The Problem With Women Today

[rebecca702]

Cory,

Being bitter, cranky and irrational is a sure way to ensure you don't get laid.

The former might be causing the later, rather than vice versa.

I don't think this is it, because when they go back to happy and rational is after they have sex, not before. I bother to verify this by asking them (when is last time you had sex?).

It just occurred to me that there also seems to be a correlation with crankiness and having a huge workload. When this happens, people don't have time to have sex. So then I would not be able to tell whether the lack of sex or excess of work is the culprit, or both. We'd have to separate these possible causes.

I wouldn't be surprised if studies have already been done to establish how moods correlate to sexual activity.

I would venture a guess that if these cranky, stressed out people would just get a good workout in (use different muscle groups, work up a sweat, for at least 30 minutes) they would also feel more happy and rational. Could just be simple lack of endorphins flowing. Maybe sex is all the exercise these people get besides walking to and from the car?

[Cory Duchesne]

Sharaz,

I see a lot of differences, especially for women. Masturbation is boring. Sex with the right person is not.

Edit: Oh, you said physiologically. Sorry. Technically there should not be.

What you're getting at doesn't sound as if it's really about the sex act, by itself.

By the sounds of it, what you're talking about is the thrill of accepting and being accepted by another person you really like, which may produce physiological changes in the brain that are of a different nature than sex by itself.

It's the difference between love and sex, basically. Not quite synonymous.

Studies do show that people who are married, very social and have lots of friends - live longer. They aren't necessarily more conscious though.

It's a cliche, but ignorance is very often bliss.

[Nick]

When addicts don't get their fix, whether it be sex, drugs, alcohol, or anything else, they don't function well. No shock there really.

[Carl G]

I have not had sex with anyone for years, and I do not plan on changing that. I am less cranky and irritable now than when I was in relationships.

[Shahrazad]

Cory,

By the sounds of it, what you're talking about is the thrill of accepting and being accepted by another person you really like, which may produce physiological changes in the brain that are of a different nature than sex by itself.

Acceptance is part of it, sure.

It's the difference between love and sex, basically. Not quite synonymous.

After thinking things better, the oxytocin that our brain releases when we are having sex with a person is more about love than sex. It is the same chemical that a baby's brain produces when he is caressed by his mother.

You are right. If you can get rid of your need to be touched, you have no need for sex. I recant my position.

[BMcGilly07]

When addicts don't get their fix, whether it be sex, drugs, alcohol, or anything else, they don't function well. No shock there really.

That is the understatement of the year, the deeper in the grips of the addiction the more they need the fix to operate, without it they don't just function poorly, they cannot function, they "break," every fiber of their being seeking their fix. Year by year, the addiction increases and the more the fix is needed simply to function at all.

[Jason]

If you stop having sex and orgasms intentionally, consciously, your body will soon automatically and with regularity take over and generate wet dreams often with accompanying sexual dream imagery. This drive for sex and orgasm seems very integral to humans, quite unlike addictions to non-endogenous substances like drugs and alcohol. Because of that, amongst other things, I'm skeptical of such comparisons.

[xerox]

...

[skipair]

By the same token, if guys knew the truth, they wouldn't have any reason to get involved in the seduction game. The same truth that undercuts love and marriage also undercuts the pleasures of seduction.

I'm not sure what truth you're talking about here. The one I'm talking about just makes it impossible to take their views into any serious consideration. As a result, one can still remain in a pleasurably dominant frame.

If everything a woman does is a lie, or mere vapour, then there is no real basis for a seducer to get his kicks. Isn't it the case, then, that in your attempts to receive the ego boosts involved with seducing that you are also participating in a lie?

The lie is in the female-facilitated belief that she can be trusted to make fair decisions in a relationship, and that when it comes to attraction she can communicate what it actually is that she wants. I'm guessing you mean something else, but right now I don't see how fucking a liar undercuts those pleasures, or how it's participating in a lie when a guy can be honest about his intentions.

