Poison for the Heart - and Women

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Women are unconscious in the same way that children are unconscious. Yes, there is a degree of consciousness happening. There is awareness of the emotions, of desires, of particular kinds of social realities, of the self to a certain extent. But there is little or no awareness of anything larger than this. No awareness of the bigger picture.

Okay let's test this.

Elizabeth, let's suppose that you are a woman.

If someone is stopping you from getting a sandwich, you are aware that you are mad (emotion), you are aware that you want a sandwich (desire), you are aware that someone is preventing you from getting this sandwich (social reality), and that it's you that wants this sandwich (self). David does not doubt this much. He agrees that female consciousness extends this far, and even grants that there might be a little bit of awareness of something larger than this.

However, he says that there is no awareness of the bigger picture. If this is the case, then you, as the sandwich-deprived woman in this story, should not be able to answer this question: what is the bigger picture?

So, Elizabeth, what is the bigger picture? :)

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

What women don't like to admit is their ordinary need to be controlled.

The masses do need some controls put on them, as there are actually very few truly mature adults fully capable of controlling themselves without any outside influence; but to the degree that one can properly control one's self, one should be allowed that much freedom or else it stunts their ability to grow into a wiser state.

Women go around talking about equal rights, but give their pussy exactly to the guys who disregard them. They can't help it.

That's exactly the "logic" of rapists.

No mature adult needs to be controlled, and attempting to control someone just out of an internal perceived need to control others is abusive to the others, and immature of the individual.

This is absolutely beautiful chick logic. The translation is: "Please forget that I'm a selfish little girl that needs and actually craves to be controlled, so that instead I can control YOU."

And this is pure male chauvinist pig logic. The translation is: "I don't give a damn how much sense your words make, I've made up my mind that because you are female, you are a piece of shit that deserves to be treated like scum. I won't believe you are ever telling the truth because I have already decided what you are thinking, and I'm sure that I know your mind better than you do." It matches very well with your rapist logic, and it is because of people like you and how you interpret the Woman philosophy that I fight so hard.

David, Dan, and Kevin - skipair is an example of the kind of guy with the kind of misinterpretation that I'm raising all these warning flags about.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

If this is the case, then you, as the sandwich-deprived woman in this story, should not be able to answer this question: what is the bigger picture?

So, Elizabeth, what is the bigger picture? :)

The bigger picture is the issue of autonomy.

I, as an individual with a mind capable of sorting out all the relevant information, am better able to determine whether or not it is appropriate for me to have a sandwich than an outside person who could not possibly know for a fact how hungry or not I, as an individual, am, or what my specific nutritional needs are. The arbitrary say-so of another individual is more likely to meet the needs of the outside other with disregard for the person under his control. Being forced to remain under the arbitrary control of the other reduces the ability of the individual to be an individual rather than some kind of extension of the controller. Ironically then, the controller uses the results of his abuse of authority as evidence that the other should be controlled - saying she is not a whole person.

The picture actually gets much bigger than this, but I consider it sufficient for the story at hand. Of course, some people will use my relevant stopping point as evidence that this is as big of a picture that a woman can see...

[Matt Gregory]

Trevor wrote:

Okay let's test this.

Elizabeth, let's suppose that you are a woman.

If someone is stopping you from getting a sandwich, you are aware that you are mad (emotion), you are aware that you want a sandwich (desire), you are aware that someone is preventing you from getting this sandwich (social reality), and that it's you that wants this sandwich (self). David does not doubt this much. He agrees that female consciousness extends this far, and even grants that there might be a little bit of awareness of something larger than this.

However, he says that there is no awareness of the bigger picture. If this is the case, then you, as the sandwich-deprived woman in this story, should not be able to answer this question: what is the bigger picture?

So, Elizabeth, what is the bigger picture? :)

Anyone can think in the shoebox that an academic problem provides, that's no challenge.

[Shardrol]

What women don't like to admit is their ordinary need to be controlled. And this can be seen by her purely selfish behavior regarding the "beta males" of her public social group, and her secret respect for the "alpha males" that fuck her in private. Women go around talking about equal rights, but give their pussy exactly to the guys who disregard them. They can't help it.

Would you say then that a woman's attempt to control a man is usually a test to see if this particular man is viable mating material?

