Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by Cory Duchesne »

skipair wrote:there is no compromise or dishonesty in my view. Did you not see the part that says "guys can be themselves"?
Ok, so you say guys can be themselves, but then later you tell Ryan that what he wants to say to a woman is not good enough, and that the sort of thing he needs to say to a woman is:
"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 is stooping to a degrading level, in my opinion. I think it would require a remarkable lack of self worth and conscience to employ this sort of manipulation. Picturing myself or any truth respecting male succumb to such burlesque theatrics is really quite a laugh.
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by skipair »

David,
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.
Franco is definitely one example of a seductionist using money to get a small amount more attraction in a girl (there are some small advantages), though this is an unnecessary added benefit of the personal lifestyle he's chosen for himself. The fundamental rules of attraction do not include throwing money around, as proven by the successfully poor. There are many men with shitty basement apartments in Queens (and the like) who do just as well.

The major value Franco gains in a woman's eyes by mentioning business trips and giving invites to India is that he is bascially saying, "I am a focused man with personal business that comes first...talking to you fits within my agenda, for now."

Any non-lazy man can do the exact same thing with the exact same effect using his own personal values.

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.
True, she is unlikely to be impressed by this with men without a lot of experience with women. I certainly wouldn't be able to consistely pull it off...but I could here and there, and I know a few guys where it would be no questions asked - no problem!

Some guys purposely make "handicaps" for themselves out in the field like, "I still live with my mom", or "I don't have a job", or dressing very low class to make sure they are focusing on what ultimately matters in seduction: ATTITUDE.

This whole perspective was earth-shattering to me at first. My whole life I watched guys trying to buy flowers, buy better cloths, be ultra-nice even when she was being disrespectful...all to manipulate her into being affectionate and sexual or honest or whatever - how ridiculous! Now I know that a set of balls and a backbone is really all you need.
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by skipair »

David,
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.

DQ: 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.
Men who rely on seduction for happiness are absolutely low self-esteem - they also are likely to get low self-esteem women and in general are not that skilled in seduction. The very premise of seduction is to love women for what they are, and never for a second delude yourself that they would be responsible for your happiness.

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

DQ: By arousing and moistening their vaginas? It doesn't sound very believable.
No, it doesn't. And until it is witnessed and personally experienced it might stay that way.

To the men reading this thread, do not mistake my interest in playing women for a lack of integrity. I do not lie to men. As leaders of this world we may disagree, but I do not compromise my personal honor with you or anyone. But you have to understand, as strange as it might sound, bullshit nutures women.

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.
I don't deny I take pleasure in sex. I also take personal honor in my belief that man is the leader of the woman, and his most dangerous responsibility outside himself.

I am here for three reasons:
1) The concept of enlightenment, non-attachment,etc. peaked my interest, and I wanted to learn more about these concepts and test them for validity.
2) While the choice of no sex I respect, I wanted to introduce views about women and sex that readers here might not have been exposed to.
3) I respect the critical thinking I see here, and wanted to test my beliefs about women and sex to see if there are any holes I've yet to uncover. I absolutely value this discussion for this very reason.

DQ: 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 attraction is not a choice - it is biologically trigged. Depending on one's psychological landscape different types of women will flip the switches in different types of men. This is another reason why healthy, ethical seducers are important: to propogate the species with healthy women and children.

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.
Unless one is biologically low sex-drive, I believe it is violence to oneself to deny the fact that these biological attraction triggers exist. Sure, isolation and reasoning can lessen desire, but we are not above nature, and it will not be overridden. Being sexually active is part of being a complete human.

It is true that if the past didn't happen exactly as it did, things would not now be exactly as they are, including all the violence. But very specifically, if our dad's didn't have a glint in his eye the night of our conception,we would not be here. The human race would not exist. The desire you call self-destructive I call the very thing you owe your existence to.

The union of male and female is the crux of our existence, and if we men value this existence, not only do we owe it to ourselves and our future children to be responsible and ethical men, but we also have the responsibility to withstand one of the most difficult challenges anyone can take: spending romantic time with a woman. Except for the exceptionally rare, the only way to win in this game is to practice, and to practice A LOT.

As an aside, the seductionist mentioned earlier named Franco has slept with 500+ women, and now is married and faithful with children. I have no doubt in my mind that his wife is living the ultimate female fantasy - to have children and a safe and secure relationship with a man that allows her to love to the fullest possible extent...emotionally on fire, and wonderfully incapable of altering his will.

Do you consider yourself to be a misogynist?
I believe nature has chosen men to be kings of the planet. I love women as they are and trust them to be women. I am not negative about relationships and hope the best for men and women alike.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

David,
Or else settle for easily-wooed hippy chicks.
Settle? Come on! Drugged as they are, they are the manliest of all women. Well, at least as far as eros flies....
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

skipair,
The very premise of seduction is to love women for what they are, and never for a second delude yourself that they would be responsible for your happiness.
The premise of seduction, from the male point of view, is to donate sperm -- which, when it builds up for a long time, can affect a man's judgement. Love is not necessary.

