GENIUS FORUMS

Elizabeth,

Sex is not always used for procreation, in fact it is usually used for recreation.

That's true. Haven't you read any studies which state that people with an active sex life are healthier?

Granted, recreational eating is pretty popular too. Excessive eating, sleeping and breathing all result in undesirable effect.

That they do. So moderation seems to be good in all things, including social contact. Too little...you get sad and unhealthy. Too much...you become the kind of thing we try to avoid here.

Perhaps after enough beer, all of those things could seem irrational.

It's not the beer which makes eating, breathing and sleeping irrational. It's the fact that they serve a purpose which is just as viable as anything else.

Insufficient eating, sleeping, or breathing lead to irrational thinking, therefore these things are irrational.

No. The things aren't irrational because they lead to rationality or irrationality. They're irrational because they're essential to something that needs to be held up...and with enough reason there's nothing which must be held up.

It's been asked in the past here, "why does the sage eat?" Answers were given, which were mediocre at best. The answer I'd give now is that "the sage" isn't a sage at all but just a wannabe. A poser.

The true sage's mind is immersed in the infinite, and not in the finite. Hunger is like anything else...it doesn't need to be acted upon. It's always a choice.

So, since a true sage wouldn't have any need to eat....it is irrational to eat.

Okay Scott, you figured out how to explain it to me. If insufficient eating, sleeping, or breathing are irrational because they lead to irrational thinking, and insufficient social contact leads to irrational thinking, then insufficient social contact must also be irrational.

I guess that's what I wanted to point out in the first place, but when you put it that way I feel the need to disagree.

"Everything is meaningless."

Scott wrote:

I guess that's what I wanted to point out in the first place, but when you put it that way I feel the need to disagree.

LOL. Hey, I just needed to put everything in the "rational box."

Elizabeth wrote:

A state of isolation is quite different from not being attached to relationships.

Yes, not being attached to the relationships you have is healthy whereas flirting around with the idea of a total state of isolation is not healthy.

Elizabeth wrote:

A person can not die of being celibate.

Yes, but Scott is pointing out that the sexual urge is natural to the body’s functioning. The body is programmed to replicate and make copies of itself through the sexual act. There is nothing inheritably bad or evil about the libido, that is a myth. An old Christian wise tale.

However I also have a theory that passionate females can end the severity/frequency of their libido easier than passionate males, this may have to do with the fact that the male has evolved to be the sexual aggressor and the fact that the man is so easily aroused and after he is aroused- well he literally has a problem on his hands.

Overall, the sexual urge isn’t a problem, it all has to do with frequency of the sexual act and whether one is attached the emotional stimulus received from the act itself.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:I also have a theory that passionate females can end the severity/frequency of their libido easier than passionate males.

The libido theory is probably right. As I understand, the male libido is activated by visual cues (but love is more of a package deal). The reasons for a female to be attracted to a male are various (some go for looks, supposedly most go for voice but I have not seen a prevalence of that, some for position, money, humor or other personality traits, and a very few go for intellect), but the female libido is more of a combination lock where first the guy has to at least spark some love in her and then use particular behaviors to arouse her.

Much of the body seems to be "use it or lose it" - and that seems to apply to the libido as well.

In the meantime I entertain myself by learning from the irrational unconscious blunderings of those who are asleep.

It is always so popular to refer to others as 'asleep.' But if you ever indeed 'woke up,' you would be quite amazed that you are the ONLY person in your dreamworld who is awake.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Ryan Rudolph wrote:I also have a theory that passionate females can end the severity/frequency of their libido easier than passionate males.

The libido theory is probably right. As I understand, the male libido is activated by visual cues (but love is more of a package deal). The reasons for a female to be attracted to a male are various (some go for looks, supposedly most go for voice but I have not seen a prevalence of that, some for position, money, humor or other personality traits, and a very few go for intellect), but the female libido is more of a combination lock where first the guy has to at least spark some love in her and then use particular behaviors to arouse her.

Much of the body seems to be "use it or lose it" - and that seems to apply to the libido as well.

If a man does not need or desire sex for pleasure or children, what does he need a woman for? What does a woman offer? What would a woman want from him? Companionship? Doing what? Playing cards, travel?

Can a man and a woman have a decent conversation? About what? About ideas? I have not found this to be possible. Is it possible?

