Dan Rowden wrote:No, you don't, however in that case I think the doctor should cough up. He admitted ignoring her request for a single embryo. He simply should not have done that.
Yeah? That suprises me.
Personally I think the're a couple of ungrateful biatches.As far as i'm concerned the Dr acted in good faith.They'd already had 3 unsuccessful attempts.
They strike me as a couple who just wanted to purchase an 'accessory'.God knows how much they would've tried to sue for if one of the babies came out down syndrome or something.
If i were the judge,I'd tell them to go fuck themselves.Literally.
Well, I'd be more inclined to that view myself (and was half way through the article) if it weren't for the fact that he ignored a directive he should not have - and admitted such. It's no small thing to stick an extra baby in a woman that she said she didn't want. As for "accessories" - I wonder if that can't be said of many if not most parents.
Dan Rowden wrote:As a quick example, just the other day a woman was walking in front of me with her two children - one boy, one girl, of similar ages. The entire time she held the girl's hand. The boy walked alone. This is symbolic of those parenting/nurturing differences.
You don't know that. I have had many friends with children, and the boys are far more likely than the girls not not want their hand held, or come up with the idea that they have the power to decide if they will "let" the mother hug them. Little girls are far more likely to come sit on a lap or slip their hand into the hand of a parent, wanting to hold hands. What you saw could easily have been a matter of a parent treating each child the way that child wanted to be treated.
Just see reality Dan - don't project a possibly inaccurate storyline onto it.
f you have a critique, critique the idea, not the person with the idea, and specifically state why you think the idea is off base.
The person is the idea. The delusion, the person, and the idea are one thing. There is no separation. You cannot criticize an idea, without criticizing the state of someone’s consciousnesss.
I was using the useful differentiation words "person" and "idea" to help convey my meaning of how specific of a point is called for in the critique in order for it to be constructive criticism rather than a general put-down.
Alex Jacob wrote:
The male and the female are part and parcel of the creation. In the myths of Krishna and Radha, Krishna is eternally attracted to Radha, and Radha is eternally attracted to Krishna, but especially Radha is said to control Krishna through her devotion, her love, but also through her attractiveness.
Part and parcel of creation and our experience of it. But ignorance starts when confusing their roles, diffusing the matter, so to speak.
The mythos and the metaphysic implies a deep interconnectedness, an inseparability, and I have to admit that I split a gut when I hear men speaking as if they are divorcing themselves of what is female, not only in the sense of 'stopping loving women' (completely and ridiculously absurd, and what a drag!) but in divorcing themselves from what is female in themselves (psychologically destructive, and the stuff of deranged boy-scouts on mental crack)(that also for writerly effect).
Causality or connectivity of all existence shouldn't become an excuse avoiding the needed separation when attempting to think, clarify and regain consciousness. Actually, to focus on the unity aspect one might lose consciousness faster than you can type "for writerly effect".
There is (I think) a real hubris in some of the assertions and assumptions I hear from men on this list, this 'breaking' this 'ceasing' and this denigration of the feminine, and woman/women.
Perhaps you should reconsider the possible influence of the feminine on masculine orientation, or in other words: how materialism can subvert and then annihilate consciousness if not guarded well.
A far stronger position, I think, is to genuinely know yourself, and to know the different parts of yourself. Psychologically, I think this is far more wholesome.
That would be a very masculine activity which doesn't come easy.
There is a grandiose tone here, like you think you are actually going to change substantial things in this world through your refusals? Women have been enticing men since time began, and will go on enticing men long after you have disappeared from the scene. It is part of the game here. I think you just have to become stronger than the game. If women are lunar and men are solar, the sun just has to get brighter and the moon responds, inevitably.
Men always have been flirting with the grandiose, the times they were not enticed elsewhere anyway. So yeah, it's perhaps indeed a matter of becoming stronger than the game. It's like calling being alive: cheating on death.
