of women he seduces, what kind of tricks he uses, what his values are, etc. That would help the discussion a lot, I think.

At the risk of spamming and to respect the anonymous, for now I will say that there are many communities (internet included) that deeply discuss the phenomenology of seduction. That being said, I encourage anyone interested in participating in these communities not to comment unless it can be regarded as actual field-tested advice. As with enlightenment, it is one thing to read about the path, but it is another to actually walk the path and have true knowledge of it.

The individuals I respect within these communities are rare, and at least partially anonymous. The only things I know about their private lives are what they’ve shared in the context of seduction advice – I assume it is the same case here but with wisdom.

In regards to seducers in general, their jobs and dress cover everything under the sun. The same goes for values and lifestyle in general. The only constant is that they consistently approach girls and learn what works and what doesn’t. Out of these men, those I respect the most appear to value what I personally believe every man should value – honesty, courage, truth, focus, creativity, and so on. And ironically or not (I think not), these are also the men who make the best seducers.

Skipair has privately sent me a couple of links to seducer's sites. I don't see any reason why they can't be published here:

http://www.franco-seduction.blogspot.com/
http://www.fastseduction.com

I will make a comment on them after I have perused them for awhile.

-

[Cory Duchesne]

Ryan, I hope you agree that the coherency of a message board discussion becomes very impaired when you fail to quote and respond to the last post and address the points directly. You settled for an indirect response, one which I found to be very evasive and condescending.

Cory,

You have never raised a child so you are not an expert on the matter.

How does this comment logically follow from the premise of our discussion? In my opinion, it doesn't.

What we are debating here is this:

Ryan: Actually, the hardcore pornstar’s biology seems to be at a higher order than the conservative woman. A Mother’s genes are inferior in every way, she is designed to sacrifice her freedom for the sake of the offspring. So I’m considering the possibility of whether or not future women will be more like men sexually, and just engage in the act for leisure and nothing more.

Cory: I don't think this is very useful. These two types serve totally different functions, and I don't see how one is more valuable than the other. In fact, I'd say that an intellectual woman who is capable of raising a child interested in wisdom or truth, is of more value than a porn star who I doubt can raise a very conscious kids, due to her very unconscious hedonistic lifestyle.

So how much sense does it make for you to accuse me of trying to come off as the expert on raising children? Is it an unconscious tactic of yours, employed to aid you in your desired retreat away from the initial debate?

You seem to think that suffering on a matter of principle for the sake of the children is somehow a noble and virtuous act.

I'm saying that it requires more consciousness and masculinity to be a relatively good mother or father, than it does to be a porn star.

In fact, consciousness is generally characterized as an awareness of that which is (at least initially) painful or stressful to acknowledge. Unconsciousness is characterized as an escape into pleasure and fantasy.

However, you are so preoccupied with particular moments of your own childhood that this is why you are so fanatical about the ‘right’ way to parent children.

First of all, it does require a lot of single mindedness, passion and suffering for a young adult to spend some time analyzing and determining the flaws of his parents and the negative influences in childhood. Not many people dishonor their parents to the degree I have. Probably because it's easier on the head not to.

Second, my last post made no mention of 'the right' way to parent - so your comment above is really a non-sequitur. It's a crude, desperate, pseudo psychological assessment, perhaps its purpose being to distract from my points in the last post, and instead focus on what you would like to present as my personal character flaws, or at least your fancy of such.

Being a mother is an irrational act as far as freedom is concerned.

Again, you're just blurting opinions, not taking any care to make sure that they follow from the premises of the discussion.

Radical feminists have written many books on the subject. This is why very educated, intellectual people do not have children in the first place because it is too much of a sacrifice. Many female professors have no children, what does this tell you?

It tells me that they have found meaning in their life by teaching large classes of young people, which is a form of sacrifice/parenting.

It's either they make the sacrifices to raise a small baby into an adult, or they raise a bunch of young adults into higher consciousness. They can't have both, and since so many other uneducated women are having their own babies, it makes more sense to not have a baby, and instead serve as second mothers, upbringing the daughters and sons of other mothers into higher consciousness, through universities, schools, etc.

Of course, many female professors aren't necessarily a great influence, but the point is that no matter what, life is a sacrifice for the sake of serving others. You can try to escape from this fact, but it only leads to degrading, pathetic, laughable results.

