GENIUS FORUMS

If they have all that gunk all over them?

Bad Breath
Body Odor
Gunk in their eyes
Snot
Faeces inside them and on them
Stinking feet, dandruff
Disease and spore ridden gaping vagina hole
Wax in the ears
That stench, that rotting blood stink
and most of all, that presumptuousness.

Frankly...eewwh.

Lust is easy to overcome when you allow these aspects to have a place, focus on the entirety of the being.

Swim in the infinite.

You don't think when a guy sees a pretty girl all those physical facts don't disappear in a cloud of ideational vapour? Maybe a better question might be: how can women find men sexually attractive? I mean, they don't really have that same ideational cloud to lose their heads in...

Men wouldn't be sexually attractive, except that they have dicks. But those have to smell good.

Dan Rowden wrote:I mean, they don't really have that same ideational cloud to lose their heads in...

Their head is the cloud.

Dan Rowden wrote:You don't think when a guy sees a pretty girl all those physical facts don't disappear in a cloud of ideational vapour? Maybe a better question might be: how can women find men sexually attractive? I mean, they don't really have that same ideational cloud to lose their heads in...

Women lose their heads in the idea of having a slave.

What is beauty if not the promise of happiness?

When a man sees a beautiful woman he's caught up the ideation of her and future physical pleasures.

When a woman sees a man looking at her, she's caught up in how good that attention feels. He pays her attention. Pays. It's a little taste of the payment that is to come, when she can snare him and make him work for her for the rest of his life. Bwa ha ha.

prince wrote:If they have all that gunk all over them?

Bad Breath
Body Odor
Gunk in their eyes
Snot
Faeces inside them and on them
Stinking feet, dandruff
Disease and spore ridden gaping vagina hole
Wax in the ears
That stench, that rotting blood stink
and most of all, that presumptuousness.

Frankly...eewwh.

What a shining example of religious pathological views about the body.

ok, I won't even try to use the quoting mechanism above the reply box, because I have tragically failed to master it on several occasions. Seems I'm virtually challenged :)

Prince, you allow yourself to focus on these points, by making them seem like facts. Most women I know, including myself, doesn't have dandruff, stinky or dirty feet, gunk in their eyes ( i presume you speak of morning wakeup gunk but you neednt sleep in the same room..)...you know what I mean? As far as I am concerned my husband will never see me without makeup :) It just won't happen. I've been labeled a "chicken" by men for not being cheeky enough to stay away from makeup, but its a personal, artistic preference. Just like some women won't allow their partners to see them brushing their teeth.

The thing is, you're trying to construct your own thoughts as reality and truth ( solipsism ).

You're trying hard to overcome lust. Which is honorable in a sense, but, if you focus of the entirety of the being...you'll see that woman's theoretical errors will overcome the suffocating loneliness of life that is often caused by masculine domination of aspects of the world.

huntedvsinvis,

As far as I am concerned my husband will never see me without makeup :) It just won't happen.

Wow, that is extreme. You remind me of Tammy Faye Baker, who plastered herself with makeup even when she had one foot in the grave.

I've been labeled a "chicken" by men for not being cheeky enough to stay away from makeup, but its a personal, artistic preference.

I've been criticized for the exact opposite. I like having a clean face.

HUNTEDvsINVIS wrote:As far as I am concerned my husband will never see me without makeup :) It just won't happen.

If a woman wears makeup all the time, it means that a good deal of her sense of self-worth is based on her appearance. (She may well be right in that, in that her appearance may be all that is of value to others.)

With such a woman, there is likely to be very little, if anything, to learn about her that can't be learned just by looking at her.

Hhhhmmmm...You're cruel, but you are right. You give me food for thought. I grew up in a very bitchy town, where people hated me for being smart, so when i got a rare skin disease...friends and enemies told me no one was ever going to marry me, and i remember that people in restaurants couldn't eat their food when they saw me...they looked at me with the sweet look of complete hatred and disgust. People told me that "life doesn't work like that, you can't do nothing about your face." Eventually, brilliant though I was, it began to HURT MY FEELINGS. So when the disease was removed, although I was almost comatose from the medication, I wanted to take REVENGE. I wanted to be BEAUTIFUL. But things didn't get better. Because looks wasn't everything, just like you pointed out to me. But yeah, i allowed people to define me, and it was wrong. So, you are very smart Hodges, I think everyone can learn from our advice. If you are gorgeous, evil bitches will come after you, and, if you are ugly, your family will beat you up and your friends will write you off as a spinster. conclusion: just be yourself.

I, prince, see a woman strutting her buttocks and swinging her nipple revealing breasts and laugh (to myself).

I, prince, smell that perfume and it makes me want to yak.

I, prince, can look into a "pretty girls" eyes and see her cataracts, her loss of shine and sheen, her temporality. her nothingness.

I can see you bent over a food tray and needy in an old folks home

I can see you struggling to hear your children, in old age, through the phone

I can see you looking back at your life with regret

I can see you, right through you, you could have listened to me, and yet..

it was all for nought, you begot what you beget

Suffer now, suffer.

Norman . . . Norman, is that you? Norman Bates, you come here right now! Your mother needs her cup of tea.

This thread reminds me of a time, last year, when I was with my father and brother in a little restaurant. We were seated near the back of the facility, my father and I facing the interior of the mall (in which the restaurant was located), my brother faced the opposite direction. My brother was able to see a wall and a door leading to the bathrooms. In my father and I's field of view were 5 or 6 physically and/or mentally disabled individuals and a caretaker.

My father, unique as he is(n't), complained about his view of the rather unfortunate group of people mentioned. He had hoped a group of bikini clad barely legal hard bodies would have filled his view I guess.


