GENIUS FORUMS

Sky wrote:

yes i am completely free from sexual desire

lust has no hold on me

These two statements are at odds with each other, on the one hand you are saying you are free from sexual desire, but on the other hand you are saying that lust has no hold on you which implies that lustful thoughts do run through your brain from time to time.

And I’m not talking about suppression, the mind is capable of blocking out desire if it associates the desire with being ‘bad’, ‘naughty’, ‘vulgar’, and all the rest of it.

You also could be blocking out sexual desire due to the fact that you have been victimized by so many creepy men and therefore you may associate it with being unnatural, evil, creepy etc, but I’m suggesting it is perfectly natural and vitally detrimental if the species is to survive.

Secretly Sky, admit it, you finger yourself or use a vibrator don’t you? There is no right or wrong here, Some sexually victimized people will do it and then feel guilty afterwards, the mind is capable of all sorts of tricks.

And don’t lie because you feel the truth you will change the way you are observed. There is no self-esteem around here, we are only concerned with the truth. Don’t lie to protect your self-image, I've seen that one a thousand times, hell I've done it myself.

CP,

Secretly Sky, admit it, you finger yourself or use a vibrator don’t you?

This isn't a personal conversation between two friends...this is the internet, and we are all essentially strangers. Please don't talk like this anymore.

sky,

david you give yourself away

beauty and allure are not synonymous

but yet you perceive them to be

Well, perhaps you need to work a bit harder in separating them.

For example, I am a very beautiful person, yet I have never had anyone stalk me and women always look past me with fixed eyes as though I don't even exist. Not even a flicker of interest or appreciation registers on their faces.

I admit it wasn't easy to reach this level of beauty, but I worked hard at it.

Beauty can manifest on many levels. And what one person might see as beautiful, another person might only see ugliness. If you focus on appearing beautiful in an ordinary, superficial sense ("like a sunset"), then you'll tend to attract the crudest, most common rung of people. It's better to be beautiful to deep thinkers - that's my dictum.

as for the name sky it comes from this realization

'the sky never really touches the earth it just appears that way'

Ah, the feminine transcendence of the Goddess! I can hear the men drooling as we speak.

-

Scott wrote:

This isn't a personal conversation between two friends...this is the internet, and we are all essentially strangers. Please don't talk like this anymore.

Well aren’t you horribly conventional? Sorry to offend you, but perhaps you should ask why you are emotionally disturbed and if so, this is your emotional issue, not mine. Everything goes here, if you cant handle the heat old boy then go join the army, oh wait nevermind…

This is a psychological discussion where we go into the darkest realms of human thought, Don’t try to impose any rules on me, You starting to sound like a frightened emotional dictator! Wake up Scott! You’re asleep!

CP,

I'm not offended by anything you say. But someone else may be. Have some respect.

That kind of talk can lead to serious situations. It's easy to figure out everything about a person just from their screenname here. All it takes is a little knowledge, and a reason to seek out that information. It's not wise to give other people a reason to seek out your info. Who knows what could happen to you. Maybe some sick bastard will come to your house and stick a dildo up your ass, just because you said what you have.

Not likely, but who knows who is reading this stuff.

By the way...I should know how things go around here, because I've been coming here for a few years now. How long have you been here? Since January. So you see, it's kind of strange for you to tell me how things are run here. I know that anything goes. I'm not a moderator, and I wouldn't erase your comment if I was.

That doesn't mean that you should type it out and submit it.

I hate to use footballspeak. But I have been reading the various threads and the only thing I can think to say right now is COSMIC PROSTITUTE RULES!

david

Ah, the feminine transcendence of the Goddess! I can hear the men drooling as we speak.

yes david i know you are drooling even more than cp is

i knew i should have stayed out of worldly matters

it must really bother you david to be so devoted to despising women to find yourself so atrracted

and don't think it isn't obvious to others here

and thank you scott

as kevin advised me men will try to engage a woman by any means in order to form a relationship with her

thanks to his good counsel i know exactly what is going on

and that is all either of you are getting from me

this is my last post in worldly affairs nor will i be reading your replies

it must really bother you david to be so devoted to despising women to find yourself so atrracted
and don't think it isn't obvious to others here

I have to agree. And I can’t fathom how you concluded that yielding and nurturing are inferior characteristics and somehow less conducive to the obtainment of enlightenment.

Scott wrote:

Have some respect.

