GENIUS FORUMS

David Quinn wrote:Hey Philosophaster, would you say this is an example of a woman whose intellectual curiosity is hampered by a fear of conclusions they might reach?

Well, Unidian is not a woman, and I have never known his intellectual curiosity to be hampered by fear.

David Quinn wrote:It is interesting that there is very little difference between a dreamy, thoughtful ten-year-old girl and a dreamy, thoughtful twenty-five year old woman. Apart from wear and tear and a dose of cynicism, her views and values in each case are almost guaranteed to be the same.

I am not sure at all what you mean by this. Can you explain what views and values you are speaking of?

Dan,

And I think often times avatars can make a statement that a self-portrait doesn't really make. Indeed, they don't really say anything at all, do they?

They do to me. They tell me quite a lot about the person making the post. A pic of an ugly cartoon character, otoh, tells me nothing at all.

.

What sort of things do you think they tell you?

Philosophaster wrote:

David Quinn wrote:It is interesting that there is very little difference between a dreamy, thoughtful ten-year-old girl and a dreamy, thoughtful twenty-five year old woman. Apart from wear and tear and a dose of cynicism, her views and values in each case are almost guaranteed to be the same.

I am not sure at all what you mean by this. Can you explain what views and values you are speaking of?

What sort of views and values do you think the average dreamy 25 year old girl has, Philo?

Elizabeth wrote:

Okay, it's a little outdated (I was about 4 or 5 years old) - but is that non-sexy enough for you Ryan?

I didn’t see the child pic, but you should know if you are cursed with sexual qualities, some woman are blessed with a sort of androgynous neutrality. Moreover, I have yet to witness a sexually attractive woman that is also wise.

As a general rule, wisdom and female sexual beauty do not mix. They are like vinegar and oil. A woman’s sexual beauty is a ploy by nature to trick men into procreating, and as Quinn suggests, her entire sexual appeal is rooted in the ‘unconscious child’

Women’s beauty is a cosmic joke, as men are attracted to what is infantile. Moreover, if a woman is born without sex appeal and a decent intellect that this is indeed a lucky gift from the gods.

Dan Rowden wrote:What sort of views and values do you think the average dreamy 25 year old girl has, Philo?

In my experience, shallow and flighty ones.

But I am not interested in "average" people, either women or men.

Ryan,

As a general rule, wisdom and female sexual beauty do not mix.

Even more generally, wisdom and sexual beauty do not mix at all. Have you ever tried to keep a woman aroused with a philosophic conversation?

I have a developing theory that women are attracted to children and puppy-dogs... children to care for, and dogs to love. Female sexuality is essentially bestiality.

Trevor wrote:

Have you ever tried to keep a woman aroused with a philosophic conversation?

I agree, it’s not possible; the entire arousal process is based on telling each other lies until you reach orgasm.

Women are attracted to stimulating guys, guys that make them feel special by hearing their man lie to them, guys that will degrade their imagination to make them laugh, guys that will have rough sex with them, but will cuddle afterwards, it is based on a punishment and reward system of excitement and comfort. Generally, woman are attracted to what is mortal in men.

It is based on animal consciousness, and if one is attached to it, then one is moving in the opposite direction to what enlightenment is.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:...the entire arousal process is based on telling each other lies until you reach orgasm.

That is certainly an interesting view of sexual arousal.

Women are attracted to stimulating guys, guys that make them feel special by hearing their man lie to them...

What sorts of lies do you think women like to hear?

Philosophaster wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:So you are attracted to females that appear to think like men but still maintain their womanly(child-like) physical features?

I am attracted to women who appear to think rationally, whatever other label you want to give it -- who can separate their emotional reaction to an idea from evaluation of its merit and who take more things into account than immediate pleasure or wellbeing. Women who possess intellectual curiosity not hampered by fear of conclusions they might reach. And women who do not spend hours every day fussing over their appearance, gossiping about the looks or sexuality or romantic behavior of others, or trying to manipulate people into doing things by pouting or playing dumb.

OK, but she must look like a woman or, the sex which posesses and enhances their inherent child like physical features, right? Otherwise you would be attracted to men.

Philo wrote:

What sorts of lies do you think women like to hear?

They like to hear that they actually exist, and that their outward appearance matters. They want to feel special through compliments, and the questions they ask reveal that they want some petty emotional response from you. They’re always feeding; they’re always looking for some sort of emotional titillation, and they want to define themselves by what surrounds them, but they do it in such a shallow way. They cant do things for themselves so they get their men to fulfill their every whim.

here's an example of the complicated lie that is woman:

Woman: Can we please paint the living room this color honey?…

Man: ah geese, not again, I just painted it last fall…

Woman: yeah, but it would look so cute this color, and we can change the furniture to match, oh I cant wait to go shopping, I’ll call my girlfriends, and maybe they'll bring their boyfriends, and we can all go together, and then we’ll have dinner together, and see a movie, oh it will be so fun! Don’t you think?

Man: ah fuck!

Philosophaster wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:What sort of views and values do you think the average dreamy 25 year old girl has, Philo?