Zubaty touched on a subject that is forefront in my my mind at the moment when he spoke about the Handbook for Boys and the fact boys can't play games like tiggy these days at school.
I have a young 8 year old son at state school at the moment and the feminisation of young boys seems to be get taken to ridiculous levels as a matter of course these days.It's come as bit of a shock to discover recently how different his education is to my childhood.
Not only aren't they allowed to play Tiggy or 'British Bulldog' at school "because they might skin their knees".They also aren't allowed to take footy cards to swap at school "because some kids may have more cards than others or it may cause disputes"
When they have school sports theres no 1st 2nd or 3rd ribbons "everyone is a winner" and all get participation ribbons.
No grades are given in class like A,B,C's etc.
Contact sports like footy or rugby are discourage at lunchtime.
There are no male teachers at his school.
And so forth....
The whole system seems to me to be designed to discourage(especially amongst the boys) any sort of individualism of thought and action,and furthermore any sort of behaviour that may be construed as competative.I can't see how this is helping to prepare him for his teenage and adult life.
NB.Great stuff by Sue in this podcast,a depth of thought I've rarely heard in women(at least the ones I met in day to day life) [thumbs up emoticon] :)
Trust me, I am not setting myself up in complete disagreement with some of the ideas presented, but I am trying to point out some of the potential errors in too extreme a view.
For example this formulation: (Ryan)
"Because spiritual strength is derived though an asexual and solitary existence, and that type of life is totally inconceivable for women. All their desires are totally counterintuitive to spirituality; all she can do to a man is drag him down to hell with her."
When I read this I am reminded of some of the rantings of the early Christians, wandering through the desert, totally given over to their extremes.
I think looking at the initiation rituals of more primitive cultures demonstrates this pattern---shamanic initiation, separation from the tribe, special rites for young men. But the purpose is not in creating an 'asexual and solitary existence'. I would imagine that this is what closeted homosexuals do and recommend. It is an idea that springs from a strange form of homo-eroticism, and I'll be goddammed if I'm gonna allow some fag, like Socrates, to rub up against my son, even with his downy first beard growth! (That for writerly effect). I am reminded of the Alexandrian quartet, and Lawrence Durrel writing about people 'deeply wounded in their sex'. Sorry, my darling neanderthal neo-nazis (writerly effect), but you can't fool ole Alex.
What you fellows are talking about are some extreme trends in culture, that seems to be a significant complain in these recent pages: my wife fucked me over, she got the house and everything, and now I'm 60 and pissed.
It is quite likely that media culture and even institutions and schools are dominated by an essentially pro-female ethic, but a large part of that is a contrivance of consumer culture, and advertising directed to the woman. Real estate agents know that they are selling the house to the woman, not the man, and this is probably true for many different sales. Faced with certain cultural and social facts, I agree, it is necessary for men to redefine who they are and what their values are. But one thing to remember is that the whole rest of the world ain't America, Canada or Europe, and there are other possibilities open to men.
"Causality or connectivity of all existence shouldn't become an excuse avoiding the needed separation when attempting to think, clarify and regain consciousness. Actually, to focus on the unity aspect one might lose consciousness faster than you can type "for writerly effect".
I am completely in agreement, provided one proceeds in 'the correct way'. Not only is time to think necessary, I personally think one needs to completely come to terms with one's power base. One needs to plan on all levels to have and control one's own power, emotionally, intellectually and economically. This is the sort of thing that should be taught to young men, in my opinion. I think though that one needs to realistically assess the masculine role, but that it is absurd to rule out or cancel away women, the feminine, etc. I have read some strange formulations in these pages and they raise questions---about the psychological state of those formulating.
"Perhaps you should reconsider the possible influence of the feminine on masculine orientation, or in other words: how materialism can subvert and then annihilate consciousness if not guarded well."