If women are to be totally and unconditionally free, they will not be mothers. Do you know the misery and annoyance that is involved in raising a child from infancy to teenage years?

Do you realize how ridiculous this lecture your giving me is? You put forth the argument that we should encourage the ideal of evolving women into beautiful hyper sexual women, since, as you fancy, such women are genetically superior. I'm putting forth the counter-argument that such beautiful women are less conscious than women who didn't coast through life on their beauty, fixated on their reflection in the mirror.

That's all I'm saying.

Children will need to be raised by robots, and yes I remember that you told me about that documentary, but it wasn't the first time I was exposed to the idea. You act as if you are my only source of wisdom.

No, I'm acting like someone who sees how ridiculous it is for you to lecture me about how robots are going to be involved in the upbringing of children, when I mentioned the idea to you last week.

Mothers will be put out of a job by technology, and this will help to masculinize their minds in the long run.

The problem might be that you have confused or utterly false notions of what a masculinized mind is. Is it possible that you've taken your current hyper-sexual neurological configuration, and have made it the masculine ideal, believing that it's impossible for a human being to be any better than you are? Thus, the best future you can imagine for humanity, is one where the women have all become voluptuous hyper sexual sex machines.

I can't think of anything more feminine than what you're suggesting.

To be smugly self satisfied inwardly, unwilling to change, and from there, to dream of manipulating the outer environment to be more pleasurable to your ego.

This is precisely the nature of your idealizing. It's feminine.

It's the opposite of masculinity, which is to, out of dissatisfaction with the inner state, change this inner state, in order that it can regard the outer environment without being tugged by primitive impulses, and thus face the outer with impartiality.

If we have control over nature to the degree where we can evolve females into beautiful sex slaves, wouldn't it be more practical to just evolve out of our lowly-primitive lust? Why take that animal baggage with us?

[keenobserver]

http://www.franco-seduction.blogspot.com/
http://www.fastseduction.com

I was bored in minutes.
But one thing that has occured to me that hasn't yet been said is, In modern times women are more demanding and liberated and therefore share more in the responsibility of seduction (being seduced, which is the topic here) . It really isnt a matter of the man having to worry about acting ethically any more than the woman. Sure at the deepest level we can blame man more since he is more often more masculine and more conscious (if you happen to believe that), but speaking of society and ethics we all know that 15 year old boys and girls play the game and engage, often even younger, and in many of these cases sex is an important part of their lives, and not only do the females expect the males to seduce which is to follow all the necessary steps to make them feel the way they desperately want to feel, females also teach boys and men what to do and contribute like no time in history in bringing it all about.
These sites exist not in a male vacuum but for women, by women and with the stamp of approval of sexually active and romantic women. We could say that is what a woman is, a sexually developed and active female, period. (npi)

Whether the sex is superior or inferior, modern women of all ages are going to engage and will do whatever it takes to make the most of it. From her perspective however, it is best to be lost in the game, so that is no time for providing instruction. Still she hopes he learned all the right moves and is great at the game of seduction - she has made a conscious choice to be as unconsciously seduced as possible.
So asking about older children and ethics along these societal lines we could answer that between these its often as ethical as it is between their parents, so long as they are aware and active and educated. Yet from a deeper standpoint any decent person must protest and should consider influencing young minds towards more responsible behavior.

[Carico]

Hi everyone, I have a few questions on the model of enlightenment posed here, and also a few comments about sex.

1) How do you reconcile cause and effect (that everything happens for specific, yet innumerable reasons) with taking personal responsibility by acts of will?

2) In the flow of reality as it continually unfolds before us, change is ever-present, no?

3) How is it possible to "not have emotions"? I understand the idea of bypassing unpragmatic emotions that get in the way of objective decision making, but there are still chemicals flowing in the brain...something still must be felt. This is called emotion, but pragmatised, no?

4) I've seen it written here that sex and ultimate reality don't mix. First, what about Nietzsche? Second, despite very philosophically developed models of reality, there are still biological processes in the body that cannot be overridden. One of them is urinating, another is blinking, another is sex drive. Some people really don't have much of a sex drive...others are very large - and everywhere in between. Suppressing sex from a biologically high drive human, I believe, does harm to the spirit.

There are too many men out there whose minds fall apart before a beautiful feminine woman. On the other hand, I have been in contact with many men who may or may not be called perfectly enlightened by the standards of this community, but are intelligent, focused, have considerable skill in wielding their emotions (ethically and pragmatically), and fuck A LOT of women. I'm talking hundreds and hundreds. They do not have attachment to them. They love them as beautiful toys and move on to the next.

