The Problem With Women Today

[Tomas]

.


-Kelly Jones-
Women won't grow up by telling them to grow up, or slapping them on the face, or abusing them in these irrational ways. They and other men have to be shown the blatantly obvious consequences of their unthinking behaviour. It's not rocket science, it's just very basic level consciousness.

-tomas-
Right. Classifying all women in the same way is counterproductive.

[Carl G]

What do you mean,"right"? How did Kelly Jones not classify? She said women. That's a broad classification.

[BMcGilly07]

But they do know what they want. They want clothes, a man, children, a house, furniture, a nice car, money, and to be listened to.

On the most base egotistical level they want to be told what to want. It is in their nature to submit, they want to be dominated and directed. Those things you mentioned merely anchor them to their support system, to the very society which directs them to place value on these things.

First you say they don't know what they want, then you say what they do want. Which is it?

But my point still stands, today's women do not want to give anything. To men, that is. To their kids, everything.

To my mind want of wanting to be told what to want is near synonymous with want of want. Not wanting is not the same as wanting.

You had identified the problem with women is that they do not want to give, I think the problem with women is that they don't know what they want because they're biologically motivated to surrender their will to others in order to fit in the pecking order and thus have a better chance of snaring the most promising prospect in order to produce offspring.

Your response was that women know what they want, what you listed evidences their subordinating to other's ideas of what they should want. Women's wanting in generosity validates what I think to be the problem with women, namely their will to unconsciousness; their selfishness is proof positive of the ego that clings to what others value, what other want

.

[Shahrazad]

Carl,

Sounds to me like you're talking about men.

[sue hindmarsh]

Yes, that is exactly what is being spoken of. Woman is man's mind exposed. She is the expression of his desires and needs.

Dan spoke of the Will to Power, which describes man's relationship to woman. That's his need to be "The Man". Without the little woman, his life would be without purpose. He'd be a fish out of water. It is only She that allows him to play at being 'man'.

[sue hindmarsh]

BMcGilly07 wrote:

Carl: The problem with women today is that they do not want to give anything.

The problem with women throughout the ages is they don't know what they want, and accept society's fashion as mandate (which it pretty much is).

For a woman to go against that she would be harangued and mocked by her fellow women. If she remains a woman she'll most likely go insane or get back in line, otherwise she'll have to become a man.

That's the bottom line, for sure. Don't I know it! Having a relationship with your own mind to the extent that it is impossible to take seriously most of what society holds as important and "real", makes it very difficult to meld with the mob. Insanity would definitely be a better choice. Though, melding with the mob, and going insane, is really one and the same thing - and therefore, no choice at all!

Becoming what you are, sounds the best. And, inevitably, the only thing to do.

[sue hindmarsh]

BMcGilly07 wrote:

Women's wanting in generosity validates what I think to be the problem with women, namely their will to unconsciousness; their selfishness is proof positive of the ego that clings to what others value, what other want

Her selfishness is proof that her "unconsciousness" is very similar to that experienced by a young child. For a young child also views the world, and all upon it, as their personal play things. Because of this, I don't see this situation as a "problem"; it's just a fact. A fact with the consequence that women have to be treated with the same regard as one does for a three year old. They deserve to be patiently guided in their development, and not mistreated in any way. They must be loved for what they are - children – and not as some creature to fulfil our desires.

[sue hindmarsh]

Skipair wrote:

It depends on how you look at it, but I wouldn't necessarily say that it is males who are responsible for a woman's sexual inhibitions. It's an interdependent system.
But in general, yes. Sexual communication is a guy who allows himself to be openly horny with women. This makes them horny, which makes him more horny, and the dance begins.

Does my above assessment of women’s mind being like that of “young children” have any effect on your consideration of women as sexual beings?

[skipair]

Does my above assessment of women’s mind being like that of “young children” have any effect on your consideration of women as sexual beings?

Not really. Seeing the child in women makes them attractive to me (the grown up, sexualized child, that is), otherwise they'd be men, and I'd just want to chill instead of fuck them.

I realize it's insane to allow contact with women to stimulate sexuality, but I continue to do it for a few reasons:

1) Sexual stimulation feels good.

2) Gaming women is a skill I've been involved with in the past, and I don't like being half good at any skill I'm involved in. I like challenge followed by mastery.

