Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by skipair »

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.
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 »

1) How do you reconcile cause and effect (that everything happens for specific, yet innumerable reasons) with taking personal responsibility by acts of will?
You don't. Free will is false.
2) In the flow of reality as it continually unfolds before us, change is ever-present, no?
All things but reality change, yes.
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?
An emotion is quite rational, and is not exactly the same as a feeling. Rather, it is passion caused by an attachment. If you are unattached to anything, you will not have emotions.
4) I've seen it written here that sex and ultimate reality don't mix.
False. Women and ultimate reality don't mix. Sex is perfectly fine, so long as you can get it up.
User avatar
average
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:15 pm

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by average »

Don't do sex! It is evil, sinful and deluding! It will detract you from understanding and being One with God, Nature and the Totality and the magical Truth Bubble! YES its JUST THAT FREAKEN POWERFUL!!!!

Mental Masturbation over philosophic ideas is what you should do!
Imagine the Totality, Be One with It, Squeeze it, Rub it, Oh ya....Those deluded sheep don't know what they're missing.

What happens if you have sex? You might end up with children, next thing you know you have responsiblities! You can no longer live like a dirty lazy bum that dwells on his empty thoughts of Grandeur!!!! OH THE HORROR!
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:An emotion is quite rational, and is not exactly the same as a feeling.
(bold added by me)

Trevor, was that a typing error?
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 »

Hi skipair...
skipair wrote:First, what about Nietzsche?
So, what about? Wasn't he ascetic, most of his life?
there are still biological processes in the body that cannot be overridden. One of them is urinating, another is blinking, another is sex drive.
There's a difference though in a medical sense at least because there are people monitored in labs who don't have sex or masturbation for an extended period without physical or mental problems arising. In case of semen the body just re-absorbs it, leading to the claim of some that it actually could provide in a physical sense the means for greater masculinity (will, power). I wouldn't know if that's true though. I do believe that sexuality has more to do with emotional charge and discharge than a bodily need. That's why it's most important in group behavior (study for example apes where sex has many roles for the group dynamic, to calm down, etc).
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.
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.
Isn't that because they embody exactly what those 'lots' of women desire? So whose desire do you think these men are responding to? They might be more masculine in focus and grip on their emotion but it seems all geared toward what is called the 'animal realm', responding on natural reflexes. But bashing someone's brain out, genocide and killing infants can be instinctual too, and these 'needs' are in my opinion still working underground in a great many of things - suppressed, creating bizarre types of logic and justifications in their wake.
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!".
This is true but perhaps it's better to say that it required a 'strong' philosophy. The 'very strong' quality is needed to move further and start understanding what that feminine vortex really is, not as much the "beautiful feminine woman", she's only an exoteric as well as exotic problem really. The problem of the feminine goes way deeper and challenges guys as much as girls.
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 »

Eliza,
Trevor, was that a typing error?
Not at all. I'm reading a rather esoteric, and philosophically inept philosophy text that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that emotions are rational. However, the author (Martha Nussbaum) has absolutely no grasp whatsoever of the Infinite, so even though she describes emotions perfectly, she makes no attempt at removing them from her life.

She shows how emotions are caused by value judgements as to the worth of an object, and the reasons we have emotions are rational.

However, I use the word "rational" in the broadest possible sense. I include poor thinking (everything from mistaken premise to its conclusion) as a form of rationality.
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 »

The problem is that women give you sex implicitly hoping that you will become devoted to impressing them and stimulating them in ways they like. To take sex from a woman without any intention of fulfilling her other hidden drives, is to suck her vitality, and allow her to suck yours. That's why I always say, be hot or be cold, don't get stuck in the middle. Devote yourself to a conventional life, or renounce femininity entirely. Those who waver in between have a weak conscience. With me, my motivation to stay away from women comes from being conscious that involvement with them is a dead end. It leads to nowhere interesting. Another factor is my desire to be conscious of my immortality and to leave in my life's wake the sort of architecture that will inspire genius. My lust for immortality is much stronger than my lust for women.