Women, by wanting men to climb over a million obstacles to get rid of their sperm, are in a position of power. A woman is responsible for which obstacles she puts in man's way: if the obstacle is her own random selfish needs, then she has bad character. If there is no obstacle whatsoever, then she is either unappealing, or she is causing harm to her own body through excessive donations.

If she is asking for the male to love her for reasons other than personal happiness, she is making a character judgement: is this man capable of compassion? The point, therefore, is not "to love women for what they are", but "to love all beings for what they are."
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Cory wrote:
Will this happen before babies are born in the lab? Please elaborate.
I had the insight that technology will continue to replace responsibilities that women have, and as this happens her offspring conditioning will diminish, so the fearful-conservatitive type women who typically make good mothers will totally lose their conditioning as technology continues to progress. And what impact will this have on their behavior? If she no longer desires one man to help her raise their offspring, How will her mind change?

It is all mere speculation.

Cory wrote:
Everyone is yourself.
Yes, yes. I am just saying that I don’t like phrases like serving humanity because it implies submission, however, a philosopher’s work is the product of his own interests, he doesn’t do anything for anybody, but himself, and yes, he is other people. But he only communicates with others honestly because he want them to be more like him, he cannot tolerate unconsciousness. He is only serving his own interests.

Cory wrote:
But it is illusions which are being sacrificed.
I was merely pointing out that it is silly to claim that a good mother is masculine, she is totally unconscious.

Cory wrote:
You seem to be confused about the difference between what the body needs and what the body wants.
The hormonal urges are just powerful as the desire for water or food. Reproduction is a high priority for any organism, to be too idealistic of what the human can be could be an error.

Cory wrote:
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.
I am considering whether or not the sexual urge can be satisfied without illusion, attachment or increased frequently of desire. What you are saying is quite true for very beautiful women, but what about average and below average looking women?

Here are a couple quotes by UG that I thought must be relevant.

"Sex is the most powerful drive. After all, the sex glands have to function. We cannot accept the fact that we are just biological beings and nothing more. It is something like saying that in the field of economics you are not controlled by the laws of supply and demand. But we are not ready to accept the basic, fundamental fact that we are just biological beings and all that is happening within the body is a result of hormonal activity. It is pure and simple chemistry."

"All these things I observed myself. I did not learn about them from anyone. I saw them happen in my own life. I denied myself sex for twenty-five years pursuing spiritual goals. Then I suddenly realized, “Look, this is ridiculous. Celibacy has nothing to do with it. Sex is burning inside of me. Why the hell am I denying myself sex? Why the hell am I torturing myself?” That did not mean that I moved to the other extreme and practiced promiscuity as my way of life. Sex is violence but it is a necessary pain for this body."
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Ryan R wrote: I am considering whether or not the sexual urge can be satisfied without illusion, attachment or increased frequently of desire. What you are saying is quite true for very beautiful women, but what about average and below average looking women?
I think the problem here (and with UG) is that it reduces everything sex to 'sexual urge'. But such urge doesn't exist in a vacuum. A sexual act in itself doesn't equal sex and doesn't arise alone or spontaneously like some 'urge'. There's only really sex in the larger frame of seduction, which is indeed based on illusion, attachment, encouragement. On the whole seduction scene sexual intercourse is just one of the many possible exchanges, but in our current culture quite enlarged and exaggerated in importance to the point of the ridiculous.

A 'masculine' man going around seducing women forms a contradiction. Seduction belongs to the feminine only, one could say it's her only power - seducing the masculine, redirecting the energy. Even wisdom itself can therefore appear feminine like Sofia. There's no way masculinity would need to seduce anything or anyone. Of course gender roles have changed last decades and skipair, even if a man, cannot be else but very feminine. Which explains perfectly even the topic being raised, and the myth being perpetuated: "real strong men seduce". This functions as cover for the truth of the reverse: and it has to remain covered for the seduction to work.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by David Quinn »

Agreed.

-
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Ryan R wrote:Cory wrote:
Will this happen before babies are born in the lab? Please elaborate.
I had the insight that technology will continue to replace responsibilities that women have and as this happens her offspring conditioning will diminish
First off, have you given any thought about how biological conditioning can diminish? Until you get clear about that, I don't see the sense in going much further.
But he only communicates with others honestly because he want them to be more like him, he cannot tolerate unconsciousness. He is only serving his own interests.
Ok, agreed. But his interest is truth, and it makes no sense for someone who is interested in the truth, to want the future of humanity to be excitedly preoccupied with the reproductive act.