2a) I also feel ashamed of how unaware I was of woman's motivations in the past, and how disrespectful I was to myself in my passive handling of them. However silly, I feel like I need to rectify the past and be redeemed - by having the ability to have a sexual relationship without accepting all the bullshit. The reason I'm still interested in seducers is that it seems they have the keys to make this a reality. Maybe then I can put it past me.

3) It pisses me off to the highest degree that there is even an ounce of fear in me about woman (or anything else). It is something I cannot tolerate, so in trying to work it out, woman stays fresh in my mind - sometimes for good, sometimes not.

[sue hindmarsh]

Skipair wrote:

Sue: Does my above assessment of women’s mind being like that of “young children” have any effect on your consideration of women as sexual beings?

Not really. Seeing the child in women makes them attractive to me (the grown up, sexualized child, that is), otherwise they'd be men, and I'd just want to chill instead of fuck them.

Well, I don’t believe you see all women as equally fuckable. So what you’re really describing is a certain type of woman that you personally find attractive. And the thing is, that woman, or at least someone very like her, will eventuate because of your desire. Therein lies your role in her existence.

You write that it is the 'child-like' type that you find fuck-worthy. But I don’t believe this is the whole story. Anyone who has spent half an hour with a three year old knows they are not much fun. You write further down in your post that you don’t wish to “fear” women. Young children are extremely scary creatures: they’re bossy, self-centered and irrational most of the time. So you must be thinking of some other characteristic of theirs that you find sexually attractive. The only characteristics left are their naivety, and passivity when faced with a force greater than themselves. These make it easier to manipulate them into doing what one wants. Parents know these characteristics as their only tool of control. But parents don’t – in all cases – use these characteristics of their children as a means to satisfy themselves sexually.

There is one type of adult who springs to mind that does appreciate such a characteristic in children and that is of course the pedophile. But I don’t believe you will accept the tag of pedophile, because you justify your lust of these children by saying they look “grown-up”. But what’s the difference if a child is two feet tall or six feet tall? We’ve all heard stories of the trauma children go through at the hands of sexual predators. Isn’t it also likely that the taller-children also suffer a similar trauma?

I realize it's insane to allow contact with women to stimulate sexuality, but I continue to do it for a few reasons:

Since you believe that sex with "grown-up" children is ok; what's "insane"?

1) Sexual stimulation feels good.

Yes, but is that a good enough reason to justify having sex with children?

2) Gaming women is a skill I've been involved with in the past, and I don't like being half good at any skill I'm involved in. I like challenge followed by mastery.

“Gaming women”! A noble activity, I’m sure.

2a) I also feel ashamed of how unaware I was of woman's motivations in the past, and how disrespectful I was to myself in my passive handling of them. However silly, I feel like I need to rectify the past and be redeemed - by having the ability to have a sexual relationship without accepting all the bullshit. The reason I'm still interested in seducers is that it seems they have the keys to make this a reality. Maybe then I can put it past me.

You can’t get through this crisis in any other way? What about thinking the issue of gender through a bit more? Is there really no other way for you to work through this other than you touching the children?

3) It pisses me off to the highest degree that there is even an ounce of fear in me about woman (or anything else). It is something I cannot tolerate, so in trying to work it out, woman stays fresh in my mind - sometimes for good, sometimes not.

I did say that children are scary creatures, but given the chance to grow and develop under the tutelage of rational adults that value the children’s future, they may well grow into equally rational adults.

[Shahrazad]

Sue,

They must be loved for what they are - children – and not as some creature to fulfil our desires.

Sorry, but I have to ask. Do you have desires that involve women?

[Nick]

Sue,

They must be loved for what they are - children – and not as some creature to fulfil our desires.

Sorry, but I have to ask. Do you have desires that involve women?

Why would that statement of Sue's cause you to ask that question?

[Nick]

Not really. Seeing the child in women makes them attractive to me (the grown up, sexualized child, that is), otherwise they'd be men, and I'd just want to chill instead of fuck them.

This kind of statement helps to expose the pedophile to be found in men. When you think of all the things a man admires about a woman, so much of it is directly tied to what makes her more childish than men. Soft skin, less hair, round face, a childish spunk, it's no wonder so many men say they feel like a little kid again when they are with their lover.