Therefore, there really is no suppression. For me to get involved with woman would be a suppression of a much more intense desire.
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 »

Cory, recall the parable of Diogenes and the brothel. "A beautiful whore is like poisoned honey," etc. etc. (It's on David's page)

When Diogenes goes into the brothel at the end, he is not being suicidal. He's just not worried about running into any beautiful whores in a brothel. Nothing wrong with non-poisoned honey.
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 »

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Cory, recall the parable of Diogenes and the brothel. "A beautiful whore is like poisoned honey," etc. etc. (It's on David's page)

When Diogenes goes into the brothel at the end, he is not being suicidal. He's just not worried about running into any beautiful whores in a brothel.
What do you mean 'running into?' Do you mean he is not worried about screwing them?

If that's what you mean, then he probably should have been worried, given there were no condoms back then. Isn't he putting the health and length of his life in serious jeopardy by having sex with prostitutes?
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by Pye »

skipair writes:
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.
Convince me as well that this is "rational" behaviour to begin with, or sage-like behaviour, or even intelligent behaviour - however you mean to defend it. Otherwise, you might be mistaking the rational for what is really cunning, duplicitousness, or rationalization in service to private appetite.

1. How rational/sagely/intelligent is it to expose oneself and others to unwanted pregnancy and disease? Okay then, is it still rational even if they wear a raincoat? - something I doubt such cavalier right-to-fuck types frequently do. How rational is it to assume that all the women in these cases are on birth-control, or not carriers themselves of STDs that can take years to incubate? How rational is it to assume after hundreds and hundreds of these encounters that the don juans themselves are not silent carriers of disease, thus affecting the future lives of all these women?

2. How rational/sagely/intelligent is it to embark on said encounters if it is necessary to lie to make them happen? e.g. "I love you" "I'll call you" etc.? How rational is it to do this when most (admittedly not all) women might have their feelings involved and/or be seriously hurt by this? How is duplicitousness a rational behaviour? How is consciously wounding people rational, for such a goal as this?

3. How rational/sagely/intelligent is it to treat a human being - even if child-like/childish - as a "toy"?

4. How rational/sagely/intelligent is it to hold in disregard or disgust the very thing you cannot stop yourself from putting your dick into?

and more.
skipair: This requires a special skillset that I see has a lot of parallels to the enlightenment path -and more specifically, does not contradict it.
Until you can defend this as rational/sagely/intelligent behaviour, you're sitting on a great big contradiction here.
skipair: Namely, it requires a VERY strong philosophy/consciousness/awareness to be able to stay independent of the feminine vortex.
You don't seem to have a very good grip on the word or condition of "independence."
skipair: Intelligent men can not only have lots of sex and be independent, but in fact the former requires the latter.
Again, you must ask if intelligence is really the appropriate word. It takes a lot of something to rationalize this kind of behaviour, that's for sure.
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 »

Cory Duchesne wrote:
Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Cory, recall the parable of Diogenes and the brothel. "A beautiful whore is like poisoned honey," etc. etc. (It's on David's page)

When Diogenes goes into the brothel at the end, he is not being suicidal. He's just not worried about running into any beautiful whores in a brothel.
What do you mean 'running into?' Do you mean he is not worried about screwing them?

If that's what you mean, then he probably should have been worried, given there were no condoms back then. Isn't he putting the health and length of his life in serious jeopardy by having sex with prostitutes?
I'm sure if you talked about STDs in early Socratic Greece, you'd get a few raised eyebrows.

The actual complaint is the beauty. The beauty of women corrupts. Fucking the ugly ones with completely base personalities does not. The beautiful whores are the ones who marry you and steal your life; the faceless stranger that jacks you off should not be a concern.
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 »

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:
Cory Duchesne wrote:
Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Cory, recall the parable of Diogenes and the brothel. "A beautiful whore is like poisoned honey," etc. etc. (It's on David's page)

When Diogenes goes into the brothel at the end, he is not being suicidal. He's just not worried about running into any beautiful whores in a brothel.
What do you mean 'running into?' Do you mean he is not worried about screwing them?