This requires a special skillset that I see has a lot of parallels to the enlightenment path -and more specifically, does not contradict it. Namely, it requires a VERY strong philosophy/consciousness/awareness to be able to stay independent of the feminine vortex. All guys with a brain know what its like to be sucked into a woman's world and only later figure it out and think "Shit! She OWNED me!".

I am here to tell you, in case you didn't already know, that you can have sex without it impairing reason and judgement - but one must be "unplugged" from the social matrix, so to speak - which is why we're here, right? There is a LOT that must be understood to make this concept a reality. As is the case with enlightenment, I'm not an expert seducer, but I do know enough through personal contemplation and direct experience that there are truths in this matter that are supremely dangerous, yet undeniable. Intelligent men can not only have lots of sex and be independent, but in fact the former requires the latter.

Also, I've seen it written that sex does not help the feminine become wise, which is true. However, some say the very feminine are incapable of such things anyway - and I agree. But besides, if guys trained themselves to be truly independent of feminine manipulation, they could easily ethically influence the world regardless - WITH the (albeit unconscious) help of well behaved women, I might add!

Discussion please.

When people use sex the way God designed humans to use it, it's a beautiful design. God designed male and female to become one flesh.

But sin, (selfish desires) uses sex merely to gratify one's own desires instead of the way God designed it.

So a better question would be; how can anyone call it chance that males and females were created the way they were to propagate the species?

[DHodges]

When people use sex the way God designed humans to use it, it's a beautiful design. God designed male and female to become one flesh.

Yes, it was always God's intention that you cover yourself in superglue before having sex.

It's a beautiful thing.

[Carico]

When people use sex the way God designed humans to use it, it's a beautiful design. God designed male and female to become one flesh.

Yes, it was always God's intention that you cover yourself in superglue before having sex.

It's a beautiful thing.

Your post is a perfect of example of how humanity tries to defile God's creation by turning it into something ugly. Then they wonder why there's a hell. Go figure.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Your post is a perfect of example of how humanity tries to defile God's creation by turning it into something ugly. Then they wonder why there's a hell. Go figure.

Please define God, and define Hell. I don't know how you are using these two terms.

If you could also define "humanity", "defile", and "creation", I would also be considerably helped. But I think I can work those ones out just by seeing you use them in context after defining the others.

[Cory Duchesne]

When people use sex the way God designed humans to use it, it's a beautiful design. God designed male and female to become one flesh.

Yes, it was always God's intention that you cover yourself in superglue before having sex.

It's a beautiful thing.

Your post is a perfect of example of how humanity tries to defile God's creation by turning it into something ugly. Then they wonder why there's a hell. Go figure.

I think someone like Dave might be more inclined to wonder why there are people like you who believe there's a hell, a creator, etc.

Why do you think there are such things, Carico?

Or, Trevor's approach is perhaps a bit wiser: Please tell us what you mean by God and Hell.

[skipair]

David,

S: Now here is where there is variability as to whether there is a relation between seduction and enlightenment. Maybe his real interests are surfing, or business, or family, or...should I say it...enlightenment. My view is that a man can fuck, but never for a second forget the context in which he fucks. :)

DQ: You're still describing a lot of time and effort there. I can understand a person whose main interest is business or surfing being prepared to put in the effort, but I can't think of a reason why a person intent upon enlightenment would want to do it.
S: I can’t think of a reason why such a person wouldn’t want to do it! Except for maybe limiting beliefs that he can’t.

DQ: At the very least, the time and effort devoted to seducing women might be better spent trying to comprehend Reality and eliminating deceptive thoughts and practices.

100% agree that would be time well spent. I also believe that strong, intelligent men have a responsibility to those who are weaker, and to show them the way to living a good life. In regards to women, I believe that emotional seduction is the only way to succeed in this.

DQ: Maybe in the early stages of the spiritual path it would be useful to go down the seducer's path for a short time, as it can provide much insight into human psychology. But after a time, it would start to get repetitive, and so to keep on doing it over and over would indicate that an addiction has been formed.

S: I don’t see how this is any different from exercising everyday, in terms of addiction. Do you necessarily need to do either to achieve and propagate wisdom? Not exactly, but they actually might help.