Carl G wrote: If a man does not need or desire sex for pleasure or children, what does he need a woman for? What does a woman offer? What would a woman want from him? Companionship? Doing what? Playing cards, travel?

What do men get together for if they are not getting together to have sex with each other? Are women and men not both people? Granted some men and some women have quite different tastes in what they want to do, but so do some men differ from other men in their tastes. Do all men drink beer and watch football every Sunday during football season? Do all men go to the nude bar on Friday nights? No. Neither do all women absorb themselves in "girly" things. When a female tries to talk about candle parties, make-up, or hairstyles with me, my eyes glaze over within 3 seconds. Some people are just people.

Carl G wrote: Can a man and a woman have a decent conversation? About what? About ideas? I have not found this to be possible. Is it possible?

Two people of like minds can have a decent conversation about anything of common interest. The exact nature of their bodies don't need to play a role. A preconceived notion that such a conversation is not possible is a hinderance to such a conversation occuring. Perhaps you have experienced this phenomenon.

Carl wrote:

Can a man and a woman have a decent conversation? About what? About ideas? I have not found this to be possible. Is it possible?

For the most part, it is not possible now. There have been a few rational females, but not many. However females being exposed to the business world has caused changes within the female psyche. I remember while working at the call center that many women were able to behave similar to men in that he were calculative, shrewd, impartial and all the rest of it.

The female psyche is capable of changing, but they’re challenges seem to be more difficult compared to a man.

Since the feminist movement, there have been more and more intellectual women that choose not to have children. From what I have observed in prior female acquaintances, the maternal instinct to have a baby is quite strong in females so to overcome that is quite a feat indeed.

Unwise wrote:

It is always so popular to refer to others as 'asleep.' But if you ever indeed 'woke up,' you would be quite amazed that you are the ONLY person in your dreamworld who is awake.

Ryan looks around in all directions – his eyes grows wide – he stares directly at Unwise. Suddently he speaks “wow, you’re right Unwise, this is amazing!”

: )

I'm just cranking your chain big guy and oh yeah I still disaprove of your hedonistic bad habits.

Elizabeth wrote:

Two people of like minds can have a decent conversation about anything of common interest. The exact nature of their bodies don't need to play a role. A preconceived notion that such a conversation is not possible is a hinderance to such a conversation occuring. Perhaps you have experienced this phenomenon.

Elizabeth has a point, we can’t generalize here. I conversed with a couple intellectual females who were somewhat able to criticize society and human nature, however most females do not do it naturally, you must lead them. Most females like to be nice and not hurt anyone’s feelings. Their emotional nature and lack of interest in morals is their biggest hindrance. However If they can overcome those two hurtles they can go quite far. Moreover I know a girl from the university that can be quite impartial and stick to facts in certain issues, but when she becomes emotional in a personal way then of course the quality of the conversation breaks down.

Here are the two wisest females on the internet that I have found:

http://www.celiagreen.com/

http://www.wie.org/j19/vimala.asp?page=1

Carl, you realize how rare it is for men to be rational too right? It appears that men are weaker than females if they are not wise. Men are more violent, dogmatic, controlling, power hungry, carnal sexually, and all the rest of it.

A deluded woman compared to a deluded man is a saint. Carl, why do you continually focus on the shortcomings of women? What is your psychological motivation for this? It seems weird to me because you constantly do it all the time and usually in the presence of women.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:

Carl, you realize how rare it is for men to be rational too right?

Yes, of course.

A deluded woman compared to a deluded man is a saint.

Ha! A deluded saint.

Carl, why do you continually focus on the shortcomings of women? What is your psychological motivation for this? It seems weird to me because you constantly do it all the time and usually in the presence of women.

False. I do not "continually focus on the shortcomings of women" "constantly all the the time". And I have never done it in the presence of women (how would you know, anyway.). I have posted several of my scant fifty-some posts in threads addressing the subject.

My "psychological motivation" is simply to share observations and see what others may say about this. What are yours?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Carl G wrote: Can a man and a woman have a decent conversation? About what? About ideas? I have not found this to be possible. Is it possible?

A preconceived notion that such a conversation is not possible is a hinderance to such a conversation occuring. Perhaps you have experienced this phenomenon.

No, I have not. I always test the situation, if I am interested.