I guess sometimes I get so detached that any occurrances that happen in what we would normally call the mating game have no effect on me. My mind is elsewhere. But if I were to focus on it I'd get sucked right back in. And I'm not sure this detachment can really be considered a foundation that I can call "truth", and where leaving it would be called a "lie".

You're passing off the responsibility for your own choice to participate in this sick pastime by pretending that you have no choice, that it is ingrained in life itself.

I'm not pretending I have no choice. I do it because I want to, and I question it because I don't like the idea of my happiness coming from an outside source.

You are quick to describe women as being liars and yet, as things stand, you are an even bigger liar yourself.

How do you figure?

To be honest, I find your whole swinging dick thing creepy, full stop. It also indicates a lack of character, since you are using your dick as a kind of prop to make up for the shortfall in the powers of your personality. Famous seducers in the past never had to make use of such a crude prop.

I guess you could say I'm proud to have "shortfalls" in my character and personality when it comes to seducing women. Most of the guys I see who are crafty at that are just as full of bullshit as women are, and I simply can't bring myself to participate in it. This is my way of getting around that, and it looks very promising as far as techniques go. The old seducers might've been able to learn a thing or two from me, however crude it is, or how creepy it might seem.

It would be better and more honest if you stopped thinking of yourself as an alpha male who is part of a "secret society" and other similar ego-boosting spin.

Probably. In general, I'm pretty good at not boxing myself into things, but I do admit to getting a bit stuck in these from time to time.

The real definition of Alpha, so far as I'm concerned, doesn't have anything to do with what a woman sees through her eyes. It is just to have impudence enough to do what you want with no mind for what someone else wants from you or for themself. It's to not care about other people's values, or at the most, "caring" about them in order to convince them to think what you think, and live how you think they should live. I think this is a good quality to have for a reasonable, open minded, and skeptical person.

You need to face the very real possibility that you are, in fact, becoming a sexual deviant. An ordinary, garden-variety pervert.

I'm not very sensitive to someone else putting me into rapist, pedofile, or perverted sexual deviant boxes as it doesn't really address the legitimacy of my thoughts.

Do you think that a woman's propensity for swooning at the hands of an alpha male is also part of her lying and acting? Or do you class it as part of her underlying real nature?

Interesting question. I'll have to come back to it.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If you stop having sex and orgasms intentionally, consciously, your body will soon automatically and with regularity take over and generate wet dreams often with accompanying sexual dream imagery.

While that seems certainly to be the case, the content of a dream cannot be said to just be generated by the body. I mean, it's a bit more complex than that. If one would have nightmares or violent dreams, wouldn't the first thing to suspect be psychological issues? And not consider it just a normal bodily function?

Your example implies the continuing presence of desire and sexual charge, perhaps also a younger age range with its specific hormonal configuration. Trying to control and suppress sexual urges quite naturally will result in subconscious processes taking over. Then again, wet dreams occur just as easily during periods of sexual activity or interests. Dreams just reflect the deeper occupations of our mind.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

... it is recognized as a source of tremendous power. The object is to move the enrgy, displace it, to an area where it can be used and not dissipated.

Of course this "enrgy" doesn't really exist, you do know that, do you? It's just a mental representation of a complex of cognitive processes with its countless nervous responses and vice versa. Energy is always dissipated in action, feeling and thought. Thought is the hardest though.

It is unbeckoming when you interpose yourself between David and myself, Diebert. You do this often. It is predictable.

It's a matter of interposing myself everywhere it seems fitting. You're reaching for special treatment here, which is predictable.

You are not really being truthful about what you REALLY think. But, there is always 4/5ths of you that holds back anyway. I guess it's your modus operandi...

There are so many fifths, I lost count.

