GENIUS FORUMS

dejavu wrote:

Yet when it comes to females, people seem always ready to regard them as victims, rather than responsible adults who are culpable for making bad choices in life.

Kelly, you moralistic old stick, an excellent human quality is that while people often don't know how to regard others in praise of their natures, they are quite prepared to help eachother unconditionally. Your sexualization of consciousness is morose enough without what you are idiotically trying to articulate here.

Many posters have articulated that females are victims of men, in this thread, who have been forced by men's sexual objectification into a degrading occupation. It would seem that you're protesting against their view, rather than mine.

But probably the worst kind of prostitution to encourage is love, because it affects the mind so dramatically and lastingly.

dejavu: O you poor little strap-on bachelor! Does love have you so prostrate before it that your "functionality" is rendered null?
Perhaps you have intellectualized it to the point of imagining your "autonomy" at peril under the necessary chaos of its conditions. Weak. In my experience, truly intellectual women always have their reservations about love, but their courage for it is not diminished on that account. You're much too religious for your intellect to shed its own light on the subject.

The evils of 'attachment', the furies themselves, they'll tear you apart you meek creature! You boast of a deep sense of humour. Where is it? Where's your heart?

Your sense of humour is too superficial: it doesn't truly break the shell of a firm abstraction, but just keeps everything vague. That's weak.

I actually don't think you're capable of articulating why philosophy is not hiindered by attachment. You're too easily distracted. You need to debate this with me in The Crucible, to bring some substance to your argument. Think you can manage that?

.

@ dejavu -- being a nice guy while keeping it real by considering her work arrangement & choices means I can do no more than what you described.

Carmel wrote:My criticism is not for calling women whores, but for the one sidedness of the analysis

My analysis was about being at the whorehouse as customer or employee was a more true reflection of the general state of affairs than most of the other activities we're engaging in. Therefore the transaction between whore and purchaser is more, ehmm, naked, as it were. And it are the women who are often in a situation pretending they're not in that situation. Men have no problem admitting the mechanism underneath, without hesitation or shame. At least, when I ask them.

And indeed lets be fair and call men names too! A vast majority of them could be easily called slaves, jerks, ego-maniacs, over-possessive, attached to imagery of all sorts, blocked off from any deeper, profound feeling, a bit helpless, boy-like and childish over many inane issues, living, killing and dying for emotions like pride and honor, becoming total tools as well as inattentive to where they are and what's happening.

But I'm being too kind perhaps. Then again, hardly any men will ever call me a 'man -hater' for it or pile the shit on that the noble defenders of women do all the time around here. Actually men, when I talk about these things, tend to laugh it off or often agree. Which they do with many serious issues so that wouldn't be surprising.

... your focus on the whorishness of women and didn't criticise pierdog's delusions. He's living in a fantasyland whereby he's trying to align himself with nobility to justify his own whorishness/slavish adherence to his baser, animal instincts.

You're speaking from a pure moral perspective which I'm not sharing. As pointed out by others here it seems that in other cultures the whole process had a more religious notion; just another flag to wrap the reality of our instincts in. Religious institutes always having been a vehicle for baser instincts, as Nietzsche described insightful.

I'm not really sure why he's posting other than to talk about where to put his genitals and feed his ego by falsely claiming superiority over women.

That's your interpretation. He seemed to have been looking for ways to rouse some sensitivities. And it worked!

Diebert, thanx for the support. I don't know WTF Caramel's problem is, it's not like I'm verbally abusing the whore or indulging in sadism. A whore is what she is. She knows it and knows she's lucky to get any affection at all and that I'm just doing her & myself a favor.

Diebert:
My analysis was about being at the whorehouse as customer or employee was a more true reflection of the general state of affairs than most of the other activities we're engaging in. Therefore the transaction between whore and purchaser is more, ehmm, naked, as it were.

Carmel:
All interactions among human beings can be reduced to a mere exchange of goods and services, if one is inclined toward a consumeristic ideology. The problem with this metaphor is that it's severely lacking in depth. It doesn't emcompass the whole human being. People are far more than a conglomerate of purchasers and products.

Diebert:
And it are the women who are often in a situation pretending they're not in that situation.

Carmel:
Some insure themselves against this type of bondage, but yes, I agree that if this is truly the core dynamic in a relationship, both parties would be well advised to acknowledge it and dissolve the relationship.

Diebert:
Men have no problem admitting the mechanism underneath, without hesitation or shame. At least, when I ask them.

Carmel:
If a man admits this, yet continues to engage in it, then he is participating in a lie of great proportions. The only noble action he could take would be to avoid this dynamic altogether as seems to be the prevailing credo around here.
But, remember that not all men ascribe to this one dimensional, consumeristic viewpoint.