DQ: The two are different in that regular exercise is needed to maintain the health of the body, which impacts on one's ability to seek and promote wisdom. The same cannot be said for seducing women.

How would seducing women help the propagation of wisdom, in your view?

1) For an ethical man with high self-esteem I believe it to be a physically and emotionally healthy activity.
2) Women need to be lead into choosing the moral high ground.

DQ: There are also karmic consequences to consider. How does a person intent upon becoming wise and rational reconcile the negative consequences of his seductive behaviour - such as encouraging people to become more heavily addicted to sexual pleasure and even more trapped inside the animal mentality? Even if you are merely intending to experiment with seduction for a short time, such issues will have to be considered.

S: I agree, much needs to be considered. My view is that sex in and of itself is amoral. It is, of course, the person behind the sexual act that really matters.

DQ: You can't really divorce the act of sex from all the emotions and illusions which surround it. People tend to think of sex in purely physical terms, but in reality at least 90% of it is emotional. Most of the pleasures and joys of sex come not from the pleasing physical sensations themselves, but from the emotional blisses generated by the perception of personal conquest.

As I mentioned in my WOMAN essays, the thrill of seduction is essentially the thrill of making a conquest. The man becomes egotistically high at the thought that he is persuading the woman to have access to her most personal and privileged areas. He is dining from the fact that a woman does not grant access to everybody. Only a few select men get the chance to sample her treasures.

For a woman, the emotional pleasure of sex also lies in conquest, but in a different way. For her, it is the conquering of conscious existence itself through submission which is the primary pleasure. Her joy is in abandoning all responsibility and anxieties. She loves to be swept off her feet by the strength of the man and to lose herself in the sensations and emotions that are generated by the sexual act. She suddenly feels safe in the security that the man, the responsible agent, is providing for her.

This is why we can't really say that sex is amoral. There are moral implications involved not only in the practice of deception and emotional persuasion which is involved in seduction, but also in the egotism which is needed to generate the pleasure in sex.

I 100% agree that this is the case with women as well as men with average seduction skills. Men with greater skills know what its like to consistently lay THE most beautiful girls with relative easy. Truth! They can have virtually any-woman-they-want. What they report is that it does indeed get boring. However, what never seems to bore them are the very feminine and very sexual types. These women harden the dick not because they are so rare to the man, or because of her exclusivity, but because they trigger biological mechanisms outside the rational realm.

S: I also believe that everyone’s mentality IS animal. I make this claim based on our needs for survival – food, water, shelter, etc. – and also the hardwired conditions of our rational mind – nervous system, hormone levels, DNA etc. – not to mention that none of us would be here without sex! No one can escape this animal framework – you are an animal!

DQ: None of us would be here without our ancestors engaging in violence either, but that isn't a good enough reason to engage in the pleasures of violence ourselves. Yes, we have animal roots, but part of our evolutionary inheritance is our ability to reason and our freedom to make independent, rational decisions.

Our freedom is so extensive that we can even choose to act against our primal, animalistic urges. We can choose to commit suicide, for example, and thus act against the animalistic urge to continue living. Or we can refrain from having children and thus act against the animalistic urge to pass on our genes.

100% agree. My point was that regardless of whether our actions derive from our preconditioning or our will (and I dare say a very large chunk is from the former), EVERYTHING we do is animal behavior, by definition. And yes, our species' behavior does differ from other animals.

Similarly, we have the freedom to act against our animalistic urge to seduce and conquer women. We have the freedom to choose more worthy goals.

As it will always be with women and the law of the jungle: Conquer or be conquered.

S: Time is against women in this regard but not with men. Appearance might get your foot in the door, but its effect is miniscule compared to the effectiveness of emotional patterns a seducer creates in a woman's brain.

DQ: You may be right, but still the ethical content of this behaviour remains highly questionable.

S: I very much agree. I would even go so far to say the ethical content of NOT behaving like this is highly questionable. It is one thing for men to take the time to carefully examine their values for the benefit of the future. However, given that women are biologically and socially programmed to avoid taking responsibility, this kind of wisdom for their half of the population is impossible. The true role of women as a nurturing and sexual creature is to find her place in a man’s world – but good luck leading her to do ANYTHING ethically supportive without seduction skills.

DQ: If what you say here is true, then the seducing of women becomes indistinguishable from child abuse. If women really are incapable of conscious, responsible behaviour, then they are essentially no different to children. Is it ethical to seduce children with emotional persuasion for the purposes of having sex with them?