If that's what you mean, then he probably should have been worried, given there were no condoms back then. Isn't he putting the health and length of his life in serious jeopardy by having sex with prostitutes?
I'm sure if you talked about STDs in early Socratic Greece, you'd get a few raised eyebrows.
At risk of being revealed to my self and others as relatively naive, I ask: Why would you get a few raised eyebrows? Were there no STD's back then? Obviously not aids, but I would have thought there was syphillis, herpes, crabs, etc.
The actual complaint is the beauty. The beauty of women corrupts. Fucking the ugly ones with completely base personalities does not.
Why not just jerk off then? I'd probably find it more relieving and easier on the conscience (and the wallet) than screwing something ugly. But maybe the physical contact with ugly women may relieve some loneliness as much as lust? [shrugs] I can understand how that might be the case for some.
the faceless stranger that jacks you off should not be a concern.
I just don't understand why a person doesn't just settle for masturbation.

My guess is that there are extraneous thrills to be had with direct contact with a woman, thrills that masturbation can't provide.

Perhaps it's suicidal to not protect yourself from these extra thrills.

Personally, I would like to seek out the highest class prostitutes where I live and experience their personalities, get them talking (and if their good looking, probably end up succumbing). I would like to experience the spectrum of human psychology more directly, to see what a good looking prostitute is like. A person in my position only interacts with a limited sphere of types of women, and it would be interesting to see how happy and thoughtful some of these prostitutes are.

Another problem I have with supporting prostitutes is that I don't believe the life of a woman is necessarily totally worthless. I think they, in many instances, can become nurtured into being motivated to live in a way that supports wisdom a bit more than being a prostitute does, and that by paying for prostitutes, perhaps you are just beating them down further. (not to mention, wasting your money)
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 »

Why would you get a few raised eyebrows? Were there no STD's back then? Obviously not aids, but I would have thought there was syphillis, herpes, crabs, etc.
I'm quite sure the state of microbiology being what it was in ancient Greece, STD's were things "other people got".
Why not just jerk off then? I'd probably find it more relieving and easier on the conscience (and the wallet) than screwing something ugly. But maybe the physical contact with ugly women may relieve some loneliness as much as lust? [shrugs] I can understand how that might be the case for some.
Why should having sex with a woman require conscious work?
Personally, I would like to seek out the highest class prostitutes where I live and experience their personalities, get them talking (and if their good looking, probably end up succumbing). I would like to experience the spectrum of human psychology more directly, to see what a good looking prostitute is like. A person in my position only interacts with a limited sphere of types of women, and it would be interesting to see how happy and thoughtful some of these prostitutes are.

etc...
I think you are describing the poison of which he speaks. Eventually, when you hide the sex completely, the poison has taken over.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by Jamesh »

1) How do you reconcile cause and effect (that everything happens for specific, yet innumerable reasons) with taking personal responsibility by acts of will?
Ignore it, except in relation to how one judges the actions of others. In a sense one must let go of the subjective emotional element of such valuations as they relate to the person(s) performing the actions, while at the same time trying to ensure a rational assessment of what action needs to be taken or not to minimise the repetition of irrational or harmful actions.

Ie Although a rapist has no free will choice in their raping, this does not offer a basis for no action to be taken against them. One must rationally assess the most beneficial action to be taken to resolve the problem. In a time of war or in a poor country this may be killing them, while in rich western societies it may be some combination of prison, electrical shock treatment or castration, to exorcise the memories or desires that lead to the person raping.

For me, a thing is not the sum of parts, but it is a DIFFERENT thing because it is the total configuration of these parts. So even though there are infinite causes for anything, free will could be said to be what is mentally observable as a potential choice in relation to these infinite causes. As causes are infinite we can only observe a limited portion of this reality. Ie when circumstances provide for a person to choose between options, one still has to be responsible that whatever they decide is rational and in their best future interests.