And this seems to be what you're hoping for.
But it is illusions which are being sacrificed.
I was merely pointing out that it is silly to claim that a good mother is masculine, she is totally unconscious.
No, what is silly is to believe she is totally unconscious. A rock we can reasonably say is totally unconscious. Women on the other hand are obviously conscious to some degree, and some mothers are more conscious than others. My aunt for instance was a very masculine woman, she was the dominant one in the family, as my uncle was very feminine. She cut out white sugar from her kids diet, she gardened her own vegetables, she refused to buy her kids expensive designer clothes, she educated them about sex from a young age, exposed them to science, pointed out the hypocrisy of religion, spoke to them with a scientific vocabulary. She was a lab technician. Her extremely mild mannered husband had no initiative to do any of this. He just tagged along behind her.
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.
I am considering whether or not the sexual urge can be satisfied without illusion, attachment or increased frequently of desire.
Masturbation. What is the problem you have with just settling for that?
What you are saying is quite true for very beautiful women, but what about average and below average looking women?
I suppose. It'll be once in a blue moon that you get one who, like you, just wants no strings attached sex. (if that is indeed even true)

I had a few intimate encounters with some mediocre girls at work last year, and I just find them so needy for long term companionship. I find that these mediocre to below looking types easily fall into sex without asking too many questions, and then afterwards while you're laying in bed, they start questioning you about where they fit into your future. When you tell them you're not interested in anything long term, they start saying things like: "what if you found a girl that was prettier than me?" "What's wrong with me?" "what don't you like about me?" They will even show a bit of anger and resentment.

They put you in a position where all you can do is lie, get impatient, or really depress them. It's really hard on the conscience really, especially considering that they walk away feeling bad about themselves, with their self esteem lowered.

IMO, these mediocre girls need to be hooked up with guys who also need a longterm relationship. An insincere seducer is just draining the girl he seduces, and ultimately he's draining himself, because he needs all the energy he can get to be focused on what matters.

I just have too many ugly memories and I'm just sick of it.
"All these things I observed myself. I did not learn about them from anyone. I saw them happen in my own life. I denied myself sex for twenty-five years pursuing spiritual goals. Then I suddenly realized, “Look, this is ridiculous. Celibacy has nothing to do with it. Sex is burning inside of me. Why the hell am I denying myself sex? Why the hell am I torturing myself?” That did not mean that I moved to the other extreme and practiced promiscuity as my way of life. Sex is violence but it is a necessary pain for this body."
UG was sort of opposite to me. I had sex as much as I pleased between 17-23. There was no control or suppression. I experienced what I needed. Now I know what it's all about, I have plenty of memories to jerk off to during those weak moments. I can now give all my attention to my journey toward greater perfection, occasionally taking a vacation in my lower mental processes without manipulating other people.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by David Quinn »

skipair,
DQ: 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.

S: Men who rely on seduction for happiness are absolutely low self-esteem - they also are likely to get low self-esteem women and in general are not that skilled in seduction. The very premise of seduction is to love women for what they are, and never for a second delude yourself that they would be responsible for your happiness.
There would be no reason to engage in seduction in the first place if you weren't getting any happiness out of it, and the type of happiness generated by the seduction of women is always ego-boosting in nature. The ability to conquer women is the main proof of a man's worth, at least in the seducer's eyes.

It's as though the seducer constantly has to prove himself as a "man" - which is a sure sign of insecurity and low self-esteem. This applies just as much to the great seducers as it does to the less competent ones.

At the very least, the need to keep seducing indicates that the seducer is still very much spell-bound by woman, that she still remains an uncontrollable force ruling his life, which is why he constantly feels a need to dominate and conquer her.

The seducer thinks that he is a king dominating women. In reality, he is the one who is being dominated and his desire to seduce is a reaction to that.

To the men reading this thread, do not mistake my interest in playing women for a lack of integrity. I do not lie to men. As leaders of this world we may disagree, but I do not compromise my personal honor with you or anyone. But you have to understand, as strange as it might sound, bullshit nutures women.

It certainly nurtures her sexuality and her sense of what it means to be a woman. But what about encouraging her to rise above being a woman, to value reason and truth and lead a more noble life? How does bullshitting her work in that regard?

DQ: 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.

S: At root attraction is not a choice - it is biologically trigged.

There is certainly a biological element involved, but I think most of it is psychological.

For example, another reason why the very feminine and sexual woman has such an allure to the seducer is because she has the magical ability to take him back to childhood. Most of us have strong erotic moments when we are very young, even going as far back as kindergarten. These moments aren't really sexual in a physical sense, but they do embody strong emotional feelings to do with leaving with the male world behind and merging with "woman". All women can reawaken those feelings to some extent, but a sexual, feminine woman can do it much more intensely.

Also, because she is an adventurer and willingly takes the initiative in sexual matters, she relieves the burden of responsibility and guilt that nearly all men constantly have to bear up under, which further intensifies the illusion of going back into childhood. She is able to take him out of his adult male mentality.

