Why women like abuse

[Tharan]

The “QSR female” is feminine, always, by definition. She personifies the unconscious. That, and how, she does this in the minds of men is their point.

Ah, maybe that is where is miscommunication lies. I was referring to a "QRS female" as a female of the mold of the QRS ideal. Maybe that was my mistake, because they do speak most often of the opposite, namely the feminine. But the way I was using the phrase, the feminine type would be a "typical" female (by the QRS definition).

The best hunter is active not passive, aggressive not submissive. He respects his prey. Whether the prey be an animal or truth therefore, he does not wittingly or unwittingly exploit or mistreat it but uses it strictly and fairly for its purpose.

Perhaps, but the concepts of "fairly" and "respect" and "strictly" are up for debate depending on perspective. And those same concepts change over time.

It seems to me that Elizabeth, for some reason, has left out equal examination of her father at the same time as her mother in this man-woman/hunter-prey dynamic. When the hunter sets out to catch Woman in the form of female, is it any wonder he bites and gets bitten, controls and loses control over her as well as himself?

One can hunt and track, but that is not killing. Maybe he also needs that killer instinct to finish the job. Dead prey does not bite. (Speaking this way allows me to live out my serial killer fantasy.)

Oh, how noble and self-sacrificing is the hunter who instinctively plays into the trap as the hunt, so easily feigning death and becoming prey in order to become predator.

The idea of "nobility" was not part of my calculation, but the tactic as posture can certainly be effective at times. Especially when your opponent has ideals they live by relating to "nobility." They are then predictable, and defeatable.

Leyla would you like me to bleed for you? Shalll I slice open my wrists? Would you like my head to roll on the ground? Should I spend many years in jail in solitary pentinence until I can qualify to beg your forgiveness for disagreeing some months ago? What, my queen, can I do to win back your approval?

Well, I’m not sure why you’re wanting my forgiveness. If you do, what exactly am I supposed to be forgiving you for--being American, loving Jews, supporting violence against the Palestinians, all of the foregoing?

It is true, I am American and there is nothing I can do about that. On the other hand, I don't have any particular love for the Jews and I support violence against ALL people, even Americans. We all should have more violence in our lives, distributed fairly in a equitable and liberally correct manner.

If it’s simply me you want to please, at this point a cup of tea and a full-body massage would be great.

Alternatively, you could stop doing my head in by holding on to our disagreements and melding them into one big generality so that I may forgive you -- and AU$50k would be good, too.

A cup of tea, a full body massage, and 50 bucks, eh? I then have your undying support? Should I mail the 50 bucks or leave it on the dresser as I leave?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Leyla wrote:

It seems to me that Elizabeth, for some reason, has left out equal examination of her father at the same time as her mother in this man-woman/hunter-prey dynamic. When the hunter sets out to catch Woman in the form of female, is it any wonder he bites and gets bitten, controls and loses control over her as well as himself?

I simply have very little idea what my father particularly saw in my mother (he mentioned he had liked her butt, but he never mentioned anything else), and I did not think I had enough information regarding their earlier dynamic to give an analysis. He's been dead for many years, so it's too late to ask now. I know that after my mother died, he wanted female companionship (and widows outnumber widowers by a great deal, so he pretty much had his pick), so he started off with calling old girlfriends, then went on to spend some time at retired officer's functions, went out with whoever would talk to him, and weeded out whoever was opposed to his drinking or smoking, drank too much herself, or who wanted to do something other than watch television with him. My mother talked non-stop to anyone and fit most of the criteria, so I expect the pattern was the same. I know he stayed with her because after his first divorce, he kind of figured no one else would put up with him and he just didn't want to be alone.

"Dead prey" wouldn't have served his purpose, and he didn't want control over this one. He had control over his first wife so long as he had her, but the most important thing to him was female companionship (good or bad didn't matter so much). Ultimatly, he basically got what he wanted.

****edit - actually he did have some control. He tolerated it when she didn't want to have sex with him anymore, but when she stopped cooking for him, he called a priest to come talk to her. Oooh, that was an ugly point she brought up at every meal for over 10 years after that (she could really hold a grudge), but she cooked for him from then on****

Had I never been born, their marriage would have been based more on mutual use of each other, although the uses my father had in mind were more what QRS call "feminine" - namely sex, companionship, and home cooking.

Tharan,

Actually I do believe I'd described her as a QRS male with a feminine veneer. I understood what you meant, though.

[Leyla Shen]

Tharan, where I come from, when a "k" follows a number you're supposed to add three zeroes to that number. Your measly 50 bucks then becomes 50,000. Just how cheap do you think I think I am?

.

[Tharan]

Ah, sorry again. I read it too quickly. Obviously, you are not cheap at all!

[Kelly Jones]

Pye wrote:

Any exceptions to this rule [men/conscious; women/unconscious] are so extremely rare, that it's acceptable to use it as a truth.

The greater truth includes the exceptions, like with your sages and whatnot.

Wisdom cannot arise without dismantling the delusion that consciousness is easy and normal.

[Kelly Jones]

Nick Treklis wrote:

Dhodges or anyone else who is old enough to answer this question: How old were you when you could sense your sexual urges begin to subside?

At the age when i stopped masturbating and having sex. I didn't value my thoughts being driven by lust (the root of the ego) or by sexual desire (one of its branches). One doesn't think much about what one doesn't care thinking about.

[Kelly Jones]

Tharan wrote:

Like a man on welfare, why not? It is there for you, it is illogical not to use it, espcially when your heart is not into slaving at something else for maybe a little more money. I have always had a similar conception about certain females, especially ones that are attractive and know how to use it. Add inteligence to that mix and men begin to have dreams of burkhas. The women have enormous social power simply because men's emotions kick into a kind of gnawing hunger state that clouds rational judgement. Advantage: inteligent, attractive woman. But as long as it is the case, there is no logical reason not to use that advantage. That same man probably would, if he could.

