The Problem With Women Today

[Shahrazad]

Carl,

What is the use of this code, and the subterfuge about it, and the lies you list here?

The woman gets to keep her dignity, and her status in society as a respectable woman. Without this, she is nothing.

And what do men get that is worthwhile to them by playing along, playing dumb, and being players.

Sex. If you're a man and you don't want sex, you don't need to play the game. Isn't it obvious?

Seems like a female cover up -- to herself as well as him -- that there really isn't much to her.

No, Carl. It's not just women's fault; it's society's fault. Society places a huge burden on women to be chaste. Whatever woman refuses to play along will be deemed a social outcast, a harlot.

Remember daybrown? If he were here, he would tell you that when a society loses its control of women, it completely breaks down. That is why these silly controls exist.

[rebecca702]

Secret Society

It doesn't take a genius to realize that you can't seduce a woman the way you'd seduce a man.

Who cares?

No wonder you wrote that you weren't too worried about becoming totally absorbed by woman/unconsciousness, you already have been.

I think he wants to show that there's an alternative for those men who've been rejecting Woman purely on the basis of past failures and lack of understanding about the Secret Society. Here's the in, guys.

[Nick]

Why would you want to be associated with such a sick mindset?

I'm "associating" myself with the knowledge that these behavioral patterns exist, whether they seem sick or otherwise.

And by associating you mean rendering a woman incapable of refusing your sexual advances. Why not skip the player techniques and just spike her drink with some GHB? Same results, and it's done much more efficiently than any man pressing buttons on an emotional robot (woman).

Seriously though, I think if you were going to bet bored of this at some point and move on, you would have done it already. There's a much better chance you become consumed by this as you perfect the technique. Even after reading that article I felt somewhat womanly. After all, the goal of every player means you no longer have to think about the rules of seduction while practicing them, rather, the goal is for the process to become part of your being. One essentially becomes a reflection of a woman's mind.

Now that's a scary thought.

[Alex Jacob]

Shah about Daybrown: "If he were here, he would tell you that when a society loses its control of women, it completely breaks down."

Around the turn of the century a siginicant and powerful minority in culture (intellectuals) decided that the reining sexual mores needed to be reworked. You can find all this in DH Lawrence`s writing, and in Nietzsche, Huxley, and many others. Many were tired of having to live up to forms no one wantwed to believe in. They wanted to liberate people from excessive sexual controls and so they pushed open the territory (mental pathways) to a more libertine attitude, and through that opened up the physical, which is to say opened up women's bodies to raw desire. With Freud, the cap was completely blown off. The 'meaning' of Freud, in actual fact, is to reduce the human being to the core impulses, biological impulses, which is predominantly what we are: hormonal impulses, programmed response, all of it deeply embedded, and all of the triggers still there, still very much there, because they are so relevant to reproduction, nature's predominant concern, nature's absolutely dominant concern. Fast forward a few decades and it is all too clear that there are 'unconscious' and 'subconscious' forces (sex, fear, anxiety, blood-excitement) that are understood as being so close to the surface in human beings. Every sector in society, except perhaps the rigid church, jumps on the bandwagon of exploiting sex-impulse. This is pretty much what 'modernity' means. The unleashing of the sexual drive.

Having done away with the moral and religious restraining force pertaining to sexual mores, as we largely have (except in some 'backwaters'), and giving rein to unlimited sexual appetite, which is what every biological unit wants, whether it 'recognizes' it or not, it is inevitable that all the barriers and sexual restraints that used to be 'constructed' int he formation of young women will be knocked down. And, it is not so hard to knock them down because, excuse the pun, women are literally a 'push-over'. It is, more than anything else, their JOB to get pushed over.

This is how I understand what Skipair writes, and why this understanding is particularly relevant. The fact is that Skipair (and this whole opus of 'seduction' material) is only explaining what is occuring in society with the uncovering of raw sex. It is a mindless and also ruthless force that moves through biological protoplasm, and that is why the Earth is described in some Hindu literature as a 'Dev'-loka'. A place where the female rules and dictates. In that specific sense, when Skip's article refers to a 'rule', something important is revealed.

I don't know Skipair but what he seems to be doing is to be engaging in a kind of Tantra, but instead of this being in some abstract, removed, internal plane, it is being carried out 'in the flesh', in the body, in the real world, with real people.