If it's true that female sexual behavior is mostly dominated by animal instincts such as this do you see that as different from the way in which male sexual behavior is dominated by [different] animal instincts?

It's true that men who understand the dynamic can exploit this biological attraction women seem to have to alpha males, but isn't it also true that women who understand the biological attraction mechanism of men can exploit that? For example by dyeing their hair blond, removing body hair, wearing revealing clothing, etc.

The difference I see is that men are manipulating women in order to get sex while women are manipulating men in order to get 'relationship', i.e. a situation where children will be reliably cared for. However, I've always had the idea that knowledge is power & that people who come to understand their own biological predilections can use their evolutionarily endowed cerebral cortex to transcend these limitations. Or do you think the lizard brain rules for all time?

[skipair]

S: What women don't like to admit is their ordinary need to be controlled.

EI: The masses do need some controls put on them, as there are actually very few truly mature adults fully capable of controlling themselves without any outside influence; but to the degree that one can properly control one's self, one should be allowed that much freedom or else it stunts their ability to grow into a wiser state.

I'm talking specifically about the psycho-biological interaction of a man and a woman - indeed every man and every woman. It is instinctual for a woman to attempt to get power and control over men from the very first second of interaction. You might not be aware of this and that is OK - most people arent. If she does not succeed in this instinctual attempt because of counter-manipulation from the man, it makes her subconsciously horny - her primary emotional addiction.

It is only a matter of what political climate the woman was brought up in as to how she handles this fact. In traditional cultures or traditional families in modern culture, women will appreciate these men because they meet her need for safety. Most modern women, however, will only keep these men as private side ventures, or in the case of a long term relationship will fight him for power, and either end it or do something to make the man end it. She is scared for all the political reasons involved to submit to the power that takes hold of her - even though its pleasurable, it gives her anxiety.

S: Women go around talking about equal rights, but give their pussy exactly to the guys who disregard them. They can't help it.

EI: That's exactly the "logic" of rapists.

Rapists take what they aren't given. Women freely give themselves to the men who make them horny, and it just so happens those men lead women and don't follow women.

EI: No mature adult needs to be controlled, and attempting to control someone just out of an internal perceived need to control others is abusive to the others, and immature of the individual.

S: This is absolutely beautiful chick logic. The translation is: "Please forget that I'm a selfish little girl that needs and actually craves to be controlled, so that instead I can control YOU."

EI: And this is pure male chauvinist pig logic. The translation is: "I don't give a damn how much sense your words make, I've made up my mind that because you are female, you are a piece of shit that deserves to be treated like scum. I won't believe you are ever telling the truth because I have already decided what you are thinking, and I'm sure that I know your mind better than you do."

Elizabeth, I actually respect you quite a lot. There aren't a lot of women who are smart enough or confident enough to make all the points you are making - especially on a forum predominantly for and about men. You are very witty and clever, and you remind me a lot of my closest female friends. It is not my intent to treat you like scum and I don't think you're a piece of shit. I do like to play around sometimes, but thats usually just me being silly and I mean no disrespect. As you can see I do have some observations that you may not agree with, but again I have them only with full respect for you and all people. I'm very conscious to not unjustly belittle anyone, but I will call it as I see it. Best to you.

EI: It matches very well with your rapist logic, and it is because of people like you and how you interpret the Woman philosophy that I fight so hard.

David, Dan, and Kevin - skipair is an example of the kind of guy with the kind of misinterpretation that I'm raising all these warning flags about.

I came to these ideas before I found this site or read the literative here about women. This is not a small, confined "QRS" philosophy. It is well known by many men and women through the world right now, and has been throughout time.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Matt,

Anyone can think in the shoebox that an academic problem provides, that's no challenge.

Hmmm... so if the problem were a real-life problem, she would be incapable of resolving it?

[skipair]

Hi Shardrol, good to hear from you.

What women don't like to admit is their ordinary need to be controlled. And this can be seen by her purely selfish behavior regarding the "beta males" of her public social group, and her secret respect for the "alpha males" that fuck her in private. Women go around talking about equal rights, but give their pussy exactly to the guys who disregard them. They can't help it.