Maturity comes in degrees. The psychological maturity of a newborn is different from a 5 year old, and we treat them differently in light of this. A girl usually reaches sexual maturity sometime in her teenage years, and at this point WANTS to be seduced and can be seduced without negative psychological effects. I believe this line separates good from poor conduct. That being said it is true her maturity level in many ways will remain childish for the rest of her life. And as such it is a man’s responsibility to set the stage and allow her to discover what it means to do good in this world.

Other links of interest:

http://www.bristollair.com

[skipair]

keenobserver,

But one thing that has occured to me that hasn't yet been said is, In modern times women are more demanding and liberated and therefore share more in the responsibility of seduction (being seduced, which is the topic here).

While a women's responsibilities in society are increasing in general, this is not true in regards to seduction. In a successful seduction she has no more responsibility than she ever did in history - attraction is a biological trigger, and it is there for the men who know how to flip it.

...females also teach boys and men what to do and contribute like no time in history in bringing it all about. These sites exist not in a male vacuum but for women, by women and with the stamp of approval of sexually active and romantic women.

Not so, they teach but always the wrong things, just as they've always done. What a women says she wants is almost inevitably NOT what she actually responds to in the world of romance. There is a neuro linguistic programming (NLP) saying: The meaning of your communication is the response you get. Being good at the game basically means treating what comes out of a woman's mouth like air, and then to keep on fucking her. This is why these communities are very much a masculine vaccuum as they do not take female input seriously - their imput really only detracts from discovering reality.

This shit works...a wet and dedicated pussy doesn't lie.

[skipair]

Ryan R,

...although I think you’re seducer philosophy would get old quick. It’s just too much effort. I would only be game if I didn’t have to compromise what I am, and there was no attachment or anything like that.

For men new to seduction, there can be fear, guilt, self-consciousness, etc. that will need to change for success, and in that sense compromise must be made, but your personal honor will always remain intact, should you choose to keep it. As far as the effort, it gets much easier in time, and you will fuck up...besides there isn't much worthwhile thats easily attained. My opinion.

Although, sex is a little different because you have a sentient being that you need to interact with, and more times than not she is a little silly to say the least. So do you pretend to be silly too as a means to influence her into having sex, or do you remain as masculine as possible. If you remain masculine as possible, she will eventually think you’re weird and boring, and tell you to get lost, but you can have sex for awhile until she figures you out, although I can see this repetitive type of behavior eventually getting old….

Very good insight, a 100% masculine man is at first very erotic (even scary), but eventually very boring. The good news is that females are attracted to both the masculine and the feminine, so guys can be themselves so long as he knows how to target and escalate her key emotions.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

skipair,

The good news is that females are attracted to both the masculine and the feminine, so guys can be themselves so long as he knows how to target and escalate her key emotions.

That is deceitful behaviour for both sides. No sage would be capable of doing this. If she can't figure out how to enjoy his sexuality without compromising his humanity, it's an ethical problem -- especially if it continues for a long time.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory wrote:

I'm putting forth the counter-argument that such beautiful women are less conscious than women who didn't coast through life on their beauty, fixated on their reflection in the mirror.

No. This isn’t related to the argument I was making. I’m just saying that sexuality is perfectly natural, and it maybe possible for a woman to give up her motherhood, which would be masculine, and live for herself, which would also be masculine – total self sacrifice seems feminine to me. A ‘mother’ is feminine merely by definition. And living for yourself entails satisfying everything the body needs. And I’ve thought about this a lot, and to me sexual desire is not feminine, it is a natural hormonal drive that the body needs. I can remember both Solway and Quinn suggesting that sexuality is part of the animal mentality, but they both agree to still masturbating at their age. Do you see the hypocrisy? All the sages did the same thing too, they give the impression of one thing, and live another way, suggesting that what they are saying is actually possible. We cannot alter our biological framework to that degree through logic and hopeful thinking, So it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to satisfy the sexual urge.

Skipair wrote:

Very good insight, a 100% masculine man is at first very erotic (even scary), but eventually very boring. The good news is that females are attracted to both the masculine and the feminine, so guys can be themselves so long as he knows how to target and escalate her key emotions.

