sexual aggression

[Imadrongo]

Of course, if a person is perfectly happy living in a prison, then this won't be a problem for him. He has the "maturity" to handle it.

We all already live in prisons (genetic, environmental, psychological, whatever). Part of maturity is accepting this is the case and no longer fantasizing about "true freedom" and romanticism.

[Rhett]

So, in so much as a woman wooes a man, then has a child and depends on him to support them, she is making the man suffer.

The problem I see with speaking like this is that it almost divorces men from the role they play in their own downfall. Men create these circumstances as much if not more than women.

At the end of the day we could hold men entirely responsible for their own suffering at the hands of women for in any way allowing themselves to be caused to suffer by them. But taking into account the proper context of my generalisations, including the delusions held, i find that they hold.

Men do the extra yards for women out of good conscience, knowing that women are lacking. Sure, their ego is often adapted to "feel good" about it, but that doesn't negate their nobility of character or suffering. They still suffer for it.

Where this come back to the woman is that she sees this but does not meaningfully address it. She remains in a state of lacking, in both the mental and physiological realm.

Woman at her best is to man an example from which he can teach himself unconsciousness and thereby temporarily reduce his consciousness and suffering. Not at all a gift as far as i'm concerned, especially as her unconsciousness is dependent on man suffering to make her life easy.

[Rhett]

The woman-bashing that occurs on this forum is unfortunate and ideally it shouldn't happen. But I guarantee you it is nothing compared to the constant bashing of women that occurs everywhere in this world under the guise of men loving them and forming relationships with them. The likes of Laird are the real misogynists and don't let anyone fool you otherwise.

David,

I am interested to know if you think i have engaged in woman bashing, and if so, where.

I acknowledge the discussion has spread from the topic of sexual aggression. I'm not going to look back right now to see how responsible i may or may not be for that, but would say that my posts have been within the bounds of justifiable peripheral and developmental discourse.

[Laird]

By "mature", you mean spiritually dead. An emotional relationship is abusive by nature, no matter how caring and mature it might seem on the surface. It involves each person relying on the other for emotional fulfillment, which mean expectations are in play creating those dreaded prisons.

By "mature" I mean well-adjusted, balanced, empathetic and both capable of acting and willing to act appropriately based on that empathy, and most importantly having a secure ego. If you enter a relationship with a reasonably secure ego, then there is no reliance, there is only the joy of increasing each other's pleasure. I don't believe that prisons are very joyful places.

[edit: actually I've changed my mind about what's most important: the empathy bit's more important than the secure ego bit]
[edit2: to the list of features of maturity I'll add "broadly capable and experienced in the world"]

[maestro]

Most importantly having a secure ego. If you enter a relationship with a reasonably secure ego, then there is no reliance, there is only the joy of increasing each other's pleasure. I don't believe that prisons are very joyful places.

A secure ego? Well that is a contradiction in terms, the reason is that the ego being a totally imaginary construct will always face the challenge of authenticity from the outside world, and it can never be secure. It may be secure if surrounded by a circle of sycophants or "good friends" but such an arrangement is temporary.

If you place expectations of increasing each others pleasure and then bring in an ego, the relationship is doomed from the beginning. The reason is that a relationship is bound to give you both pain and pleasure, and if you bring in an expectation of pleasure with a big ego, then as soon as some pain arises the ego will be sore and the relationship will turn sour.

[David Quinn]

Of course, if a person is perfectly happy living in a prison, then this won't be a problem for him. He has the "maturity" to handle it.

We all already live in prisons (genetic, environmental, psychological, whatever). Part of maturity is accepting this is the case and no longer fantasizing about "true freedom" and romanticism.

Yeah, that's spiritual death.

At root, our prisons are entirely conceptual in nature and we are perfectly capable of dismantling all of them - providing our karma allows us to. Our karma here being our genes, upbringing, teachers, past decision-making, etc.

-

[Laird]

the ego being a totally imaginary construct

I prefer "the ego being a practical and necessary reality".

it can never be secure.