Added to this, her very feminine nature, which seems to express purity and godliness, acts as a kind of moral authority which is approving of the seducer's values and lifestyle. In effect, he is getting permission from woman, from mother, to continue leading his manipulative lifestyle. All of his sins are suddenly forgiven, as it were - which, for the seducer, invariably works as a powerful aphrodisiac.

Moreover, the very feminine, sexual woman is so much harder to dominate and control than the average woman. She seems to follow her own inner path, flowing freely outside the normal adult structures, like a force unto herself. To capture and dominate her, at least for a time, would be a major scalp, one that would give the insecure ego of the seducer a major boost.

So this is why the very feminine and sexual woman is so much more alluring than the average, run-of-the-mill beautiful woman. The seducer doesn't have to engage in the boring adult rituals and game-playing that he normally has to do. Instead he is transported almost instantaneously to that magical realm of uninhibited sexuality.

Depending on one's psychological landscape different types of women will flip the switches in different types of men. This is another reason why healthy, ethical seducers are important: to propogate the species with healthy women and children.
I'm still not entirely convinced that men who are sex-obsessed and can think of nothing better to do with their time and intelligence than to chase skirt are good examples of healthy human beings. It looks more like mental sickness to me.

Imagine you were born into a world where rubbing against trees provided tremendous pleasure, and as a consequence the entire human population was besotted with rubbing against trees. Songs were constantly written about trees, movies were constantly made about human relationships with their trees, magazines constantly had trees on their covers, and so on. And imagine that even the most most capable of men couldn't rise above this, that even the great men around you, who were otherwise very honest and intelligent, were busily devoting their lives towards uncovering the best techniques for rubbing against trees and so on. You would think that a severe mental illness had taken over the world, would you not? That is essentially how I regard the situation in our own world with respect to sexuality and women.

DQ: 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: Unless one is biologically low sex-drive, I believe it is violence to oneself to deny the fact that these biological attraction triggers exist. Sure, isolation and reasoning can lessen desire, but we are not above nature, and it will not be overridden. Being sexually active is part of being a complete human.

It is true that if the past didn't happen exactly as it did, things would not now be exactly as they are, including all the violence. But very specifically, if our dad's didn't have a glint in his eye the night of our conception,we would not be here. The human race would not exist. The desire you call self-destructive I call the very thing you owe your existence to.

The union of male and female is the crux of our existence, and if we men value this existence, not only do we owe it to ourselves and our future children to be responsible and ethical men, but we also have the responsibility to withstand one of the most difficult challenges anyone can take: spending romantic time with a woman. Except for the exceptionally rare, the only way to win in this game is to practice, and to practice A LOT.
I was talking about self-destruction in a deeper sense. Sexual desire is the desire to merge with another human being and lose oneself in pleasure. It is the desire to abandon one's independence, rationality, and consciousness of one's existence. It is an attempt to escape the self.

The union of male and female, as you put it, is certainly the crux of animal existence, as it is the means by which a species is able to continue into the future. But as I've mentioned previously, we have evolved the means to change this if we want to. We have the freedom of mind and rational capability to reject the situation and pursue other goals. Unlike other animals, we are not complete slaves to our genes. We have the capacity to break our genetic conditioning.

For example, we are rapidly developing the technology that will enable us to reshape our genetic material and produce entirely new kinds of human beings. We could conceivably turn off our ability to be sexually aroused, for example. Or we could phase women out of existence altogether. We could create new ways of propagating the species, through artificial technologies and so on. More and more opportunities of this kind will be presenting themselves to us. We no longer have to be a slave to the past.

As an aside, the seductionist mentioned earlier named Franco has slept with 500+ women, and now is married and faithful with children. I have no doubt in my mind that his wife is living the ultimate female fantasy - to have children and a safe and secure relationship with a man that allows her to love to the fullest possible extent...emotionally on fire, and wonderfully incapable of altering his will.
He has sowed his wild oats and now has settled down. And yet he is still running a seducer's website, so it is evident that he is still enjoying the seducer mentality and that part of him at least is being unfaithful to his wife. It is likely that he is still addicted.

DQ: Do you consider yourself to be a misogynist?

S: I believe nature has chosen men to be kings of the planet. I love women as they are and trust them to be women. I am not negative about relationships and hope the best for men and women alike.

Yes, but what you hope for with women is that they remain pretty playthings for men. That can hardly be called the best possible outcome for women.