I wouldn't call it idealistic to pursue a comfortable lifestyle above all else. That's a contradiction in terms.

[Kelly Jones]

Cory wrote:

Facing pain, and doing what is more painful doesnt make sense to ordinary folk.

Therefore, avoiding pain and boredom instead of becoming supremely logical seems most logical to most people.

I think the average person isn't conscious enough to know their basic value is Happy = Truth. Happiness is just feeling powerful, so the average fearful person feels they're almost constantly lying (and often trying to assuage guilt).

[Kelly Jones]

Elizabeth,

As you've written so much, i've selected quotes to cover four particular topics, and hopefully single out the root problem:

- if "abused" females are really so
- how to define a victim of abuse
- the nature of egotistical relationships
- whether love is rational

Out of hundreds of abused females I have interacted with, only 2 or 3 actually liked the abuse, and those were SI (people who like to injure themselves, usually by cutting their own skin, but other forms take place as well).

Did you really expect an abused female to say, "I love being the centre of attention, getting everyone's pity, and exploiting the identity of an abused, weak, helpless female." ?

People who SI tend to not be able to create that internal [brain chemistry] environment without physical injury, so they injure themselves to produce internal homeostasis. Provoking someone else to injure you is essentially self-injurious behavior.

SI = self-injure (?)

Imagine a person who has learnt that being stressed and worried tends to distract others' attention. The motive for doing this may be to avoid solving problems intelligently.

The person experiences the physical sensations of emotions, such as rapid pulse and breath, headache, muscular tension, nausea, and that sort of stuff, as signs of injury.

Others are likely to approve of these signs of "working hard". Ultimately, it shows that any person who has a habit of being irrational, is abusing themselves and others.


-----------------------------------------------------------


On the question of which sex is typically more conscious, and therefore more rational, and therefore more likely to feel victimised by emotional manipulation (abuse):

wouldn't it seem natural that females would have better control over femininity than males, which would be why males lose control under the influence of femininity, whereas females don't appear to need to gain control, yet they have control in ways men do not?

Yes, men lose it when they're under Woman's thumb. The soppiest example is the man who can't leave his mother alone, but feels he has to "look after the old girl". Really, he's just after a piece of her womb-enclosed mentality. If he can't get a taste, he's in a dire panic. Doom descends onto his head.

But this love of Woman drives him to achieve something great. Typically, he runs down into mediocrity, believing it is "big man" stuff. yet, this psychological drive can tend towards the biggest of all stuff: wisdom.

Women never lose it, despite being even more under Woman's thumb. They've never experienced the possibility of living outside that "I'm absolutely right at base, everyone else is wrong" mind. Emotionalism reinforces her smug and immovable irrationality. Women have to be emotional, and abusive, or they'd be forced to think - and lose all that Womb-enclosed mentality which is Woman. So, why should a woman really strive? Why shouldn't she be abusive as all hell? She has everything to lose, because she is Everything That Society Wants.

If only females could "lose control" under the influence of femininity. It would be a sign they had the ability to control themselves and come under the influence of masculinity.

[My mother] was very QRS-feminine, yet also so QRS-masculine that she played every feminine charm for whatever she could get out of it, whenever she could get something out of it, but only when she could get something out of it - in a single-minded persuit of her ideal life. Once she'd bitched my father into submission, she was able to get fat and lazy. Ultimately she got almost everything she ever wanted. If I'd never been born, she would have had what she would have considered to be the perfect second marriage. Of course, no man would ever have found out what she was really doing, and that's where women like this have duped the QRS.

Your mother had slight traces of masculinity, but was mostly feminine. There is no relationship between pursuing an ideal single-mindedly and desiring the ultimate feminine lifestyle. She sounds like a lazy, loud-mouthed bully. You mistook cunning for intelligence, and selfishness for idealism. She sounds a bit like Marsha (a bull-dozer), only less interesting.



----------------------------------------------------------


The question begs to be asked: why does someone enter an egotistical relationship? What's the nature of this type of relationship?

Out of the other hundreds of females, none of them liked the abuse. It was the behavior that the guys displayed at other times that attracted them. In many cases, when they were not abusive, the guys would be the sweetest (perhaps too sweet to be realistic) guys in the world. In other cases, sort of like what mil was saying but not exactly, the kind of determination that leads to material success can also switch over to abusiveness, or the risks involved in reaching the top can lead to enough stress to make the guy snap sometimes and take it out on the woman; but she appreciated what a great guy he usually was and understood the stress he was under that she kept forgiving him.

There's not much depth to the above quote, but it is still useful to investigate the nature of egotistical relationships.

Dan says that egotistical "relationships are abusive by default" - but this doesn't answer the original motive.

Over the last week, i've been wwoofing for a pretty aggressive greenie-type. When i said something that questioned his most cherished values, he flew into a temper. I'm still at his farm, because i succumbed to the belief that a rational person has to work hard.

Ultimately, i think this is what egotistical relationships boil down to:

For men:
Prove you're competitive and reliable, and then you can be trusted with "xxxx" (big man status).

For women:Prove you can emotionally manipulate a "big man", then you are worthy of being supported by him.



------------------------------------------------------------

On the notion that love is rational:

I also learned that an awful lot of people become unreasonable and irrational when they are in love. As far as I know, I could be the only one in the world who can be in love and still excecute reason and rationality. Although it seems unlikely that there could be only one person with any particular characteristic, I no longer trust in the possibility of one other, much less the delusion that many people were just like me.

And, in the same post:

My mother's rational single-mindedness was possible for her because she did not love my father

Please define love, and rationality, Elizabeth.

I met a few guys who had sex slaves as well, and in reality, it's more like having some really close friends of the opposite gender than any kind of actual domination.