When women surrender their 'morality' and the mores that restrain sexuality, it is pretty obvious that that society is going to enter a dangerous phase. Once you have destroyed the moral barriers that 'keep women chaste' (and define this as a value that everyone agrees on, that society is going to be very strongly effected. It seems to be debated whether it is for the good or for the bad. It has to be stated, and I see it this way, that it is MEN who have engineered these conditions, because it is men who predominantly mold women. Feminist discourse sees women as corresponding to the agricultural world: she is grown. She is controlled, chanelled. When man seeks to turn her into a slut so that he can enjot her when he wants and how he wants, there will be significant ramifications.

Sexual energy is the most potent of the basic forces in men and women. It is the source of all we are, in fact. The 'fire' of bilogical drive as well as all the higher manifestations of consciousness that we admire. On the one hand, it is a delirious and dangerous force and drives people down into a pit if it takes them over, but on the other it is 'enlightenment' itself.

Nick: "What, you think women are attracted to men of reason and a conscience to boot? That would defeat the purpose of having a man around in the first place! It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Alex had women surrounding him, but more like a gay dude would than a Don Juan type."

Ken Kesey, speaking of the Pranksters and the strange activities they engaged in, said 'we are working on many levels here'. There are biological levels, there are emotional levels, there are mental levels, there are 'spiritual' levels. Human beings are very complex creatures, and each of you, my darlings, is just such a conglomeration of levels and layers. To actually reach anyone, you have to by-pass the mind, the Dreadful Guardian. Oddly enough, the ones who think they have the most developed 'guardian' are the ones it is most easy to by-pass. We always want to get to a core, and we always want there to be reaction.

No reaction, no effect.

Alex, like the Pranksters of old, is also working on many levels, but always under a 'ray' of Redemption and Mercy and an unfathomable power that goes down into the material manifestation, through an act of incalculable Grace, to transform the Lost Sheep who wander in the brutal material entanglement. Our object is to bring you 'back into the fold' because that is where you came from. Energetically you are in fact here, with us, even as you think you are 'there' in your little prison-world.

Material Entanglement, people, think about what this means! The great Wonderamus Alex Jacob, big-dicked Jew, well-oiled with cocoa-butter, uses the Phallic Force, indeed he dangles the phallus---as long as a man's arm---and so excites sexual energy which is then chanelled to those things that really have value. Girl's understand this, they understand it on a root level.

If Den Mother doesn't understand, what's that to me?

Skipair: "What I talk about cannot be explained to women. It can only be done. Explain it and become insta-enemy to women. The Unspoken Code will not be broken, and they will try to break you and kick you out if you attempt it."

I have nothing to add to this...por ahora.
______________________________________________________

"Even stranger: Suddenly disentangled particles can suddenly be reborn".

[Tomas]

Carl,

What is the use of this code, and the subterfuge about it, and the lies you list here?

The woman gets to keep her dignity, and her status in society as a respectable woman. Without this, she is nothing.

And what do men get that is worthwhile to them by playing along, playing dumb, and being players.

Sex. If you're a man and you don't want sex, you don't need to play the game. Isn't it obvious?

Seems like a female cover up -- to herself as well as him -- that there really isn't much to her.

No, Carl. It's not just women's fault; it's society's fault. Society places a huge burden on women to be chaste. Whatever woman refuses to play along will be deemed a social outcast, a harlot.

Remember daybrown? If he were here, he would tell you that when a society loses its control of women, it completely breaks down. That is why these silly controls exist.

Brilliant, Shah.

[BMcGilly07]

Yes, it's that idea that wisdom is this sort of unconscious spontaneity - the immediacy of "Now". It's a dangerous idea because it contains a half-truth - that wisdom is about "now" spontaneity and immediacy. The big difference is the consciousnesses part. I don't know why any thinking person would buy into that claptrap, though. If you use Tolle's logic, young children and even toddlers are closer even than women to this state, so we really should be trying to emulate that. However, as far as I can tell young children suffer and evince grossly delusional behaviour such as violence as a matter of course. I don't see much in the way of unending "love" in their spontaneous, "now" behaviour.

Basically Tolle's version of spirituality appeals to women because of that functioning in spontaneity dimension, because this is how women function in large measure already. Tolle could have written the Cow te Ching and have really meant it!