-
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by Jamesh »

Imagine you were born into a world where rubbing against trees provided tremendous pleasure, and as a consequence the entire human population was besotted with rubbing against trees. Songs were constantly written about trees, movies were constantly made about human relationships with their trees, magazines constantly had trees on their covers, and so on. And imagine that even the most most capable of men couldn't rise above this, that even the great men around you, who were otherwise very honest and intelligent, were busily devoting their lives towards uncovering the best techniques for rubbing against trees and so on. You would think that a severe mental illness had taken over the world, would you not? That is essentially how I regard the situation in our own world with respect to sexuality and women.


lol, this is hilarious, but sadly this example is really only a little different to the waste array of falsities that so many folk believe in.
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by skipair »

hmmmmm....
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Cory wrote:
Masturbation. What is the problem you have with just settling for that?
Yeah, I do agree with you there, Other options involve too much effort, 'thought' investment, and manipulation.
User avatar
Shardrol
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:08 pm
Location: New York, USA

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by Shardrol »

David

That's certainly a fine looking tree you have there in your avatar . . . :)
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by skipair »

David,
There would be no reason to engage in seduction in the first place if you weren't getting any happiness out of it, and the type of happiness generated by the seduction of women is always ego-boosting in nature.
I think you and Diebert have helped me see this is probably true to some extent, though I'll need to take more time to see how much. What I'm wondering now is whether or not it is a necessary evil in order to continue the species.

The ability to conquer women is the main proof of a man's worth, at least in the seducer's eyes.
I'm not sure about "main" proof. As I mentioned earlier a man's personal mission must give him more worth than the woman for a seduction to be successful. She can't be his #1. What does a buddha think about his own worth?
It's as though the seducer constantly has to prove himself as a "man" - which is a sure sign of insecurity and low self-esteem.
If you're going to spend time with a woman, of course she will always be testing to see whether or not she has a "man" to keep her safe and not another emotional woman. This is the nature of women...whats a guy to do? Proving he is a man doesn't mean HE needs it for himself...he could do just find without it...but she absolutely must test her future for safety. Biological mechanism. A guy can either suck it up and learn how to deal with it, or not and get owned, or go into isolation and not make babies.

At the very least, the need to keep seducing indicates that the seducer is still very much spell-bound by woman, that she still remains an uncontrollable force ruling his life, which is why he constantly feels a need to dominate and conquer her.
A male living in modern society means, in many respects, to be living in a woman's world. Almost every man I see is manipulated by them in some way or another. Short of every man leaving society for the woods, desert, ice caps or wherever, the only real means of freeing himself from her manipulation is counter-manipulation.

The seducer thinks that he is a king dominating women. In reality, he is the one who is being dominated and his desire to seduce is a reaction to that.
I agree if you mean dominated (partially) by his own ego and not her. Given this discussion I see three options for the human race:
1) Women continue to manipulate men, world continues unethically.
2) Men learn how to manipulate women, men have a chance to rid much of ego except with women, world radically changes to very ethical.
3) Men abandon women, lose all ego, are 100% ethical, human race dies off.

We still live in a world where a power balance exists. In every interaction, someone leads, and someone follows. With women it is conquer or be conquered. When sex is invovled there is no middle ground. No sex...no children...no society.

What is your vision of the future?

S: bullshit nutures women.

DQ: It certainly nurtures her sexuality and her sense of what it means to be a woman. But what about encouraging her to rise above being a woman, to value reason and truth and lead a more noble life? How does bullshitting her work in that regard?
Nothing I say to a woman will ever change the fact that she ultimately (biologically) doesn't give a shit about reason or truth. She might behave well because its in her best interest at the time, but not because she values logic...she simply doesn't want to lose the man that rocks her emotional world so hard - he only happens to lead her into what he considers proper.

DQ: 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.
You might be right but I don't see the value in pedophilia comparison.
S: At root attraction is not a choice - it is biologically trigged.

DQ: There is certainly a biological element involved, but I think most of it is psychological.
Given that your point mostly revolves around ego I can see why you'd think this, but still highly doubt it is mostly psychological, especially for men. For millions of years fish have mated without a psychological landscape...as well as most other animals. Sometimes animals even "sex" plants. Now, all of a sudden, humans come along with a free will so strong that it throws millions of years of evolution out the window, and attraction is now suddenly mostly psychological. Very unlikely. Free will always works within the frame its given, and while the frame is now wider, it is still just as framed.

For example, another reason why the very feminine and sexual woman has such an allure to the seducer is because she has the magical ability to take him back to childhood. Most of us have strong erotic moments when we are very young, even going as far back as kindergarten. These moments aren't really sexual in a physical sense, but they do embody strong emotional feelings to do with leaving with the male world behind and merging with "woman". All women can reawaken those feelings to some extent, but a sexual, feminine woman can do it much more intensely.
Very interesting psychological insight, and you may be right. The problem with statements like this is that they can't be proven, and therefore don't really have any application other than theoretical conjecture.

Also, because she is an adventurer and willingly takes the initiative in sexual matters, she relieves the burden of responsibility and guilt that nearly all men constantly have to bear up under, which further intensifies the illusion of going back into childhood. She is able to take him out of his adult male mentality.
I wouldn't go so far as to say SHE takes the initiative - very unlikely for the feminine. She still needs to be lead into sex and will likely put up lots of resistence along the way (which she hopes you'll ignore, just like every woman). Their value as sexual creatures is ultimately their passion WHILE fucking - the release of their uninhibited raw primitive animal slut. Sure, the chase is psychologically invigorating probably for many reasons, but it is not necessary for the guy to have pleasure. Most guys would be perfectly happy with a world where they could focus on their own business the majority of the time, and every once in a while walk through town, see a woman, fuck her right there, and then go back to business and never see her again. A woman on the other hand requires all the emotions because they are her means to provide for herself safety in the world with men.