As reality is completely and utterly nihilistic, yet though one may know this their body continues to bombard their mind with emotions that cause valuation, then I think one has to learn to ignore nihilism and return to the realm of values.
2) In the flow of reality as it continually unfolds before us, change is ever-present, no?
Yes.
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?
That is what I know to be true. All thoughts involve emotion.

Strong emotions of all types however pollute the streams of data that the frontal lobes use to calculate “what is rational”. If one even decides not to defer to positive emotions like the love-causing emotions, then one may be better able to assess which emotions are pragmatic to retain or not, relative to one’s own situation.

Strong emotions are all more primitive animal type emotions, while emotions relating to thinking are what set us apart from other animals. If one does not have periods of time where one’s thoughts are not being muddied by animal emotions, even in one’s subconsciousness*, then one can never be certain if they are completely non-subjectively rationally assessing what they are experiencing. Their brains will experience reality a bit like a radio, where the radio stations are never quite tuned in fully – there will always be emotional static, and one will not receive the clearest signals in consciousness.

*for example, if we have a sexual loved one then by habit our subconscious brain will add value sets, including concessions made from previous experiences with this partner, to the important data streams that our frontal lobes assess, whether, as we are cognising, we are consciously think of this partner or not.
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.
We are creatures that learn by experience, the non-suppression of sex tends to lead to greater harm. There are plenty of sex addicts around, who have become so purely because they were not caused to suppress sexual desires. The less sex you have, including masturbation and concentrating one’s attention on sexually desirous persons, or perving, then even high biologically driven males will become less interested in sex or the other sex. Their high testosterone concentrations can be put to other purposes, like truth. [I’m not suggesting I’ve done this, as I feel I have become too habitualised to sexual desire in the 25 years prior to gaining an interest in deep spiritual philosophies of reality]
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:
Another problem I have with supporting prostitutes is that I don't believe the life of a woman is necessarily totally worthless. I think they, in many instances, can become nurtured into being motivated to live in a way that supports wisdom a bit more than being a prostitute does, and that by paying for prostitutes, perhaps you are just beating them down further. (not to mention, wasting your money)
Yeah, I don’t believe in paying for sex either. I’d feel like I was getting ripped off. It’s the same feeling I get when I pay for bottled water.

Cory wrote:
The problem is that women give you sex implicitly hoping that you will become devoted to impressing them and stimulating them in ways they like.
Yes, generally speaking, men are more motivated purely for sex, while women are motivated to have her dishonest emotional needs fulfilled. A large percentage of women will not have sex with a man unless he makes them feel cared for, loved, special, and then she wants a shallow unthreatening type of playful wit that serves no purpose, but to entertain her. Basically, for most women, you need to display an unthreatening feminine image of yourself in order to win her approve, so it is quite dishonest.

I could never keep up this type of dishonesty very long because too much compromise is necessary, essentially you would split your personality in two, creating two polar extremes, and havoc in your neurology, which could eventually lead to insanity.

It is interesting how most unconscious guys operate, they usually go through all the ‘feminine’ motions in the beginning of the relationship to get the woman attached, and then once the romance dies down, the discontent starts, and each one tries to change the other, and eventually the relationship ends.

There are some exceptions in women though. I think some nympho-pornstars are fairly masculine in their ability to have no-strings attached sex with lots of guys, and they don’t appear to feel any sort of emotional despair as a result.

I’ve been thinking that if the production of testosterone is intimately connected to the sex drive, then it maybe dangerous to genetically eliminate the male sex drive because it could cause all sorts of other major psychological problems.

However, if this is the case, you could engineer more women to be more like these masculine nympho-pornstars, and then provide sex to men as a free social service provided by the government, with regular testing, and so on.