Again, with qualifications, I am strongly in agreement with you here. I see this in terms of a more simple interest in and involvement with 'the world of ideas'. There are forces that are working against a good thinking mind, an ability to think and reason, and in so much of culture this is sacrificed and appetite is encouraged, appetite and mood. But farther beyon this you seem to be hinting at a 'metaphysic'---that this material reality is essentially female, and that masculine consciousness is an anomaly, and yet a thing that arises to struggle against material subjugation. It is a far-reaching idea, and worthy of consideration. But it is also quite tricky as a territory, and when things move from the outer world and all its manifestations to an inner world, some of the dynamic changes.
AJ: A far stronger position, I think, is to genuinely know yourself, and to know the different parts of yourself. Psychologically, I think this is far more wholesome.
Diebert: That would be a very masculine activity which doesn't come easy.
Well, that 'work' could very easily be derailed through a wrong approach, say through 'misogyny', through 'psychological errors', through incorrectly identifying the problem and an incorrect proscription to deal with it. Like it or not, what has given women in our culture a certain ascendency has been their own 'work', netowrking, communication---an expression of will. It would be absurd, I think, to take a stand against all of it. I am not sure what y'all are proposing in terms of organization of culture, but without a clear program I doubt much of this will get anywhere. Sixty year old men bitching that the wife got the house don't do shit. (Writerly effect again). Teaching young men an angry flippancy won't do it either. Men have lost a definition of what is 'paternal culture' and do not seem to have really know what they are proposing.
"Men always have been flirting with the grandiose, the times they were not enticed elsewhere anyway. So yeah, it's perhaps indeed a matter of becoming stronger than the game. It's like calling being alive: cheating on death."
That is true. And I am completely interested in that question.
Ataraxia wrote:Not only aren't they allowed to play Tiggy or 'British Bulldog' at school "because they might skin their knees".
That sounds more like the result of too many lawsuit-happy parents. It is a shame all the freedoms we have all lost because of greed being fed through the legal system.
Ataraxia wrote:They also aren't allowed to take footy cards to swap at school "because some kids may have more cards than others or it may cause disputes"
That is unfortunate. It would be better if the teachers used this as an opportunity to teach the children how to deal well with inequalities in this world by seeking fairness. Instead they take the lazy way out by eliminating the problem rather than solve it. What next, if a math problem on the board is too difficult for a student, the student should have the option of erasing the problem?
Ataraxia wrote:When they have school sports theres no 1st 2nd or 3rd ribbons "everyone is a winner" and all get participation ribbons.
No grades are given in class like A,B,C's etc.
I did some counseling of children's groups, and the kids preferred to be graded either against each other or against some standard. It seemed to me that whenever "you all did a good job" was used, it took away the motivation of all of the children involved. The recommendations of the mental health profession have inadvertently done damage in the past, and I see the damage it is doing now. That is why although I have a master's degree in mental health counseling, I refused to go for my license. I will not agree to follow mandates that I see are damaging to people.
Ataraxia wrote:There are no male teachers at his school.
Why would a guy want to be a teacher in this age? It's tough on everyone, but especially guys because all that has to happen is some kid just accuse you of inappropriate touching (maybe because they are mad at you for correcting some of their bad behavior) or some possibly jealous colleague to raise suspicions about you spending too much time with the students, and your life is ruined. I can't blame anyone from wanting to steer clear of that mess.
I won't respond in detail here because we agree and are close on the issues. Thanks for pointing me to those other shows, I will surely check them out.
The only comment I wanted to make was on Zubaty's use of the idea of "society as woman". Many of Zubaty's ideas are carbon copies of mine that I have expressed repeatedly on men's forums. I thought I was the first to express them but maybe Zubaty wrote about them before. I don't know since I haven't read his stuff. But this idea of "society as woman" came up a few years ago amongst some of us guys on the usenet soc.men forum. I like the Jethro Tull song "Sossity" and mentioned how I always thought he was saying "Society" and not "Sossity" which would make the main line in the song, "Society you are a woman". So some of the guys picked up on that and came up with other such cites about "Society as woman". When I get time I will look up those conversation and see what those cites were and send them to you.