Btw, barring a few dodgy bits, this article is a somewhat interesting read:

What is enlightenment, no, I mean really, like what is it?

That's not that bad of a read, pretty good. But this guy is a lot like Jed McKenna in that there's the moment of enlightenment he's had, but if you don't move forward in a wise direction it was all for naught. Take his view on Tolle: Eckhart Tolle: spiritual teacher. Awakening is great, but if you don't acknowledge and fight the ignorance and unconsciousness which threatens the very existence of wisdom you're not enlightened in my eyes. The few people out there who will have authentic awakenings under such tutelage will inevitably spread misunderstanding because they will not have confronted the Enemy: Unconsciousness, the Woman in us all.

Awakening becomes reduced to a mystical experience, which just as Brunton remarks in his Hidden Teaching Beyond Yoga, if one rests at the mystical experience or seeks after that experience, the awakening is a dead end. The awakening must be integrated into the man and he must move beyond it and use wisdom to increase wisdom in others. The awakening is the half, the intellectual understanding of the enemy of truth is just as important as the complete intellectual understanding of Reality which precedes a genuine experience.

[Jason]

Around the turn of the century a siginicant and powerful minority in culture (intellectuals) decided that the reining sexual mores needed to be reworked. You can find all this in DH Lawrence`s writing, and in Nietzsche, Huxley, and many others. Many were tired of having to live up to forms no one wantwed to believe in. They wanted to liberate people from excessive sexual controls and so they pushed open the territory (mental pathways) to a more libertine attitude, and through that opened up the physical, which is to say opened up women's bodies to raw desire. With Freud, the cap was completely blown off. The 'meaning' of Freud, in actual fact, is to reduce the human being to the core impulses, biological impulses, which is predominantly what we are: hormonal impulses, programmed response, all of it deeply embedded, and all of the triggers still there, still very much there, because they are so relevant to reproduction, nature's predominant concern, nature's absolutely dominant concern.

My understanding is that Freud considered constraints on sexuality and constraints on other basic drives(the job of the superego) to be necessary. His idea was to try to address the neurosis that came from the battle between basic drives and civilization with therapy, not to remove the constraints.

Fast forward a few decades and it is all too clear that there are 'unconscious' and 'subconscious' forces (sex, fear, anxiety, blood-excitement) that are understood as being so close to the surface in human beings. Every sector in society, except perhaps the rigid church, jumps on the bandwagon of exploiting sex-impulse. This is pretty much what 'modernity' means. The unleashing of the sexual drive.

I think you might like this YouTube video:The Century Of The Self: There Is A Policeman Inside All Our Heads He Must Be Destroyed

Having done away with the moral and religious restraining force pertaining to sexual mores, as we largely have (except in some 'backwaters'), and giving rein to unlimited sexual appetite, which is what every biological unit wants, whether it 'recognizes' it or not, it is inevitable that all the barriers and sexual restraints that used to be 'constructed' int he formation of young women will be knocked down. And, it is not so hard to knock them down because, excuse the pun, women are literally a 'push-over'. It is, more than anything else, their JOB to get pushed over.

It seems to me that modern Western sexuality is still tightly controlled by all types of mores, morality and religious forces.

When women surrender their 'morality' and the mores that restrain sexuality, it is pretty obvious that that society is going to enter a dangerous phase. Once you have destroyed the moral barriers that 'keep women chaste' (and define this as a value that everyone agrees on, that society is going to be very strongly effected. It seems to be debated whether it is for the good or for the bad. It has to be stated, and I see it this way, that it is MEN who have engineered these conditions, because it is men who predominantly mold women.

No it is conditioning and socialization that predominantly mold everyone. Men are no more in control of it than women, and the molding process is mostly unconscious for both the molders and the molded.

[David Quinn]

Having done away with the moral and religious restraining force pertaining to sexual mores, as we largely have (except in some 'backwaters'), and giving rein to unlimited sexual appetite, which is what every biological unit wants, whether it 'recognizes' it or not, it is inevitable that all the barriers and sexual restraints that used to be 'constructed' int he formation of young women will be knocked down. And, it is not so hard to knock them down because, excuse the pun, women are literally a 'push-over'. It is, more than anything else, their JOB to get pushed over.