Would you say then that a woman's attempt to control a man is usually a test to see if this particular man is viable mating material?

Yes.

If it's true that female sexual behavior is mostly dominated by animal instincts such as this do you see that as different from the way in which male sexual behavior is dominated by [different] animal instincts?

No.

It's true that men who understand the dynamic can exploit this biological attraction women seem to have to alpha males, but isn't it also true that women who understand the biological attraction mechanism of men can exploit that? For example by dyeing their hair blond, removing body hair, wearing revealing clothing, etc.

Women act on the man's attraction mechanism innately. When she is attrated to a man, she will spend time feeling her emotional investment get stronger. "Does he like me? Maybe he doesn't like me. I think I caught him looking at my legs...I'm going to wear a skirt next time, or should I purposely wear pants and make him wonder? Susan likes him too. That bitch. Does he like Susan? She has bigger boobs than me - did he look? God I don't know what to do!!!"

What she doesn't realize is that she is already doing what the guy likes: being an emotional feminine woman. It is her own natural femininity that is ultimately attractive - it is what reminds a guy he's fucking a girl and not another guy. Whatever she "consciously tries to do" to seduce him, whether it be wearing a short skirt or trying to make him jealous with another guy, does get some effect, but ultimately is trivial compared to whether she exudes femininity from her core. The more she conscoiusly thinks "how do I scientifically flip his attraction switch?", the more masculine and unnattractive she becomes. It is her submissive sexual and nurturing love that represents the perfect female archetype for a man - and that comes along with her unconsciousness.

The male archetype that flips the female attraction switch is rooted in her opposite: consciousness. So while his attraction for her is still ruled by sexual instincts, he is consciously aware of these instincts, and by acts of will can make choices when and how to act on them. Masculine females can do the same thing to a degree, but when confronted with an even more masculine man the attraction gap is reastablished, and it pushed her back into the Yin.

The difference I see is that men are manipulating women in order to get sex while women are manipulating men in order to get 'relationship', i.e. a situation where children will be reliably cared for.

I (mostly) agree.

However, I've always had the idea that knowledge is power & that people who come to understand their own biological predilections can use their evolutionarily endowed cerebral cortex to transcend these limitations. Or do you think the lizard brain rules for all time?

I think you're right, and it is all a matter of how much emotionality one is willing to give up. The very tricky part of a lady then, if she wants to be a very good playette, is to appropriately "act" feminine, loving, and emotional when in reality she is very much in control. Of course, they will never find satisfaction in their natural femininity is thats the road they take.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Women freely give themselves to the men who make them horny, and it just so happens those men lead women and don't follow women.

Yes, it is more common for women to be attracted to leader types, and men tend to be more attracted to helpless types (and then complain about her when they get her). That is different from how I interpreted what you wrote earlier:

This is absolutely beautiful chick logic. The translation is: "Please forget that I'm a selfish little girl that needs and actually craves to be controlled,

...

Women go around talking about equal rights, but give their pussy exactly to the guys who disregard them. They can't help it.

The scenario I read into that was a female saying no, the male disregarding the no and telling her that she craves it but wants it forced on her so she can be a good girl, because good little girls say no. Maybe physically intimidate her some more to get her to verbally agree that this is what she really meant and voila - you have a girl "giving" it to a man who disregarded her. Of course, she couldn't help it.

[skipair]

Yes, it is more common for women to be attracted to leader types

Yes, this is the foundation of what I'm talking about. (It is amazing to see how finding the right word can make all the difference, even though control, manipulate, influence and lead ultimately all point to the same thing.) What many don't realize is that everything about female behavior can connect to this universal fact. I say "universal" not from a guess or wishful thinking, but from evidence piled up miles high. Deep down what women mean by Democracy is "You lead/I follow", and what seems to be an ironical statement in this modern day and age is that this dynamic is where men and women are most happy.

To bring this full circle, feminism as its "practiced" today is a complicated but ultimately shallow and surface philosophy. It is an unconscious manipulation tool women use to both "beta-ize" the alpha male into keeping him and to screen for beta males she can control. If she was actually a femininist she wouldn't get aroused and fuck the men who empowered her femininity and disregarded her logic. But then, of course, she would be a man and not a woman.