You must be a pretty stable guy for a female like that to trust you in that way.

Elizabeth,

You need to think deeply about the psychology of love.

Love is attachment to something. It's delusional. It's foolish, because wisdom is the rational understanding that things are ultimately not real.

If love is more important than reasoning, then there's no way that wisdom can arise in the mind.

As long as sufficient rationality is used in a relationship, there is no abuse.

What is that? I've never heard of sufficient rationality. Whatever doesn't diminish feelings of pleasure?

S&M is a totally different thing, and it is not abuse.

Here is a picture of the hell realms, that could be captioned: "sadism and masochism".



Kelly

[edit: added URL]

[Kelly Jones]

Generally speaking, Relationships between humans is an agreement on the conditions or terms of how the parties involved are to be emotionally and physically dependent/enslaved to each other.

There can be no honest agreement, since the parties have given up speaking or thinking truthfully, as soon as they agree to emotional manipulation.

It's hard at first to compromise a scruple, but it gets easier. Then, after 10 years, one hardly feels it at all. Brain-death is rather comfortable, don't you find?

Do you invite your emotional manipulee onto the Genius Forum, or discuss your writings with them? Will they leave you? What will life be like without them?

[Kelly Jones]

Ryan wrote:

I have learned from experience that one can study wisdom and mediate in a corner for eons, but it doesn’t change the loss of power man feels in the presence of a flirtatious attractive woman.

A man with even the slightest degree of wisdom, knows that power is a delusion. He'll probably just feel sad for the female, and less sad the wiser he is.

And the feelings persist for days, it takes days for her power to wear off. My being is totally clouded by her. She is there all day, during the night, and in the morning (in my mind)

Now this is an automatic biological response that cannot be prevented unless one stays in solitude and avoids these bewitching little fairies altogether.

Not even solitude will prevent lust. Only a conscious decision to abandon what is hurting one's mind, will begin to prevent it.

I still cannot get over the intensity of her positivity when she speaks and how drastically it affects me every time. Subjectively I listen like a sucker, and the whole process starts.

This is further evidence that she is a metaphor for the absolute truth, for infinity.

I very much doubt this evidence. God-consciousness is not an altered state of consciousness.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I will get back to your post a bit later, but meanwhile, I have absolutely no idea what this means:

Over the last week, i've been wwoofing for a highly insecure, aggressive greenie.

I've come to the understanding that Aussies use a lot of colliquialisms, and I see that neither "wwoofing" nor "greenie" translate into American English. Could you rephrase that please?

[Tharan]

Tharan wrote:

Like a man on welfare, why not? It is there for you, it is illogical not to use it, espcially when your heart is not into slaving at something else for maybe a little more money. I have always had a similar conception about certain females, especially ones that are attractive and know how to use it. Add inteligence to that mix and men begin to have dreams of burkhas. The women have enormous social power simply because men's emotions kick into a kind of gnawing hunger state that clouds rational judgement. Advantage: inteligent, attractive woman. But as long as it is the case, there is no logical reason not to use that advantage. That same man probably would, if he could.

I wouldn't call it idealistic to pursue a comfortable lifestyle above all else. That's a contradiction in terms.

What you like to call it is irrelevant. If a person has ideals defined by pleasure, then pursuing those ideals to the detriment of objectives outside those ideals would be entirely idealistic. It is definitional. Idealism is not transcendance.

For example, a completely detached female might suck dick for money and make a decent living out of it. It is only the females who have attachments to the ideals of nobility and individualism that might have qualms about this approach. It proves a fundamental attachment to colloquial morality, regardless of this same individual's possible years of dedication to the idea of rebellion from the base norms of her culture. Attachments to or even rebellions from colloquial morality are not enlightenment. It is when local morality is a complete non factor that this individual makes forward progress. And idealistic ideas of idealism do not qualify.

[Kelly Jones]

I will get back to your post a bit later, but meanwhile, I have absolutely no idea what this means:

Over the last week, i've been wwoofing for a highly insecure, aggressive greenie.

I've come to the understanding that Aussies use a lot of colliquialisms, and I see that neither "wwoofing" nor "greenie" translate into American English. Could you rephrase that please?

Sorry. "W.W.O.O.F." means "willing worker on organic farms". "Greenie" means "environmentalist (person interested in plants and suchlike)".

Most environmentalists are angry and not all that rational, and have absolutely no relationship with Nature.

It's interesting to spend time personally observing how the ego manifests.


[edit: simplified]

[Kelly Jones]

I wouldn't call it idealistic to pursue a comfortable lifestyle above all else. That's a contradiction in terms.

What you like to call it is irrelevant. If a person has ideals defined by pleasure, then pursuing those ideals to the detriment of objectives outside those ideals would be entirely idealistic. It is definitional. Idealism is not transcendance.

I just meant heavy-duty striving (pursuit) and comfort just don't fit together. Not logically, anyway.

For example, a completely detached female might suck dick for money and make a decent living out of it. It is only the females who have attachments to the ideals of nobility and individualism that might have qualms about this approach. It proves a fundamental attachment to colloquial morality, regardless of this same individual's possible years of dedication to the idea of rebellion from the base norms of her culture. Attachments to or even rebellions from colloquial morality are not enlightenment. It is when local morality is a complete non factor that this individual makes forward progress. And idealistic ideas of idealism do not qualify.

That's got nothing to do with a comfortable (fat and lazy) lifestyle. What are you talking about?

[Tharan]

The poor unfrozen philosopher caveman is always so misunderstood.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Out of hundreds of abused females I have interacted with, only 2 or 3 actually liked the abuse, and those were SI (people who like to injure themselves, usually by cutting their own skin, but other forms take place as well).

Did you really expect an abused female to say, "I love being the centre of attention, getting everyone's pity, and exploiting the identity of an abused, weak, helpless female." ?