I don't think the female perspective has been given its just deserts entirely. I read a study in which it was determined that women are attracted to men who are sensitive and who look sensitive. I don't buy this for a minute. I think if you ask a woman what she is attracted to in terms of love they might say a sensitive looking guy, but if you ask a woman what she really wants to pork the brains out of you probably get a different answer.

There is this theory, or method of picking up chicks. I've watched the DVDs and actually the stuff is rather perceptive. However its sets a different stage from the view that women are capturing men. In their "neg" theory, the idea is to give indirect or temporarily bouts of attention to a woman (specifically smokin' hot babes) to pique their interest. Its kind of like giving someone free drug to get hooked on the drug, but the key element is not the drug, rather the absence or withdrawal from it. The idea is that these women, in particular hard bodies because they get a lot of attention already, are more attracted to a guy who is neither too shy to make himself known nor too pathetic to smother her with attention. It seems rather intuitive and is pretty much the same dynamic, but these are guys that use that for getting laid turning the tables on the women. Hard to say really who is doing what a lot of the time, as a lot of women are seemingly unconscious while others seem to be pulling all the strings.

Suffice to say I find it all kinda amusing in a way that's tragic.

Shardrol wrote:Norman . . . Norman, is that you? Norman Bates, you come here right now! Your mother needs her cup of tea.

Ahhh, the lurker with the knife! I should have known! I am so bad with plots...

Animus wrote:Suffice to say I find it all kinda amusing in a way that's tragic.

You just summed up all of American culture. ;o)

You've probably heard of David Deida if you've watched those type of DVDs... he writes some supposedly-enlightened-relationship-type books which I browsed one of. His books could be found in any New Agey bookstore. Well, now he's gotten on board with the people that put out a lot of those DVDs and hold the pick-up conferences. It's basically "how to pick up women by using psychological trickery." Not to say the women don't want it. It's just sad, like you say. What are these guys really getting out of it? Besides STDs I mean?

Dan Rowden wrote:You don't think when a guy sees a pretty girl all those physical facts don't disappear in a cloud of ideational vapour?

Cloud of ideational vapour? My experience seems about the exact opposite of that. The basic animal sexual lust I experience when seeing an attractive woman is not something I'd describe as "ideational." It's on about the same level as hungrily fixing my eyes on a piece of chocolate. And similarly, if I'm hungry enough I can overlook the fact that the chocolate previously fell onto the ground too.

Jason wrote:The basic animal sexual lust I experience when seeing an attractive woman is not something I'd describe as "ideational."

Then why don't you experience that same lust when you see a fit male? Is it because you aren't projecting your ideals on to men? Isn't Woman in fact your ideal of what must be lusted after, an ideal which you project on to the female body?

Why don't I feel the same hunger when I see a cabbage as I do with a piece of chocolate? Is it because I am projecting my ideals onto the chocolate?

In a sense, actually, yes.

Dan Rowden wrote:One has to protect the innocent - and the foolish. Blame the Russians.

Awww but it was funny.

Dan Rowden wrote:In a sense, actually, yes.

What sense exactly?

Jason wrote:Why don't I feel the same hunger when I see a cabbage as I do with a piece of chocolate?

Because they taste different.

How, in a physical sense, is fucking a woman's vagina different from fucking a man's lubed up asshole? Both should be able to provide enough friction and lubrciation to induce an orgrasm. The only reason the former scenario gets you more aroused is because of your emotional attachment to Woman, your ideal, or more accurately I should say; the ideal which society has impressed upon your mind.

Nick wrote:

Jay wrote: Why don't I feel the same hunger when I see a cabbage as I do with a piece of chocolate?

Because they taste different.

Not only different, but likely for Jason, one tastes more pleasurable than the other.

I don't think it's just external conditioning. There is an innate biological readiness, an instinctual preparedness to find certain stimuli more arousing than other stimuli. That's why some men turn out to be homosexual, because their brain has a certain preparedness (to greater or lesser degrees) to go in that homosexual direction.

Likewise, there are the same innate mechanisms in place that ensure people like sweet tasting things, rather than say, metallic.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Jason wrote:Why don't I feel the same hunger when I see a cabbage as I do with a piece of chocolate?

Because they taste different.

How, in a physical sense, is fucking a woman's vagina different from fucking a man's lubed up asshole?

There are still basic visual, tactile and auditory differences(which can be compared to different tastes), amongst other things that I don't think should be underestimated(where would the massive visually-based porn industry be without these?). There may also be different pheromones involved.

Nick Treklis wrote:Both should be able to provide enough friction and lubrciation to induce an orgrasm. The only reason the former scenario gets you more aroused is because of your emotional attachment to Woman, your ideal, or more accurately I should say; the ideal which society has impressed upon your mind.

As Cory noted, it is quite possible that there are innate elements to sexual preference. I think perhaps this notion of projecting ideals onto women is being overplayed, especially since we're talking about sex - it's just bodies rubbing against each other and animal desire.

My guess is that modern Western society and conditioning generally tends to have more of a negative rather than positive impact on sexual preference in this sense. That is, it eliminates potential sexual avenues as opposed to cultivating specific avenues like heterosexuality. It forces limitations.

For example, I'm quite happy to fuck my hand, but I'm not sure I'd be able to relax enough to really enjoy getting a handjob from another guy. I think being uncomfortable with the latter possibility is largely down to social conditioning. Without this type of conditioning I think it likely that my preference for sex with females might still be there, but that I'd be much more open to certain other forms of sex which were somewhat lower on my scale of desirablity, such as sex with males.

Rebecca,

It's just sad, like you say. What are these guys really getting out of it?

Isn't it obvious? Do I really have to spell it out for you? OK, here it goes: S-E-X.