No one's perfect. It's a matter of degree and of good fortune.

then as soon as some pain arises the ego will be sore and the relationship will turn sour.

Again, perfection is just a dream, and some conflict is inevitable, but I've only ever had one friendship turn sour and that was with a guy in primary school; I've never had a romantic relationship - with a woman (I'm heterosexual) - turn sour, although admittedly I've barely engaged in them.

Edit: for the sake of complete honesty I want to disclose here that I've remembered having another friendship turn sour, and it was with a woman, and I'm ashamed to admit that it was wholly and completely my fault.

[maestro]

I prefer "the ego being a practical and necessary reality".

You mean realizing the ego as nominal only. Or to indeed have the whole intellect invested around the myth of the ego (in other words a self separate from the universe).

No one's perfect. It's a matter of degree and of good fortune.

You mean having a secure ego is a matter of good fortune.

I hope Trevor is reading this, he left the form Boohooing that Laird has achieved enlightenment, which he can never attain to. This statement should make it clear to him that there is no need for jealousy on that account.

[David Quinn]

If you place expectations of increasing each others pleasure and then bring in an ego, the relationship is doomed from the beginning. The reason is that a relationship is bound to give you both pain and pleasure, and if you bring in an expectation of pleasure with a big ego, then as soon as some pain arises the ego will be sore and the relationship will turn sour.

Pain means make-up sex, so it's all good from their perspective.

Pain and make-up sex, the two vital ingredients of any long-term relationship.

-

[Rhett]

David: Looking to women to provide emotional rewards for an insecure ego imprisons them in an immature form.

Laird: I'm sorry that the possibility of a mature, caring, non-abusive relationship between two mature, equal adults is so foreign to you, but in the end it's your loss.

It is nothing but a gain to be cognizant of the reality of relationships, and a gain to be free of the kind of desires driving people into them. Have you for one moment asked yourself why you want to be with someone? What is actually driving that desire? I doubt it, you've not done it seriously anyway. Your desire for it is precicely proportionate to your insecurity, security being what you hope to find in a woman.

David: It is an act of violence towards women that has no equal.

Laird: Yeah, rape's pretty tame after all.

Men overarchingly choose and treat women in a manner that keeps them as unconscious as possible, choosing notions of beauty, peacefulness, ego reasurrance, etc, over rationality, thoughtfulness, wisdom. Even the very act of being in the same location as a woman will naturally see what consciousness she has dwindle further as she escapes off to ever deeper recesses of unconsciousness, to rely on the male. There is nothing a man can do about this in my experience, no amount of cajoling or encouragement or forcefulness or whatever stops this from happenning. Thus the truly moral thing for a man to do is leave her alone to face the world and feel sufficient pressure to develop.

Rape undoubtedly causes a great deal of distress in women and i consider it very harmful and wrong. I strongly speak against it. But in a hopefully sensible venue such as this point out that the distress is mostly caused by her enjoying it and that being in stark contrast to how society portrays she should feel about it. A common saying in women's help groups for rape victims is "It's okay if you enjoyed it". Again, i speak strongly against rape.

And how far really are you Laird from rape in your sexual mentality towards women? How much do you want to control and 'take' what is not explicitly given? If a woman looked you in the eye and said "I want to have sex with you now, please follow me to my bedroom and we are going to have great sex", would you be much aroused?

[David Quinn]

The woman-bashing that occurs on this forum is unfortunate and ideally it shouldn't happen. But I guarantee you it is nothing compared to the constant bashing of women that occurs everywhere in this world under the guise of men loving them and forming relationships with them. The likes of Laird are the real misogynists and don't let anyone fool you otherwise.

David,

I am interested to know if you think i have engaged in woman bashing, and if so, where.

I acknowledge the discussion has spread from the topic of sexual aggression. I'm not going to look back right now to see how responsible i may or may not be for that, but would say that my posts have been within the bounds of justifiable peripheral and developmental discourse.

I wasn't thinking of you specifically when I made that comment. It was just a general observation.