Guys get off watching porn, women get off reading romance novels.

Added to this, her very feminine nature, which seems to express purity and godliness, acts as a kind of moral authority which is approving of the seducer's values and lifestyle. In effect, he is getting permission from woman, from mother, to continue leading his manipulative lifestyle. All of his sins are suddenly forgiven, as it were - which, for the seducer, invariably works as a powerful aphrodisiac.
This might play a small role, but you have to admit...all a guy has to do is see a tight ass, sniff up some pheromones, imagine a moan, and BAM! He's ready.

Moreover, the very feminine, sexual woman is so much harder to dominate and control than the average woman. She seems to follow her own inner path, flowing freely outside the normal adult structures, like a force unto herself.
In a sense I agree because to the normal man she is almost incomprehensible. To skillled seducers who are used to it, I think they find their flexible femininity to be the very thing that makes them easy to dominate. The more masculine a woman gets, the more she fights to take the lead - and who wants that when there could be good sex instead?
To capture and dominate her, at least for a time, would be a major scalp, one that would give the insecure ego of the seducer a major boost.
Again, I can't deny ego probably plays some part, but will think longer about how much. Thank you for introducing this idea to me.

So this is why the very feminine and sexual woman is so much more alluring than the average, run-of-the-mill beautiful woman. The seducer doesn't have to engage in the boring adult rituals and game-playing that he normally has to do. Instead he is transported almost instantaneously to that magical realm of uninhibited sexuality.
The game-playing never stop with any women ever. The moment a man looses his awareness with a woman is the moment his puts his mental health in jeopardy, as well as his likely hood of getting her. She may indeed provide some forms of psychological relief...there is something to be said for a man feeling free of his structures, and a woman secure by his structure. This doesn't mean awareness isn't necessary.

S: Depending on one's psychological landscape different types of women will flip the switches in different types of men. This is another reason why healthy, ethical seducers are important: to propogate the species with healthy women and children.


DQ: I'm still not entirely convinced that men who are sex-obsessed and can think of nothing better to do with their time and intelligence than to chase skirt are good examples of healthy human beings. It looks more like mental sickness to me.
Only becuase you have strict standards as to what constitutes healthy: no ego. And by these standards, probably 99.999999977889999% of the population is unhealthy to you.

The fact of the matter is that men who learn what it means to lead a woman learn what it means to take responsibility for themselves. As this skill develops it covers many areas of their existence. The more they don't try to impress women the better they do with them, the less manipulated they become, and the more time they have to work on themselves without all the bullshit blinders. It is a very large cut above the other 99% of men being housepets for women, lazy slugs in life, and blaming it all on the world. Is it absolutely ideal? No, but it is a realistic improvement that won't end the human race.

Imagine you were born into a world where rubbing against trees provided tremendous pleasure, and as a consequence the entire human population was besotted with rubbing against trees. Songs were constantly written about trees, movies were constantly made about human relationships with their trees, magazines constantly had trees on their covers, and so on. And imagine that even the most most capable of men couldn't rise above this, that even the great men around you, who were otherwise very honest and intelligent, were busily devoting their lives towards uncovering the best techniques for rubbing against trees and so on. You would think that a severe mental illness had taken over the world, would you not? That is essentially how I regard the situation in our own world with respect to sexuality and women.
FWIW, I did masturbate to an evergreen once. j/k

Do buddhas like jokes?

I like the tree analogy, but the difference is that trees don't have good feminine nurturing skills to raise our children. Many of the people I know with masculine mothers are kinda fucked up.

DQ: 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: Unless one is biologically low sex-drive, I believe it is violence to oneself to deny the fact that these biological attraction triggers exist. Sure, isolation and reasoning can lessen desire, but we are not above nature, and it will not be overridden. Being sexually active is part of being a complete human.

It is true that if the past didn't happen exactly as it did, things would not now be exactly as they are, including all the violence. But very specifically, if our dad's didn't have a glint in his eye the night of our conception,we would not be here. The human race would not exist. The desire you call self-destructive I call the very thing you owe your existence to.

The union of male and female is the crux of our existence, and if we men value this existence, not only do we owe it to ourselves and our future children to be responsible and ethical men, but we also have the responsibility to withstand one of the most difficult challenges anyone can take: spending romantic time with a woman. Except for the exceptionally rare, the only way to win in this game is to practice, and to practice A LOT.