This is how I understand what Skipair writes, and why this understanding is particularly relevant.

Relevant to what exactly?

The Unspoken Code seems to boil down to the belief that all women can be turned into sluts if the right buttons are pushed by skillful, predatory men. While there is a lot of truth to this, I'm not entirely sure what you or Skip are referring to in terms of relevance.

Relevant to spiritual and psychological understanding? To the promotion of wisdom? To the fulfilment of a hedonistic lifestyle? To the ability to rape and trigger orgiastic experiences? To the urge to self-destruct?

What I find sick about that site is that it is exclusively devoted to the last couple there - namely, the desire to rape and self-destruct, all couched in the cartoonish, self-serving belief that it is a superior activity. The stench of self-hatred and masturbatory narcissism is overwhelming.

A secret society indeed! I might as well be looking at an Islamic fundamentalist website.

I don't know Skipair but what he seems to be doing is to be engaging in a kind of Tantra, but instead of this being in some abstract, removed, internal plane, it is being carried out 'in the flesh', in the body, in the real world, with real people.

If Tantra means the will to self-destruction, then you would have a point. From a psychological perspective, the sexual drive is essentially the urge to escape the restictions in one's life. It is a destructive force, even if it means no more than simply destroying a few hours of boredom - not unlike getting drunk. In more extreme cases, the sexual drive can be heightened to maximum levels if it involves the possible destruction of one's career or reputation or future. The ultimate triumph of dionysian mayhem.

So in effect, you seem to be commending Skip because he is physically inflicting mindless destruction upon the world, and upon himself, as opposed to understanding these things on an intellectual level and using this understanding in a wiser manner.

The question is, which part of you is doing the commending?

Material Entanglement, people, think about what this means! The great Wonderamus Alex Jacob, big-dicked Jew, well-oiled with cocoa-butter, uses the Phallic Force, indeed he dangles the phallus---as long as a man's arm---and so excites sexual energy which is then chanelled to those things that really have value. Girl's understand this, they understand it on a root level.

Their ovaries?

So what do we have here? The primary task for women is to allow themselves to be pushed over so that puffed up, narcissistic men can indulge their dionysian fantasies and channel their sexual energy in the direction of their ovaries.

Sexual energy is the most potent of the basic forces in men and women.

And yet the merest flicker of conscience can stop it in its tracks.

-

[Jason]

No, Carl. It's not just women's fault; it's society's fault. Society places a huge burden on women to be chaste. Whatever woman refuses to play along will be deemed a social outcast, a harlot.

For males it seems that hiding and denying weakness and repressing emotions is considered necessary in order to avoid outcast status.

[skipair]

The Unspoken Code seems to boil down to the belief that all women can be turned into sluts if the right buttons are pushed by skillful, predatory men. While there is a lot of truth to this, I'm not entirely sure what you or Skip are referring to in terms of relevance.

David, you don't seem to be thinking totally clearly, and I can only guess it's because I've offended you in some way. But I'll leave it to be your business to figure out how I did this.

The Unspoken Code does not boil down to turning women into sluts. People who have a knowledge of it can use it like that, of course, but as I said before it's woman's survival mechanism. Quite frankly I think your understanding of it could be better, since it seems you've never fully grasped it since my first post here. Are you man enough to admit the possibility that I know more about this than you? And that you've simply misunderstood me in this thread because of that ignorance? Tough pill to swallow. Or is it because I've threatened an attachment of yours.... ?

The reason the topic is relevant is that it comprises an ENORMOUS proportion of a solid understanding of female behavior (and as a byproduct, male behavior too). It's all good and well that you are relating this stuff to pedofiles and rapists. But your views on the matter are irrelevant when I am simply naming the facts.

The primary task for women is to allow themselves to be pushed over so that puffed up, narcissistic men can indulge their dionysian fantasies and channel their sexual energy in the direction of their ovaries.

Yeah, what did you think? Of course it's sick. But such if life.

Among many other things about this, your ignorance about the attractiveness of a swinging dick for a woman is extremely telling. I should perhaps be a bit more soft with you to ease the process of getting challenged and promote more likely avenues that we'll find a common ground, but I don't have the energy right now. You'll just have to take it.

