GENIUS FORUMS

Found in a local mag:

“There is a new man in town: the ‘ethical bachelor’. These unmarried men go about their lives being single with honesty and integrity. They do this by considering women’s needs and aspirations without losing sight of their own desire to remain a bachelor.”

A man who wants to be in a relationship with a woman, but isn’t going to promise her a future with him. A new man?

These guys are totally fooling themselves if they believe any woman they have spent time and energy chasing after really could take the ‘ethical bachelor’ story seriously. She’d go along with it, humouring him, while all the while ensconcing herself further into his life.

Any interest a man shows a woman, no matter if it is just a glance in her general direction, is felt by her as a bonding opportunity. Women do it all the time to men - checking a man out from across a room, a tiny smile at a man on the street, flirting with a man on a plane, or having sex with a new boyfriend. In the time it takes to flutter one of her eyelashes she has sized up the man’s husband potential: she has married him, had his children, divorce him and got a hefty settlement which included the house and the kids, and remarried a richer man.

The ethical bachelor hasn’t a hope in hell of remaining a bachelor whilst playing this game. He’ll get tired of all that chasing, and sick of forking out money all the time. The day will come when he’ll find a woman, and that will be the end of the bachelor fantasy. But; if he does continue his game, the word would quickly get around, and many women would treat him like he had the plague. Though there would always be those women who fancied themselves to be the ‘one’ that could snare him.

Yes, the ‘ethical bachelor’ is playing a losing game - because he is playing her game.

-
Sue

Well it is substantially more honest. Since over half of all marriages (in the US anyway) end in divorce, there is a good chance it won't be forever anyway. If the guy doesn't want a long-term commitment, then he should be upfront about that. When my exhusband and I were arguing about when to get a divorce, he told me (and I've forgotten exactly how long he said) he expected the marriage to last - maybe he said 3 years, maybe he said 5 years... I forget now, but at the time my jaw actually dropped open and I retorted "I expected it to last forever."

If a guy is going into it with a term-limit contract in mind, say so up front. Yes, the "ethical bachelor" is a much more ethical approach. Say what you mean, guys. If the woman decides to live in denial - that's her problem. If you don't intend to stay with her for the rest of your life - don't marry her.

If a guy wants to be an ethical bachelor, thinking that's a good way to get what he wants from a girl, he will lose her game. If he chooses to be unethical, and play her, he might win her game. If he chooses not to play the game, yet decides to be ethical all of the time because it's the right thing to do, he wins his own game...regardless of whatever game she is playing.

Only losers change who they are for the sake of getting some, whether it be marriage, sex, love, someone to hold...winners never allow the world to say to them, "you lost!"

There is a narrow path, where a man doesn't succumb to other's thorny wishes, and he gets everything he wishes for. It's the path of utmost honesty with yourself (I'm not talking about enlightenment). I like to call it - not being a bitch.

Sadly many guys are bitches, so of course they will lose the game. They never take the time to look at the bigger picture, and are constantly struggling in their little story...where they are the main character and they're constantly being shit on. They don't take the time to think that everyone is their own main character in their own minds, and that everyone feels shit on too...even these women who apparently have all this power (haha). So they never play the part of the hero...who always triumphs in the end. They never think outside of their own little daytime drama, and think proactively about their lives.

It isn't a set rule that women don't like ethical men. In fact, I think women love ethical men moreso than the other "sexy" types (like a bad boy type of person). They just don't like pseudo-ethical men, who do what they do to get something in return. That's not even ethical at all, and you can hardly call such a person a "man". A real man doesn't succumb to that kind of thing - he will do his own thing...forge his own path. If some woman doesn't like it, she will fall to the side and be alone. If some woman does like it, and he likes her company, she can go with him. And I guarantee that good women like genuine, real, men. The ones who don't are usually just white trash who have been abused by their fathers...or who are too stupid to tell left from right.

sschaula wrote:There is a narrow path, where a man doesn't succumb to other's thorny wishes, and he gets everything he wishes for. It's the path of utmost honesty with yourself (I'm not talking about enlightenment). I like to call it - not being a bitch.