In the right setting, under the right circumstances, and most importantly to the right kind of person - yes. If you leave out the term "abused" from your above statement, that I have heard countless times. There are a lot of women, even many of those who are professionals and thought of as the strong type, during their off hours like the "damsel in distress" fantasy - but they want to be coddled and taken care of - not abused. There are many ways of acting weak and helpless and getting emotional support from most people without actually being abused (and, abused or not, such ploys will get on most people's nerves more often sooner than later).

People who SI tend to not be able to create that internal [brain chemistry] environment without physical injury, so they injure themselves to produce internal homeostasis. Provoking someone else to injure you is essentially self-injurious behavior.

SI = self-injure (?)

Yes

Imagine a person who has learnt that being stressed and worried tends to distract others' attention. The motive for doing this may be to avoid solving problems intelligently.

There are plenty of people - both male and female - who use this manipulative tactic. I don't see your point.

The person experiences the physical sensations of emotions, such as rapid pulse and breath, headache, muscular tension, nausea, and that sort of stuff, as signs of injury.

Many physical states have correlations to emotional states. In cooler weather, I have a hard time telling the difference between being cold and scared. Both conditions make body hair stand on end, cause tense muscles and sometimes shivering, and can make it a bit more difficult to breathe. I still don't see your point.

Others are likely to approve of these signs of "working hard".

I have not seen that, but I won't rule out the possibility.

Ultimately, it shows that any person who has a habit of being irrational, is abusing themselves and others.

Habitual irrationality is a cause of abuse of self and others. All that says is that the abuser is irrational - it does not indicate that women like to be abused.

On the question of which sex is typically more conscious, and therefore more rational, and therefore more likely to feel victimised by emotional manipulation (abuse):

wouldn't it seem natural that females would have better control over femininity than males, which would be why males lose control under the influence of femininity, whereas females don't appear to need to gain control, yet they have control in ways men do not?

Mt quotation above was not to point out either gender being more concious than the other.

Yes, men lose it when they're under Woman's thumb. The soppiest example is the man who can't leave his mother alone, but feels he has to "look after the old girl". Really, he's just after a piece of her womb-enclosed mentality. If he can't get a taste, he's in a dire panic. Doom descends onto his head.

Obviously you have no concept of what it means to be responsible. If a parent is ill/elderly and unable to take full care of themselves, a responsible offspring who was in a position to help take care of the parent would do so.

Women never lose it, despite being even more under Woman's thumb. They've never experienced the possibility of living outside that "I'm absolutely right at base, everyone else is wrong" mind.

If you are exclusivly referring to the funky QRS definition of women here, okay.

If only females could "lose control" under the influence of femininity. It would be a sign they had the ability to control themselves and come under the influence of masculinity.

Losing control is never a sign of being able to control one's self.

[My mother] was very QRS-feminine, yet also so QRS-masculine that she played every feminine charm...Ultimately she got almost everything she ever wanted....

Your mother had slight traces of masculinity, but was mostly feminine. There is no relationship between pursuing an ideal single-mindedly and desiring the ultimate feminine lifestyle.

Not even if achieving the ultimate feminine lifestyle is the ideal she persued single-mindedly?

The question begs to be asked: why does someone enter an egotistical relationship? What's the nature of this type of relationship?

Out of the other hundreds of females, none of them liked the abuse. It was the behavior that the guys displayed at other times that attracted them. In many cases, when they were not abusive, the guys would be the sweetest (perhaps too sweet to be realistic) guys in the world. In other cases, sort of like what mil was saying but not exactly, the kind of determination that leads to material success can also switch over to abusiveness, or the risks involved in reaching the top can lead to enough stress to make the guy snap sometimes and take it out on the woman; but she appreciated what a great guy he usually was and understood the stress he was under that she kept forgiving him.

There's not much depth to the above quote, but it is still useful to investigate the nature of egotistical relationships.

Dan says that egotistical "relationships are abusive by default" - but this doesn't answer the original motive.

Although Dan is one of the brightest guys I know, quoting Dan is no substitute for thinking yourself. Although Dan is a very good thinker, Dan is not the ultimate authority on relationships.

Over the last week, i've been wwoofing for a highly insecure, aggressive greenie. If i say something that questions his values, he flies into a loud and expressive rage. I'm still at his farm, because i succumbed to the belief that a rational person has to work hard.

Why is it "succumbed to the belief" rather than "was caused to decide?" On your web page, you declared that you were totally unsuitable for work. It is fine that your circumstances have changed, but why do you consider this was not an act of thinking for yourself?

And it is natural for most people to not react favorably to having their values questioned, especially when they have not expressed an openness to having their values challenged.

Ultimately, i think this is what egotistical relationships boil down to:

For men:
Prove you're competitive and reliable, and then you can be trusted with "xxxx" (big man status).

For women:Prove you can emotionally manipulate a "big man", then you are worthy of being supported by him.

I guess we're back to the funky QRS definiton again.

On the notion that love is rational:

I also learned that an awful lot of people become unreasonable and irrational when they are in love. As far as I know, I could be the only one in the world who can be in love and still excecute reason and rationality. Although it seems unlikely that there could be only one person with any particular characteristic, I no longer trust in the possibility of one other, much less the delusion that many people were just like me.

To which I later corrected myself, having recalled a guy I know who is able to love rationally.

And, in the same post:

My mother's rational single-mindedness was possible for her because she did not love my father

Please define love, and rationality, Elizabeth.

In this context, I meant romantic love.

Rationality- ability to reason, sensible

I met a few guys who had sex slaves as well, and in reality, it's more like having some really close friends of the opposite gender than any kind of actual domination.

You must be a pretty stable guy for a female like that to trust you in that way.

Elizabeth,

You need to think deeply about the psychology of love.