That being said, no matter where Zubaty got his ideas, I agree he does a great job in expressing them and representing the men's movement when he is just talking about sex issues. On politics he and I need a little work to get past any misunderstandings but they are minor relative to the good work he does on sex issues.
Thanks to all of you for your intelligent and kind addressing of these difficult and controversial sex issues. I will linger and comment on occasion here and on other forums.
One last thing. Women like Sue are rare and precious. Let's not forget that.
Oh, about God Dan, I believe He exists and that He did a good job in the Bible revealing His nature to us.
Just interesting to note a connection between certain possibly rigid religious notions and a potential reestablishment of some of the older social conventions through this 'paradignm shifting discourse'. Modernity can be so frightening in some of its aspects that, perhaps, we have to turn back and find sensible order in the standard formulations.
Next, there'll be an equating of women with (fallen) society, and the feminine with that ole devil, Satan. Goddammed Satanic lesbians perverting Christian society subverting Values! I'm seeing good strong men coming together for heartfelt Christian prayer meetings as they withold their love from the naughty 'girlies'. Yikes!
Dan, will you put together a podcast on The Medieval Mind and its ramifications?
Since I have been reading here I must admit I am rarin' for an opportunity to scrap with a feminist bitch but as of yet I haven't run into any...
Hi Alex. Oh you're soooo living in the past. What of the fundy religion that you described is left Alex? There wasn't much of it even as I was growing up except if you believed the feminists who were pissing and moaning about it back then in order to do their usual smearing of men, religious men.
Things are much different now that make the non religious look like the reactionaries. Remember, it's the feminists who use this fear of fundamentalism to help keep their game going.
That said, I, like Don Imus, think that Hitlary Clinton IS Satan <smile>
David Quinn wrote:For example, nearly everyone would turn their noses up at the thought of drinking someone else's snot. Or their urine. Both of which are in a similar class to semen.
WTF, no they aren't. Semen is clean amino acids and protein, not bad for you if you swallowed it. Urine is just waste, along with most of mucous.
We teach children not to pick their nose and eat it, or to eat their own poo, thus instilling in them a sense of disgust for such behaviour, which can only be magnified when it comes to other people's bodily secretions.
once again, waste and semen and pussy juice aren't the same.
If a man were to empty his semen into a glass and give it to his girlfriend to drink, she would probably refuse in disgust.
wrong.
In other words, it's a psychological thing. In most cases, a woman performs fellatio as a gift to her lover, as a way to firm the bond between them. It isn't just a response to pheromones and sexual desire. She knows that it is something men like.
nothing wrong with this. You know men drink pussy juice right??? and that women like it?
problem - the wikipedia article on Rich Zubaty (linked to on The Reasoning Show page) was deleted Sept 15 due to copyright problems. Does anyone know how to track down the copyright problems and resolve them?
The only thing that can be legislated into existence is egotism. When the “individual†has come to think it necessary that his rights become law, he has long since foregone individualism for it. Whilst he thinks he’s fighting for individualism--manhood, “masculinityâ€--he actually fights to secure the approval of Woman. For what is he seeking if not the right to his security as a feeling being?
You men who are women are the worst kind of woman.
The “true man†needs no group-backed legislation. He is the law and, thus, can never be crippled by it.
Oh, man! What kind of masculinity is in you that finds itself fighting the feminine for realisation, overcome by her? A masculinity that is no more than platitudes uttered into the ether.
How is it she manages to hold your independence at ransom if not at the price of your own femininity? As if she could take anything else into herself from you...
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:That sounds more like the result of too many lawsuit-happy parents. It is a shame all the freedoms we have all lost because of greed being fed through the legal system.
Thankfully Australia has yet to reach the ludicrous levels of litigousness inherent in the U.S,but you are right, there is probably some element of that to it.Whether the cause of the policy is initiated from the school or as result of parents i still see it as matriarch driven,ultimately.