[Nick]

If you stop having sex and orgasms intentionally, consciously, your body will soon automatically and with regularity take over and generate wet dreams often with accompanying sexual dream imagery. This drive for sex and orgasm seems very integral to humans, quite unlike addictions to non-endogenous substances like drugs and alcohol. Because of that, amongst other things, I'm skeptical of such comparisons.

Sex and the desire for it is deeply psychological and emotional. If one does not believe in the inherent nature of something, allowing one to no longer be emotionally dependent on it to get their kicks, they'll be just fine without it. In the case of sex, the desire for a partner means one believes in that partner, and are prone to forming all types of emotional dependencies on a specific set of circumstances to satisfy one's desires, or their addiction. If one no longer believes in the solidity and inherency of these circumstances, as a consequence they'll become less attached, and therefore, no longer addicted to them.

When it is the case that one is not heavily dependent or attached to any particular set of sexual circumstances, occasionally masturbating, and like Rebecca said, getting enough exercise, should be perfectly adequate for body and mind to remain in good working order.

[Nick]

It is unbeckoming when you interpose yourself between David and myself, Diebert. You do this often. It is predictable.

It's a matter of interposing myself everywhere it seems fitting. You're reaching for special treatment here, which is predictable.

Maybe if the forum's colors were changed to a mix of pastels Alex would start to come around. The blue and silver might be too cold and steely for him.

[brokenhead]

When it is the case that one is not heavily dependent or attached to any particular set of sexual circumstances, occasionally masturbating, and like Rebbecca said, getting enough exercise, should be perfectly adequate for body and mind to remain in good working order.

You have just described my lifestyle pretty well, Nick. And I have to say I agree with you here.

I have not had sex with anyone for years, and I do not plan on changing that. I am less cranky and irritable now than when I was in relationships.

Wow, Carl, this is you being less cranky? But I know exactly what you mean, as this describes my lifestyle, too. I am not answerable to anyone, and I cannot get STDs from exchanging body fluids with myself. No need to ask permission if you wanna go out fishin,' don't have to ask for the keys.

[brokenhead]

"And that's exactly the beauty of it, naturally." (David's writing)

Ramakrishna's writing (quotes) has that simple beauty, or the writing of Tagore. But neither of these two men ever lost sight of the world. Also, they understood very wide dimensions in human experience, in human spirituality. Never, ever did they come across like uptight school teachers.

I verified it for myself, Diebert. I used pranayama techniques, mantras ('affirmations') and some visualization excercizes to reroute energy from the genitals up to the stomach, to the heart, and to the head, etc. You seem to be aware of it but you can find that information in Scientific Healing Affirmations (Yogananda) and Ramacharaka's book on Pranayama, The Science of Breath. There are other sources too I'm sure. The principal is very simple, and it certainly works.

I also do this, and read up on it as I was learning how to do it because what I was physically discovering struck me as something that anyone could discover and probably had. David seems to eschew this kind of knowledge. Obviously, in the literature there is wheat and there is chaff. One wonders if an uptight schoolteacher can tell the difference.

[skipair]

Do you think that a woman's propensity for swooning at the hands of an alpha male is also part of her lying and acting? Or do you class it as part of her underlying real nature?

She's following her feelings, and in that sense she never lies. And this reminds me that I agree with Alex that feelings can't be denied without harmful repression. But I do think you can deny false thoughts - and most of the time with me it's not a choice to do that but what happens naturally. If I fully understand that something doesn't make intellectual sense, I necessarily can't be part of it.

Anyway, at it's most fundamental, I see it as part of the same nature whether she swoons, lies, or otherwise. But whereas she'd normally be conscious of certain relationship dynamics - like why she's chosen a particular man, why/how he's attracted to her, and in what direction the relationship is headed - with an alpha seducer this is all unclear to her. He is the one who has that awareness with her. It is the basic dynamic of in every relationship - a leader and a follower. And the leader is defined as the one with more awareness and less need. In the case where those are equal, it'd probably be two men making a business exchange.