When it comes to relationships women have no sense of honor or fairness. They will put the man to choose between keeping his balls and castration - this is a hard fact of reality. It is also this very process that separates the men from the boys, and the sexually and emotionallly satisfied woman from an anxious and depressed one. Doesn't matter what she says, she wants to be directed - and its a matter of politics how she structures that into her life.

[Imadrongo]

I think skipair has some great insights here.

Elizabeth what's so inherently wrong with rapists and controlling women? Wasn't this the rule before Christianity and morality arrived? Didn't the winners previously rape the woman and then murder the women and children? Didn't the fathers sell their daughters to their future husbands? Isn't this all part of "Nature"?

[skipair]

Neil, thanks. Credit for these ideas need to go to people who came before me. I'm just a certified messenger.

Also my view on rape: Many women actually have rape fantasies, not proving they necessarily want to be raped, but reflecting their desire to feel power from a man. This whole philosophy I'm presenting centers around the feeling of pleasure. A man feels pleasure to have a woman submit to his will, just as a woman feels pleasure in her submission. More specifically, a woman feels pleasure in the man giving her an emotional high, and then having him take it away. There is a reason why shows like Grey's Anatomy are so succesful - they come on only once a week with lots of intense drama, and then poof - gone for a full 7 days. This is exactly what a woman wants in a man. Some women do like to be raped as part of the her need for emotional intensity, but these woman have a very high level of emotional masochism due to their low self esteem. These girls are actually more common then one might think, and that is why the most important thing for a guy is to select mates on behavior that reflect values that align with their own.

[David Quinn]

Elizabeth,

David, Dan, and Kevin - skipair is an example of the kind of guy with the kind of misinterpretation that I'm raising all these warning flags about.

I think he offers a lot of valuable insight into sexual dynamics. I enjoy reading his posts very much.

In a sense, he is simply stating the obvious. But it often takes great insight to discern the obvious, particularly in a society which is structured around denying the obvious. Skipair is simply bringing to the surface what most people already know deep down.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

It is amazing to see how finding the right word can make all the difference, even though control, manipulate, influence and lead ultimately all point to the same thing.

No, there is a world of difference between "manipulate" and "lead" and the other terms as well. Having a good grip on the meaning of the terms you use is fundamental to communicating your ideas. This is the crux of the problem with the "woman=unconsciousness" philosophy.

Elizabeth what's so inherently wrong with rapists and controlling women? Wasn't this the rule before Christianity and morality arrived? Didn't the winners previously rape the woman and then murder the women and children? Didn't the fathers sell their daughters to their future husbands? Isn't this all part of "Nature"?

Just because something was done in the past does not make it the optimal way to do things. Manipulating and controlling others for the pleasure of one with the disregard for the welfare of the other - such as in rape - does not lead to the greater good.

Such things are part of Nature, but it is also part of Nature for humans to try to make things better. Causing psychological damage or not allowing others to reach their full potential ultimately costs us all a better life.

[Imadrongo]

Just because something was done in the past does not make it the optimal way to do things. Manipulating and controlling others for the pleasure of one with the disregard for the welfare of the other - such as in rape - does not lead to the greater good.

Your problem is that you are still hooked on morality. There is no "the greater good".

Such things are part of Nature, but it is also part of Nature for humans to try to make things better. Causing psychological damage or not allowing others to reach their full potential ultimately costs us all a better life.

There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin.
1) It has only been part of Nature for humans to make things "better" since Christianity and morality wormed its way into us.
2) Life is necessarily in competition. For you to reach your own full potential you are already not allowing others to reach theirs. If you take all the sunlight the trees below you won't be as well off.
3) There is no reason why we should care about helping others reach their potential. It does not cost us a better life if others don't have one. In fact it costs us our full potential if we sacrifice ourselves for others.

[Jamesh]

I think he offers a lot of valuable insight into sexual dynamics. I enjoy reading his posts very much.

Because they are tainted with the same over-the-top bias that you adhere to. He is saying stuff as if it applied to 90% of women, when it no longer does. More like 50% nowadays.

For example

When it comes to relationships women have no sense of honor or fairness.