That is unfortunate. It would be better if the teachers used this as an opportunity to teach the children how to deal well with inequalities in this world by seeking fairness. Instead they take the lazy way out by eliminating the problem rather than solve it. What next, if a math problem on the board is too difficult for a student, the student should have the option of erasing the problem?
I couldn't agree more.
I did some counseling of children's groups, and the kids preferred to be graded either against each other or against some standard. It seemed to me that whenever "you all did a good job" was used, it took away the motivation of all of the children involved. The recommendations of the mental health profession have inadvertently done damage in the past, and I see the damage it is doing now. That is why although I have a master's degree in mental health counseling, I refused to go for my license. I will not agree to follow mandates that I see are damaging to people.
Fantastic,if only more people in control of our children thought like you, kids would be better off in the longer term.
this thinking not only manifests itself at school, unfortunately.His local footy team also don't keep score ,again "there are no winners and losers,only participants". The first things all the kids ask on the way off the field "who won?". 8 year olds seem smarter than their parents.
Why would a guy want to be a teacher in this age? It's tough on everyone, but especially guys because all that has to happen is some kid just accuse you of inappropriate touching (maybe because they are mad at you for correcting some of their bad behavior) or some possibly jealous colleague to raise suspicions about you spending too much time with the students, and your life is ruined. I can't blame anyone from wanting to steer clear of that mess.
Yes,I can see the reasons why.To me,more evidence of an ingrained matriarchal form of thinking within society.
Everyone is constantly looking for someone else to blame.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:problem - the wikipedia article on Rich Zubaty (linked to on The Reasoning Show page) was deleted Sept 15 due to copyright problems. Does anyone know how to track down the copyright problems and resolve them?
Well that sucks. I can't imagine what the problems might have been. Rich himself advocated using it for his Reasoning Show bio and what is there is pretty much a cut and paste of that Wiki article. I can only assume the problem was in the use of the graphics of Rich's book covers and paintings etc.
Ataraxia wrote:Zubaty touched on a subject that is forefront in my my mind at the moment when he spoke about the Handbook for Boys and the fact boys can't play games like tiggy these days at school.
Yeah, this was mentioned in the podcast. I agree with Elizabeth that it's about our wonderful modern litigious society, but also as you intimated, that itself is actually an expression of the feminisation of the modern world. Nothing bad must happen; if it does - somebody must be held accountable. When we were kids, growing up in small coastal town, we did stuff that would today not only be illegal but would horrify most parents and "authorities". We led what was in many ways an "indigenous" life. Rich would probably think it was the perfect way for kids to grow up, and I wouldn't really disagree. We did something you don't see much of anymore - we adventured, not in a virtual world, but in Nature, in the sea, the mangroves, the sand dunes. Today parents seek to "protect" their children, not for the sake of the children but for their own peace of mind.
I'm currently writing a short story about that childhood for a literary competition (I want the $6000 dammit!!). It will contain sufficient philosophical and sociological-critique content for me not to feel like I'm betraying my ethics :)
I'll post it at Men of the Infinite if it ends up being meaningful enough for that.
Dan Rowden wrote:I'm currently writing a short story about that childhood for a literary competition (I want the $6000 dammit!!). It will contain sufficient philosophical and sociological-critique content for me not to feel like I'm betraying my ethics :)
Nice one, Dan.I have a friend who enters alot of those competitions,he actually took out a prize last year of a similar size.He's entering again this year,perhaps it's the same one.
"Oh, man! What kind of masculinity is in you that finds itself fighting the feminine for realisation, overcome by her? A masculinity that is no more than platitudes uttered into the ether."
Leyla, you are taking on a Nietzschen tone! It's wonderful...