I was listening to a radio show a while back in which they were discussing whether they prefer a woman's vagina shaved or not. People would call up and most seemed to prefer a cleanly shaved vagina, but not all. One of the callers happened to be a pediatrician, he called up and said his wife had recently shaved her vagina. He said it was nice, but it really freaked him out at the same time because as soon as he saw his wife's vagina he instantly seen how much it now resembled a little girls. The host of the show then said he's had similar disturbing thoughts about his wife and the pornos he watches, and that he would excessively masturbate to even more porn to block out the thoughts.

Is the only thing keeping men from wanting to have sex with children, aside from the social unacceptability of it, the fact that they don't have breasts and are shorter? Are these two physical attributes all it takes for men to realize the extremely abusive nature of using a child to satisfy one's sexual desires?

[Shahrazad]

Nick,

Why would that statement of Sue's cause you to ask that question?

Because she said "our desire", when I would've said "your desire", or "men's desires". Humans of the female sex who are straight*, do not desire other women, especially in a sexual way.

*Straight means heterosexual orientation.

[Nick]

Because she said "our desire", when I would've said "your desire", or "men's desires". Humans of the female sex who are straight*, do not desire other women, especially in a sexual way.

So do you think Sue's sexual orientation has some kind of bearing on the philosophical implications of what she said? Or are you just simply curious?

[Dan Rowden]

Sue's statement and use of "our" has greater implications than just sexual desire (in a base coital sense). Women desire a great many things of other women, and this often requires the existence and expression of a child-like persona.

[Shahrazad]

Nick,

Or are you just simply curious?

I am curious. It may partially explain some of her behavior. Just one more piece of the puzzle. Eventually, the puzzle may start to have shape.

[Nick]

What puzzle? Now I'm curious.

[Shahrazad]

Nick, it's not that important. Go back to the discussion of women.

[Rhett]

When sexual communication results in a casual encounter, part of that involves a woman jettisoning her natural inclination for social/economic climbing (through sexual choice). Sexual communication says give up the mind, all of it.

Pretty much. The way I see it some specific social/economic aspects are included in the image he/she gets horny on. We can't totally separate the primitive from modern brain, but I'd say when the primitive gets max stimuation it overrides the concerns for social consequence, etc.

I figure in the case of a casual encounter if the woman sees the man as fitting her ideal she will hope it turns into something permanent, but if it doesn't she has nevertheless had an experience with him, learnt more about how he ticks and thus how to find another like him, indeed it might be a new network, he will have friends, and she can tell her friends about the conquest and boost her social status.

If the man does not fit her ideal he is just the best she can do right now, she wants some sex now. She may not tell her friends about him because that may reduce her social status.

R: I think women's choice between intelligent versus unintelligent 'breeders' relates in part to whether she is worried about falling in love or not. It's about love and control. The intelligent one she may fall in love with and lose control. The unintelligent one she will be able to control and thus won't fall in love with (unless she wants a partner she can dominate).

S: My guess is you think this because you consider yourself to be intelligent, and it's a nice to think a consequence of that is women falling in love with you. In my experience there is very little correlation between a man's intelligence and the woman's ability to control him. The reality is that intelligence predominantly hinders sexual communication (since its non-intellectual), and sexual communication is the predominant thing associated with romantic love.

I came to this wondering why women would go for a dumb guy, recalling a dumb guy at school that was passed around. He was so dumb he had repeated the year. He was easily controlled by them.

I do think intelligence plays a large role in the war between the sexes, it is considered that couples typically have only 5 IQ points difference between their scores. A smart male will be more able to override a woman, in more areas, not all, but many, and will either have to limit himself so he does not overrun her, or will overrun her in most areas. In my experience more intelligent males statistically display more faciliatory type behaviours as opposed to self-focused, than lesser males.

I agree that intelligence hinders sexual communication. Women find pleasure in drawing intellectual males into the sexual realm. Women encourage the animal in man, for many reasons, mainly to overpower and manipulate him so she gets what she wants from him.

A lot of sexual politics comes down to reputation. A man's reputation has a big effect on how women and society will treat him.

[Shahrazad]

Rhett said,

I do think intelligence plays a large role in the war between the sexes, it is considered that couples typically have only 5 IQ points difference between their scores.

Ah, that explains a lot.

[Rhett]

Women are faced with the dilemma that more intelligent males are usually better at providing all the things she wants, except he is worse in bed. That is why it is said that women want a cunning intelligent male, that nevertheless behaves like a neanderthal in bed. Such a man provides the most in all respects. Such men are held aloft and portrayed as heroes in society. I recall a particular character i have seen recently on a television show called boston legal.