Well put, Scott.

I've always been honest about my lack of interest in getting married, although it's been fairly obvious now and then that the woman didn't actually believe that.

For now, at least, I am entirely out of the game.

DHodges wrote: I've always been honest about my lack of interest in getting married, although it's been fairly obvious now and then that the woman didn't actually believe that.

Well, that's their fault - not yours.

The ethical bachelor hasn’t a hope in hell of remaining a bachelor whilst playing this game. He’ll get tired of all that chasing, and sick of forking out money all the time. The day will come when he’ll find a woman, and that will be the end of the bachelor fantasy

That's not necessarily true. Look at George Clooney. A wealthy attractive man can play the field all day long. All year long. All life long. He can have all the sex he wants from anyone at will. He can have drinking companions. Any sort of consort he wants. He can even have an angry female pen pale from 'genius' forum to engage in debate and laughter.

unwise wrote: Look at George Clooney. A wealthy attractive man can play the field all day long. All year long. All life long. He can have all the sex he wants from anyone at will. He can have drinking companions. Any sort of consort he wants.

Then again, everybody except Georgy Clooney already knows he's actually gay. :-)

Clooney really has it all. He's got one of those nice wooden 50s boats and lives in a villa on Lake Como, Italy - where Moto Guzzis are made.

You should all rent his great movie, 'Solaris.' There is a message there for you and Clooney's acting is really special.

Send your ex girlfriends off into space?

Funny, Scott!

I really liked Solaris.

Clooney recently remarked he may, perhaps, get married again. Perhaps to sound less gay to the press?

Scott wrote: There is a narrow path, where a man doesn't succumb to other's thorny wishes, and he gets everything he wishes for. It's the path of utmost honesty with yourself (I'm not talking about enlightenment). I like to call it - not being a bitch.

Dave wrote: I've always been honest about my lack of interest in getting married, although it's been fairly obvious now and then that the woman didn't actually believe that.

Yes, it is important to know your own strengths and weaknesses, but it is equally important to know the consequences of your actions – that is, if you want to live a nobler life. A man that hungers for woman in any sense is creating the circumstances for her existence and survival. Enabling the feminine to continue to flourish enables unconsciousness to continue to flourish. The consequence of this is that the world remains as insane as it is at present.

-
Sue

Sue, grow up and take some personal responsibility. It isn't all on the man.

Where's millipodium when you need him? :)

Unwise wrote: You should all rent his great movie, 'Solaris.' There is a message there for you and Clooney's acting is really special.

Diebert wrote: I really liked Solaris.

I’m a great fan of science fiction writing and films. Stanislaw Lem’s book Solaris, and the two film versions made of it, are of high quality. The story of the crew’s contact with alien life in the form of being haunted by painful memories and feelings of regret, is interesting. The aliens seem to be saying that these travellers from another planet can’t get to know them until they have a deeper understanding of themselves. By dragging up repressed memories and emotions in the humans, the aliens seemly believe that this will prepare the humans for a closer and, I suppose, a more fruitful encounter with them. But what does this say about the aliens? Are they acting rationally or irrationally? Do they possess wisdom, or are they just being sadistic?

I suppose they could be using this ‘haunting’ to weed out the irrational crew members (those who don’t understand cause and effect and are therefore affected by the haunting) to see if anyone is rational enough to deal with them (those who know cause and effect and know that the ‘self’ has no inherent existence, and therefore have neither regrets nor indulge in self-laudation). If that was the case, they were sorely out of luck.

-
Sue

Sue,

A man that hungers for woman in any sense is creating the circumstances for her existence and survival. Enabling the feminine to continue to flourish enables unconsciousness to continue to flourish. The consequence of this is that the world remains as insane as it is at present.