Although, this maybe not necessary with the upcoming emergence of robotics, which could put women out of business as far as being sexual objects is concerned.
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 »

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:
Why would you get a few raised eyebrows? Were there no STD's back then? Obviously not aids, but I would have thought there was syphillis, herpes, crabs, etc.
I'm quite sure the state of microbiology being what it was in ancient Greece, STD's were things "other people got".
Well, if that was Diogones attitude then he wasn't very wise.
Why not just jerk off then? I'd probably find it more relieving and easier on the conscience (and the wallet) than screwing something ugly. But maybe the physical contact with ugly women may relieve some loneliness as much as lust? [shrugs] I can understand how that might be the case for some.
Why should having sex with a woman require conscious work?
That seems like a non-sequitur to me. This is about choosing between two options. One is cheaper, less risky and potentially less revolting than the other. It's arguably more moral too, because the life of an ugly prostitute is likely pretty brutal, and taking sex from her seems to be a contribution to her and humanities malaise.
Personally, I would like to seek out the highest class prostitutes where I live and experience their personalities, get them talking (and if their good looking, probably end up succumbing). I would like to experience the spectrum of human psychology more directly, to see what a good looking prostitute is like. A person in my position only interacts with a limited sphere of types of women, and it would be interesting to see how happy and thoughtful some of these prostitutes are.

etc...
I think you are describing the poison of which he speaks.
What, not treating her like some object to be exploited and neglected and actually trying to get a sense for her inner state?

Perhaps the poison is being without the conscience that stops you from cynically getting jacked off by an ugly prostitute, without any concern whatsoever for what she's going through.
Eventually, when you hide the sex completely, the poison has taken over.
I guess you are referring to married couples here or passionate sex renouncing monks. In the case of married couples, they are just sick of each other. In the case of a bigoted monk, you're right, he's likely crippling himself by denying sex so strongly. That's why I have no qualms about masturbation.

But the implications of having sex with women is something I'm experienced in, aware of and thoroughly sick of.

The only options I think left for me are with women who are interested in Nietzschian/Buddhist self overcoming, and are just looking for a fuck-buddy (which I'd probably just find too counterproductive), or with high class prostitutes (which are expensive and probably very addicting)
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 wrote: There are some exceptions in women though. I think some nympho-pornstars are fairly masculine in their ability to have no-strings attached sex with lots of guys, and they don’t appear to feel any sort of emotional despair as a result.
Yeah, that's why I'm open to exploring what caliber of prostitues we have around here. I'd like to get them talking about themselves. It's not hard to tell if someone is miserable or not. If she seems happy and contented with her life style, then these types of women would be the next step up from porn-aided masterbation, and porn is the next step up from closing your eyes and imagining all your ex girl friends (or girls you wish you could have had) screw you at once.

;)
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 »

What, not treating her like some object to be exploited and neglected and actually trying to get a sense for her inner state?
Are you saying you don't already have a sense of a prostitute's inner state? Look, she sells sex for money: it's not hard to understand her inner state. There should be no reason that you, as a philosopher, should have any interest in knowing anything about her, except perhaps if she can do more interesting things to your penis than you can.
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by skipair »

Hi Diebert,
there are people monitored in labs who don't have sex or masturbation for an extended period without physical or mental problems arising
I agree, there isn't a natural law of "no sex=obvious problems", and to the men out there who aren't having sex I have full respect for your personal choice.