Love is attachment to something.

How are you defining "attachment" here? The type of attachment that one must give up to become wise is irrational attachment. A wise person could be said to be attached to wearing clothes to protect from skin cancer, reduce the transmission of germs, etc., or be attached enough to his health that he would go to the doctor if he noticed a tumor developing. Yet, if his clothing became unsuitable he would discard it and replace it if possible, and if the tumor turned out to be cancer that had metastasized, he would be okay with that as well, and simply do whatever he considered he ought to do for the next few months before he dies.

It's delusional. It's foolish, because wisdom is the rational understanding that things are ultimately not real.

Things do not inherently exist, but we still work within this non-inherently existing realm.

If love is more important than reasoning, then there's no way that wisdom can arise in the mind.

Exactly - which is why one must prioritorize such things as reasoning above love.

As long as sufficient rationality is used in a relationship, there is no abuse.

What is that? I've never heard of sufficient rationality. Whatever doesn't diminish feelings of pleasure?

No - that is not a good interpretation. I probably understated what I meant. Sufficient rationality would be more like as much rationality as one could manifest - which would be different from dryly logical (yet would still be highly logical, taking in the components of emotion and other aspects of the human condition [biological human]).

Sufficient rationality would, as an example, tell a person that if the person they loved was physically injurious, threatening, manipulative, etc. then the rational person would not stay under such conditions. But if there was adequate give and take, or if it boiled down to a matter of being responsible (a spouse getting into a car accident or in some other way becoming incapcitated, but being responsible would not put intolerable hardship on the other - [forgive me for over-shortening that, but delineating exactly where that line is would take another thread]), then the person would stay in the relationship. Ideally, it would always be a matter of acceptable amounts of give and take, and average out about equally, and result in a better life for both. "Sufficient" rationality indicates the sliding scale between ideal and practical application to find what is acceptable.

S&M is a totally different thing, and it is not abuse.

Here is a picture of the hell realms, that could be captioned: "sadism and masochism".

I think you missed the difference between the hell realms and diversity of what people find pleasurable.

Some people enjoy roller coasters. I do not, nor have I ever enjoyed roller coasters. They used to frighten me, then one day I decided it was ridiculous to be frightened of them and went on one to prove to myself that i had conquered my fear. I was not afraid at all, but I became nauseous on the ride anyway. I accept that some people find the sensation that roller coasters produce to be pleasurable, but it does not produce a pleasurable sensation in my body.

Not every body is created the same, so not everyone experiences the same sensations as a result of the same stimuli.

For another example, in one of David Q's writings, he stated that a hug is painful to him. Most people do not experience pain from a hug - some may get pleasure, others may get comfort, and others may get nothing at all from it. Some children are born with so few nerves that they have to be taught such things as not to put their hand on a hot stove. Others, such as a client I once had in an MRDD facility who was born with sickle cell, feel pain from the slightest touch. With this client, we had to touch her to dress her, move her from her wheelchair, etc., but she would cry out in pain at every touch. People just experience life differently, and we can not assume that what we find painful would be painful to someone else, nor can we assume that what we find pleasurable would be pleasurable to anyone else. A hug to David might feel to him like being scalded would feel to me, and someone into S&M might experience having hot wax dripped on them like I might experience a dog leaning against my leg. Two people could go through exactly the same "experience" yet have two totally different "experiences."
.

[Kelly Jones]

Tharan wrote:

E: My mother's rational single-mindedness was possible for her because she did not love my father; she only wanted what she perceived he could give her. I don't think she was even capable of being in love. She didn't see marriage that way, and only saw men as a means to an end. She was very QRS-feminine, yet also so QRS-masculine that she played every feminine charm for whatever she could get out of it, whenever she could get something out of it, but only when she could get something out of it - in a single-minded persuit of her ideal life. Once she'd bitched my father into submission, she was able to get fat and lazy. Ultimately she got almost everything she ever wanted. If I'd never been born, she would have had what she would have considered to be the perfect second marriage. Of course, no man would ever have found out what she was really doing, and that's where women like this have duped the QRS.

T: Elizabeth, the earlier post in which you descibed your family was a good read. Well written. I liked your description of your mom as essentially the QRS female with a feminine veneer.
[snip]
The women have enormous social power simply because men's emotions kick into a kind of gnawing hunger state that clouds rational judgement. Advantage: inteligent, attractive woman. But as long as it is the case, there is no logical reason not to use that advantage.
[snip]
Like a man on welfare, why not? It is there for you, it is illogical not to use it, espcially when your heart is not into slaving at something else for maybe a little more money.

K: I wouldn't call it idealistic to pursue a comfortable lifestyle above all else. That's a contradiction in terms.

T: If a person has ideals defined by pleasure, then pursuing those ideals to the detriment of objectives outside those ideals would be entirely idealistic. It is definitional. Idealism is not transcendance.

K: I just meant heavy-duty striving (pursuit) and comfort just don't fit together. Not logically, anyway.

T: The poor unfrozen philosopher caveman is always so misunderstood.

No one can know if they're understood or not. All one can do is be logical.

The ideal life pursued by Elizabeth's mother was ultimately to be comfortable (get lazy and fat). So as soon as she strove for the ideal, she was in conflict with it.

Can you call that logical?

[Kelly Jones]

Elizabeth,



I make distinctions between the sexes in relation to their capacity for wisdom. In this respect, the psychological character of the sexes are vastly different. That is, their values, drives, and aspirations are different. This is the whole point of this thread.

It's not unreasoned misogyny, but misogyny based on valuing wisdom and the character most capable of wisdom. If one sex is typically more driven by irrational attachments, then it likely won't grow to become Truth-conscious to any noticeable extent. I'm postulating that the feminine mind is so.

"Woman" or "feminine" mean "unconscious of Truth" as i mentioned early in this thread. Conversely, "Man" and "masculine" means "conscious of Truth".