I don't really know what you're talking about or who you're talking to, but the reason why I originally posted what I did is because I think your ideas are very one dimensional and wrong. I was trying to add some common sense to your views.

Take the above quote for instance. It's way too drastic, and falsely made black and white. Besides that, though - it's pointless.

If men were to all of a sudden not hunger for women, do you think unconsciousness would be gone? Do you think the world would be more sane? I think the "wise men" and philosophers are pretty insane, and unconscious. I definitely think you aren't able to think clearly, Sue.

Imagine what the world would be like if it was populated with mostly your type. You think it'd be better? With people walking around thinking they know something, and having no doubt about it. Preaching their gospel to eachother, each one trying to speak louder than the next. "Understand cause and effect!"

When do words become reality?

Scott wrote:

I don't really know what you're talking about or who you're talking to, but the reason why I originally posted what I did is because I think your ideas are very one dimensional and wrong. I was trying to add some common sense to your views.

It must be that your “common sense” is far too common.

Take the above quote for instance. It's way too drastic, and falsely made black and white. Besides that, though - it's pointless.

Remember, this is a philosophy forum and not a dancing competition. You can’t just jump up and down waving your arms in the air, and think that you’re done. You’ll have to provide a basis for your ideas (or get off the dance floor).

If men were to all of a sudden not hunger for women, do you think unconsciousness would be gone? Do you think the world would be more sane?

I think it would be a very good start, for it would mean that these people valued consciousness over unconsciousness.

I think the "wise men" and philosophers are pretty insane, and unconscious. I definitely think you aren't able to think clearly, Sue.

Plato considered Diogenes' stray-dog behaviour unbecoming to one calling himself a philosopher. "You really do live up to your name" he said to him disapprovingly one day. "By the Gods, you are right for once Plato," replied Diogenes, and then baring his teeth, he added, "But at least I've sunk my teeth into philosophy."

Imagine what the world would be like if it was populated with mostly your type. You think it'd be better?

Yes.

With people walking around thinking they know something, and having no doubt about it. Preaching their gospel to eachother, each one trying to speak louder than the next. "Understand cause and effect!"

Oh your poverty, you men, and your avarice of soul! As much as you give to your friend I will give even to my enemy, and will not have grown poorer in doing so.

When do words become reality?

When they are your flesh and blood.

-
Sue

Sue,

It must be that your “common sense” is far too common.

It's a funny play on words, but it isn't the case.

Remember, this is a philosophy forum and not a dancing competition. You can’t just jump up and down waving your arms in the air, and think that you’re done. You’ll have to provide a basis for your ideas (or get off the dance floor).

That's what I did after the sentence.

I think it would be a very good start, for it would mean that these people valued consciousness over unconsciousness.

It wouldn't mean that, necessarily, if men were to stop hungering for women. I guess I can agree with you that it'd be a step in the right direction.

Plato considered Diogenes' stray-dog behaviour unbecoming to one calling himself a philosopher. "You really do live up to your name" he said to him disapprovingly one day. "By the Gods, you are right for once Plato," replied Diogenes, and then baring his teeth, he added, "But at least I've sunk my teeth into philosophy."

Do you even understand your own point, with this? Did you write it thinking I'd get it, or hoping I wouldn't (so you'd seem smarter)? Because I don't get it. What's your point?

Yes.

Well I don't. I think it'd be...much like it is today!

Oh your poverty, you men, and your avarice of soul! As much as you give to your friend I will give even to my enemy, and will not have grown poorer in doing so.

Yes, I don't understand this either. Stop "dancing", Sue. This is philosophy.

When they are your flesh and blood.

And this means...?

Scott wrote:

I don't really know what you're talking about or who you're talking to, but the reason why I originally posted what I did is because I think your ideas are very one dimensional and wrong. I was trying to add some common sense to your views.

Sue: It must be that your “common sense” is far too common.

It's a funny play on words, but it isn't the case.