Diebert:
And indeed lets be fair and call men names too! A vast majority of them could be easily called slaves, jerks, ego-maniacs, over-possessive, attached to imagery of all sorts, blocked off from any deeper, profound feeling, a bit helpless, boy-like and childish over many inane issues, living, killing and dying for emotions like pride and honor, becoming total tools as well as inattentive to where they are and what's happening.

Carmel:
What? Those are their good qualities, what about the bad ones. ;)
...No, I love men, in spite of their myriad of flaws and occasionally, even because of them...Oftentimes, when men allow their egos to get the better of them, I can see right through the facade to the insecure "boy-like" child and rather than feel annoyed, I feel compassion for them...but then, other times, their egos are just damned irritating!

Diebert:
But I'm being too kind perhaps. Then again, hardly any men will ever call me a 'man -hater' for it or pile the shit on that the noble defenders of women do all the time around here. Actually men, when I talk about these things, tend to laugh it off or often agree. Which they do with many serious issues so that wouldn't be surprising.

Carmel:
But if I said the exact same things, some wouldn't laugh it off. Most men accept criticism more willingly from other men than they would from a woman. Do you agree with this?

Diebert:
You're speaking from a pure moral perspective which I'm not sharing. As pointed out by others here it seems that in other cultures the whole process had a more religious notion; just another flag to wrap the reality of our instincts in. Religious institutes always having been a vehicle for baser instincts, as Nietzsche described insightful.

Carmel:
No, that's not true. In his case, I see it from a more consumeristic view because that's the main dynamic of his situation, but not the only one. I'd say more about this, if he's open to it...what say ye, pierdog?

It's all very well to say, stop exploiting women by treating them as sex objects, but what if the women want to be treated as sex objects, and treat themselves as sex objects? Does that not mean that they are sex objects?

On the other hand, when women keep wanting men to stop treating women as sex objects, then basically they're saying that women will mold themselves around men's new desires. Which means they are men's objects anyway........ aren't they?

Why do women want men to make the first move? It sounds like they're too weak to take the initiative, and say no. Or, that they really do want to be passive, and let men make reality.

.

Kunga wrote: everyone THINKSthey are rational, fair and truthful in their own way...we just have different ways of expressing it

Kelly Jones wrote: If everyone actually is rational, fair and truthful, then there is no meaning to rationality, fairness, or truthfulness. There is no contrast by which to judge.

Kelly Jones wrote:Love is attachment

Not REAL love. When you really love someone, you want their freedom and happiness....even if it means to lose them. Real love is when you'd give your life for someone....like shielding them from an on-comming bullet.

pierdog wrote:Diebert, thanx for the support. I don't know WTF Caramel's problem is, it's not like I'm verbally abusing the whore or indulging in sadism. A whore is what she is. She knows it and knows she's lucky to get any affection at all and that I'm just doing her & myself a favor.

No...she NOT a whore...a whore whores around for free...prostitutes do it for money.

And she's doing YOU a fucking favor...you're the whore doing it for free ! LOL


If you love sex so much why don't you prostitute yourself...you can have all the free sex you want and get paid for it !

Kelly: Love is attachment

Kunga: Not REAL love. When you really love someone, you want their freedom and happiness....even if it means to lose them. Real love is when you'd give your life for someone....like shielding them from an on-comming bullet.

Precisely that is attachment.

It's obvious because of how you've presented the one "in love". They discriminate against everything the person actually is. They are attached to a delusional construction of what the person is, or what is desireable. They don't actually see how the person really exists, or how causes work. They don't care about the causes and consequences, or what their interference may lead to. Their "selfless love" is actually deeply blinded and selfish.

To truly care for a person is to see their true nature, i.e. the Infinite, and to wish them to see it also.

By contrast, to love their "life" - the chemical processes that make up the ongoing activity of the person, including their consciousness - is just needing a reflection of one's own ego. It's treating the person as a way to avoid being aware of what one truly is, by reflection. Thus, it is treating a person as an object of your own lusts and, therefore, is actually quite a bit worse than treating a prostitute as a sex object with nothing else to bring to the table. At least the person using a prostitute is honest and upfront about buying the services offered by a prostitute, and not dreamily hypocritical as if the trade is actually looking after the prostitute's welfare in a completely selfless way, which is what your "real love" actually is.

Thus, love is really a hell of a lot worse than detached sex, which is after all only physical. Sex is immaterial. It's what happens in the mind that matters.

.

@ Kunga -- I could use the whore like a garbage can like everyone else does but I'm doing both of us a favor by throwing in a bit of anon intimacy and she knows it. Secondly, the original meaning of 'whore' is 'prostitute. Twats who fear being replaced by whores try to make me look bad, that's all it is.

Carmel wrote:All interactions among human beings can be reduced to a mere exchange of goods and services, if one is inclined toward a consumeristic ideology.