So it depends on definition whether a woman's unconscious/automatic reponse to an seducer can be classed as her underlying nature. And I suppose it can't be lying if it's unconscious. Again, unless we tweak the definition.

[David Quinn]

David, I understand all that you write. I think you flatter yourself that you are saying something I haven't heard a thousand times.

The only person you are fooling here is yourself.

It is one thing to say that you understand words of wisdom and another to demonstrate it. You don't demonstrate it.

You have a particular personality trait which doesn't allow you to admit that you may be limited in some way. You have a need to feel that you are experienced and knowledgable in every facet of life, that your finger is in every pie, that there is no area in which you are ignorant. You can't bear the thought of being excluded from anything, no matter what it is.

It is what drives your verocious reading habit, for example. It is also what is behind your touchiness at being judged or labeled in any way. To be judged or labelled means to feel limited, and to feel limited implies that you are being excluded from something.

Ironically, it is this very trait which will prevent you from ever understanding anything of note.

You are a very complete and even a 'gifted' religious Philistine.

Ah, the staunch opponent of people being labelled is at it again.

A quick perusal of your post reveals the following labels dispensed in my direction: philistine, dogmatic, childish, dull, toad, uncomprehending, cheap, non-beautiful, unloving, a church-founder, moralizer, vulgar, a club scout captain, ridiculous ......

What label shall we give this behaviour?

You completely misunderstand the greater portion of what I write as antidote and analog to your vulgarisms,

In order to provide an effective andidote to a poison you have to actually know what that poison is. Otherwise, you're just pissing in the wind.

What happens in a person who comes into contact with 'God', the mystery, the 'spirit', the innards of his own soul, the processes that religious and spiritual people describe, is always unique and very personal. There are many, many different ways to respond to this in one's life, and not just one dull model that you present. You profess---again it is stuff you weild---to have some special understanding of the mystics (say, Ramakrishna) and to all appearances you 'defend' this zone within the human possibility, you 'own' it or think you do. You think you have the right to explain it. But really you cheapen it, you vulgarize it.

If you believe that a person's connection with God is unqiue and personal, then why do you constantly feel a need to crush my own personal uniqueness? Are you saying that everyone's connection with God is unique and pesonal, except for those people you don't like?

In any case, you're again confusing the signposts to wisdom with wisdom itself. I've explained this to you in the past, but because you think you know everything you don't listen.

My writing consists of signposts, nothing more. I never attempt to stretch a signpost beyond its natural limits. If I tried to do that, if I tried to write in a florid, beautiful style describing the magnificent richness of wisdom, then I would be undermining the very ability of signposts to perform their function, which is direct people to the point where they can realize the true mystery of God for themselves.

Not knowing wisdom yourself, you believe that sign-posts are all that exist. Subsequently, you believe the more florid and beautiful a signpost is, the better it is. It is precisely this attitude which cheapens and vulgarizes wisdom.

As Lao Tzu said, "Beautiful words are not truthful. Truthful words are not beautiful".

There is no beauty or wonder in what you write, and no love. There are no relationships and no relatedness in your living. There is little humility in the face of life and its magnificence.

I don't entertain you and pander to your shallow values. That's what it boils down to.

So much completely escapes you. 'What is this Moloch that ate up your brains & your imagination?' (Ginsberg) I have asked the question many times. Ramakrishna allowed all sorts of different people into his sanga, and he seemed to understand the magnificence of the possibilities in each life, even in one consumed in pleasures. Sometimes, it is those processes (the 'Dionysian' as you say with little comprehension) that is the vehicle in which 'God' is working. How people come to terms with that, and what that means, is something you don't seem to grasp.

Clearly, your reading of Ramakrishna is just as poor as your reading of this forum.

Ramakrishna constantly taught that only by detaching from the world can you see God, that the biggest obstacles to God-realization is "women and gold", that only the pure can realize God.