[sue hindmarsh]

Loki wrote to Skip:

You are defining intelligence too narrowly, treating it too objectively. There are many types of intelligences.

Men are intelligent in many different ways. Women use those variations to distinguish between men, and thereby choose the one/s they like. Of course, men’s looks are also important, but that can sometimes be overlooked if the man is clever at a number of things that women value. High up on the list is a good sense of humour - which requires quite a bit of intelligence to pull off. It's an important ingredient if a man wants to be chosen from off the man-shelf. But it isn't all that is needed. He needs the humour side of him to be balanced by an equal amount of seriousness. That is mostly accommodated by the hundreds of thousands of examples of work men do. It is also found in his relationships with his family and friends. All of which require various degrees of intelligence and expertise.

Skip and Rhett appear to be describing a form of intelligent man that is wholly unlike all those other men. They don't describe clearly what the attributes of that intelligent man are exactly, but since this is a philosophic forum, I guess they are referring to the man who values thinking, freedom, and individuality. But that can't be right. For if those attributes are put to work to attract women, they are then reduced to the category of just a job, and the men who work at it are up there on the man-shelf with all the other hopefuls waiting to be purchased. It also naturally makes it clear that those attributes aren't real. They're only superficial masks, with no substance to them at all.

True intelligence – that which is based on reason and logic – is understandably abhorrent to women. A man that truly does value his thinking, freedom, and individuality is absolutely no use to a woman. Loki, it would appear, knows something about this man, describing him so:

...if you become too intelligent, then she won't be able to even see you. You'll become invisible to her. It's a bit like climbing so high that you appear small, or you might even vanish.

Understandably, these men don’t make it up onto the man-shelf.

[David Quinn]

The man-shelf? Is that where all the me-fails flock?

-

[skipair]

There is one type of adult who springs to mind that does appreciate such a characteristic in children and that is of course the pedophile. But I don’t believe you will accept the tag of pedophile, because you justify your lust of these children by saying they look “grown-up”. But what’s the difference if a child is two feet tall or six feet tall? We’ve all heard stories of the trauma children go through at the hands of sexual predators. Isn’t it also likely that the taller-children also suffer a similar trauma?

I'm ok with being called a pedophile if you're going to call all women children (in the mind) - because it'd be true. I'm not a pedophile in the usual definition since I'm not normally sexually attracted to girls who haven't gone around the sun at least 16 times. The reason is that they don't use sexual communication.

Also, I'm pretty sure the sex-trauma of a girl ready and searching for sex (from love and lust - no small insanity) is fairly different to that of a child getted sexed who isn't ready and searching.

I don't think the way out of this hot, heavy fog of mine is going to be consideration of the rational future of women. That I am convinced is a dead end.

Skip: I realize it's insane to allow contact with women to stimulate sexuality, but I continue to do it for a few reasons

Sue: Since you believe that sex with "grown-up" children is ok; what's "insane"?

Sometimes I wake up from this hot, heavy fog, look about without desire and see how it was all a big nothing. But just as one strain of thought ends, and another begins unconscious of what came prior, I slip back into the fog unknowingly. Sometimes I admit willingly. And I see this as insane because it's based on an addiction to ego-buzz. It's like working very hard to continually pour water into a bucket with holes in the bottom.

Skip: 1) Sexual stimulation feels good.

Sue: Yes, but is that a good enough reason to justify having sex with children?

If I could answer that absolutely conclusively I wouldn't have to grapple with the subject.

It's not worth it if it gets in the way of things I hold higher in value. But the fact is I have variable values.

“Gaming women”! A noble activity, I’m sure.

No...It's true. Sometimes my spiritual muscles are very weak. I feel the barrier and run back to comfort! I don't want anyone's help and in the end all comments will be ignored. It's my own epic battle, always between me and myself, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

At the same time, I do appreciate your comments.

You can’t get through this crisis in any other way? What about thinking the issue of gender through a bit more? Is there really no other way for you to work through this other than you touching the children?

Not sure. I think I'm pretty clear on gender issues. I think this is more a case of just not wanting to let go of the habit.

I did say that children are scary creatures, but given the chance to grow and develop under the tutelage of rational adults that value the children’s future, they may well grow into equally rational adults.

If you're talking about women I think this is 99.9% unlikely.