[David Quinn]

The Unspoken Code does not boil down to turning women into sluts. People who have a knowledge of it can use it like that, of course, but as I said before it's woman's survival mechanism. Quite frankly I think your understanding of it could be better, since it seems you've never fully grasped it since my first post here. Are you man enough to admit the possibility that I know more about this than you?

It's possible that you know something about women that I currently don't understand, but I haven't found your arguments so far terribly convincing. You haven't clearly articulated your case.

At the moment, I am perceiving you as someone who is caught up in his own playboy fantasies and trying to put an intellectual spin on it. In other words, you seem to be someone who is overestimating the power of the penis, which you appear to be in love with. (Hence, Leyla's remarks about subconscious homosexuality.)

You haven't offended me in any way. I quite like you, in fact. So if you can show me where I am wrong, I'll happily eat humble pie content in the knowledge that I've learnt something new.

So again, what is this Unspoken Code exactly? Just pretend the girls aren't here.

The reason the topic is relevant is that it comprises an ENORMOUS proportion of a solid understanding of female behavior (and as a byproduct, male behavior too).

Among many other things about this, your ignorance about the attractiveness of a swinging dick for a woman is extremely telling.

What is it exactly that makes a swinging dick attractive to women? (Does it have to be swinging?)

Is it the physical organ itself which is attractive? Or what it represents? Is it simply the desire to be overwhelmed by a man's primal sexuality? Or does it have more to do with her concerns about settling down in a long-term relationship and starting a family? Does it represent a potential notch on her belt and a chance to revel in her own sexual attractiveness?

You haven't made any of this clear.

What about a horse's dick? Does it have the same attractiveness as a man's dick?

You mentioned above that it relates to woman's survival mechanism. Given that her primary survival strategy is being loved by a man and becoming a mother, I'd have thought that becoming instantly overwhelmed by the sight of a swinging dick would be problematic. It could easily jeapordize her prospects of maintaining a long-term relationship.

Those women who do run off with a swinging dick, leaving children and husband behind, are usually persecuted and shunned by society. Boyfriends who find out that their women have been gorging on swinging dick are usually quick to dump them, often beating them up in the process. So as a survival mechanism, it doesn't look very effective.

-

[David Quinn]

Perhaps a good way to tackle this issue is to examine what happens when a group of women at a hen's party are confronted with a male stripper. As a rule, they immediately swoon into a kind of collective hysteria, with much squealing and giggling. They seem to get very animated, much more so than what men do in the reverse situation, with each participant behaving in a near-identical manner.

I wonder, Skip, if you could provide a thorough psychological analysis of what goes on in these women's minds during this situation.

-

[jupta]

I think what Skipair is referring to is the considerably strong attraction that many western women have towards anti-social elements. To put it more crudely - 'bad boys.' They seem to be very attracted to their ruggedness, crudeness and nonchalance towards the rest of society. This is probably because women haven't found time to evolve their sexual preferences over time, because they are more grounded to reality, hence, less flexible.

On second thought, another(more probable) reason would be the constant desire for sexual adventure that women have. This had been effectively suppressed until recently.

[David Quinn]

I think what Skipair is referring to is the considerably strong attraction that many western women have towards anti-social elements. To put it more crudely - 'bad boys.' They seem to be very attracted to their ruggedness, crudeness and nonchalance towards the rest of society.

Recent studies suggest that it depends on what time of the month they are in. When they are ovulating, they tend to find the rugged, bad-boy type more appealing. At other times of the cycle, they prefer the more feminine, caring types.

This is why it is always problematic to try and uncover firm rules which account for women's behaviour. Their tastes and attitudes are constantly changing in response to the environment, hormonal cycles, fashion, whim, peer pressure, male influences, books, etc.

On second thought, another(more probable) reason would be the constant desire for sexual adventure that women have. This had been effectively suppressed until recently.

I believe that's a symptom of an even deeper desire, which I won't spell out at this stage. I would like to see Skip's analysis first.

-

[jupta]

Recent studies suggest that it depends on what time of the month they are in. When they are ovulating, they tend to find the rugged, bad-boy type more appealing. At other times of the cycle, they prefer the more feminine, caring types.

Sounds plausible enough. I think the reason behind that is that 'bad boys' are good propagators, hence most useful during ovulation, while 'nice guys' are caring and fatherly, hence most useful after insemination during ovulation.