Having said that, I do think you have certain unresolved issues with respect to women. The impression I get from your posts that you still feel a need to control them in a patriarchal, school-masterly kind of way, which would indicate that they are still disturbing you internally. But that's okay. You're not alone in this. We all have to work through these issues in our daily lives, hopefully with ever-increasing success!

-

[Laird]

Laird: I prefer "the ego being a practical and necessary reality".

maestro: You mean realizing the ego as nominal only.

I mean recognising that the noun, "ego", corresponds to something abstract but nevertheless real.

Or to indeed have the whole intellect invested around the myth of the ego (in other words a self separate from the universe).

This framing of yours of the ego as "a self separate from the universe" is in my opinion a little bit duplicitous. It's not quite the phrasing that I'd use. I'd stop simply at "sense of self" without making any reference to the relationship of that self to the universe. In other words, if you're attempting to ascribe that framing as the one that I'm advocating, then you are constructing a straw man. The implication that I read into it is that I'm trying to deny causal linkages between self and other. In fact I don't deny those linkages, I just maintain that there are reasonable and common-sense ways to draw approximate boundaries between self and other, such that this abstract notion of the ego has a practical meaning. In other words, the adjective "illusory" as commonly used around these parts when describing the nature of the ego is in my opinion inappropriate. Granted, there is no single thing that we can point to when conceptualising the ego, which I think is the point that is being made when that particular adjective is used, but so what? So what that the ego is an in-motion conglomeration? Does this make it any less real? I think not.

Laird: No one's perfect. It's a matter of degree and of good fortune.

maestro: You mean having a secure ego is a matter of good fortune.

In some ways, yes. That's the doctrine around these parts anyways, which I generally support. Perhaps your parents showed you unconditional, affirmative love as a child and this bolstered your ego to the point that it became habitualised to feeling confident in itself, or perhaps your parents beat you miserably and you developed powerful coping mechanisms to maintain your self-respect. Either way, the security of your ego was caused to be the way that it is. I'm only following the "enlightened" reasoning of QRS which makes me wonder why...

I hope Trevor is reading this, he left the form Boohooing that Laird has achieved enlightenment, which he can never attain to. This statement should make it clear to him that there is no need for jealousy on that account.

...you use it as evidence against enlightenment.

Have you for one moment asked yourself why you want to be with someone? What is actually driving that desire?

Yes, I often consider this question. I am well aware of the attitude that people seek relationships to "complete themselves" or for security. I can't be sure that there isn't a little of that in my motivation, but I very much doubt it. Mostly I want to be with someone because to share love is a pleasurable, rewarding experience. I like to know that I'm causing another person happiness. This probably explains why my most frequent sexual fantasy is that of going down on a woman. Also I want to be with someone because there is much to be learnt about oneself and other people through the communication of deep intimacy, and there is likewise much to teach another.

[T]he distress [of rape] is mostly caused by her enjoying it and that being in stark contrast to how society portrays she should feel about it. A common saying in women's help groups for rape victims is "It's okay if you enjoyed it".

I have never been raped nor spoken about their experience to someone who has been raped - although I have been lied to about it before - so I have no evidence against this controversial claim. Suffice it to say that I would be very surprised if it were true.

And how far really are you Laird from rape in your sexual mentality towards women?

About as far as it gets, mate.

How much do you want to control and 'take' what is not explicitly given?

The thought disgusts me.

If a woman looked you in the eye and said "I want to have sex with you now, please follow me to my bedroom and we are going to have great sex", would you be much aroused?

Yes.

[Sapius]

Looking to women to provide emotional rewards for an insecure ego imprisons them in an immature form. It is an act of violence towards women that has no equal.

And the act of violence isn't only against women...

For instance, it's also worth mentioning that if you're looking to women (or alcohol, anything really) to provide emotional rewards for your insecure ego, then you are imprisoning yourself in an immature form.

Very true.

-

Anything? Well, how about enlightenment? Does that not provide any emotional rewards?

In my opinion, Self-satisfaction seems to be the only motivation; just that individual values and thereby goals are different.