It may become clear that 99.9999999% of all humans (or more) are and have been unconscious of Truth. They are "all" Woman. However, whereas the number of biological females who express, or have expressed, conscious of Truth is so miserably small, that one can truthfully say femininity is an essential trait of unconsciousness of Truth, the number of biological males who express, or have expressed, conscious of Truth is proportionally much greater, that one can truthfully say masculinity is an essential trait of Truth-consciousness. So there is a noteworthy sexual character distinction.

Exposing all aspects of the feminine character is wise. The major aspect i'm focussing on is women's main drive to be the core interest in everyone's life. It is abusive, because it has no interest in Ultimate Truth, nor in encouraging anyone to cultivate such an interest above all others.




You wrote:

E: Out of hundreds of abused females I have interacted with, only 2 or 3 actually liked the abuse,

K: Did you really expect an abused female to say, "I love being the centre of attention, getting everyone's pity, and exploiting the identity of an abused, weak, helpless female." ?

E: There are a lot of women, even many of those who are professionals and thought of as the strong type, during their off hours like the "damsel in distress" fantasy - but they want to be coddled and taken care of - not abused. There are many ways of acting weak and helpless and getting emotional support from most people without actually being abused.

In this statement, you're defending the feminine trademark of emotional manipulation for its own sake. Do you not see its pointlessness and selfishness? That it's totally devoid of wisdom?

Do you or do you not see this as abuse?

K: Imagine a person who has learnt that being stressed and worried tends to distract others' attention. The motive for doing this may be to avoid solving problems intelligently.

E: There are plenty of people - both male and female - who use this manipulative tactic. I don't see your point.

There can be no logic in a mind that prefers emotional manipulation over solving problems intelligently, so it has no capacity for wisdom. Therefore, such a person is all Woman.

Feeding off emotional states, and approving of them in others, is self-inflicted injury, and also sadistic. It prefers to cloud the mind, and destroy all clarity of thought, in order to wallow in an abject, darkened corner of the mind.

K: Ultimately, it shows that any person who has a habit of being irrational, is abusing themselves and others.

E: Habitual irrationality is a cause of abuse of self and others. All that says is that the abuser is irrational - it does not indicate that women like to be abused.

The feminine mind is characterised by irrationality.

K: On the question of which sex is typically more conscious, and therefore more rational, and therefore more likely to feel victimised by emotional manipulation (abuse):

wouldn't it seem natural that females would have better control over femininity than males, which would be why males lose control under the influence of femininity, whereas females don't appear to need to gain control, yet they have control in ways men do not?

E: Mt quotation above was not to point out either gender being more conscious than the other.

Are you saying you've seen that all humans have exactly the same degree of consciousness, or that you've never experienced any distinction between males and females in the quality of their logic?

If you say either, you're clearly on another planet.

K: Yes, men lose it when they're under Woman's thumb. The soppiest example is the man who can't leave his mother alone, but feels he has to "look after the old girl". Really, he's just after a piece of her womb-enclosed mentality. If he can't get a taste, he's in a dire panic. Doom descends onto his head.

E: Obviously you have no concept of what it means to be responsible. If a parent is ill/elderly and unable to take full care of themselves, a responsible offspring who was in a position to help take care of the parent would do so.

There was no mention of sickness. In fact, elderly people who become sick often inflict it on themselves to get attention.

The point of my statement is that men are generally driven to achieve something, they don't feel they have anything worthy in themselves. So, they lack that deep egotism that women have.

K: Women never lose it, despite being even more under Woman's thumb. They've never experienced the possibility of living outside that "I'm absolutely right at base, everyone else is wrong" mind.

E: If you are exclusivly referring to the funky QRS definition of women here, okay.

Whatever that is, is superfluous. My statement's meaning is clear by itself.

K: If only females could "lose control" under the influence of femininity. It would be a sign they had the ability to control themselves and come under the influence of masculinity.

E: Losing control is never a sign of being able to control one's self.

Yes, it is. Loss of control means control can be lost. I'm essentially saying that women never budge an inch out of their domination/submission mentality. It's a life and death matter for them. If they questioned the whole egotistical dynamic, then there'd be a possibility of moving out of that mentality.

Biological males/men are typically just as sunken into the mire of ego. However, the very fact that they are more openly and directly abusive, and strive harder to dominate all threats, means that they lack the instinctive belief that "I'm absolutely right at base, everyone else is wrong/must serve me".

E: [My mother] was very QRS-feminine, yet also so QRS-masculine that she played every feminine charm...Ultimately she got almost everything she ever wanted....

K: Your mother had slight traces of masculinity, but was mostly feminine. There is no relationship between pursuing an ideal single-mindedly and desiring the ultimate feminine lifestyle.

E: Not even if achieving the ultimate feminine lifestyle is the ideal she persued single-mindedly?

Single-mindedness means one value alone. You equated the feminine lifestyle with getting lazy and fat, so it is logically impossible to pursue the feminine lifestyle. There are at least two values in conflict: being lazy, and achieving the means to be lazy.

The only ideal that can be pursued single-mindedly is Ultimate Truth, for two reasons. There is only one Ultimate Truth, and it can only be pursued rightly when single-minded about it.

K: Dan says that egotistical "relationships are abusive by default" - but this doesn't answer the original motive.

E: Although Dan is one of the brightest guys I know, quoting Dan is no substitute for thinking yourself. Although Dan is a very good thinker, Dan is not the ultimate authority on relationships.

Quotes can be corrected if they present a false or misleading statement. Or they can be used to illustrate a true statement more clearly.

Dan's explanation was misleading, because he defined egotistical relationships as those that make demands on one. This is not accurate, since Truth-consciousness makes huge demands on the ego, yet is not a relationship that cultivates egotism.

