David,
There would be no reason to engage in seduction in the first place if you weren't getting any happiness out of it, and the type of happiness generated by the seduction of women is always ego-boosting in nature.
I think you and Diebert have helped me see this is probably true to some extent, though I'll need to take more time to see how much. What I'm wondering now is whether or not it is a necessary evil in order to continue the species.
The ability to conquer women is the main proof of a man's worth, at least in the seducer's eyes.
I'm not sure about "main" proof. As I mentioned earlier a man's personal mission must give him more worth than the woman for a seduction to be successful. She can't be his #1. What does a buddha think about his own worth?
It's as though the seducer constantly has to prove himself as a "man" - which is a sure sign of insecurity and low self-esteem.
If you're going to spend time with a woman, of course she will always be testing to see whether or not she has a "man" to keep her safe and not another emotional woman. This is the nature of women...whats a guy to do? Proving he is a man doesn't mean HE needs it for himself...he could do just find without it...but she absolutely must test her future for safety. Biological mechanism. A guy can either suck it up and learn how to deal with it, or not and get owned, or go into isolation and not make babies.
At the very least, the need to keep seducing indicates that the seducer is still very much spell-bound by woman, that she still remains an uncontrollable force ruling his life, which is why he constantly feels a need to dominate and conquer her.
A male living in modern society means, in many respects, to be living in a woman's world. Almost every man I see is manipulated by them in some way or another. Short of every man leaving society for the woods, desert, ice caps or wherever, the only real means of freeing himself from her manipulation is counter-manipulation.
The seducer thinks that he is a king dominating women. In reality, he is the one who is being dominated and his desire to seduce is a reaction to that.
I agree if you mean dominated (partially) by his own ego and not her. Given this discussion I see three options for the human race:
1) Women continue to manipulate men, world continues unethically.
2) Men learn how to manipulate women, men have a chance to rid much of ego except with women, world radically changes to very ethical.
3) Men abandon women, lose all ego, are 100% ethical, human race dies off.
We still live in a world where a power balance exists. In every interaction, someone leads, and someone follows. With women it is conquer or be conquered. When sex is invovled there is no middle ground. No sex...no children...no society.
What is your vision of the future?
S: bullshit nutures women.
DQ: It certainly nurtures her sexuality and her sense of what it means to be a woman. But what about encouraging her to rise above being a woman, to value reason and truth and lead a more noble life? How does bullshitting her work in that regard?
Nothing I say to a woman will ever change the fact that she ultimately (biologically) doesn't give a shit about reason or truth. She might behave well because its in her best interest at the time, but not because she values logic...she simply doesn't want to lose the man that rocks her emotional world so hard - he only happens to lead her into what he considers proper.
DQ: That's an interesting point. Yes, I can see how the mix of the very feminine and the very sexual can be intoxicating. The very feminine embodies youth, purity, innocence, childlikeness, a lack of boundaries, etc. When you mix that together with sexual adventurism, everything gets heightened. There seems to be no limit to what could happen. There is a sense that all taboos could be swept aside. Sexual desire can go through the roof in the face of such a prospect.
No doubt it is the same intoxication that pedophiles experience in the presence of young flirtatious teenage girls, and probably explains why they find it so difficult to give pedophilia up.
You might be right but I don't see the value in pedophilia comparison.
S: At root attraction is not a choice - it is biologically trigged.
DQ: There is certainly a biological element involved, but I think most of it is psychological.
Given that your point mostly revolves around ego I can see why you'd think this, but still highly doubt it is
mostly psychological, especially for men. For millions of years fish have mated without a psychological landscape...as well as most other animals. Sometimes animals even "sex" plants. Now, all of a sudden, humans come along with a free will so strong that it throws millions of years of evolution out the window, and attraction is now suddenly mostly psychological. Very unlikely. Free will always works within the frame its given, and while the frame is now wider, it is still just as framed.
For example, another reason why the very feminine and sexual woman has such an allure to the seducer is because she has the magical ability to take him back to childhood. Most of us have strong erotic moments when we are very young, even going as far back as kindergarten. These moments aren't really sexual in a physical sense, but they do embody strong emotional feelings to do with leaving with the male world behind and merging with "woman". All women can reawaken those feelings to some extent, but a sexual, feminine woman can do it much more intensely.