Like, as if there was not a reason for this. Just about every young male I know would be out aimlessly drinking, smoking dope constantly and fucking around if they were not pushed by females to be responsible (the Australian aborigines and american negroes are a prime example of this). Naturally you don't accept that males most of the time are selfish cunts, with LESS honour or fairness than females.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Jamesh,

Just about every young male I know would be out aimlessly drinking, smoking dope constantly and fucking around if they were not pushed by females to be responsible (the Australian aborigines and american negroes are a prime example of this). Naturally you don't accept that males most of the time are selfish cunts, with LESS honour or fairness than females.

Most of the men I think interesting enough to observe have this strange habit of heading to town to cheat on their girlfriends while simultaneously worrying that their devoted girlfriend might be cheating on them.

One recently was asked by his girlfriend (who he has 2 kids with) if they were "over". He said, "sure", she tried to hook up with another man, failed, and came back to him for a continuation of the relationship. He called her a whore despite the fact that he had slept with at least one girl in the meantime, and then took her back. Confucius would have something to say about the company I keep, but personally I find such antics less depressing than hanging out with university students who are already married.

[David Quinn]

James wrote:

DQ: I think he offers a lot of valuable insight into sexual dynamics. I enjoy reading his posts very much.

James: Because they are tainted with the same over-the-top bias that you adhere to. He is saying stuff as if it applied to 90% of women, when it no longer does. More like 50% nowadays.

I think you might have a mental block there. It applies to 99.9% of them easily. The sorts of things that Skip is talking about are very primal. A 100 years of paper-thin feminism has done little to change the situation.

Skip: When it comes to relationships women have no sense of honor or fairness.

James: Like, as if there was not a reason for this. Just about every young male I know would be out aimlessly drinking, smoking dope constantly and fucking around if they were not pushed by females to be responsible (the Australian aborigines and american negroes are a prime example of this). Naturally you don't accept that males most of the time are selfish cunts, with LESS honour or fairness than females.

Men are very selfish, no question of it. But the example you give here is simply females wanting their men to get off their bums and become good, effective slaves so that they (the females) can be looked after better. It has nothing to do with honour or fairness.

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

David Quinn wrote:

In a sense, he is simply stating the obvious. But it often takes great insight to discern the obvious.

I agree, Skipair’s observations simply reflect women’s universal animalistic tendencies. And Elizabeth is merely reacting personally to them, as she has done previously.

Expanding on Skipair's statements - One observation I have noticed from many women is that they have developed a sort of dichotomy in their minds in terms of the two primary qualities they are attracted to in men. On the one hand they want the 'nice', 'outgoing', secure, comfortable, predictable provider that will protect them, and always be there for reliable support, but on the other hand she wants the confident alpha-male that will cause drama, have his way with her aggressively, overstep his limits, and treat her like crap. Usually women try to probe their ‘nice guy’ to see if he’s capable of a bit of emotional banter as a means to try to emulate some of the typical emotional affects of the alpha-male, but when that gets old, she’ll resort to materialistic types of manipulation to get her husband to work harder as a means to accumulate more possessions to temporally alleviate her discontent. Meanwhile, though, she still wants the emotional sexual games, so her boredom sometimes reaches the point where she looks outside the marriage to get what she wants.

David is right, a husband is merely a slave for women to provide for her children, and keep her feeling secure, purposeful and emotionally entertained. But most husbands fail in their attempts to keep women happy because by her very nature, she is divided, insatiable, incoherent, and can never be fully satisfied.

It is no consequences that large numbers of old widowed women die resentful, hateful, still believing that they didn’t get what they deserved out of life, and from their husbands.

Some of the radical feminists wanted women to renounce her role as 'mother' and 'wife' altogether, which would more align them with the spiritual path, and not the worldly path, but most women don’t have the hearts for such a life.

That was the original idea behind the nunnery, but there is very little wisdom left in the institution, if there was any wisdom there at all.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Your problem is that you are still hooked on morality.

So either I am an amoral female, too unconscious to even be aware of morality, or I am too hooked on morality.

1) It has only been part of Nature for humans to make things "better" since Christianity and morality wormed its way into us.
2) Life is necessarily in competition. For you to reach your own full potential you are already not allowing others to reach theirs. If you take all the sunlight the trees below you won't be as well off.
3) There is no reason why we should care about helping others reach their potential. It does not cost us a better life if others don't have one. In fact it costs us our full potential if we sacrifice ourselves for others.