But that was not my point. Breathing is an exchange too, probably most biochemical processes could be seen as exchanges. No wonder you find the 'metaphor' lacking in depth. But what if your reading of it is lacking in depth?

The key idea behind prostitution is not the simple economical demand and supply. It's the fact that money (time, effort, attention, ego-gratification) is payed for an idea, a deeply rooted dream and not some physiological necessity, although it might feel that way - and the hormonal balances do differ wildly between men. But without the core delusion in place, there would be no desire to actually fuck to fulfill, and no business to attend for anyone.

And yes, this does encompass the "whole human being", how he spends himself into delusion and claims necessity. But at least the prostitute and her customer have no need to dress it up, much. And if they do, the price does go up! And its moral standing too, for some reason.

If a man admits this, yet continues to engage in it, then he is participating in a lie of great proportions.

Ah yeah, the question of free will rears its ugly head again. Yet, such conscious lack of denial keeps the door open to greater things if there's the will, the attention, the circumstance and the strength of character to do so. But the participation itself is not a lie, the question is only if the realization of it wouldn't spoil the magic that's needed to keep it going.

But if I said the exact same things, some wouldn't laugh it off. Most men accept criticism more willingly from other men than they would from a woman. Do you agree with this?

Well, most men feel uncomfortable with any criticism or rejection from women in their direct environment. They have this drive to suffice somehow. That might explain your experience.

Diebert:
And yes, this does encompass the "whole human being", how he spends himself into delusion and claims necessity. But at least the prostitute and her customer have no need to dress it up, much. And if they do, the price does go up! And its moral standing too, for some reason.

Carmel:
Oh, I see, so you're allowed to make moral judgements, but criticize me for doing so. Why the double standard? ..and anyone who is in the "women are whores" camp is making a moral judgement. There's inherent judgment within the word "whore".

So quit waffling, are you in the one dimensional "women are whores" camp?

Diebert:
Ah yeah, the question of free will rears its ugly head again. Yet, such conscious lack of denial keeps the door open to greater things if there's the will, the attention, the circumstance and the strength of character to do so. But the participation itself is not a lie, the question is only if the realization of it wouldn't spoil the magic that's needed to keep it going.

Carmel:
It is a lie, but not for the reasons you claim, and yes, the realization of it will spoil the magic, delusion, fantasy.

Diebert:
Well, most men feel uncomfortable with any criticism or rejection from women in their direct environment.

Carmel:
Yet, they're more than generous in their criticisms and moral judgements upon women.

Diebert:
They have this drive to suffice somehow.

What and women don't have this drive?
"whores, bitches, sluts, cunts and now 'twats'". We've seen it all before. It's boring. It's ugly. We live in a misogynistic society, Diebert..or hadn't you noticed?

Diebert:
That might explain your experience.

Carmel:
I'm trying to explain my experience, but if you hold a one dimensional view of women, then I'm wasting my time. This, I know.

Kelly Jones wrote:It's obvious because of how you've presented the one "in love". They discriminate against everything the person actually is. They are attached to a delusional construction of what the person is, or what is desirable. They don't actually see how the person really exists, or how causes work. They don't care about the causes and consequences, or what their interference may lead to. Their "selfless love" is actually deeply blinded and selfish.

When you are in a relationship with someone...and you want to leave that relationship, but the person claims he loves you, and dosn't want to let you go,so you stay in that relationship, like a prisoner of "love".........don't you think it would be less selfish to let the person go that wants to leave the relationship ?

Kelly Jones wrote:To truly care for a person is to see their true nature, i.e. the Infinite, and to wish them to see it also.

So why are you hiding in the outbacks of Tasmania making videos and keeping a safe distance from your fellow human beings ?
Why do you loathe people so much if you know their Infinite nature ?

Kelly Jones wrote:love is really a hell of a lot worse than detached sex, which is after all only physical. Sex is immaterial. It's what happens in the mind that matters.

Oh, so rape is better than love and affection ? Has your mind been permanently shattered from your experiences in love or sex ?

Sex is acually a spiritual thing inacted on the physical realm . Detached sex is being ignorant of the Infinite . The Infinite only exists because of Infinite Love. Infinite Love is all there is. If you Infinitely Loved everything you KNOW the Infinite....lacking this love is ignorance.

And i am ignorant...because i lack this love i am speaking of...but i felt this was a truth...so i said it.

kelly lives in 2nd grade

"zamer"

Steven Coyle wrote:"zamer"

Urban dictionary says: "a guy that thinks he is a player but could not get laid by a retard on coke".

dejavu wrote:... about debating me in the crucible, I'm afraid I would get dissected. Sorry.

First grade zamer!

Diebert van Rhijn:

But that was not my point. Breathing is an exchange too, probably most biochemical processes could be seen as exchanges. No wonder you find the 'metaphor' lacking in depth. But what if your reading of it is lacking in depth?