[Laird]

In my opinion, Self-satisfaction seems to be the only motivation; just that individual values and thereby goals are different.

Very true.

[Sapius]

Maestro: You mean realizing the ego as nominal only.

Laird: I mean recognising that the noun, "ego", corresponds to something abstract but nevertheless real.

Real enough to be irrelevant of abstraction, really.

One cannot consciously claim to be unconscious; but then again, it all depends on how one defines ‘consciousness’, or say ‘ego’, and we are free to define as we see fit.

Maestro: Or to indeed have the whole intellect invested around the myth of the ego (in other words a self separate from the universe).

The way you describe ‘ego’, I would call that a false-ego, not ‘ego’ itself, which I might equate to consciousness actually, for it ever remains as a self-centered (egoistical) activity however.

[David Quinn]

DQ: Looking to women to provide emotional rewards for an insecure ego imprisons them in an immature form. It is an act of violence towards women that has no equal.

Cory: And the act of violence isn't only against women...

For instance, it's also worth mentioning that if you're looking to women (or alcohol, anything really) to provide emotional rewards for your insecure ego, then you are imprisoning yourself in an immature form.

DQ: Very true.

Sapius: Anything? Well, how about enlightenment? Does that not provide any emotional rewards?

If it does, it isn't really enlightenment.

A person's ego can become empowered by small tastes of enlightenment - such as what can be experienced in some altered states - which can either inspire him to further his experience of enlightenment or reinforce whatever delusions he has concerning it. He can feel like he is ready to conquer life and death. But when it comes to full, unadulterated enlightenment there are no emotional rewards or egotistical empowerments to be had. Such things are seen to be infinitely hollow.

In my opinion, Self-satisfaction seems to be the only motivation; just that individual values and thereby goals are different.

That is true to the degree that a person isn't enlightened. In enlightenment, there is no self to be either satisfied or dissatisfied.

Ramakrishna once spoke about a salt doll that wanted to measure the ocean, but the moment he entered the water he immediately dissolved.

-

[Sapius]

Sapius: Anything? Well, how about enlightenment? Does that not provide any emotional rewards?

David: If it does, it isn't really enlightenment.

A person's ego can be become empowered by small tastes of enlightenment - such as what can be experienced in some altered states - which can either inspire him to further his experience of enlightenment…

Experience is experience, be it any kind of state of mind; “enlightenment” remains such a state of mind too; what we are really interested in is what I value over another, say truth for example. However, as far as altered states are concerned; do you claim that you have experienced all of them and hence can speak with absolute certainty?

…or reinforce whatever delusions he has concerning it.

Very possible, but first one needs to calrify the definition of ‘delusion’. I may find the claim of 'no self' to be delusional, or to say the least, illogical.

He can feel like he is ready to conquer life and death. But when it comes to full, unadulterated enlightenment there are no emotional rewards or egotistical empowerments to be had. Such things are seen to be infinitely hollow.

So seeing those things as infinitely hollow brings no self-satisfaction to the one who achieves that? So what exactly is the point? It would then translate into an illogical pursuit. Is pursuing enlightenment illogical?!

S: In my opinion, Self-satisfaction seems to be the only motivation; just that individual values and thereby goals are different.

D: That is true to the degree that a person isn't enlightened. In enlightenment, there is no self to be either satisfied or dissatisfied.

Well, it seems an individual Self is necessary to think that; namely, there is no self. It is akin to saying there is no consciousness. Is consciousness anything other than the Self?

Ramakrishna once spoke about a salt doll that wanted to measure the ocean, but the moment he entered the water he immediately dissolved.

Quite a stupid doll I would say; but it is also possible that pots and pans were not around then, or say reasoning. However, is it possible that Ramakrishna was trying to say that just like the salt doll one cannot measure or know reality/existence? After all, that doll was not able to measure the ocean in its fullness. Is he saying that the Self will start dissolving as soon as it tries to measure (reason) reality? Hence it is actually futile?