Yes, I agree with Trevor here, its too much of a compromise, and too dishonest. However, one method that works is making a truthful statement, but putting a positive spin at the end of it. Women can tolerate truth if the language is dumbed down, and it can be interpreted in a more positive way.

For instance: Here is a Masculine statement: Life is suffering, and most humans are doomed to a life of samsara.
And here is a way to say the same statement to a woman: yeah, there’s a lot of pain in life, but if you’re smart, you can avoid much of it.

One is entirely negative, and the other has a bit of positivity. Women can tolerate a negative statement if it has some positivity in it, with the language dumbed down of course.

[skipair]

Ryan R,

S: Very good insight, a 100% masculine man is at first very erotic (even scary), but eventually very boring. The good news is that females are attracted to both the masculine and the feminine, so guys can be themselves so long as he knows how to target and escalate her key emotions.

T: Yes, I agree with Trevor here, its too much of a compromise, and too dishonest.

Not sure where you're getting this...there is no compromise or dishonesty in my view. Did you not see the part that says "guys can be themselves"?

However, one method that works is making a truthful statement, but putting a positive spin at the end of it. Women can tolerate truth if the language is dumbed down, and it can be interpreted in a more positive way.

For instance: Here is a Masculine statement: Life is suffering, and most humans are doomed to a life of samsara.
And here is a way to say the same statement to a woman: yeah, there’s a lot of pain in life, but if you’re smart, you can avoid much of it.

I assure you she has no idea what you're talking about in either case because they are both bland, logical statements. Women navigate the world through their emotions...she doesn't give a shit about the truth, she wants to FEEL something. This is what I mean by targeting and escalating her key emotions. This is covered extensively elsewhere but for a quick example:

"O...M...G! I was at the mall, you know the BIG one with all the fountains and flowers..I was wearing my BLUE shirt with the white collar, and women kept on staring at me in the STRANGEST ways! The girl at the Gap, she was VERY attractive, with almost a perfect body and said she had never seen a pair of pants fit anyone better! she said she we should get coffee sometimes...but how was your day, darling?"

This would rock a chick's world compared to "x is y, but if a then b." Food for thought.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Not sure where you're getting this...there is no compromise or dishonesty in my view. Did you not see the part that says "guys can be themselves"?

If a man targets emotions to get what he wants, he is behaving poorly. He is compromising his integrity.

[Pye]

skipair, in your own words, we are animals and these are natural animal functions, so I wonder a couple of things like 1. does the methodology, frequency, or relative quality of where you, or anyone else ejaculates their sperm warrant this level of attention? I realize you seem to want to help other men find better methodologies, frequencies, and qualities of sperm-ejaculation, but how singular do you intend to make this thought? After all, you introduced a notion here that active predation/mastering of frequent sex/women does not have an effect upon a man's thinking life/enlightenment, so, 2. I am wondering if you have something to show of the non-interruption and even enhancement of a male's philosophical self in this seduction practice, since you insist this methodology is not only non-distracting, but even enhancing to this philosophical man. Can you show us some of the thinking-results of yourself, or this class of men/seducers - can you show us what else they are not-being distracted from and accomplishing with their intellectual potencies?

skipair:

2) Women need to be lead into choosing the moral high ground.

Careful what you wish for, or you might depopulate the harems you depend upon . . . .

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Pye: Good point. I'm not sure if I have enough rationality to deal with a woman talking about sex. It's quite an interesting topic. For instance: the big philosophic question of "why does anyone care about this?" really keeps me on edge. Then I go home and deal with someone with far more imagination and a far more creative, insightful, and respectful hand.

(By the way, amateur pornography is rarely -- if ever -- made by amateurs. There are enough scraps dripping from the porn industry that a socialist can live quite a handsome life.)

[David Quinn]

I had written to skipair,

Skipair has privately sent me a couple of links to seducer's sites. I don't see any reason why they can't be published here:

http://www.franco-seduction.blogspot.com/
http://www.fastseduction.com

I will make a comment on them after I have perused them for awhile.

I've had a look around the franko-seduction site. There are some good insights there. Franko obviously has a good working knowledge of how women think and how best to manipulate them for sexual purposes. So the site does have some philosophic value.

But one thing I noticed was his reliance on having lots of money. He talks about the value of being unpredictable and creating the impression of leading a full, exciting life, thereby allowing him to overwhelm the girl with his personality and strength. He mentions the value of telling the girl about his need to go on business trips and of taking her on holidays to India or wherever, which obviously requires him to have a full-time career generating lots of cash.