The “common sense” view is to bury one’s head in the sand and hope that everything works out for the best. Sometimes this works, but most times it doesn’t. Like here in Australia we keep wasting water while our dams and rivers run dry, with the hope that the hellish drought affecting us will be broken by a few months of rain. The fact that there is no sign of this drought breaking soon – or in the year/s ahead, has no affect on many Australians.

Australian’s can’t continue to ignore the part they play in Australia running out of water.

-

In the same vein, I wrote that the consequence of man’s attachment to woman maintained his insanity – which then in turn maintained and fostered the insanity taking place on the planet. You don’t have to look far to find evidence for this insanity -

For example: for a man to win and keep a woman he has to have money, a job and future prospects. Most men can’t pick and choose what sort of job they do; they just have to take what is on offer to them. The fact that most jobs have a negative impact on the environment can’t influence him away from them because he must have a job to keep his wife and children. He may have to slash-and-burn large areas of the rainforest to raise crops to feed his family, or drill for oil to ensure he can afford a good education for his children, or be a fighter pilot to pay for his new four bedroom home in the suburbs, or a head of government who must refuse to sign a UN environmental agreement to protect the planet to ensure that he gets re-elected because his wife likes being the ‘first-lady’.

Man can’t continue to ignore the part his attachment to woman plays in the destruction of the planet.

-

Your “common sense” view, Scott, was that man could have his cake and eat it too – he could be a “genuine ethical guy" and have a relationship with a woman. But as you can see from the small example of ‘insanity’ I’ve given above - he can’t. He has to do insane things to win and keep her.

But something to remember - even if men did live totally ‘green’: grow organic food, use recycled water, solar powered heating, live in a mud brick house, barter goods and services instead of having an economy based on money, etc – he’d still be causing the planet enormous damage if he continued to be attached to woman.

His attachment – his love for her - gives life to tens of other emotions that create all of the horrors that afflict the world. Love can bring about happiness, calmness, courage, closeness, appreciation, hope, kindness, adoration, compassion, relief, desire, tenderness… But it can also bring about hate, jealousy, loss, loneliness, sadness, fear, pride, despair, bitterness, depression, envy, dread, disgust, anger… Where there is one person secure in love, there is another lost and alone, without love. Where there is a person showing tenderness and adoration, there is another being angry and disgusted. When you have love, you fear losing it; when you haven’t love, you long for it. This emotional see-sawing is what powers society’s insanity. To escape from this insanity we only need to take our heads out of the sand to see that love cannot exist without hate - and that if we stop loving, hating also stops.

It is said that love makes the world go around - but I'm certain it would go around a lot saner without love and hate.

-
Sue

Sue,

I agree with Scott in his following quote:

sschaula wrote:It isn't a set rule that women don't like ethical men. In fact, I think women love ethical men moreso than the other "sexy" types (like a bad boy type of person). They just don't like pseudo-ethical men, who do what they do to get something in return. That's not even ethical at all, and you can hardly call such a person a "man". A real man doesn't succumb to that kind of thing - he will do his own thing...forge his own path. If some woman doesn't like it, she will fall to the side and be alone. If some woman does like it, and he likes her company, she can go with him. And I guarantee that good women like genuine, real, men.

As evidence of the truth in what Scott noted, I’ll admit that I get a surge of passionate love for what appears to be an ethical man, and that is the only type of man that I get a surge of that kind of love for. I have seen all too often that ethics in a man are illusory, so the passion goes away pretty quickly. I don’t know if part of the perceived illusion is the handicap that has been noted that makes men defective when they are in love, but if there were an ethical guy who was mature enough to not let love erode his ethics, I could probably have a long-term passion for such a man.

I'll take Scott’s statement a step further by referring to the type of woman Scott is describing as "real women" and I will refer to the type of woman that you are describing as "bimbos." Although America does have some bimbos, they are actually rather rare. I am getting the impression that Australia may have a much greater percentage of bimbos. Does the hole in the ozone layer have an effect on Aussie minds, perhaps in some way that the female is especially vulnerable? I read Kevin's comment about you in "Letters Between Enemies" that as far as females went, you were ahead of the pack. If you are an example of the best and brightest of females that Australia has to offer, your country is in a pretty sad state of affairs.