In my experience, shallow and flighty ones.

Ok, fair enough. No argument from me. But can you see the basis of David's comparison from that?

But I am not interested in "average" people, either women or men.

No argument there either.

Philosophaster wrote:

Well, Unidian is not a woman, and I have never known his intellectual curiosity to be hampered by fear.

You don't consider his habit of strongly adopting a conventional moral stance whenever he encounters an unconventional line of reasoning to be a problem?

DQ: It is interesting that there is very little difference between a dreamy, thoughtful ten-year-old girl and a dreamy, thoughtful twenty-five year old woman. Apart from wear and tear and a dose of cynicism, her views and values in each case are almost guaranteed to be the same.

P: I am not sure at all what you mean by this. Can you explain what views and values you are speaking of?

It would vary from female to female. In the case of a dreamy, artistic, mystical kind of girl - one who is thoughtful and doesn't put on airs - her values are likely to be romantic and aesthetic in nature. In adult life, her spiritual views are likely to be the old romantic, aesthetic ones in a different dress.

I believe sighing in the center of the Universe is popular amongst these types.

-

Dan,

What sort of things do you think they tell you?

For example, Trevor's pic above tells me he is extremely young, clean, Anglo-Saxon, serious-minded, all work and no play, and probably doesn't take shit from anybody. His previous avatar told me nothing at all.

Carl's real pic (as seen in other forums) tells me he is approachable, friendly and humble.

E's pic tells me that she is down-to-earth, intellectual and approachable.

David's pic tells me he has things on his mind more important than physical beauty and getting laid (mainly because of the untrimmed beard).

As for your pic, it would depend on which one you chose. They all tell me different things.

Do you think I'm totally off in all of these?

.

No, not really "off" as such. I would merely add that photos are generally posed and there's potentially 1,000 different messages from 1,000 different poses that are possible for most people. I think what people say, taken over time, is still a better indicator of who they are (and even then it's possible for postures to be adopted).

Nick Treklis wrote:OK, but she must look like a woman or, the sex which posesses and enhances their inherent child like physical features, right?

I don't care much for "enhancements," either, if you are referring to makeup. But yes, a person must look distinctively female if she is to sexually arouse me, since I am heterosexual.

David Quinn wrote:You don't consider his habit of strongly adopting a conventional moral stance whenever he encounters an unconventional line of reasoning to be a problem?

No, because I agree with some conventional moral stances. The fact that something is conventional does not make it wrong automatically.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:They like to hear that they actually exist...

Women do exist, at least by Dan's definition of "exist," which is something like "to present an appearance."

...and that their outward appearance matters.

Outward appearance does matter for the purpose of sexual arousal.

They want to feel special through compliments, and the questions they ask reveal that they want some petty emotional response from you.

I see nothing wrong with complimenting somebody who has done something worth complimenting. "Fishing for compliments," which you appear to be getting at here, is the activity of an emotionally childish person.

Woman: Can we please paint the living room this color honey?…

Man: ah geese, not again, I just painted it last fall…

Woman: yeah, but it would look so cute this color, and we can change the furniture to match, oh I cant wait to go shopping, I’ll call my girlfriends, and maybe they'll bring their boyfriends, and we can all go together, and then we’ll have dinner together, and see a movie, oh it will be so fun! Don’t you think?

Man: ah fuck!

And that is exactly the sort of vapid woman I would never consider dating. Surely you realize that not all women are like this.

Philo,

The fact that something is conventional does not make it wrong automatically.

Hmm, I think you could almost argue that it does, if by "conventional" we mean by convention only, rather than via thought and discernment.

Though, "wrong" might not be the best descriptor.

I took "conventional" in the sense of "popular."

Ok, well, things aren't automatically right because they're popular, either, as you know. But I think it's fair to suggest that that which is ordinarily popular is "by convention only".

A thoughtful and discerning person only "agrees" with conventional morality by virtue of shared language. Popular morality is built upon a foundation of logical fallacy e.g. "it's obviously wrong!"

Dan,

I would merely add that photos are generally posed and there's potentially 1,000 different messages from 1,000 different poses that are possible for most people.

Yes, but I take into account that the persons themselves choose which picture they want to display, and it tells me something about how they are trying to portray themselves. A well-chosen picture can say a lot.

I think what people say, taken over time, is still a better indicator of who they are (and even then it's possible for postures to be adopted).

I agree, but for me it's not a matter of which is a better indicator. The combination of the two things is better than only one of them.

Plus, just as postures are adopted for a pic, writing personalities are adopted for a forum. So if the person is trying to be deceitful, they will do it either way.

.

One can deduce a massive amount from a photo. Looks deceive less than one thinks. The mind creates the face and body as much as externalities do. There is little doubt about this.

Look at the creepy QRS dudes on the podcast site for instance.

It does however take femininity to recognise facial features accurately.

A thoughtful and discerning person only "agrees" with conventional morality by virtue of shared language. Popular morality is built upon a foundation of logical fallacy e.g. "it's obviously wrong!"

So what makes David Quinn think I am doing that?