Can you give a source for this?

This is why it is always problematic to try and uncover firm rules which account for women's behaviour. Their tastes and attitudes are constantly changing in response to the environment, hormonal cycles, fashion, whim, peer pressure, male influences, books, etc.

True, but I think that all women, as a rule, would like to get raped by a rich, muscular and handsome doctor at any point in their lives. I don't think customs and other societal changes have much to do with the basic conditions for attraction towards males.

On second thought, another(more probable) reason would be the constant desire for sexual adventure that women have. This had been effectively suppressed until recently.

I believe that's a symptom of an even deeper desire, which I won't spell out at this stage. I would like to see Skip's analysis first.

That's easy. Their desire to engage in fantasy all the time.

[Shahrazad]

David,

Given that her primary survival strategy is being loved by a man and becoming a mother, I'd have thought that becoming instantly overwhelmed by the sight of a swinging dick would be problematic.

That is the reason why we pretend we don't like dicks. This is not hard to pull off, because we have learned from an early age to exercise control over our sexual urges, unlike men.

It could easily jeapordize her prospects of maintaining a long-term relationship.

This is why society had to impose such strict mores on women.

Skipair has figured out too many female secrets. These secrets are not going to help him become wiser. He should quit while he's ahead, assuming he's still ahead.

[Jason]

That is the reason why we pretend we don't like dicks. This is not hard to pull off, because we have learned from an early age to exercise control over our sexual urges, unlike men.

On some level, many men feel sexual lust for a sizeable proportion of the women they see each day. Yet despite this many if not most restrain even their eyes from overt oggling. I'd say that's some major control over sexual urges.

[Jason]

You mentioned above that it relates to woman's survival mechanism. Given that her primary survival strategy is being loved by a man and becoming a mother, I'd have thought that becoming instantly overwhelmed by the sight of a swinging dick would be problematic. It could easily jeapordize her prospects of maintaining a long-term relationship.

Those women who do run off with a swinging dick, leaving children and husband behind, are usually persecuted and shunned by society. Boyfriends who find out that their women have been gorging on swinging dick are usually quick to dump them, often beating them up in the process. So as a survival mechanism, it doesn't look very effective.

An ineffective survival mechanism for which millennia of the last hundred or so? And for which society of the multitude that have existed? Were mating and family schemes historically similar to modern Western ones? The nuclear family is possibly a major aberration from historical norms. With an extended family to rely upon the necessity for a single male provider and protector may be eliminated. And not only that, monogamy may not be the historical norm, reproduction proceeded by courtship and love may not be the norm etc.

[Shahrazad]

Jason,

On some level, many men feel sexual lust for a sizeable proportion of the women they see each day. Yet despite this many if not most restrain even their eyes from overt oggling. I'd say that's some major control over sexual urges.

Yes, you're right.

Are you one of those men, Jason?

[Jason]

Yes, you're right.

Are you one of those men, Jason?

I don't think of myself as a "man"(I don't identify with the qualities that that word conjures in my mind), but the other characteristics describe me a lot of the time.

[Alex Jacob]

Jason wrote: "My understanding is that Freud considered constraints on sexuality and constraints on other basic drives(the job of the superego) to be necessary. His idea was to try to address the neurosis that came from the battle between basic drives and civilization with therapy, not to remove the constraints."

Freud himself was a very restrained man in that sense, a man with strong ethical and moral character. And you are completely right in saying that he considered restraint necessary and the sublimation of sexual force to be the source of cultural achievement. However, this is not at all how things turned out. Knowledge is used, so often, by other sectors. The hidden triggers that he discovered, and the fact it was understood that the 'rational' mind could so easily be by-passed and one 'speak' to those triggers directly, and the whole propagandistic science that has developed from it, has been used in the most crude and violent way, not to mention 'immoral' and 'unethical'. If you wanted to paint it 'religiously' you could say that propagandists and social engineers learned that you could speak directly to 'Satan' (all those dirty, raw, violent, perverse impulses that are part of us) and get the 'Satan' in each of us to (...fill in the blank...) (but mostly buy your products).

"It seems to me that modern Western sexuality is still tightly controlled by all types of mores, morality and religious forces."