Yes, he let all sorts of different people into his sangha, just as all sorts of people come here to the forum. But he didn't speak in support of their worldly lifestyles. If you had trundled along to his sangha, I'm sure he would have smiled at you and conducted a pleasant conversation with you, but don't think for a moment that he would have supported your ignorant, ego-centered values.

You're going to open a church soon. Save souls and such.

I've been doing this for twenty years or so and not even the slightest inclination to go in that direction has occured to me. I would rather gouge my eyes out first.

But of course, since you understand everything I write, you already know this.

-

[David Quinn]

By the same token, if guys knew the truth, they wouldn't have any reason to get involved in the seduction game. The same truth that undercuts love and marriage also undercuts the pleasures of seduction.

I'm not sure what truth you're talking about here. The one I'm talking about just makes it impossible to take their views into any serious consideration. As a result, one can still remain in a pleasurably dominant frame.

But doesn't the very pleasure of seduction involve the act of being accepted by a woman? You've spoken about it in the past - that is, about the buzz a man gets when a woman affirms him as being a top-notch male. The question is, how can such a buzz occur if he truly believes that women are vaporous liars?

In order to trigger such a buzz, he would have to create the lie that women are truthful beings capable of genuine insight. It thus becomes impossible for him to be truthful and a seducer at the same time.

-

[Dan Rowden]

That post sums up my problem with Skip's perspective: how can a "player" claim to know what women are (as they do) and yet thereafter derive satisfaction from playing. It makes no sense whatever.

[baulz owt]

if y'all'er such masters of logic and psychology then why don't you get online and win millions in poker and make some real change?

[Dan Rowden]

Get off the drugs.

[baulz owt]

Nice read. Parlay that into mirrions.

[Nick]

how can a "player" claim to know what women are (as they do) and yet thereafter derive satisfaction from playing. It makes no sense whatever.

It's one thing to feel compulsions and urges to behave a certain way due to old thought patterns, even though one may know such behavior is ultimately delusional, but it's an entirely different thing to actually make the cognitive decision to set out and become a seducer, or anything else motivated by one's delusions. It means they still very much believe in the delusion motivating them, and thus do not understand the true nature of the delusion in question. In the case of the seducer, the delusion they do not understand is women.

I think in Skips case, he is trying to conquer his delusions by becoming a seducer, but his poor understanding of the true nature of reality (and women) is limiting him and causing him to go about it the wrong way. It's akin to why politicians wage all kinds of ineffective wars on drugs and terror. They don't really understand the fundamental nature of the problem they are trying to resolve. It requires the will to re-think things from a fundamental level, and really try to understand the nature of whatever issue or delusion they are facing if one truly wants to overcome it. Of course, only time will tell if Skip wants to make that decision.

[sue hindmarsh]

Nick, you wrote:

I think in Skips case, he is trying to conquer his delusions by becoming a seducer

What makes you think that "conquering his delusions" is on Skip's mind?

[Nick]

Sue,

I recall Skip saying that he hated the way women affected his mind, probably because he likes to be in control of himself, and knew it was irrational for him to feel this way. Assuming he felt that the things causing this reaction weren't really there, but more or less just figments of his imagination, or delusions, he wanted to do something about them, conquer them perhaps.

The problem is, he's making the mistake that by becoming a seducer of women it will set him free from her, when all he's really done is exchange one kind of delusional behavior for another, but this new kind of delusional behavior (being a seducer) makes his ego feel much better. The delusion remains because all he really did was change his perspective on it instead of understanding it from the ground up.

I would hope for his sake that this method works, but like I said in my reply to Dan, to actually make a cognitive decision to set out and become a seducer of a delusion (women in this case), one most certainly still firmly believes in that delusion. It would be like trying to seduce the products of one's imagination, nobody would be motivated enough to make a lifestyle out of that unless they had some severe mental issues. This is why I highly doubt Skip will succeed in conquering his attachment to women going about it this way, if that is in fact what he's trying to do.