I wonder how much his seduction skills would be hampered if he didn't have this money. I mean, I can be as unpredictable and as psychologically skillful as I like, but if I'm wearing scruffy clothes with no money and no car, and promising to take her, not on flights to India, but on bus trips to the shopping centre or to the city, it is unlikely she'll be impressed.

So already, he is confirming one of my original points, which is that a successful seducer needs to have a good deal of status and wealth in the world - which in turn means that he must be willing to sell his soul to the business world. He would have to be extraordinarily charming on a personal level for him to have any chance getting around this. Or else settle for easily-wooed hippy chicks.

-

[David Quinn]

skipair,

DQ: How would seducing women help the propagation of wisdom, in your view?

S: 1) For an ethical man with high self-esteem I believe it to be a physically and emotionally healthy activity.

I actually think that men who have to rely on seducing women for their happiness are exhibiting low self-esteem. I don't care how cocky or confident they feel, it still indicates a sense of insecurity and low self-worth. Like a crutch, they seem to need this external source of approval in order to cope with life.

2) Women need to be lead into choosing the moral high ground.

By arousing and moistening their vaginas? It doesn't sound very believable.

I think you're trying to justify an attachment to what is essentially a base, selfish pleasure.

There is probably some part of you that has a bad conscience about all this seduction stuff, otherwise you wouldn't be here.

DQ: As I mentioned in my WOMAN essays, the thrill of seduction is essentially the thrill of making a conquest. The man becomes egotistically high at the thought that he is persuading the woman to have access to her most personal and privileged areas. He is dining from the fact that a woman does not grant access to everybody. Only a few select men get the chance to sample her treasures.

For a woman, the emotional pleasure of sex also lies in conquest, but in a different way. For her, it is the conquering of conscious existence itself through submission which is the primary pleasure. Her joy is in abandoning all responsibility and anxieties. She loves to be swept off her feet by the strength of the man and to lose herself in the sensations and emotions that are generated by the sexual act. She suddenly feels safe in the security that the man, the responsible agent, is providing for her.

This is why we can't really say that sex is amoral. There are moral implications involved not only in the practice of deception and emotional persuasion which is involved in seduction, but also in the egotism which is needed to generate the pleasure in sex.

S: I 100% agree that this is the case with women as well as men with average seduction skills. Men with greater skills know what its like to consistently lay THE most beautiful girls with relative easy. Truth! They can have virtually any-woman-they-want. What they report is that it does indeed get boring. However, what never seems to bore them are the very feminine and very sexual types. These women harden the dick not because they are so rare to the man, or because of her exclusivity, but because they trigger biological mechanisms outside the rational realm.

That's an interesting point. Yes, I can see how the mix of the very feminine and the very sexual can be intoxicating. The very feminine embodies youth, purity, innocence, childlikeness, a lack of boundaries, etc. When you mix that together with sexual adventurism, everything gets heightened. There seems to be no limit to what could happen. There is a sense that all taboos could be swept aside. Sexual desire can go through the roof in the face of such a prospect.

No doubt it is the same intoxication that pedophiles experience in the presence of young flirtatious teenage girls, and probably explains why they find it so difficult to give pedophilia up.

At root, sexual desire is a form of violence towards oneself, a form of self-destruction. When it appears that this self-destruction could go all the way, it powers sexual desire like nothing else.

S: I also believe that everyone’s mentality IS animal. I make this claim based on our needs for survival – food, water, shelter, etc. – and also the hardwired conditions of our rational mind – nervous system, hormone levels, DNA etc. – not to mention that none of us would be here without sex! No one can escape this animal framework – you are an animal!

DQ: None of us would be here without our ancestors engaging in violence either, but that isn't a good enough reason to engage in the pleasures of violence ourselves. Yes, we have animal roots, but part of our evolutionary inheritance is our ability to reason and our freedom to make independent, rational decisions.

Our freedom is so extensive that we can even choose to act against our primal, animalistic urges. We can choose to commit suicide, for example, and thus act against the animalistic urge to continue living. Or we can refrain from having children and thus act against the animalistic urge to pass on our genes.

S: 100% agree. My point was that regardless of whether our actions derive from our preconditioning or our will (and I dare say a very large chunk is from the former), EVERYTHING we do is animal behavior, by definition. And yes, our species' behavior does differ from other animals.