Carmel:

Diebert, I forgot to address your chronic and patronizing attempts to question my reading comprehension. I understand your message loud and clear. So, does pierdog, which is why he's thanking you for supporting his (possible)pedophilia and (possibly) participating in the dynamic of the human slave trade. He also said previously "I agree with you that women are whores." You would have corrected him if he misundersood you.

It doesn't bother me that you think this, I would just prefer to know the truth so I can disengage from discussing this you as I am aware that misogyny has deep psychological roots and am under no delusion that anything I say will have any impact on your perception, so I'd prefer to focus my attention elsewhere...

Carmel wrote: Oh, I see, so you're allowed to make moral judgements, but criticize me for doing so. Why the double standard? ..and anyone who is in the "women are whores" camp is making a moral judgement. There's inherent judgment within the word "whore".

In which way you perceive me making a moral judgment here ?

To me there's no moral sense to whoring. But that's just me. Of course, by valuing truth, being steeped in a lie would become some form of immorality.

"whores, bitches, sluts, cunts and now 'twats'". We've seen it all before. It's boring. It's ugly. We live in a misogynistic society, Diebert..or hadn't you noticed?

And this forum is one of the places that isn't. Or hadn't you noticed? Women are so self-deprecating, it's rare to find an exception. Most of the times it's some form of compensation but no real conquest.

pierdog wrote:@ Kunga -- I could use the whore like a garbage can like everyone else does but I'm doing both of us a favor by throwing in a bit of anon intimacy and she knows it. Secondly, the original meaning of 'whore' is 'prostitute. Twats who fear being replaced by whores try to make me look bad, that's all it is.

@pierdog> and why would you want to stick your dick in a filthy garbage can ? i can't imagine having sex with something one considers vile . You are probebly a decent guy that has never had to resort paying for sex with a prostitute...and so it is difficult for you to treat her as you would a blow-up doll. I feel very sorry for you guys that were created with these hormones that torcher you with lust day and night...almost 24/7. Amazing is the man that can keep it under control.

And i don't understand why you need a woman to release the sex urge. Rosy Palm is very handy.

Oh,ffs, Diebert,

....snap out of it!

I might just start cracking jokes at your and Kelly's (aka "the houndess of hell") expense until Dan get pissed off enough to ban me. :)

Aesop's fables encounters a live lot of larme

Carmel wrote:your chronic and patronizing attempts

and

.. his (possible)pedophila and (possibly) participating in the dynamic of the human slave trade.

No, you rather would accuse people of crimes without knowing anything about it at all? So much better than patronizing! I might have been annoyed somewhat though. Where I live prostitution is a legal professional business for the most part. Just a few blocks away as a matter of fact.

He also said previously "I agree with you that women are whores." You would have corrected him if he misundersood you.

But he didn't misunderstand. The fact that there are more implications and levels to it, doesn't make the face value of my remark less true on a fundamental, psychological level. And not as much a practical one (there are many possible reasons a woman would not sell sex for some price), or a moralistic one (like your implied "women are cheap and dirty like the way I, Carmel, see whores").

I'm still puzzled about how you can derive "hatred" from all this. My life, my participation on this forum, my various discussions with the surprisingly present women here (you, Kelly, Pye, Leyla, Alex [j/k], Sue to name a few) should testify of my great interest to deal with good minds no matter their gender. And interestingly when I ask women around me about the whore aspect, they tend to agree with my observations, as long as it's about other, competing women ;-)

Diebert:
or a moralistic one (like your implied "women are cheap and dirty like the way I, Carmel, see whores").

Carmel:
What the hell are you talking about? I have much compassion for the "whore" for having to deal with sick depraved fuckheads like pierdog everyday...and he's probably the least of her worries.

As for the rest of your statements, there's nothing more for me to say about it, at present.

Carmel wrote:

...or a moralistic one (like your implied "women are cheap and dirty like the way I, Carmel, see whores").

What the hell are you talking about? I have much compassion for the "whore" for having to deal with sick depraved fuckheads like pierdog everyday...and he's probably the least of her worries.

But you wrote: There's inherent judgment within the word "whore".

The only negative judgment contained in the list of possible meanings would be "immoral" or "compromising principles". Which is "cheap" as in "no respect" or "vulgar", "dirty".

This means the "inherent judgment" is yours to make. While the context was about the profession and who knows, she might be better off than other girls back home, forced into marriage or another type of slave like existence in a bottom end working class.

Diebert:

This means the "inherent judgment" is yours to make.

Carmel:
No, not at all. I was referring to the chronic accusations by many men that women are whores.

Diebert:
While the context was about the profession and who knows, she might be better off than other girls back home, forced into marriage or another type of slave like existence in a bottom end working class.

Carmel:
dream on... She might be beat senseless on a regular basis, by her pimp or sociopathic, sadistic men. I don't understand why you're still trying to romanticize the situation.