Truth-consciousness isn't an abusive love, in the sense that i've been defining "abusive", namely, "has no interest in Ultimate Truth, nor in encouraging anyone to cultivate such an interest above all others."

K: Over the last week, i've been wwoofing for a highly insecure, aggressive greenie. If i say something that questions his values, he flies into a loud and expressive rage. I'm still at his farm, because i succumbed to the belief that a rational person has to work hard.

E: Why is it "succumbed to the belief" rather than "was caused to decide?"

Ultimately they're the same thing, but my statement reveals specific causes, to those with eyes.

On your web page, you declared that you were totally unsuitable for work. It is fine that your circumstances have changed, but why do you consider this was not an act of thinking for yourself?

I am still totally unemployable, at least when i'm oriented to Truthfulness rather than comfort. My circumstances haven't changed. What i decide to do depends on where i need to focus. In this situation, the guy was not in the human realms, so i decided not to bother discussing my thoughts fully.

He concluded that my silent observation of cause and effect was compliance with his lifestyle. When i was tired one evening, he skillfully manipulated me into looking after his farm for a week. I'll leave in a few days.

And it is natural for most people to not react favorably to having their values questioned, especially when they have not expressed an openness to having their values challenged.

All the more reason to challenge them, if they're intelligent that is.

K: Ultimately, i think this is what egotistical relationships boil down to:

For men:
Prove you're competitive and reliable, and then you can be trusted with "xxxx" (big man status, [edit: one of the perks being getting a female]).

For women:
Prove you can emotionally manipulate a "big man", then you are worthy of being supported by him.

E: I guess we're back to the funky QRS definiton again.

No, just the realistic one.

K: Please define love,

E: In this context, I meant romantic love.

Is romantic love based on "emotional support", and "wanting to be coddled and taken care of"? Does it involve getting presents, chocolate, holidays and trips, dinner in a restaurant, seeing a movie? Does it involve sharing experiences, or solitude?

Which sex is more likely to like such things?

Who do you think is more likely to behave like a "damsel in distress" in their "hours off" - men or women?

Have you noticed that Mills & Boon type romantic novels are more popular with women or with men?

K: Love is attachment to something.

E: How are you defining "attachment" here?

Need plus emotion.

E: The type of attachment that one must give up to become wise is irrational attachment.

Or: something one needs but doesn't help in becoming wise.

E: A wise person could be said to be attached to wearing clothes to protect from skin cancer, reduce the transmission of germs, etc., or be attached enough to his health that he would go to the doctor if he noticed a tumor developing. Yet, if his clothing became unsuitable he would discard it and replace it if possible, and if the tumor turned out to be cancer that had metastasized, he would be okay with that as well, and simply do whatever he considered he ought to do for the next few months before he dies.

No, the wise man has no emotions in satisfying biological needs. He just reasons, because that's a natural function of consciousness. So there is no attachment, unless he becomes less wise.

K: [Love] is delusional. It's foolish, because wisdom is the rational understanding that things are ultimately not real.

E: Things do not inherently exist, but we still work within this non-inherently existing realm.

One can only "work within this non-inherently existing realm" if one abandons delusions, including love (attachment).

K: If love is more important than reasoning, then there's no way that wisdom can arise in the mind.

E: Exactly - which is why one must prioritorize such things as reasoning above love.

Faith in reason grows only as one's faith in the ego, which is attachment, wanes. The perfectly wise man has no ego, attachment, or love.

E: As long as sufficient rationality is used in a relationship, there is no abuse.

K: What is that? I've never heard of sufficient rationality. Whatever doesn't diminish feelings of pleasure?

E: Sufficient rationality would be more like as much rationality as one could manifest - which would be different from dryly logical (yet would still be highly logical, taking in the components of emotion and other aspects of the human condition [biological human]).

I disagree strongly. Emotion is a sign of attachment, meaning that any awareness of Ultimate Truth is down-graded. It matches the definition for abuse:

"has no interest in Ultimate Truth, nor in encouraging anyone to cultivate such an interest above all others"

E: Sufficient rationality would, as an example, tell a person that if the person they loved was physically injurious, threatening, manipulative, etc. then the rational person would not stay under such conditions.

Why love a person at all? Why not just encourage others to become wise, and love Truth above all other things?

But if there was adequate give and take, or if it boiled down to a matter of being responsible (a spouse getting into a car accident or in some other way becoming incapcitated, but being responsible would not put intolerable hardship on the other - [forgive me for over-shortening that, but delineating exactly where that line is would take another thread]), then the person would stay in the relationship.

I still don't see the point of being in an egotistical relationship with another human. Given the human population, and the lack of wise individuals, i see absolutely no need for a wise person to have children, or marry. Can you?

E:Ideally, it would always be a matter of acceptable amounts of give and take, and average out about equally, and result in a better life for both. "Sufficient" rationality indicates the sliding scale between ideal and practical application to find what is acceptable.

No normal human needs taking care of.

There are so many advantages to single life:

- no fussing
- no nagging
- wake and sleep when you like
- plans can be activated much more quickly
- freedom to explore thoughts at the drop of a hat
- don't need to earn more money
- no friends to bug you about staying in touch
- reduced chance of things going awry because of poor communication
- don't have to talk for weeks or months
- don't have to keep coordinating plans with others
- much less uncertainty about the place of ego-feeding

I could probably think of more, but i'm not used to couple-dom, so don't have contrasts to point to.

My best friends are my thoughts. My life is always better when it's oriented purely to the relationship with Truth.

E: S&M is a totally different thing, and it is not abuse.

K: Here is a picture of the hell realms, that could be captioned: "sadism and masochism".

E: I think you missed the difference between the hell realms and diversity of what people find pleasurable.

Pleasure and hell are two sides of the same coin: empowering the ego. The wise starve the ego.