Nonetheless, there is still a very big difference between eliminating one's delusions in an attempt to become wise and engaging in mindless acts of violence. In light of this, calling everything we do "animal behaviour" doesn't seem to have much value.

S: It is one thing for men to take the time to carefully examine their values for the benefit of the future. However, given that women are biologically and socially programmed to avoid taking responsibility, this kind of wisdom for their half of the population is impossible. The true role of women as a nurturing and sexual creature is to find her place in a man’s world – but good luck leading her to do ANYTHING ethically supportive without seduction skills.

DQ: If what you say here is true, then the seducing of women becomes indistinguishable from child abuse. If women really are incapable of conscious, responsible behaviour, then they are essentially no different to children. Is it ethical to seduce children with emotional persuasion for the purposes of having sex with them?

S: Maturity comes in degrees. The psychological maturity of a newborn is different from a 5 year old, and we treat them differently in light of this. A girl usually reaches sexual maturity sometime in her teenage years, and at this point WANTS to be seduced and can be seduced without negative psychological effects.

Do you consider yourself to be a misogynist?

-

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory wrote:

I'm putting forth the counter-argument that such beautiful women are less conscious than women who didn't coast through life on their beauty, fixated on their reflection in the mirror.

No. This isn’t related to the argument I was making. I’m just saying that sexuality is perfectly natural

But that isn't an argument. Lot's of things are perfectly natural, the drive to intoxicate ourselves, to possess a woman, to feel jealousy, envy, anger, violence.

The situation, as humans, is that we have inherited a great deal from the lower animals, yet we have the consciousness to be aware of this and to modify ourselves, perhaps to the degree where we become largely freed from the gravity of our animal inheritance.

and it may be possible for a woman to give up her motherhood

Will this happen before babies are born in the lab? Please elaborate.

[giving up her motherhood] would be masculine, and to live for herself, would also be masculine

Who doesn't live for themselves? You don't presently seem to be seeing through the illusion of the self. Everyone is yourself.

We live as comfortably as we do because each person is doing work that serves the greater whole. Agriculture, the lumber industry, the mining industry, and the fabric industry, these economic factors, and the human service that make them possible, are a type of foundation, giving us a particular quality of well being. This well being depends on widening the boundaries of our self to include everything. That the world is so screwed up is because so many individuals have the womanly conception of self that you are advocating.

total self sacrifice seems feminine to me.

But it is illusions which are being sacrificed. Living in illusion is feminine.

A ‘mother’ is feminine merely by definition. And living for yourself entails satisfying everything the body needs.

You seem to be confused about the difference between what the body needs and what the body wants.

And I’ve thought about this a lot, and to me sexual desire is not feminine

Relatively, it is indeed feminine. Anatomically, the processes responsible for sexual desire are much more primitive, they are of a lower order, and second, the surge of sexual desire stunts the intellect and binds it to illusion.

I can remember both Solway and Quinn suggesting that sexuality is part of the animal mentality, but they both agree to still masturbating at their age. Do you see the hypocrisy?

No I don't actually. There is no hypocrisy in setting a goal that has admittedly not been absolutely achieved. The goal has been achieved to a degree, there has been progress. People like Solway and Quinn are just inspiring further progress in themselves and in others.

All the sages did the same thing too, they give the impression of one thing, and live another way, suggesting that what they are saying is actually possible.

If you look at the popularity of Christianity during the scientific revolution, man's subordination of his sexuality has actually significantly supported if not accelerated the development of scientific and philosophical thought.

We cannot alter our biological framework to that degree through logic and hopeful thinking

With logical thinking, we can, actually. I can remember the last time I had sex, it happened after being without sex with a woman for about a year. The next few days, after having sex with her the night before, I was very easily aroused, with sexual imagery invading my mind much more readily. My sexual craving and appetite was amplified by the experience the night before. I had become sexified.

In fact, whenever I've had a girlfriend, my mind is prioritized around getting sex at least once a day, usually more. When I go without sex for a few months, the images and fantasies in my mind, as well as sexual appetite, diminishes - and my intellect sharpens. I'm actually excited by lofty intellectual ideas, and I doubt this excitement would be possible if I was in a relationship with a woman.

it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to satisfy the sexual urge.

It's not satisfying the sexual urge that's the problem. The problem is the frequency and dominance of the sexual urge, as well as the dominance of the image/object that is causing the arousal.