(I suggest you go to the fringes where everything is more raw, more chaotic, and where you can observe what happens when you remove restraints very quickly, in a people without a developed mental 'gate-keeper'. Say, Colombia.)

There are conflicting trends, as in any post-classical phase. On one hand you have factions that, without considering any of the potential cost, want to have all restraints removed, and who 'work' toward this. On the other poles there are those who, attempting to defend themseves against a current against which there is no defense, use old-fashioned religious arguments---sexual 'right' and 'wrong', bad-boy, bad-girl type arguments---to try to keep people from going too far. They have a 'lever' with which to enforce the notion of sexual 'virtue', the value and importance of chastity, forming a durable relationship with one partner and sticking it out, etc.

"No it is conditioning and socialization that predominantly mold everyone. Men are no more in control of it than women, and the molding process is mostly unconscious for both the molders and the molded."

Hold on. The designers of the erst-while 'moral systems' that are now in eclipse (pertaining to sex for example) were mostly men, I mean 'man's culture'. Women were more or less indoctrinated in it. The atmosphere of culture is the 'socialization' you are referring to. When that atmosphere is in turmoil, when it is being remolded and reconstructed, you have to look at the different forces and factions that are doing that, and why. There is a tragectory that can be observed: from DH Lawrence to Hugh Hefner and to a world pornography network: purveying the imagery that so deftly by-passes the mind (cultural restraint, morals, ethics, mores) and gets people to participate in a strictly physical sense.

My view is that men have predominantly engineered the major changes that we have occured (in sexual mores) over the last 100 years. Women may chime in and say this or that (or describe how they want the vibrator to be designed, etc., or if they want it 'soft and sweet' or 'jack-hammer') but the major forces that mold in this arena are male forces. This is one of the principal positive things I have gotten from the QRS doctrines: the absolute importance of men being men, defining what men's values are, and resisting unthinking, 'female' impulses.

David asks: "Relevant to what exactly?"

Understanding the mechanisms that drive biological life in the world and in the human world. As you know, using a Hindu religious example, there are two sides to Tantra, the right and the left hand path. One is to deal directly with the forces; to actually stimulate sexual arousal, to know what it feels like, to understand what it is like to be driven by it, and to still decide to move it in other directions: that is a conscious work. I said that I didn't know if I would conduct myself like Skip does but what I personally perceive I have in common with him (and not with 'you') is that I am 'in the world' and not separated from it. That is predominantly the position I represent in these 'conversations' with you-all (the QRS faction). You also thrust me into that position because you are more comfortable if you give me a label.

"The Unspoken Code seems to boil down to the belief that all women can be turned into sluts if the right buttons are pushed by skillful, predatory men. While there is a lot of truth to this, I'm not entirely sure what you or Skip are referring to in terms of relevance."

You could state it differently and it would have more (useful) meaning: Women have been designed by 'cruel nature' to have internal triggers that force them into sexual relationship. All women, in this strict sense, are sluts indeed. The Hindus say that a woman has '9 times' more sexual energy and passion that a man but in the best of circumstances '9 times' the capacity to restrain herself. Once you get a woman going it is almost incredible what she is capable of on a level of sexual response. This has nothing at all to do with 'thought'.

What Skip finds ultimately relevant in this he'll have top fill in himself. What I find relevant in it is a sound, existential grasp of the way things are. What makes us what we are. What choices that presents to us. What the outcomes of certain choices are. What we might do to modify things, ameliorate, etc.

"Relevant to spiritual and psychological understanding? To the promotion of wisdom? To the fulfilment of a hedonistic lifestyle? To the ability to rape and trigger orgiastic experiences? To the urge to self-destruct?"

You are making statements about your own beliefs, attitudes, decisions. What you do is simply to chop yourself off from your own sexuality, your relatedness, your relations. For you the 'answer' is to avoid the whole show, not to participate. You are in this sense quite a bit like the standard Christian who cuts off connection with their whole pelvic region.

"If Tantra means the will to self-destruction, then you would have a point. From a psychological perspective, the sexual drive is essentially the urge to escape the restictions in one's life. It is a destructive force, even if it means no more than simply destroying a few hours of boredom - not unlike getting drunk. In more extreme cases, the sexual drive can be heightened to maximum levels if it involves the possible destruction of one's career or reputation or future. The ultimate triumph of dionysian mayhem."