You mean be sensitive to other people’s egos, umm? No.

Scott wrote:

That kind of talk can lead to serious situations.

that''s what I’m looking for.

Scott wrote:

It's easy to figure out everything about a person just from their screenname here.

Yes but they’ve come to a hostile environment so they should be prepared to discuss hostile topics.

Scott wrote:

All it takes is a little knowledge, and a reason to seek out that information. It's not wise to give other people a reason to seek out your info.

If the information may help them see something a different way then it would be wise to give them that info.

Scott wrote:

Who knows what could happen to you. Maybe some sick bastard will come to your house and stick a dildo up your ass, just because you said what you have.

Don’t get superstitious on me Scott, you’re not making any sense, basically your saying that if I offend someone’s ego, the universe will magically punish me, is that what you saying? Come on, slap yourself in the face a few times.

Scott wrote:

it's kind of strange for you to tell me how things are run here. I know that anything goes.

Scott, it is not your responsibility to look out for other people’s egos. You should ask youself the emotional motive for doing so?

Are you possibly afraid of where this conversation may lead?

Are you afraid of witnessing the ego of someone get crushed?

Sky wrote,

it must really bother you david to be so devoted to despising women to find yourself so atrracted

and don't think it isn't obvious to others here

That was pretty obvious. It'd help people seeking enlightenment if they first sought out honesty.

CP,

You mean be sensitive to other people’s egos, umm? No.

It's always very stupid to see an ego deny other egos.

Yes but they’ve come to a hostile environment so they should be prepared to discuss hostile topics.

Like if they masturbate? That wasn't so hostile. Attacking the core of someone's ego is hostile...like if someone fears being hated, and you show them a lot of hatred...that's pretty hostile.

What you were doing was having fun, and being lustful. I consider that kind of talk fun, and not offensive. Like I said, I wasn't offended. But is this the kind of talk that people should be having on an internet messageboard?

Do you not get enough pussy in real life?

It's pretty gay to ask a girl online (that you don't know in real life) if they masturbate, and to try and get them to admit to it. That's something I would've done in middle school. And I would've gone and whacked off afterwards.

I'm sure you were about to do the same...moron.

If the information may help them see something a different way then it would be wise to give them that info.

I'm not sure that your home address would help the sick bastard in my scenario see things a different way.

Don’t get superstitious on me Scott, you’re not making any sense, basically your saying that if I offend someone’s ego, the universe will magically punish me, is that what you saying? Come on, slap yourself in the face a few times.

There's no magic in it. If you're an offensive person, you're bound to eventually end up getting the shit beaten out of you. If you are asking for a fight, I guarantee, you'll get one. Hopefully you're prepared for one.

How could you possibly assume that I'm believing in karma or some magical force of the universe by this? It's just common sense.

Scott, it is not your responsibility to look out for other people’s egos. And you should ask your motive for doing so Whose ego are you really trying to protect here anyway?

Who cares what I do? Are you offended by me looking out for other egos? Are you trying to help me "see the light" by telling me this? In that, you would be protecting my ego, and avoiding your given advice.

Kind of stupid, huh?

Are you possibly afraid of where this conversation may lead?

I'm not afraid of anything you've got in store. Unless you showed up at my place with a dildo...that I'm somewhat afraid of. But I can tell just by the way you act online that it would be no problem to disarm and disable you.

So, yea, I guess I'm not afraid of anything you've got in store.

Sky wrote:

and that is all either of you are getting from me

this is my last post in worldly affairs nor will i be reading your replies

That is because you are afraid of facing any sort of truth, prance away surreal vixen..

oh brother, what a blip in my consciousness that one was.

Bof1 wrote:

Did I have to post that?

Perhaps that is something you should ask yourself.

Could I have kept it a secret and give the illusion that it never happened?

The fact that you did post it means that you are attached to the power you feel you possess. The only thing is, the type of power you have is totally feminine. Which explains your ranting on about the girl in the café, as well as your emotional rant in the post I’m at present responding to. For example, the following line-

You are a fundamentalist and your religion is that you believe that the feminine has power over all men.

“Believing that the feminine has power over all men” is maintained by the Feminine and all who worship her (such as yourself). My fundamentalism is the belief that consciousness can destroy the feminine, and I do all I can to bring that about.

Didn`t a 'sage' that is a resident here say a Buddha could have sex with an infant? You will blindly follow that statement without question because you are still deep in your own illusion of power.