If a man holds out for a real woman who he can really love, in America he will be rewarded for his patient ethics. Perhaps in Australia he will face a substantial risk of never mating, so I recognize that would be a much bigger thing to ask, especially of a guy with a particularly strong biological drive.

If I assume for the moment that there is a dearth of real women in Australia, there may be some merit to what you are saying Sue - but let's improve on it a tiny bit. Women are not without biological drives of their own, so if Australian men just refused to settle for bimbos, the females would then be prompted into conciousness by limited opportunities to satisfy their biological urges, as the men would primarily be available to real women. Women with potential would then be rather motivated to cultivate consciousness in themselves.

Highly effective behavior modification techniques are to both reward desired behavior and punish undesirable behavior. Biological drives are fairly strong in both males and females in general, so denying relationship opportunities to bimbos would be punishing to them, and ethical passionate relationships with real women would be tremendously rewarding. It is unfortunate that the responsibility would have to be on men, but only the conscious can take responsible action.

Now the question becomes if men can be mature enough to have ethical passion. I suppose it is possible – but considering how backward the gender situation seems to be in Australia – as described on this board – perhaps any effort by men to just be ethical and only have relationships with worthwhile women would be enough to raise at least the consciousness of women in Australia.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Although America does have some bimbos, they are actually rather rare.

see... this is where the little laughing emotie from ezboard would come in handy... because I really can't come up with a good response to this. Except for to say that women here are pretty much like women there from what I can tell. The vast majority of the women I meet here fit the QRS stereotype.
Then again, the vast majority of men fit the QRS stereotype of women, too...

If a man holds out for a real woman who he can really love, in America he will be rewarded for his patient ethics. Perhaps in Australia he will face a substantial risk of never mating, so I recognize that would be a much bigger thing to ask, especially of a guy with a particularly strong biological drive.

I think, perhaps, you are overusing the word 'love' - I think for some it might be possible to have 'affection' for another person, and find that they are ideologically compatible and form a family unit based on something far more rational than love. But love itself... no.

so if Australian men just refused to settle for bimbos, the females would then be prompted into conciousness by limited opportunities to satisfy their biological urges, as the men would primarily be available to real women. Women with potential would then be rather motivated to cultivate consciousness in themselves.

No, it would simply lead to more lies, and more deception. It would simply be harder to tell the difference as women ran around collecting information and pretending to discuss things they either don't understand or don't care about in order to appear conscious without ever actually acheiving this. It would remain following the herd, it would just be a different herd.


-Rory

Sue,

...I wrote that the consequence of man’s attachment to woman maintained his insanity – which then in turn maintained and fostered the insanity taking place on the planet. You don’t have to look far to find evidence for this insanity -

For example: for a man to win and keep a woman he has to have money, a job and future prospects.

I'll stop you right there to say that it's easy to pick up girls without having money. It's about attitude. The reason why women select men that are rich seems to be an unconscious attempt at picking the best mate for survival of the offspring. You don't need money to seem, at an unconscious level, like a good mate.

It's my opinion that the people which have it together the most, seem like the best mates. A man can be poor and still have it together, psychologically, and he will seem attractive to women.

I have seen as much evidence of this as with the opposite. Especially in my own little romantic life.

Most men can’t pick and choose what sort of job they do; they just have to take what is on offer to them. The fact that most jobs have a negative impact on the environment can’t influence him away from them because he must have a job to keep his wife and children. He may have to slash-and-burn large areas of the rainforest to raise crops to feed his family, or drill for oil to ensure he can afford a good education for his children, or be a fighter pilot to pay for his new four bedroom home in the suburbs, or a head of government who must refuse to sign a UN environmental agreement to protect the planet to ensure that he gets re-elected because his wife likes being the ‘first-lady’.