I am also willing to bet that many, and in fact most men, value sex at least to some degree, but do not yet have the personal strength or social wit to make it happen. There is a difference between not being sexually active and abstaining by choice. Most men don't currently have the choice to be active, so is it even a "choice" to abstain? With most men, NO.
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.
Isn't that because they embody exactly what those 'lots' of women desire?
As far as what it takes to sexually satisfy a woman, yes.
So whose desire do you think these men are responding to?
Thats the best part - mutual desire to fuck.
They might be more masculine in focus and grip on their emotion but it seems all geared toward what is called the 'animal realm', responding on natural reflexes
True, some rare guys naturally possess many of the qualities women find so attractive and are mostly unconscious about them. Attracting women for them is as easy as women attracting men. The vast majority of guys do not have these natural reflexes, but by modeling the behavior of "naturals", similar skills can be acquired by intelligent men.
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!".
This is true but perhaps it's better to say that it required a 'strong' philosophy. The 'very strong' quality is needed to move further and start understanding what that feminine vortex really is, not as much the "beautiful feminine woman", she's only an exoteric as well as exotic problem really. The problem of the feminine goes way deeper and challenges guys as much as girls.
True, anyone can stay independent by running away from women, but I will contend that it indeed does require a VERY strong philosophy to remain independent and close by, ESPECIALLY in the aftermath of sex. And yes, I would say this issue goes infinitely deep - though I wouldn't call it a "problem", so much as an enticing challenge. Thanks for your comments.
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by skipair »

Hi Cory,
Cory Duchesne wrote:The problem is that women give you sex implicitly hoping that you will become devoted to impressing them and stimulating them in ways they like.
True in many cases. Women also have sex because they get unbelievably horny, espeically when a good seducer stands before them.
To take sex from a woman without any intention of fulfilling her other hidden drives, is to suck her vitality, and allow her to suck yours
This is pretty vague. Not sure where you're coming from here.
Devote yourself to a conventional life, or renounce femininity entirely


This is too black and white. The spectrum for lifestyles with and without women is probably limitless.
With me, my motivation to stay away from women comes from being conscious that involvement with them is a dead end
If you're expecting emotional fullfillment, or an honorable friend, I 100% agree. But it depends on what you are expecting.
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by skipair »

Hello Pye! Thanks for your comments.
1. How rational/sagely/intelligent is it to expose oneself and others to unwanted pregnancy and disease? Okay then, is it still rational even if they wear a raincoat? - something I doubt such cavalier right-to-fuck types frequently do. How rational is it to assume that all the women in these cases are on birth-control, or not carriers themselves of STDs that can take years to incubate? How rational is it to assume after hundreds and hundreds of these encounters that the don juans themselves are not silent carriers of disease, thus affecting the future lives of all these women?
You assume very sexually active men cannot be responsible?
2. How rational/sagely/intelligent is it to embark on said encounters if it is necessary to lie to make them happen? e.g. "I love you" "I'll call you" etc.? How rational is it to do this when most (admittedly not all) women might have their feelings involved and/or be seriously hurt by this? How is duplicitousness a rational behaviour? How is consciously wounding people rational, for such a goal as this?
You assume very sexually active men cannot be honest and kind?
3. How rational/sagely/intelligent is it to treat a human being - even if child-like/childish - as a "toy"?


I can see how this can come across as negative, but I assure you, even toys need protection.
4. How rational/sagely/intelligent is it to hold in disregard or disgust the very thing you cannot stop yourself from putting your dick into?
Easy Pye...disregard, disgust, and uncontrolled passion has no place in where I come from. I know this is a different lifestyle that most people aren't aware of (I too was shocked at first!), but I think we owe it to ourselves to relax and think first, judge second.
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by skipair »

The actual complaint is the beauty. The beauty of women corrupts.
Disagree. The weakness of your own mind corrupts itself. I'll give you the notion that beauty makes it VERY hard for men keep their wits, but that is an internal issue that men need to take responsibility for at the very least. Whether or not they do something about it depends on their balls.
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 »

skipair wrote:
Diebert wrote:So whose desire do you think these men are responding to?
Thats the best part - mutual desire to fuck.
What do you think of the following phrase: a man has sex and a woman forms sex?