If there truly is no better or worse, no greater good, then there necessarily is no wisdom, no such thing as good judgment, no reason for anyone to strive to be anything other than a raccoon.

women’s universal animalistic tendencies.

Universal. As in 100%. Men are as much animalistic as women, and in more overtly violent ways.

Elizabeth is merely reacting personally to them, as she has done previously.

Maybe I should go join a feminist group. I can certainly see the attraction to them.

[skipair]

Ryan, really good points. What you are describing is what has become known as the Lover/Provider dynamic. In their souls they need the Lover, but to solidify her socio-economic class she needs the Provider. Most women are gold diggers and most men basically "buy" their marriage. Its much harder to be the Lover, and harder still to be both. Most women don't think the Lover/Provider exists, but that is her ultimate Prince fantasy...indeed it is extremely rare, and so every women grapples with this confusion.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Elizabeth wrote:

Universal. As in 100%. Men are as much animalistic as women, and in more overtly violent ways.

We criticize men’s shortcomings on GF all the time. For instance: men are violent because they blindly possess, please, and work to capture the attention of women by being in competition with other men. A women’s shortcomings are very important to emphasize because the world will only change if men cease viewing women as worthy of such self-sacrifice, denial of truth, and the vulgar submission into the blind animalistic institution of marriage, where her blind will reins supreme over his.

It is no consequence that men are obsessed with how they are to be useful because women are just as obsessed with how their man is to be useful. She devotes herself to him, only as a means to be given the right to control, use, and manipulate him for her own offspring-centered demands, but when she gets bored with the whole thing, she desires an alpha male to come in to overpower her aggressively, tease her, tempt her, and cause a ruckus in her mind.

Those are the two extremes that she operates on.

[Dan Rowden]

Other than those rare husbands who happen to have wives with stable and predictable personalities the general male experience is that of never knowing what the hell to expect - or what kind of man to be. In some ways men are simple creatures. They are mostly predictable. In relationships men are constantly made to feel inadequate or uncaring because they are not meeting - or worse still, predicting a woman's needs and desires. The fact that she can't predict them either is something only nasty men-folk like me ever raise. This is one area where men exist in constant conflict about their partners. They love her, yet hate her inconsistencies and endless needs. Their love remains only to the degree that the woman manages to maintain her connection to his idealised "woman". When a woman becomes comfortable in a relationship her natural tendency to live to this ideal fades.

The flip side for the woman is a man whose blind devotion and focussed attention has slipped away. Should their relationship not have developed certain comfortable habits - enveloped in a reasonable measure of security and material comfort - that more or less replace these dynamics, their relationship is doomed. One of the funniest, and yet disturbing things about watching couples who have been together 10 years or so is the the totally formulaic nature of their dialogues. It's like they're on auto-pilot spitting out scripts they've learned. This is how habit and routine overcomes romance entropy.

[Jamesh]

We criticize men’s shortcomings on GF all the time.

Rubbish. Apart from maybe Elizabeth, we just briefly touch on it. It is not ever really examined in great detail. The QRS don't want to talk about it, they just offer the same old "yeah sure, we accept that, but..." one liners, and immediately go back to throwing all the blame on woman.

Personally, I would detest a world where women were not feminine. I don't desire it at all, though I do desire the limitations of femininty to be recognised, and I don't want them in control.

Talk about fucking total boredom - and blokes would start killing each other left right and centre. There would be no other game in town but the Power game. If you think the human world is ready for the QRS stuff, that what they teach is any kind of workable answer for the masses, you are living in an irrational dreamworld, as most of the guys here clearly are.

Everything we do here is of no more importance to the elephant that is society than a flea on it's back. It will only become important, if someone from this site, who is only partly sage-developed, and retains a significant or an enhanced ego, and who goes on to become a politican dictator type - which is likely to have negative outcomes. There is of course some chance that in the future, well after the deaths of the QRS, when the current unsustainable materialism really bites back hard, that their philosophy will come into it's time.

[Matt Gregory]

I think philosophers create such a shock that they cause whole societies to become feminine. Look at post-Buddha India and post-Lao Tsu and Ch'an China.