[skipair]

you were not born Woman and l was not born Man.
Society has in fact constructed us so.
You were born. l was born. Thats about it. Our reproductive biology differs, which colours our interaction with life itself and how we perceive... there's the rub.
Gender is psychology. Masculininty and femininity are psychological constructs which deny our inherent natures, replacing it with a lie, ergo delusion.
Man and Woman are the embodiment of that delusion.
They are constructed in service of Society.

Not quite sure how you can make this claim to be absolute, and I doubt it is. I suppose it depends on what you mean by masculine and feminine, but for me it is directly tied to how male and female instincts differ.

I can't prove this exactly, but I bet my life that if you raised a male and female in a laboratory, with no societal influence, they would assume the same masculine and feminine role dynamics we find everywhere. And in this sense, our "reproductive biological differences" really have a strong say, and go to the heart of what it means to be a man or woman.

I'm guessing you're assuming a perspective from an egoless being, but even then they are still subject to nature's design.

[Philosophaster]

But in a hopefully sensible venue such as this point out that the distress [of rape] is mostly caused by her enjoying it and that being in stark contrast to how society portrays she should feel about it. A common saying in women's help groups for rape victims is "It's okay if you enjoyed it".

But in a hopefully sensible venue such as this point out that the distress [of rape] is mostly caused by her enjoying it and that being in stark contrast to how society portrays she should feel about it. A common saying in women's help groups for rape victims is "It's okay if you enjoyed it".

But in a hopefully sensible venue such as this point out that the distress [of rape] is mostly caused by her enjoying it and that being in stark contrast to how society portrays she should feel about it. A common saying in women's help groups for rape victims is "It's okay if you enjoyed it".

But in a hopefully sensible venue such as this point out that the distress [of rape] is mostly caused by her enjoying it and that being in stark contrast to how society portrays she should feel about it. A common saying in women's help groups for rape victims is "It's okay if you enjoyed it".

But in a hopefully sensible venue such as this point out that the distress [of rape] is mostly caused by her enjoying it and that being in stark contrast to how society portrays she should feel about it. A common saying in women's help groups for rape victims is "It's okay if you enjoyed it".

But in a hopefully sensible venue such as this point out that the distress [of rape] is mostly caused by her enjoying it and that being in stark contrast to how society portrays she should feel about it. A common saying in women's help groups for rape victims is "It's okay if you enjoyed it".

But in a hopefully sensible venue such as this point out that the distress [of rape] is mostly caused by her enjoying it and that being in stark contrast to how society portrays she should feel about it. A common saying in women's help groups for rape victims is "It's okay if you enjoyed it".

But in a hopefully sensible venue such as this point out that the distress [of rape] is mostly caused by her enjoying it and that being in stark contrast to how society portrays she should feel about it. A common saying in women's help groups for rape victims is "It's okay if you enjoyed it".

But in a hopefully sensible venue such as this point out that the distress [of rape] is mostly caused by her enjoying it and that being in stark contrast to how society portrays she should feel about it. A common saying in women's help groups for rape victims is "It's okay if you enjoyed it".

But in a hopefully sensible venue such as this point out that the distress [of rape] is mostly caused by her enjoying it and that being in stark contrast to how society portrays she should feel about it. A common saying in women's help groups for rape victims is "It's okay if you enjoyed it".

Wow.

[Shahrazad]

Dan, I am sorry that I have taken so long to respond, but I assure you that I have valid reasons for it. I will come back later tonight or tomorrow and reply to you in more detail.

I will start by addressing Jimbo's comment that I once bought a $3k handbag. I have never done it, and even if I had so much money that $3k was a drop in the bucket for me, I doubt I would do it, as a matter of principle.

-

[Shahrazad]

Dan,

Sher said: Of course, I don't give a damn about losers like Rhett whose self-esteem is based on constantly trying to convince themselves that women are below them.

Dan said: This might have some validity, but how could we know?

By reading a few of the other posts written by the same poster, and analyzing where he is coming from. This usually wouldn't be hard for you to do. For some reason now you are unwilling to face it.