True, some rare guys naturally possess many of the qualities women find so attractive and are mostly unconscious about them.
It's always a degree of being unconscious about it, otherwise it really doesn't work that well. What you seem to be talking about is the making up of a story or myth around it so one can justify ('fortify') a variety of behaviors, no matter if it's being "in love" or "independence". The first is just obeying the pair forming instinct and the other the instinct to "spread". Just two common strategies with some good and bad things about them from the perspective of the species. There are other impulses involved: domination, hierarchy, self-image, anxiety relief.
The vast majority of guys do not have these natural reflexes, but by modeling the behavior of "naturals", similar skills can be acquired by intelligent men.
It proves engaging in unconscious behavior is really the simplest thing in the world. The only effort is to resist getting too conscious about it.
True, anyone can stay independent by running away from women, but I will contend that it indeed does require a VERY strong philosophy to remain independent and close by, ESPECIALLY in the aftermath of sex.
The aftermath is never really the problem, it just decreases ones ability to get conscious about what just happened, no matter if you stay or leave. It's what brought you to start at all where the key in the understanding lies. But what you're saying is like trying to make distinctions between one long drawn-out torture and a 'clean' serial killing, to suggest one is more ethical than the other because it's less messy and painful.
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 »

skipair wrote:
Trevor wrote:The actual complaint is the beauty. The beauty of women corrupts.
Disagree. The weakness of your own mind corrupts itself. I'll give you the notion that beauty makes it VERY hard for men keep their wits, but that is an internal issue that men need to take responsibility for at the very least. Whether or not they do something about it depends on their balls.
But what if beauty forms that "corruption of mind"? The divine Lila has to tempt a dawning consciousness into a belief. And increasingly so, to prevent the spell breaking completely. Nature of course can only exist through this very game.
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: Questions about Enlightenment, comments about Sex

Post by skipair »

Jamesh, thanks for commenting on my questions. I realize now I should have put the sex stuff in a different thread.
So even though there are infinite causes for anything, free will could be said to be what is mentally observable as a potential choice in relation to these infinite causes
I would add to that personal judgment and action, in light of what is observable.

I suppose what I'm really struggling with is that I can't convince myself of the idea that free will doesn't exist. I can move my body EXACTLY how I tell it to. The more conscious I am about the particulars of any given movement, the more responsible I am for its repercussions. Someone prove me wrong.
Strong emotions of all types however pollute the streams of data that the frontal lobes use to calculate “what is rational”. If one even decides not to defer to positive emotions like the love-causing emotions, then one may be better able to assess which emotions are pragmatic to retain or not, relative to one’s own situation
While I agree for the most part, I think it is possible to have both strong, and rationally pragmatic emotions. I imagine in times of war emotions and senses would be heightened, and I believe it is for that reason war is almost stricktly a masculine affair, because they can handle the intensity and stay clear and strategic simultaneously.
Strong emotions are all more primitive animal type emotions, while emotions relating to thinking are what set us apart from other animals


Maybe, though I think its a matter of degrees. We are ALL still animals to a much larger degree than most like to admit.
If one does not have periods of time where one’s thoughts are not being muddied by animal emotions, even in one’s subconsciousness*, then one can never be certain if they are completely non-subjectively rationally assessing what they are experiencing. Their brains will experience reality a bit like a radio, where the radio stations are never quite tuned in fully – there will always be emotional static, and one will not receive the clearest signals in consciousness


I agree there will always be emotional static. I believe an emotional illusion of being totally objective is possible, but everyone is still subject to their biology and environment. You cannot step outside that frame.
We are creatures that learn by experience, the non-suppression of sex tends to lead to greater harm.


Agree, though the key word I believe is "tends". Most men would do themselves greater service to stay away from sex - its a very dangerous endevor. Nietszche said women are the most dangerous plaything. But like everything else, playing women is a skill, and it can be learned.
The less sex you have, including masturbation and concentrating one’s attention on sexually desirous persons, or perving, then even high biologically driven males will become less interested in sex or the other sex.
I agree there is some truth to "use it or lose it".
Their high testosterone concentrations can be put to other purposes, like truth.
Maybe, but in this regard I believe the masculine man can have his cake and eat it too.
Locked