Only those who belong to the Feminine “blindly follow”. Their lack of consciousness allows such activity. Valuing consciousness, as I do, means valuing individuality.

This post has no substance whatsoever, it is just the blind belief in your own power of being a woman.

Only the Feminine mistakes consciousness as a 'deformed femininity'.

What is more, you are a woman, I am a man, and that is the breaks, deal with it.

And only a male long lost to the Feminine would mistake his physical form as proof of his possessing masculinity.

Edit:
I decided to say something that I had to consider.

The Feminine mind has no mind to stand by - so never mind.

I brought up this incident and deliberately used phrases like "knockout" and "beautiful" to demonstrate the absurd attachment to idealized power of the 'feminine'. Sue and Kelly are envious as you are not getting the attention you want and you think you deserve it because you are women.

And yet all you demonstrated was your own deep attachment.

How dare this lovely young woman steal the show, should I retrain the spotlight back on you?

Women are 100% innocent – which means that you knew not what you were doing.

-
Sue

Scott wrote,

sky: it must really bother you david to be so devoted to despising women to find yourself so atrracted

and don't think it isn't obvious to others here

Scott: That was pretty obvious. It'd help people seeking enlightenment if they first sought out honesty.

Blimey! A girl just has to come along and swish her dress and flutter her eyelashes a bit, and men everwhere suddenly start hanging on her every word and agreeing with everything she says.

Men are such dupes.

DQ: Ah, the feminine transcendence of the Goddess! I can hear the men drooling as we speak.

sky: yes david i know you are drooling even more than cp is

i knew i should have stayed out of worldly matters

it must really bother you david to be so devoted to despising women to find yourself so atrracted

and don't think it isn't obvious to others here

This is very close to paranoia. I remember on the other forum that you were complaining about some person on the net "stalking" you, but now I'm starting to wonder about the veracity of this. You are very, very quick to pull that particular trigger, it would seem. Too quick.

In any case, I don't have any sexual interest in you as a woman. Sorry about that. I was simply questioning your claim that you are beyond lust and no longer try to be sexually alluring. Given the way you present yourself on the net, I find that very hard to believe.

In other words, I was challenging your own conception of yourself, which is what I do with everyone on this forum.

-

cp wrote:

sky: and that is all either of you are getting from me

this is my last post in worldly affairs nor will i be reading your replies

cp: That is because you are afraid of facing any sort of truth, prance away surreal vixen..

Now that is obvious.

-

David,

Blimey! A girl just has to come along and swish her dress and flutter her eyelashes a bit, and men everwhere suddenly start hanging on her every word and agreeing with everything she says.

Men are such dupes.

I only agreed because I thought of it first. It was the first thing that popped in my mind while reading your post to her. "Damn, David seems kind of desperate."

Besides, why would I want to hang on her words after she's said she isn't coming back? It was mostly for your benefit, David, that I posted that comment.

Scott wrote:

Like if they masturbate? That wasn't so hostile. Attacking the core of someone's ego is hostile...like if someone fears being hated, and you show them a lot of hatred...that's pretty hostile.

She had the gall to claim she didn’t any feel sexual desire so I had the gall to interrogate her, understand?

You're not just trying to save the damsel in distress are ya Scott? You playing the hero role? That crap may work in the army pubs, but not around here.

Scott wrote:

What you were doing was having fun, and being lustful. I consider that kind of talk fun, and not offensive. Like I said, I wasn't offended. But is this the kind of talk that people should be having on an internet messageboard?

I was trying to point out her obvious hypocrisy, if you follow the post you will see I wasnt being lustful, I was interested in exposing her contradiction.

What is your motive for being the messageboard filter anyway? If you want to filter something, go try to stop the spew coming out of Millipede’s trap.

Scott wrote:

Do you not get enough pussy in real life?

So you’re measuring the value of me as a man by how much pussy I get? Scott, the last time I had a conversation like this I was in grade ten smoking pot in the baseball field…

Scott wrote:

It's pretty gay to ask a girl online (that you don't know in real life) if they masturbate, and to try and get them to admit to it. That's something I would've done in middle school. And I would've gone and whacked off afterwards.

yeah well I am not seeing things through your 'dating service filter'

If you were following my post close enough you would have seen what I was up to, but instead you blindly reacted like a bear that has just had a large boulder come crashing into its cave while it was in hibernation.