E: Not every body is created the same, so not everyone experiences the same sensations as a result of the same stimuli.

Everyone experiences empowering of the ego when stimulated by thoughts based on the belief that Reality has form.

E: For another example, in one of David Q's writings, he stated that a hug is painful to him. Most people do not experience pain from a hug - some may get pleasure, others may get comfort, and others may get nothing at all from it.

I'd be surprised if David is talking about physical pain. It is more psychological revulsion. I am the same. A hug expresses the abusive mentality of one who hates Reality. It is like a slap in the face, or trying to rip out my core.

People just experience life differently, and we can not assume that what we find painful would be painful to someone else, nor can we assume that what we find pleasurable would be pleasurable to anyone else. A hug to David might feel to him like being scalded would feel to me, and someone into S&M might experience having hot wax dripped on them like I might experience a dog leaning against my leg. Two people could go through exactly the same "experience" yet have two totally different "experiences."

Yes, i can assume that the entire dynamic of pain and pleasure comes from attachment, and is applicable to all unenlightened humans. It is fundamentally abusive.

If two people are enlightened, then both will know and identify exactly the same Truth-consciousness, as well as the psychological drives, values, and aspirations that help to generate it. They will both experience females, as they are on planet earth, as having next-to-nil capacity for Truth-consciousness, for instance. And both will have some psychological revulsion towards females.



Kelly

[Kelly Jones]

Some more pictures:

Egotistical relationships

The mind of attachment

Emotional need

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Kelly,

There are a number of misunderstandings in your above post, but in order to try to improve clarity, I will only address one point at a time. I will address this one now, and the other points at later dates, after the first point has had an opportunity to be clarified.

You wrote:

E: Out of hundreds of abused females I have interacted with, only 2 or 3 actually liked the abuse,

K: Did you really expect an abused female to say, "I love being the centre of attention, getting everyone's pity, and exploiting the identity of an abused, weak, helpless female." ?

E: There are a lot of women, even many of those who are professionals and thought of as the strong type, during their off hours like the "damsel in distress" fantasy - but they want to be coddled and taken care of - not abused. There are many ways of acting weak and helpless and getting emotional support from most people without actually being abused.

In this statement, you're defending the feminine trademark of emotional manipulation for its own sake. Do you not see its pointlessness and selfishness? That it's totally devoid of wisdom?

You have totally misunderstood this. ***edit-and by the way, your "quotation" left out some parts of my statement that make the "quote" misleading*** I was not defending "the feminine trademark of emotional manipulation for its own sake." Let me paraphrase and simplify the interaction as I understood it.

Kelly (paraphrased): Do you expect people to confess an embarrassing truth?

Elizabeth (paraphrased): Yes. Here's the evidence.

This does not defend the illogical stance of females who want to play "damsel in distress" - it only indicates their willingness to be truthful to me about it.
.

[Kelly Jones]

Elizabeth,

Let me paraphrase and simplify the interaction as I understood it.

Kelly (paraphrased): Do you expect people to confess an embarrassing truth?

Elizabeth (paraphrased): Yes. Here's the evidence.

This does not defend the illogical stance of females who want to play "damsel in distress" - it only indicates their willingness to be truthful to me about it.

Have they indicated their willingness to stop being emotionally manipulative? This is the entire point.

Also, do you mind telling us how you interacted with these "abused" women, e.g. if in person, did you smile, touch, nod understandingly, give hugs, mention how important it is to be happy and to have emotional support? Or, if by writing, did you start with "Dear so-and-so", and sign off with "hugs" or "looking forward to hearing from you"? Any of this strike you as being emotionally manipulative - and supporting emotional manipulation?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Have they indicated their willingness to stop being emotionally manipulative? This is the entire point.

Also, do you mind telling us how you interacted with these "abused" women,...?

You're still not differentiating well - that's why I took this to one subject at a time.

My previous post was to clarify the point of the accuracy of my data (people are willing to tell me the truth even if it is embarrassing). From that, you are trying to blend two topics that need to be differentiated from each other.

Who do you want me to explain about my interactions with?
(choose from the following)

1. abused women
2. women who like to play "damsel in distress"
.

[Kelly Jones]

It makes no difference to me. I bundle them altogether because there is no difference between a person who has a habit of self-injuring physically and one who self-injures psychologically.

Did any of them admit to being willing to stop abusing or emotionally manipulating themselves and others?

What was your conduct towards them?

-------

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kelly Jones wrote:

A man with even the slightest degree of wisdom, knows that power is a delusion. He'll probably just feel sad for the female, and less sad the wiser he is.

Kelly, you must understand that the sexuality of males functions much differently than females, you assume your subjective experience is universal. Males are affected much differently by the opposite sex than females.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Not even solitude will prevent lust. Only a conscious decision to abandon what is hurting one's mind, will begin to prevent it.

It’s not that simple for young males I’m afraid. Male sexuality at its peek is like a ragging hurricane. you know I read somewhere that the typical male between 18-25 spends more on trying to secure sexual security than on actual food.

Kelly Jones wrote:

I very much doubt this evidence. God-consciousness is not an altered state of consciousness.

Generally speaking, God-consciousness isn’t something that feels spectacular or extraordinary, however there are rare moments when the body is incredibly sensitive that one gets a glimpse into how God-consciousness operates with less limitation, and it feels much more intense. I dont believe this is an altered state. An altered state implies a chemically induced change in the brain as experienced with drugs, however the heightened state I'm refering to an actual increase in the intensity of consciousness experienced in the body/brain, which feels overwhelming to the organism.

However, most of the time there is too much discontent, aniexty, or I'm too busy occupying myself with things to feel the depth of that state. Plus it takes alot of energy, I usually fall asleep trying to be attentive before it happens.

The unconscious throws up random thoughts, which tires the brain and one falls asleep.