Quite a stretch, Sue. Although I guess I can agree that sometimes a man has to do a job he doesn't approve of just to support his loved ones. If he wants out, though, he will find a way out.

Man can’t continue to ignore the part his attachment to woman plays in the destruction of the planet.

Actually, he can. Although I really don't think it's as simple as you make it out to be. Not at all!

Your “common sense” view, Scott, was that man could have his cake and eat it too – he could be a “genuine ethical guy" and have a relationship with a woman. But as you can see from the small example of ‘insanity’ I’ve given above - he can’t. He has to do insane things to win and keep her.

I completely disagree with you.

But something to remember - even if men did live totally ‘green’: grow organic food, use recycled water, solar powered heating, live in a mud brick house, barter goods and services instead of having an economy based on money, etc – he’d still be causing the planet enormous damage if he continued to be attached to woman.

His attachment – his love for her - gives life to tens of other emotions that create all of the horrors that afflict the world. Love can bring about happiness, calmness, courage, closeness, appreciation, hope, kindness, adoration, compassion, relief, desire, tenderness… But it can also bring about hate, jealousy, loss, loneliness, sadness, fear, pride, despair, bitterness, depression, envy, dread, disgust, anger… Where there is one person secure in love, there is another lost and alone, without love. Where there is a person showing tenderness and adoration, there is another being angry and disgusted. When you have love, you fear losing it; when you haven’t love, you long for it. This emotional see-sawing is what powers society’s insanity. To escape from this insanity we only need to take our heads out of the sand to see that love cannot exist without hate - and that if we stop loving, hating also stops.

The love you describe is immature love. It's like fire in the hands of troublemaking kids...compared to fire in the hands of a pyrotechnics expert. It is not love which is wrong...it's weakness of mind in the people who are in love which is so damaging.

Mature love isn't about seesawing emotions at all. It's calm and steady. It's entirely selfless and clear headed.

You've never seen this type of love?

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:To escape from this insanity we only need to take our heads out of the sand to see that love cannot exist without hate - and that if we stop loving, hating also stops.

That's nonsense. The "I (ego) love you (the image)" is the opposite of "I hate you." and each cannot exist without the other, but love absent of object of love, has no opposite and only arises when the poison called 'hate' no longer arises.

There's an old saying: Hating someone is like burning down your house, to kill a rat..

Cool quote, Kow. Glad you posted it...I've never heard of it before.

E,

As evidence of the truth in what Scott noted, I’ll admit that I get a surge of passionate love for what appears to be an ethical man, and that is the only type of man that I get a surge of that kind of love for. I have seen all too often that ethics in a man are illusory, so the passion goes away pretty quickly. I don’t know if part of the perceived illusion is the handicap that has been noted that makes men defective when they are in love, but if there were an ethical guy who was mature enough to not let love erode his ethics, I could probably have a long-term passion for such a man.

Yes in that last sentence is exactly what I'm talking about - an uncomprimising man. The true philosopher. A "real man". "Not a bitch".

I'll take Scott’s statement a step further by referring to the type of woman Scott is describing as "real women" and I will refer to the type of woman that you are describing as "bimbos." Although America does have some bimbos, they are actually rather rare.

I don't think I was referring to any women in particular. I think it applies to all women, if the man is truly uncomprimising.

I know that a lot of women like to think of themselves as all different, but to me they are all the same. I've never really known an exception to the rule. I admit there may be some. There are certainly different varieties...but a plant is a plant, regardless if it's a blade of grass or a twig of spruce. A plant isn't an animal. Put simply - women have some characteristics which can't be transcended.

I am getting the impression that Australia may have a much greater percentage of bimbos. Does the hole in the ozone layer have an effect on Aussie minds, perhaps in some way that the female is especially vulnerable? I read Kevin's comment about you in "Letters Between Enemies" that as far as females went, you were ahead of the pack. If you are an example of the best and brightest of females that Australia has to offer, your country is in a pretty sad state of affairs.