____________________________________
Hello Autism,
I have to say that I am really a sort of fundamentalist myself. I mean that in a religious sense. In any case I am aware of this structure in me, maybe it is what defines my thinking? I would never, ever simply dismiss the religious viewpoint, and I only meant to draw attention to the way these 'old narratives' function in our modern discourse. It would not surprise me if, in the end, what the men here are lamenting is 'a world that is no more'. That is what I am trying to find out. I think we have to radically bring the religious viewpoint and sensibility---kicking and screaming and crying bloody murder!---fully into modernity. What that means is we have to deal with our Medieval mind and its atavisms.
I am now reading 6-7 (excuse the ill-fitting pun, and hats off to Faust...) seminal works of feminism: The Second Sex, Sisterhood is Powerful, The Feminine Mystique, Against our Will, The Female Eunich, Intercourse, and my fave Jane Sexes It Up (woman is almost---almost!---as perverse as man). I have so many different impressions that I can't quite organize them just yet. If you think that feminists only employ tricks to 'keep their game going' you are not seeing straight, feminism is so many different things. There is a large portion of feminist activism that is directly a reaction to the stupidity of male culture. I'm sorry to be the one to have to share with you the shocking news. At the same time there is a terribly reactionary, I will even say 'hysterical' feminism, and as some have pointed out an expression of female 'ressentiment' that is unparallelled in history.
When all that is turned backward, wow, that is going to be a show!
As with so many things in modernity (and post-modernity if you accept the term) it is all insanely confused, fused together, and almost impossible to sort through.
With that said, Beat up a feminist for Jesus! and May the Lord forgive you backassward retrogrades.
"I'm currently writing a short story about that childhood for a literary competition..."
We have it in common that we grew up in coastal villages, me on the California coast. We too had an extraordinary freedom as kids and explored everything. I recently came across and read The Bottom of the Harbor by Joseph Mitchell...
Sue: I agree, it is "needless confusion". If people put in a little effort they could easily work this issue out for themselves.
The bottom line is that most people can't be bothered.
I bothered,
Sadly, just showing up isn’t what I meant by “botheringâ€. This isn’t Aunt Millie’s 75th birthday party where by just showing your face you’ve done your duty. What we’re engaged in here is a full blown bloody battle against the feminine. And anyone showing up without a weapon will be swept aside.
and I refuse to abuse terminology that way - which is probably why David said that "in this thread" I have not shown any understanding of what I am disagreeing with (even though I have proven in other threads that I do understand, and that to some extent I agree with some of the generalizations).
Of what interest is it to me what you “refuse� You’re likes and dislikes are of no significance to this issue whatsoever, therefore they are of no significance to me. Though, your preoccupation with such things on this forum clearly shows up the type of things that constitute your mind, and that is somewhat interesting as they are also the same things that constitute woman’s mind.
In refusing to respond to the cult tactic brainwashing to get me to agree to adopt that terminology, I get the standard cult tactic punishment in the form of:
David Quinn wrote:
How many weeks did you spend with Kevin? How long have you been on this forum? It's as though you have understood nothing.
It gives credence to the view that women are incapable of higher learning.
Well stop whinging and work to change that idea. You could begin by trying to get hold of something in your own mind that is deeper than the fluffy stuff you spew forth, and use it to begin thinking.
The bottom line, Sue, actually is that the longer you spend debating through intentionally created confusion, the less time you have to debate the finer points of what was really meant.
Your sentiments would be comical if they weren’t so very dangerous.
You don’t actually list how I’ve “intentionally created confusionâ€, but that isn’t your concern here. Your intention, though not consciously committed, was to cast doubt upon my authority on the subject of the feminine. You do this by planting the idea that I’ve been “intentionally creating confusion†- longhand for “lying†- about the feminine. This is nothing more than a trick to misdirect people’s attention away from my ideas so as to protect your own sentiments about this subject. Also, never completely satisfied, you add a further misdirection by motherly reprimanding me for not using my time to “debate the finer points of what was really meantâ€. Well – I’ve gone into many fine points in this post - but I'm guessing they won't be what you're after.