Carl wrote:

False. I do not "continually focus on the shortcomings of women" "constantly all the the time". And I have never done it in the presence of women (how would you know, anyway.). I have posted several of my scant fifty-some posts in threads addressing the subject.

Okay, it must be my misinterpretation then. I only ask because sometimes I sense an overly obsessive focus on the psychology of women in here – that’s all. And I was inquiring into the possible reasons why certain philosophers are so preoccupied with verbally dictating every single distinct flaw in woman while possibly overlooking others areas of inquiry.

What do men get together for if they are not getting together to have sex with each other? Are women and men not both people? Granted some men and some women have quite different tastes in what they want to do, but so do some men differ from other men in their tastes. Do all men drink beer and watch football every Sunday during football season? Do all men go to the nude bar on Friday nights? No. Neither do all women absorb themselves in "girly" things. When a female tries to talk about candle parties, make-up, or hairstyles with me, my eyes glaze over within 3 seconds. Some people are just people.

In all my years of trying to believe this, I've failed. Women are women and men are men, and there has never been an exception that I've been witness to. Even you, Elizabeth, are considered feminine by me.

sschaula wrote:Even you, Elizabeth, are considered feminine by me.

That is fine, I consider myself feminine as well. My beliefs differ from the prevalent philosophy here in that one can be feminine and be logical, rational, truthful, and more interested in important things than frivilous things.

If anything, I have observed that it is more likely for a female to be truthful than a male. Males seem to be more inclined to lie or cheat to get what they want, and some don't even think there is anything wrong with that because "it's all part of the game." Some who are more honest with men just don't think there is anything wrong with lying to or cheating a female because she's just a woman.

Carl wrote:
Can a man and a woman have a decent conversation? About what? About ideas? I have not found this to be possible. Is it possible?

Perhaps my belief that there are some straight men who can actually be ethical in their dealings with women is delusional. I have had a few conversations with men who were being good men at that moment, but the better I got to know them, I would discover that they had ulterior motives. Even in my business dealings with men, I have thought that I was explaining my work to a potential client when in fact the man was just wasting my time, trying to lure me into a conversation about anything just so he could ask me out on a date.

If a female draws clear boundaries, there are a few men who will respect those boundaries and deal with the female in a gentlemanly manner, at least for awhile. Those men are rare. I would like to believe that there are a few men who can, with effort, actually regard females as human beings and treat them as such on a consistant basis. It is possible that I have met such men, but at the moment I think it would be generous to estimate that there are perhaps 25 such men on the planet.

I was raised to believe that men were right and women were wrong. "Functioning" under this belief led me astray, but at least I had an extended experience of talking to men without the preconceived idea that he was probably a lying, cheating, lecharous scumbag. Between direct experience and my time on this board, it is getting more difficult to hold the view that men in general have enough decency in them to regard them as human. There may be a few decent men out there, but not enough to give me confidence that the world is in the right hands.

What is going on here is the usual fear of sex, fear of contact, fear of women, fear of life, fear of the body etc. 'Wisdom' is considered avoidance of all such normal things. 'Enlightenment' is considered the ability to avoid contact with all worldly issues and contacts - which also involves going on the dole.

I advocate a 'hedonistic' lifestyle simply to break spiritually-minded people from all such unbalanced and false attitudes. They have NOTHING to do with enlightenment.

This is one of the dullest 'classes' of 'genius' devotees I've seen in a while. It is like the forum is on a downhill spin-out. I'll come back in a year or so to see if there is anyone with an open mind.

Thanks to the QVC for putting up with me. I'll hand them that.

Unwise wrote:

I'll come back in a year or so to see if there is anyone with an open mind.

An open mind to what exactly Unwise? To embrace the chaos? How would one go about embracing chaos according to your way of seeing things?

Elizabeth wrote:

Even in my business dealings with men, I have thought that I was explaining my work to a potential client when in fact the man was just wasting my time, trying to lure me into a conversation about anything just so he could ask me out on a date.

Men and women are both dishonest by nature, however men are more likely to lie in a clumsy haphazard way and unwittingly become detected by the woman who is able to easily pick up on the emotional cues that the deluded man liar gives off.

Watching discussions between my mother and father are hilarious. She knows all my father’s dishonest cues and he gives himself away every time. And the major fallacy of the male is that he doesn’t remember how he has lied in the past so he gives him away in the future whereas a woman can easily remember everything he has said.