Scott wrote:

There's no magic in it. If you're an offensive person, you're bound to eventually end up getting the shit beaten out of you. If you are asking for a fight, I guarantee, you'll get one. Hopefully you're prepared for one.

Scott, this is an internet messageboard dedicated to discovering psychological truths, its not one of your army bar hangouts.

Scott wrote:

Who cares what I do? Are you offended by me looking out for other egos? Are you trying to help me "see the light" by telling me this? In that, you would be protecting my ego, and avoiding your given advice.

I’m pointing out that your reaction was entirely emotional, and therefore entirely ego driven.

Scott wrote:

I'm not afraid of anything you've got in store. Unless you showed up at my place with a dildo...that I'm somewhat afraid of. But I can tell just by the way you act online that it would be no problem to disarm and disable you.

Woah there cowboy, I don’t like where this is going, first you put the image out there of me getting it with a dildo and now you’re putting the image of me trying to get you with one and you disarming me, oh geese, I’m starting to understand why you joined the army in the first place Scott.

CP,

She had the gall to claim she didn’t any feel sexual desire so I had the gall to interrogate her, understand?

I understand that you're just lying to yourself. Your true intention was based entirely in your lust for Woman. You don't see it, so you fall for your own lies.

I don't really care anymore, having already pointed it out to you.

You not just trying to save the damsel in distress are ya Scott? You playing the hero role? That crap may work in the army pubs, but not around here.

Actually, what works in army pubs is "Come with me." But that's besides the point. I posted my advice that you stop talking that way, so that the board wouldn't become like a playground filled with people saying "anything goes" and then posting useless banter.

Kind of like this conversation.

I was trying to point out her obvious hypocrisy, if you follow the post you will see I wasnt being lustful, I was interested in exposing her contradiction.

That was a front. You were actually just trying to get some attention from her.

What is your motive for being the messageboard filter anyway? If you want to filter something, go try to stop the spew coming out of Millipede’s trap.

What, you can't handle the heat? Anything goes here, CP.

So you’re measuring the value of me as a man by how much pussy I get? Scott, the last time I had a conversation like this I was in grade ten smoking pot in the baseball field…

I'm measuring the value of you as a man by your perverted question to "sky". Pretty little.

If you were following my post close enough you would have seen what I was up to, but instead you blindly reacted like a bear that has just had a large boulder come crashing into its cave while it was in hibernation.

You are the one who is blindly reacting...to everything I say about you. Don't you see that is the ego which you try to confront with your posts?

I know a part of you does...but even in recognizing that you will probably dumb that part down and continue lying to yourself and me.

Scott, this is an internet messageboard dedicated to discovering psychological truths, its not one of your army bar hangouts.

It's about discovering your own psychological truths, not about if "sky" masturbates or not. This place is about YOU...not me, or anyone else.

I’m pointing out that your reaction was entirely emotional, and therefore entirely ego driven.

Emotional doesn't = ego driven.

Besides, how about your posts right now? Are they not emotional or ego driven?

Woah there cowboy, I don’t like where this is going, first you put the image out there of me getting it with a dildo and now you’re putting the image of me trying to get you with one and you disarming me, oh geese, I’m starting to understand why you joined the army in the first place Scott.

Are you scared?

AlyOshA wrote:

And I can’t fathom how you concluded that yielding and nurturing are inferior characteristics and somehow less conducive to the obtainment of enlightenment.

Commonly when we think of “yielding” and “nurturing” it is in the emotional sense, and found more often in women than men. But there is a masculine form of yielding and nurturing, that due to it not being emotionally based, is only recognized by the feminine as ‘arrogance’ and ‘selfishness’, and therefore dismissed as being of no use to her. For example: man yields to his reason: that is, he values his mind enough to accept the truth when he sees it. Then man lives by his reasoned truth, which naturally nurtures all that come in contact with him.

These masculine characteristics are very conductive to the obtainment of enlightenment, whereas the common emotionally based examples are only conductive to mindless ignorance.

-
Sue

Scott wrote:

I'm measuring the value of you as a man by your perverted question to "sky". Pretty little.

We were talking about whether the enlightened man can be free from all sexual desire, so surely masturbation is bound to enter the conversation especially when Sky claims to everyone that she no longer experiences sexual desire.

Scott wrote:

Your true intention was based entirely in your lust for Woman.