Very interesting psychological insight, and you may be right. The problem with statements like this is that they can't be proven, and therefore don't really have any application other than theoretical conjecture.
Also, because she is an adventurer and willingly takes the initiative in sexual matters, she relieves the burden of responsibility and guilt that nearly all men constantly have to bear up under, which further intensifies the illusion of going back into childhood. She is able to take him out of his adult male mentality.
I wouldn't go so far as to say SHE takes the initiative - very unlikely for the feminine. She still needs to be lead into sex and will likely put up lots of resistence along the way (which she hopes you'll ignore, just like every woman). Their value as sexual creatures is ultimately their passion WHILE fucking - the release of their uninhibited raw primitive animal slut. Sure, the chase is psychologically invigorating probably for many reasons, but it is not necessary for the guy to have pleasure. Most guys would be perfectly happy with a world where they could focus on their own business the majority of the time, and every once in a while walk through town, see a woman, fuck her right there, and then go back to business and never see her again. A woman on the other hand requires all the emotions because they are her means to provide for herself safety in the world with men.
Guys get off watching porn, women get off reading romance novels.
Added to this, her very feminine nature, which seems to express purity and godliness, acts as a kind of moral authority which is approving of the seducer's values and lifestyle. In effect, he is getting permission from woman, from mother, to continue leading his manipulative lifestyle. All of his sins are suddenly forgiven, as it were - which, for the seducer, invariably works as a powerful aphrodisiac.
This might play a small role, but you have to admit...all a guy has to do is see a tight ass, sniff up some pheromones, imagine a moan, and BAM! He's ready.
Moreover, the very feminine, sexual woman is so much harder to dominate and control than the average woman. She seems to follow her own inner path, flowing freely outside the normal adult structures, like a force unto herself.
In a sense I agree because to the normal man she is almost incomprehensible. To skillled seducers who are used to it, I think they find their flexible femininity to be the very thing that makes them easy to dominate. The more masculine a woman gets, the more she fights to take the lead - and who wants that when there could be good sex instead?
To capture and dominate her, at least for a time, would be a major scalp, one that would give the insecure ego of the seducer a major boost.
Again, I can't deny ego probably plays some part, but will think longer about how much. Thank you for introducing this idea to me.
So this is why the very feminine and sexual woman is so much more alluring than the average, run-of-the-mill beautiful woman. The seducer doesn't have to engage in the boring adult rituals and game-playing that he normally has to do. Instead he is transported almost instantaneously to that magical realm of uninhibited sexuality.
The game-playing never stop with any women ever. The moment a man looses his awareness with a woman is the moment his puts his mental health in jeopardy, as well as his likely hood of getting her. She may indeed provide some forms of psychological relief...there is something to be said for a man feeling free of his structures, and a woman secure by his structure. This doesn't mean awareness isn't necessary.
S: Depending on one's psychological landscape different types of women will flip the switches in different types of men. This is another reason why healthy, ethical seducers are important: to propogate the species with healthy women and children.
DQ: I'm still not entirely convinced that men who are sex-obsessed and can think of nothing better to do with their time and intelligence than to chase skirt are good examples of healthy human beings. It looks more like mental sickness to me.
Only becuase you have strict standards as to what constitutes healthy: no ego. And by these standards, probably 99.999999977889999% of the population is unhealthy to you.
The fact of the matter is that men who learn what it means to lead a woman learn what it means to take responsibility for themselves. As this skill develops it covers many areas of their existence. The more they don't try to impress women the better they do with them, the less manipulated they become, and the more time they have to work on themselves without all the bullshit blinders. It is a very large cut above the other 99% of men being housepets for women, lazy slugs in life, and blaming it all on the world. Is it absolutely ideal? No, but it is a realistic improvement that won't end the human race.