DQ: I was talking about self-destruction in a deeper sense. Sexual desire is the desire to merge with another human being and lose oneself in pleasure. It is the desire to abandon one's independence, rationality, and consciousness of one's existence. It is an attempt to escape the self.
So sex is bad for humans, but not fish. The workings of nature do not revolve around whether a particular human does or doens't have an ego. That may play one part, but out of all the infinite # of other causes, why this particular emphasis? I'm trying to suspend my judgement knowing that the intellectual structures you've created for yourself hinge on this. I would of course love to be proved wrong.
The union of male and female, as you put it, is certainly the crux of animal existence, as it is the means by which a species is able to continue into the future. But as I've mentioned previously, we have evolved the means to change this if we want to.
In SOME respects.
We have the freedom of mind and rational capability to reject the situation and pursue other goals. Unlike other animals, we are not complete slaves to our genes. We have the capacity to break our genetic conditioning.
Again, only in SOME respects.
For example, we are rapidly developing the technology that will enable us to reshape our genetic material and produce entirely new kinds of human beings. We could conceivably turn off our ability to be sexually aroused, for example. Or we could phase women out of existence altogether. We could create new ways of propagating the species, through artificial technologies and so on. More and more opportunities of this kind will be presenting themselves to us. We no longer have to be a slave to the past.

I see this as being genetically conditioned to uncover this technology.

S: As an aside, the seductionist mentioned earlier named Franco has slept with 500+ women, and now is married and faithful with children. I have no doubt in my mind that his wife is living the ultimate female fantasy - to have children and a safe and secure relationship with a man that allows her to love to the fullest possible extent...emotionally on fire, and wonderfully incapable of altering his will.

DQ: He has sowed his wild oats and now has settled down. And yet he is still running a seducer's website, so it is evident that he is still enjoying the seducer mentality and that part of him at least is being unfaithful to his wife. It is likely that he is still addicted.
Yes, but necessarily addicted to ensure both he and his wife's mental health. One can never fully settle down with a woman and relax, one must play her until the end or else be played. Win-win. The down side is that the seducer is lonely - he can never open up his heart - and the wife at times gets depressed - "why aren't my charms working" - but they are secure and horny for each other like hell.

S: I believe nature has chosen men to be kings of the planet. I love women as they are and trust them to be women. I am not negative about relationships and hope the best for men and women alike.

DQ: Yes, but what you hope for with women is that they remain pretty playthings for men. That can hardly be called the best possible outcome for women.
So long as their biology remains the same I would say it definitely is. Would you suggest the phasing out of feminine women toward more masculine women? Then what about the psychological safety of the child? Two fathers and no mother?
keenobserver
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:01 pm

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by keenobserver »

Ryan R wrote:Cory wrote:


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.
I am considering whether or not the sexual urge can be satisfied without illusion, attachment or increased frequently of desire.
Masturbation. What is the problem you have with just settling for that?
I think well meaning people are too quick to offer wacking-off as some sort of magical solution or the-next-step-up in our quest for greater spirituality. This can easily become a stubborn trap. Neither am I convinced that 10 minutes with a pro or other casual partner is always more damaging to oneself than a choke-and-stroke session.
In modern times especially, now that a virtual babe is also but an arms length away.
It's just far too easy - accessable, which was always the problem with masturbation and why so intensely discouraged and shamed. But nowadays its just ridiculous, a guy hasnt half a chance, does he?

"Consider" no longer I say - for there IS no urge without illusion, and though it may be a great struggle right now be encouraged to know that with fuller realization you wont have to try hard to conquer your lusts, you'll be the master of your domain and have total command of your sexuality.

Who was it that was quoted as saying he's kept himself from playing with himself for 3 years? I dont believe it, coz the sage never has to keep himself from anything, he has complete control of his body and if he indulges he does so by choice in full consciousness, and could have chosen not to if required.

The point is to concentrate not on the perfect sexual solution but on perfection of mind. And not to make it too easy for yourself to sex it up which may lead to serious regrets.

A virtual woman will entrap you like no live woman ever could.
Last edited by keenobserver on Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
keenobserver
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:01 pm

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by keenobserver »

Skipair, I was actually speaking to the other face of the discussion opposite your point, the arguement that brought your ethics into question.
Neither was I saying modern women are saddled with more blame for failed seductions because of greater consciousness.
I'm well aware women's minds are not much different than their greatX10-grandmothers'.

Also, I agree women dont say what they expect, and even misguide, but have they taught you yet that this is bcoz she's intent on sincere love? and bcoz she's v superstitious? religious to the core really.

skipair wrote: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.
Whats your count, cassa? ;)
keenobserver
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:01 pm

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by keenobserver »

The fact of the matter is that men who learn what it means to lead a woman learn what it means to take responsibility for themselves. As this skill develops it covers many areas of their existence. The more they don't try to impress women the better they do with them, the less manipulated they become, and the more time they have to work on themselves without all the bullshit blinders. It is a very large cut above the other 99% of men being housepets for women, lazy slugs in life, and blaming it all on the world. Is it absolutely ideal? No, but it is a realistic improvement that won't end the human race.
Yes, but all the women reading this are giggling under their breath, thinking "thats the idea boy, we let you merely think you are leading, that your-will-be-done then mine, When in reality it is my will being done, my choice that you will learn to "be a man" and take charge, to accept greatest responsibility and maybe someday be the ambitious man I agree to marry! But first you must work for it, prove yourself, leap every hurdle i put before you, then you will truly value your position above (below) me, and learn the pleasure of satisfaction which comes with victory, and pulverize any man who displeases me or interferes with our goals in life."