I don't know what Kevin was talking about. Australians are definitely a different breed of people. I wouldn't mind living there though. Despite the people.

If a man holds out for a real woman who he can really love, in America he will be rewarded for his patient ethics. Perhaps in Australia he will face a substantial risk of never mating, so I recognize that would be a much bigger thing to ask, especially of a guy with a particularly strong biological drive.

I don't think this is a geographical thing. Any civilization that's been westernized seems to have the same type of situation between men and women.

I think you're wrong that if a man holds out for a woman he loves he will be rewarded. You can't force someone to love you...I found out the hard way! A favorite quote of mine is "attraction is not a choice". If a man isn't admired, and he doesn't change who he is, he will continue to not be admired no matter how long he waits.

It's sad that many men are led to believe, by their mothers and by bad television, that patience will be rewarded with love from their object of affection. It just doesn't work!

... if Australian men just refused to settle for bimbos, the females would then be prompted into conciousness by limited opportunities to satisfy their biological urges, as the men would primarily be available to real women. Women with potential would then be rather motivated to cultivate consciousness in themselves.

I agree with what Rory said that it wouldn't actually be consciousness, but it'd only seem that way. (I think that's what she was saying)

I don't think it's a good thing when women act intelligent. I have NO PROBLEM with women being intelligent...however out of the many that act smart, there are very few that actually are. Acting smart causes a lot more damage than being dumb...at least in my opinion and experience.

Biological drives are fairly strong in both males and females in general, so denying relationship opportunities to bimbos would be punishing to them, and ethical passionate relationships with real women would be tremendously rewarding. It is unfortunate that the responsibility would have to be on men, but only the conscious can take responsible action.

Dumb people are too dumb to see how to be smart. It wouldn't work. It would only make a lot of people sad, and further ruin sexuality between the sexes. In my opinion.

Now the question becomes if men can be mature enough to have ethical passion. I suppose it is possible – but considering how backward the gender situation seems to be in Australia – as described on this board – perhaps any effort by men to just be ethical and only have relationships with worthwhile women would be enough to raise at least the consciousness of women in Australia.

I don't think this talk has anything to do with raising the consciousness of women...that weight is much too heavy for all of the men in the world to lift (haha, a joke)...I think it has to do more with the men of this board deciding that women aren't worth wasting their time on, and deciding to be more individual and thus, "more masculine".

sschaula wrote:

If a man holds out for a real woman who he can really love, in America he will be rewarded for his patient ethics. Perhaps in Australia he will face a substantial risk of never mating, so I recognize that would be a much bigger thing to ask, especially of a guy with a particularly strong biological drive.

I think you're wrong that if a man holds out for a woman he loves he will be rewarded. You can't force someone to love you...I found out the hard way! A favorite quote of mine is "attraction is not a choice". If a man isn't admired, and he doesn't change who he is, he will continue to not be admired no matter how long he waits.

It's sad that many men are led to believe, by their mothers and by bad television, that patience will be rewarded with love from their object of affection. It just doesn't work!

I should have specified "real man" meaning "not a bitch" - because you are right in that a male who is an asshole is not going to be rewarded for his assenine behavior in the way that I meant.

... if Australian men just refused to settle for bimbos, the females would then be prompted into conciousness by limited opportunities to satisfy their biological urges, as the men would primarily be available to real women. Women with potential would then be rather motivated to cultivate consciousness in themselves.

I agree with what Rory said that it wouldn't actually be consciousness, but it'd only seem that way. (I think that's what she was saying)

I don't think it's a good thing when women act intelligent. I have NO PROBLEM with women being intelligent...however out of the many that act smart, there are very few that actually are. Acting smart causes a lot more damage than being dumb...at least in my opinion and experience.