Heck, even David has been able to see through the poster's inferiority complex, only David was extremely sensitive in the way he told him this truth, not wanting to hurt his feelings. Just the fact that David felt the need to be so sensitive tells me a lot about how weak David perceives the poster to be.

For your convenience, here are the words from David I am referring to:

I wasn't thinking of you specifically when I made that comment. It was just a general observation.

Having said that, I do think you have certain unresolved issues with respect to women. The impression I get from your posts that you still feel a need to control them in a patriarchal, school-masterly kind of way, which would indicate that they are still disturbing you internally. But that's okay. You're not alone in this. We all have to work through these issues in our daily lives, hopefully with ever-increasing success!

-

[PyroSylph]

The statement made by Rhett is the perfect opportunity for some of the men in this forum to step up and admit where they stand. With all the denials of misogyny that abounds, the silence of its members when statements such as these are presented is deafening! The men here take no pause in jumping in feet first if the topic means they will have a chance to whine about the wicked things a woman can do to distract a man from his path of enlightenment! But when a man says such vile and misguided shit like this, those who are not misogynistic should fly from their lofty realms and cast the moronic dolt down!

Do you want people to see that you are unwilling to defend violence against women? Or does it tickle your innards when you see one of your members post such garbage because you agree but don't want that fact known (ergo; your philosophy is shot to hell)? As a Man of the Infinite you should step up and say "WTF?! This isn't what we're about!"

Rhett's comment wasn't about consciousness or lack thereof, or even some jumbled view of Woman. The distress of rape is mostly caused by a woman enjoying it?! This (and numerous other piles of like-refuse seen here) is what you and your ilk advocate as Truth now? When such crap is not weeded out or addressed as having nothing to do with what you espouse, it leaves people with the idea that you must be in agreement! If the forum is to further your philosophy, where is the wisdom in being silent? If you agree with the rat bastard, let his shit stink up the place. If none of you care to criticize Rhett's statement, it will stand as yet another reason why there are people who think you are nothing more than a group of bitter, arrogant, misogynist hidden behind a guise of (supposed) benign purpose.

[Shahrazad]

Pyro,

But when a man says such vile and misguided shit like this, those who are not misogynistic should fly from their lofty realms and cast the moronic dolt down!

In all fairness, Laird did exactly this. However, and I paraphrase David, "don't let anybody fool you, Laird is the true misogynist".

I know that your main point was that Dan has failed to disagree with Rhett's comment. This does nothing to further his cause, in my view.

I'm probably getting real close to being banned from this forum.

-

[maestro]

So what that the ego is an in-motion conglomeration? Does this make it any less real? I think not.

But everything is an in motion conglomeration. Why should the ego be given more importance than anything, and by whom?

You mean having a secure ego is a matter of good fortune.

In some ways, yes. That's the doctrine around these parts anyways, which I generally support.

I think you mean strong ego is preferable to a weak ego, I would agree as the strong ego person is likelier to attempt enlightenment.

[PyroSylph]

I know that your main point was that Dan has failed to disagree with Rhett's comment. This does nothing to further his cause, in my view.

Dan, nor David or Kevin - are these not the 3 admins here? And what of the others who want us to believe they are here for enlightenment rather than to spread (and wallow in) misogynistic bullshit? There have been hundreds of instances like this where they have had the opportunity to separate themselves from such bilge, yet they refuse to do so over and over again. Ignoring it may mean something if you are face-to-face with someone and you want to avoid ireful conversation, but remaining silent at a forum that has a purpose is foolishness! This is a case of getting on the ball and cleaning the dross out! Maybe I am addressing this more to Dan than anyone else. Probably because I think David could care less (for reasons yet to be determined...) and Kevin has lost interest in the joint. But it's hard for me to take Dan's (or any members here) denial of misogyny seriously when he repeatedly fails to devote time to posts like this.

I'm probably getting real close to being banned from this forum.

I doubt it. The only thing that would get you banned would be if you continued to defend your shopping habits. ;)