Imagine you were born into a world where rubbing against trees provided tremendous pleasure, and as a consequence the entire human population was besotted with rubbing against trees. Songs were constantly written about trees, movies were constantly made about human relationships with their trees, magazines constantly had trees on their covers, and so on. And imagine that even the most most capable of men couldn't rise above this, that even the great men around you, who were otherwise very honest and intelligent, were busily devoting their lives towards uncovering the best techniques for rubbing against trees and so on. You would think that a severe mental illness had taken over the world, would you not? That is essentially how I regard the situation in our own world with respect to sexuality and women.
FWIW, I did masturbate to an evergreen once. j/k
Do buddhas like jokes?
I like the tree analogy, but the difference is that trees don't have good feminine nurturing skills to raise our children. Many of the people I know with masculine mothers are kinda fucked up.
DQ: At root, sexual desire is a form of violence towards oneself, a form of self-destruction. When it appears that this self-destruction could go all the way, it powers sexual desire like nothing else.
S: Unless one is biologically low sex-drive, I believe it is violence to oneself to deny the fact that these biological attraction triggers exist. Sure, isolation and reasoning can lessen desire, but we are not above nature, and it will not be overridden. Being sexually active is part of being a complete human.
It is true that if the past didn't happen exactly as it did, things would not now be exactly as they are, including all the violence. But very specifically, if our dad's didn't have a glint in his eye the night of our conception,we would not be here. The human race would not exist. The desire you call self-destructive I call the very thing you owe your existence to.
The union of male and female is the crux of our existence, and if we men value this existence, not only do we owe it to ourselves and our future children to be responsible and ethical men, but we also have the responsibility to withstand one of the most difficult challenges anyone can take: spending romantic time with a woman. Except for the exceptionally rare, the only way to win in this game is to practice, and to practice A LOT.
DQ: I was talking about self-destruction in a deeper sense. Sexual desire is the desire to merge with another human being and lose oneself in pleasure. It is the desire to abandon one's independence, rationality, and consciousness of one's existence. It is an attempt to escape the self.
So sex is bad for humans, but not fish. The workings of nature do not revolve around whether a particular human does or doens't have an ego. That may play one part, but out of all the infinite # of other causes, why this particular emphasis? I'm trying to suspend my judgement knowing that the intellectual structures you've created for yourself hinge on this. I would of course love to be proved wrong.
The union of male and female, as you put it, is certainly the crux of animal existence, as it is the means by which a species is able to continue into the future. But as I've mentioned previously, we have evolved the means to change this if we want to.
In SOME respects.
We have the freedom of mind and rational capability to reject the situation and pursue other goals. Unlike other animals, we are not complete slaves to our genes. We have the capacity to break our genetic conditioning.
Again, only in SOME respects.
For example, we are rapidly developing the technology that will enable us to reshape our genetic material and produce entirely new kinds of human beings. We could conceivably turn off our ability to be sexually aroused, for example. Or we could phase women out of existence altogether. We could create new ways of propagating the species, through artificial technologies and so on. More and more opportunities of this kind will be presenting themselves to us. We no longer have to be a slave to the past.
I see this as being genetically conditioned to uncover this technology.
S: As an aside, the seductionist mentioned earlier named Franco has slept with 500+ women, and now is married and faithful with children. I have no doubt in my mind that his wife is living the ultimate female fantasy - to have children and a safe and secure relationship with a man that allows her to love to the fullest possible extent...emotionally on fire, and wonderfully incapable of altering his will.
DQ: He has sowed his wild oats and now has settled down. And yet he is still running a seducer's website, so it is evident that he is still enjoying the seducer mentality and that part of him at least is being unfaithful to his wife. It is likely that he is still addicted.
Yes, but necessarily addicted to ensure both he and his wife's mental health. One can never fully settle down with a woman and relax, one must play her until the end or else be played. Win-win. The down side is that the seducer is lonely - he can never open up his heart - and the wife at times gets depressed - "why aren't my charms working" - but they are secure and horny for each other like hell.
S: I believe nature has chosen men to be kings of the planet. I love women as they are and trust them to be women. I am not negative about relationships and hope the best for men and women alike.
DQ: Yes, but what you hope for with women is that they remain pretty playthings for men. That can hardly be called the best possible outcome for women.
So long as their biology remains the same I would say it definitely is. Would you suggest the phasing out of feminine women toward more masculine women? Then what about the psychological safety of the child? Two fathers and no mother?