Hmmm, perhaps I was giving men too much credit for being able to tell the difference between women acting smart and actually being smart, and the ability of concious individuals to coax actual thinking out of people with the potential to do so. I do agree that not all people have an actual ability to really think much or consistently.

I can see where acting smart can be more damaging if they fool people about whether or not they are actually intelligent.

Biological drives are fairly strong in both males and females in general, so denying relationship opportunities to bimbos would be punishing to them, and ethical passionate relationships with real women would be tremendously rewarding. It is unfortunate that the responsibility would have to be on men, but only the conscious can take responsible action.

Dumb people are too dumb to see how to be smart.

Yes, but I am proposing that many women are just acting dumb. It has been my observation that mothers and other women teach and encourage other women to act dumb in order to attract men. From the first time my mother tried to teach me to act like that, and despite hours of lectures on why it is smarter to act dumb, I have always found this to be really sick behavior. I believe that acting dumb leads to actual dumbing down, or at the very least it leads to not maturing intellectually, so if men would wake up to the game that women are playing on them and not tolerate the BS anymore, I believe it would be helpful.

It wouldn't work. It would only make a lot of people sad, and further ruin sexuality between the sexes. In my opinion.

There are guys who really prefer women to be dumb, or at least dumber than they are. I don't think my exhusband ever forgave me that I beat him at chess the first three times we played each other. The first time he figured he just wasn't paying attention enough and that it was a fluke, he actually got mad after the second round, and by the third round - well, we don't want to discuss that. He started really getting violent right about the time that he realized I was going to get my B.A. before he was. He should have married a dumb woman, but I believe he wanted to feel powerful by proving he could conquer a more intelligent woman.

He was an academically brilliant guy, but it was just that he was so convinced that there was no way that a female could ever be smarter than he was that when he realized that I could think better than he could, he lost his mind. Maybe that's why it scares me so badly to see men convinced that no woman could ever be an intellectual match for a man.

I eventually realized how much he was looking down on me when he thought I was not as smart as he was - and I realize that it was because he was looking down on me that he thought I was looking down on him in certain areas. I was not. In fact, my favorite memory from my marriage is from when we went to the Museum of Science and Industry, and between the two of us, we got every question right in the presentation. I was really impressed that he even knew exactly how many miles it was between Earth and the sun. Most people were just sitting through the questions looking dumbfounded - but whenever I didn't know an answer, I'd look at him and he answered it - then whenever he didn't know an answer he'd look at me and I'd answer it. The presenter wanted to have a few words with us after the presentation. That was cool.

It bothers me that he had to reduce everything to getting mad at my strengths rather than recognizing us as a team. As I'm learning more about how guys (read "bitches") think, the more suspicious I get of male-gendered people. I guess this is an example of what you mentioned about people acting smart rather than being smart being a bad situation - but it isn't just a thing about females acting smart rather than being smart.

Now the question becomes if men can be mature enough to have ethical passion. I suppose it is possible – but considering how backward the gender situation seems to be in Australia – as described on this board – perhaps any effort by men to just be ethical and only have relationships with worthwhile women would be enough to raise at least the consciousness of women in Australia.

I don't think this talk has anything to do with raising the consciousness of women...that weight is much too heavy for all of the men in the world to lift (haha, a joke)...I think it has to do more with the men of this board deciding that women aren't worth wasting their time on, and deciding to be more individual and thus, "more masculine".

I believe the QRS at least think they want to raise the conciousness of women, so I was addressing that aspect.

Yes, I agree that a noteworthy quantity of "men" on this board have made some pretty sweeping and closed-minded decisions about women, and I have challenged the points I have found irrational. Sometimes they are actually backing up their points and challenging my concepts about gender. Sometimes they have blown hot air - but I think many of us are learning from the interactions here.

“There is a new man in town: the ‘ethical bachelor’.

I'll give the "New Man" a passing glance but I think I'll keep my money on the last 50-some million years of mammalian evolutionary biology...
ME TARZAN , YOU JANE