This thread has only reinforced my conviction that confronting woman directly, head on, without any backsliding at all, is the only way to go. If you make it any less direct, if you start hedging around and making concessions in order to appease her, then she will simply swallow you up and you’re gone. She will reduce everything you have to say to the same meaningless level that she reduces everything else and all of your pointing to truth, no matter how sharp and clear it might be in reality, will disappear into her ether.
This is how feminine unconsciousness works. It absorbs everything that comes its way, blending everything into the fabric of its own infinite blandness, without leaving any trace behind. Relentlessly, silently, unconsciously - it works its way through everything without pause. It encounters a thing, absorbs it, strips away all meaning from it, turns it into a meaningless fashion item and then moves on as though nothing has happened.
The only way to prevent this from happening is to confront it head on and not give it any opportunity to absorb you.
We can observe this dynamic in action in this thread, particularly in the responses of Elizabeth and Laird. It should be noted that both Elizabeth and Laird are both proponents of infinite blandness, which is a core trait of feminine unconsciousness. Elizabeth, for example, primarily wants “peaceâ€, which is as bland and as meaningless a goal that can ever be. It wants to remove all the jagged edges of life, all contrasts and distinctions, and mush everything up into a sea of infinite blandness. Laird is a little different. He goes the more direct route and simply keeps everything as vague as possible. He has no need of goals, since for him everything is already mush. He already exists in infinite blandness.
Both are experts at absorbing everything, stripping away its meaning and moving on.
Confront this process directly, however, and suddenly they flounder. Their absorption and neutering powers are suddenly powerless. They start squealing like pigs and try to attack the thing confronting them more directly and violently. They accuse it of being “vileâ€, “hatefulâ€, “criminal, “vomit-inducingâ€, etc. The idea is to budge the thing out of its position, turn it away from its path, edge it a little sideways, just enough so that they can absorb the thing and move on.
I refuse to abuse terminology that way - which is probably why David said that "in this thread" I have not shown any understanding of what I am disagreeing with (even though I have proven in other threads that I do understand, and that to some extent I agree with some of the generalizations).
Both you and Laird claim to understand the woman issue, but your words and reactions say otherwise.
Let's contrast your responses to those of, say, Matt Gregory and Tom Smith. Matt and Tom are both filled with excitement and joy at the articulation of these truths about woman. They can sense the larger picture to which all these truths are pointing. They can taste the freedom that it provides.
The same is true of Dan and Sue. There is humour and joy in the way they present their thoughts on the issue. They are filled with a zest that doesn’t derive from negativity and hate. They are tapping into something joyful which is deeper than woman.
But there is absolutely none of this in your responses. There is no excitement and joy in you at all. No humour, no zest, no awareness of the bigger picture. There is only resentment and hostility. This alone indicates that your understanding of the woman issue is all but non-existent. It's true that you have read the words, even committed them to memory, but they essentially mean nothing to you.
It’s as though you have memorized the wording of a joke, without understanding the punch-line, and you can’t understand why people around you are laughing.
I have not made ad hominem atttacks on anyone in this forum until they attacked me first, like David.... but this is unacceptable.
I wasn't aware that I had made any ad hominem attacks upon you, Rich. As far as I know, I simply questioned your idea that the craving for blowjobs is more biological than psychological.
DQ: For example, nearly everyone would turn their noses up at the thought of drinking someone else's snot. Or their urine. Both of which are in a similar class to semen.
WTF, no they aren't. Semen is clean amino acids and protein, not bad for you if you swallowed it. Urine is just waste, along with most of mucous.
That's true, there is a difference there. Still, the difference isn't really enough to affect the point I was making.
Have you ever swallowed another man's semen?
DQ: If a man were to empty his semen into a glass and give it to his girlfriend to drink, she would probably refuse in disgust.
F: wrong.
That would be very surpising to me. What evidence do you have to back this up?