She'll interrogate him until he reveals himself as the cowardly fool that he is.

What a cosmic joke! The man is a sad case indeed - the deluded man liar is constantly crucified and most men never learn - they suffer over and over for their petty pleasures usually.

I have met women that were dishonest (meaning habitual liars), but they didn’t give off the same emotional cues that a man gives off. A woman habitual liar is sly because she is able to hide it so well, a man is a dufus in this regard.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Men and women are both dishonest by nature, however men are more likely to lie in a clumsy haphazard way and unwittingly become detected by the woman who is able to easily pick up on the emotional cues that the deluded man liar gives off.

So then shouldn't it be easier for men to see that lying doesn't work out so well?

Elizabeth wrote:

So then shouldn't it be easier for men to see that lying doesn't work out so well?

The problem is that the man becomes addicted to activities that contradict the female's will and she continuously questions him on them every time she suspects he has done something she doesnt prefer. And because he is afraid of being hurt psychologically he lies. However, he usually ends up feeling more pain because of the humiliation of being revealed as a liar over and over.

It's a viscious cycle - AKA Samsara. The man is just as much of a ignorant victim as the female who constantly worries, feels jealousy and all the rest of it.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:And because he is afraid

Fear is a big barrier to living a truthful life.

Funny how guys, especially teenage boys, do all these strange stunts just to "prove" to themeslves and others that they are brave, yet they wimp out when it comes to telling the truth.

Elizabeth wrote:

do all these strange stunts just to "prove" to themeslves and others that they are brave

And what is funny is that all those strange stunts are also motivated by fear.

So how is it that these guys are motivated by fear to pull these stunts, but they are not as motivated by fear to tell the truth? Is it because the stunts are planned, whereas truth-telling opportunities just come up in the course of life?

Elizabeth wrote:

So how is it that these guys are motivated by fear to pull these stunts, but they are not as motivated by fear to tell the truth? Is it because the stunts are planned, whereas truth-telling opportunities just come up in the course of life?

For the record, both are motivated by fear. For example most are motivated by fear to not tell the truth because the truth often hurts the other person which hurts the speaker so generally humans avoid truth-telling at all costs.

And with stunt pulling between males, Males do stupid stunts to fit into a crowd. They are terrified of not belonging to a social group so they resort to extreme ends to entertain other the members that threaten their position in the social click.

They are afraid to be alone, ostracized, and singled out as not belonging to any herd so they’ll do retarded deeds to exert their power and prove to the others that they are good enough to be in their click.

This behavior can be observed with both genders in high school. The females can be quite vicious as well. The clever females will ostracize certain members of their social click to ease their own fear of being ostracized.

Whatever a teenager's worst fear is then they will do that to their best friend to ease their own terror of it happening to them. That is why groups of people will herd together and sadistically attack the weakest member or members because they are terrified of being hurt themselves.

I remember that some of my closest high school pals would behave quite differently when we entered a group. Suddenly I was the enemy, they would attack me because they were afraid to attack anyone else, they were comfortable around me, but terrified of what everyone else may do so they verbally assaulted me before anyone had a chance to verbally assault them.

The sage is beyond that dynamic altogether, if a group were verbally attacking him, he wouldnt feel anything. Actually he would be fascinated with their behavior; he would be indifferent because there is no defensive structure left that feels threatened by the words of others.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:That is why groups of people will herd together and sadistically attack the weakest member or members because they are terrified of being hurt themselves.

Isn't that also why some men insult, ostracise, or denigrate members of "the weaker sex?"

Elizabeth wrote:

Isn't that also why some men insult, ostracise, or denigrate members of "the weaker sex?"

Many of the thinkers here make truthful observations pertaining to the weaknesses of female psychology, but the motivations behind their obsessive focusing probably varies. There could be many different motivations for that dynamic.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Elizabeth wrote:

Isn't that also why some men insult, ostracise, or denigrate members of "the weaker sex?"

Many of the thinkers here make truthful observations pertaining to the weaknesses of female psychology, but the motivations behind their obsessive focusing probably varies. There could be many different motivations for that dynamic.

David quinn is right about women. but you need to remember the first part: Man will always be inexplicably and unalterably addicted to the dream women contain. So though we may bitch, and consider women illogical and evil we will always be under the spell.