Do you think it was her ‘blue fonts’, her gimmicky picture or the lower case single lined sentences that caused me to be completely lost in lust?

Scott wrote:

It's about discovering your own psychological truths, not about if "sky" masturbates or not. This place is about YOU...not me, or anyone else.

The truth I was ought to discover is whether anyone can be completely free from sexual desire. Quinn and Solway said yes, but never did answer my question as to whether they masturbate. And then sky said that she was completely free from sexual desire, but her very language was suspect so I questioned her.

Now where in that exploration for the truth was I lost in lust?

Scott wrote:

I only agreed because I thought of it first. It was the first thing that popped in my mind while reading your post to her. "Damn, David seems kind of desperate."

I have no idea what you talking about, of course. I've reread that post and don't see anything in it at all. From my end, it was all lofty indifference from beginning to end.

Still, it has made me take note that I have to be more careful when dealing with women on the net in future, particularly young wounded women.

-

CP wrote:

DQ: Enlightenment doesn't result in stupidity. If a planet of enlightened people wanted their species to continue, then I'm sure they would take the necessary steps to continue it - whether it be through natural intercourse (possibly with the help of Viagra!) or through technological means, such as artificial insemination, IV treatment, cloning, and the like.

CP: Oh Poppycock Quinn! Do you actually think that nature will leave the wise man incapable of reproducing to the point where he has to reply on technology when there is a perfectly able natural mechanism already established within the human body?

Firstly, Nature doesn't care about wise people at all. She couldn't care less whether Buddhas survive or not. If it turns out that wise people are unable, for whatever reason, to produce children and continue the species, it will be no skin off God's nose.

Since sexual desire is so dependent upon the state of one's emotions, the issue of whether a male Buddha could get an erection and have sex is an interesting one. I think he probably could get an erection with the help of excessive physical stimulation, and so the problem of his lack of emotional desire could be bypassed in that fashion.

But again, with the way technology is currently developing, it won't be long before sex, as a procreation tool, becomes redundant.

Actually Quinn now that I think about it, you’re probably stroking your penius as you read this you little horndog, How much internet pornography do you have stored on your hard drive? Come on, come clean, give me a number? How many GB?

No porn on my hard-drive, but I have no qualms about masturbating if I have to release some pressure.

-

AlyOshA wrote:Sexual impulses are innate, instinctual, biological impulses on the most simple, mechanical and animal levels.

Yes, and so is the impulse to kill other people.

But please don’t get me confused, I am not saying that one needs to have sex in order to remain healthy, I am simply saying that it doesn’t matter.

The consequences matter.

Masturbation minimizes the consequences, but despite being a solitary activity it still involves other people in the longer term, through the workings of cause and effect. The deluded thoughts you have during sexual arousal will affect the way you interact with people in the future.

An enlightened person can acknowledge and indulge his human characteristics (otherwise what is the point in being human) yet remained detached, or better yet not savour them.

Likewise, a professional hitman can murder people while remaining "detached". That is in fact a requirement of the job.

Do you believe it is possible to explore transcendental spiritual states through sexual intercourse? Do you believe in the ancient practices of Taoist sexual yoga or sexual kung fu? Do you deny the spiritual implications of Tantra?

These things can be useful on very early levels of the path, just as taking LSD and other drugs can sometimes be useful during the early stages.

But because sex involves another person, the consequences can be that much more harmful.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:

I've never used viagra, but a man cannot have sex unless he can generate some kind of desire. A fully enlightened person cannot generate the desire.

So if you walk by a beautiful woman, you dont feel anything Kevin? So instinctive drives? no levels of attraction? nothing?

I missed your question.

Yes, I am sometimes zapped by a stunner. I am not a perfectly enlightened Buddha.

So I take it you no longer masterbate either then...?

Not often these days. But I'm not happy about it, because I think it is like taking drugs. That is, it is an unessential pleasure and release of stress. It is the taking of a holiday in an "animal realm" (as they say in Buddhism) - a rebirth in an animal realm.

Thoughts associated with sexual pleasure are definitely deluded. When those thoughts are analyzed in the cold light of reason, the conclusion is inevitable - they are deluded.

However this is actually quite problematic because if everyone were enlightened in the way you suggest then as a species we would have no way of reproducing/continuing, Do you think Nature would let that happen?

Intelligent people will find a way to reproduce that doesn't compromise our intelligence.