Tantra is a confusing term because it makes us think of all those sexual-position books like 'Tantric Secrets', etc. One could suggest that the myths of a sexual God in the garden of Vrindaven is a 'tantric excersize' insofar as (in the original form) Krishna was the focus of sexual longing and lust (desire for sexual adventure, sexual play, the romping through the sexual and material world) but 'tantrically' chanelled to a higher pursuit. Tantra absolutely does not mean 'self-destruction' but aks for mastery in a certain (energetic) context. In some Hindu literature, for example, sexuality is described openly, in the context of a normal relationship. There are paths to wholesome life that involve having relationships with women, engaging in the world, earning money, in short dealing with life. The path that you-all describe, OTOH, is by-and-large only a denial of engagement, and you pin the term 'wisdom' on that choice.

"It is a destructive force".

No. First of all, with a woman, you can learn to use the sexual energy and not dissipate it in orgasm. You control it, work with it, feel it, move it, and though you are in it (like in a stream) you are not controlled by it as you would be if you were only getting drunk. One who learns to do this is in an infinitely more 'powerful' position in respect to a woman than a mere slam-bam ejaculator. The woman will have 3-5 even 10 orgasms and you will still be firm as the Rock Of Gibraltar. Women's object is to 'defeat' you sexually. So, don't be defeated.

Sexuality can be used intelligently (but Dionysiacally, very true: ie not Apollonically, that is, soley mediated by the mind). Sexuality can bring forth out of the organism a very rich stream of vital energy, and this vital energy is very useful in the life of a harmonius couple. That is the ideal of course. To work in the fields of life, and in the fields of the feminine, you have to know this.

I have no idea how Skip conducts himself, but the klnowledge about what is operating and why, and where, if one wants, one can take it, is very relevant, as I see things.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Alex, you wrote: "Sexual energy is the most potent of the basic forces in men and women. It is the source of all we are, in fact".

Really? Or is this just a neo-Freudian, neo-tantric, generally late subculture's interpretation of the basic forces that drive humanity? It comes as no surprise the ones submerged in sexual context will not be able to go further, to see further than raw sexuality as ground being.

Anyway, to cut a long story short before it splatters all over the screen: a force might be potent, basic, powerful and a strong guidance in many evolutionary processes but that doesn't turn it into a friend of consciousness. Unless of course consciousness competes for some of the same energies, attention and life. As then surely pretense will be employed to gain the upper hand during this particular struggle by at least one of the factions. The word is seduction, I believe.

[Alex Jacob]

Diebert:

*Bows*

I have nothing to add.

I still think consciousness is, at the root, a by-product of sexual power. If you mean that more human energy needs to go toward 'consciousness' and not be dissipated, I agree.

[BMcGilly07]

I still think consciousness is, at the root, a by-product of sexual power. If you mean that more human energy needs to go toward 'consciousness' and not be dissipated, I agree.

What is your basis for thinking consciousness a by-product of sexual power? Sexual power is the result of consciousness not vice versa. Consciousness takes the self as an object of awareness, by all means especially sexual nature, it finds the self lacking and so pursues the other. If anything, sexual power is co-dependent upon consciousness. Consciousness didn't arise out of sexual power, but through physical urgings and psychological loss consciousness is focused upon sex and so grants it its power. The lower levels of consciousness which can be ascribed to animals is invested in sexual energy insomuch as it is a biological imperative which permeates its limited consciousness.

To the possibility of higher thought through consciousness to be found in man, sexual power is a diversion of resources and a dissipation of consciousness. Once one realizes the lacking self to be illusory, the psychological game of sex becomes the rape of a lower consciousness to fulfill a personal delusion. If sex is between two consenting and fully self-aware beings, it would be no more a viable route to procreate than test-tubes and a laboratory, because the pleasure of sex would no longer be of ultimate consequence and the act of sex may even be avoided on grounds of possibly stirring the mud of unconsciousness, want and weakness that may come to the surface. Or at the very least because it might send the wrong message to those who are less aware.

[Shahrazad]

Jason,

I don't think of myself as a "man"(I don't identify with the qualities that that word conjures in my mind), but the other characteristics describe me a lot of the time.

What would be a better word to address you, then? Dude, guy, boy, mate?