"If on the other hand, you are a poor pickup artist and dont understand me and have no balls, well then AGAIN I will have my way with you, if I want you at all; you may be my dog and lick my slit, if you're lucky and you fuck long and hard."

(i was going to add "till you drop", but you get the idea!)






hahahaha
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by David Quinn »

Shardrol wrote:David

That's certainly a fine looking tree you have there in your avatar . . . :)
Thanks a lot. You've just ruined my infatuation with trees, Shardrol.

I suppose that if I was living in a world in which everyone was besotted with trees, I would have to put a naked woman in my avatar.

-
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by Dan Rowden »

Damn, I don't think I'll ever be able to see David and trees in quite the same way again.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by Cory Duchesne »

keenobserver wrote: I think well meaning people are too quick to offer wacking-off as some sort of magical solution
I'm not presenting it as a magical solution, I'm presenting masturbation as a rebuttal to anyone who says he needs to chase women in order to get a biological sexual release. He is likely addicted to something that goes beyond mere biological ejaculation, beyond even the porno he can download off the net. He likely values a real relationship with a women for a reason other than than the one he says to himself. He says: "it's just my high libido"

No, I think there is more to it than that, because if it was just your libido, then you would just settle for jerking off.
Who was it that was quoted as saying he's kept himself from playing with himself for 3 years? I dont believe it, coz the sage never has to keep himself from anything, he has complete control of his body
You're not making much sense here, because the whole idea of having 'control' of your body implies that you are controlling yourself away from doing certain behaviors while aiming toward others.
and if he indulges he does so by choice in full consciousness and could have chosen not to if required.
Ok, and if he doesn't indulge, he does so by choice. What's your point?
The point is to concentrate not on the perfect sexual solution but on perfection of mind.
And do you regard perfection of mind to be asexual?
A virtual woman will entrap you like no live woman ever could.
I agree that porn is addicting and I advise against it. But isn't it better than being in a real relationship?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by Dan Rowden »

Cory Duchesne wrote:
keenobserver wrote:
A virtual woman will entrap you like no live woman ever could.
I agree that porn is addicting and I advise against it. But isn't it better than being in a real relationship?
That's an interesting question. The problem is it may be that only boredom can rescue you from the "clutches" of a virtual woman because she is entirely a product of imagination and ideation. At least with a real woman there's some scope for being faced with reality and learning from it.

I'm not recommending either, however.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

This whole discussion has turned into a mind fuck.
skipair wrote:Given this discussion I see three options for the human race:
1) Women continue to manipulate men, world continues unethically.
2) Men learn how to manipulate women, men have a chance to rid much of ego except with women, world radically changes to very ethical.
3) Men abandon women, lose all ego, are 100% ethical, human race dies off.
Here's a novel solution - instead of any of that, how about if everyone deals with everyone else straight-up, puts an end to the gender wars, race wars, religious wars, worldly wars, - all wars like that, and learn how to get along by being Truthful and having a universal love of All that is?
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Dan Rowden wrote:
Cory Duchesne wrote:
keenobserver wrote:
A virtual woman will entrap you like no live woman ever could.
I agree that porn is addicting and I advise against it. But isn't it better than being in a real relationship?
That's an interesting question. The problem is it may be that only boredom can rescue you from the "clutches" of a virtual woman because she is entirely a product of imagination and ideation.
I'm not sure I follow. Isn't it 'virtual woman' who rescues you from boredom?

I guess you might get bored with your particular porn video, and hence boredom rescues you from it. But really, I would think that boredom simply pulls you from one porn fantasy into a more extreme one, or just a different one.
At least with a real woman there's some scope for being faced with reality and learning from it.
Right. I agree that an individuals psychological development and maturity might get stunted by retreating from the 'scariness' of real relationships with women in favor of pornography. Or is that what you're getting at?
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:This whole discussion has turned into a mind fuck.
skipair wrote:Given this discussion I see three options for the human race:
1) Women continue to manipulate men, world continues unethically.
2) Men learn how to manipulate women, men have a chance to rid much of ego except with women, world radically changes to very ethical.
3) Men abandon women, lose all ego, are 100% ethical, human race dies off.
Here's a novel solution - instead of any of that, how about if everyone deals with everyone else straight-up, puts an end to the gender wars, race wars, religious wars, worldly wars, - all wars like that, and learn how to get along by being Truthful and having a universal love of All that is?
Men are presently too infatuated with women for that to happen.
Locked