GENIUS FORUMS

Leyla wrote:

Well, after all this time and much deliberation, I have resolved a longstanding mental blindspot: the dicketh alone so does not maketh the male.

I have therefore concluded with absolute certainty that Ryan is a female.

After all the profound discourse in this thread, I have a deep yearning desire to contribute something positive to the group so to keep up with the theme of sadistic men that enjoy abusing women:

Leyla, I’m only going to say this once: suck my erect 18-inch black penius!

good day.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:People who SI tend to not be able to create that internal environment without physical injury, so they injure themselves to produce internal homeostasis. Provoking someone else to injure you is essentially self-injurious behavior.

When I was young and naive enough for it to be an excuse, I had a relationship with a woman who tried to provoke me into hitting her.

Well, actually, there were two such women, and they were very different. One just liked very rough sex; she wanted me to smack her around in bed. I met her step-dad, and he was definitely an irrational, violent guy. I guess that's what her mom liked, too.

With the other woman, it was more a psychological thing. She had some sort of need to be a victim. I only vaguely understand it. I know she had this repeating pattern with her best friend where, if she slept with a guy, the best friend would sleep with him soon after. That happened at least three times that I know of. She tried to get me to hit her, but it wasn't directly sexual; she wanted me to hit her in front of other people. Some kind of dominance thing, I guess.

They don't like the abuse. They just don't know how to do any better.

If they like it, then it's not abuse... is it?

David H,

No, if they want it, it is not abuse.

S&M is a totally different thing, and it is not abuse. S&M, from an article I read, assuages the guilt associated with enjoying sexuality for some people. 2 of my friends' wives and some other people I know are into S&M, so I've heard a great deal about that, too. No matter what is being done to them, it is never out of control. Even in dungeons where there is a full scene going on including where the person being whipped or having hot candle wax dripped on them says stop and doesn't really mean it, there is always a safe word that when spoken means for it to stop, and it does.

And it isn't just women that like that - actually it's fairly common for the men in that to be successful business men, ususally in positions of power and authority, that like the change of being a submissive under a dominatrix. Again, it is a very controlled environment where it's all play - tempers are never actually lost, and pleasure is sought through pain - it is never actually about hurting anyone or forceful control over another. Control is given willingly and accepted gracefully. I met a few guys who had sex slaves as well, and in reality, it's more like having some really close friends of the opposite gender than any kind of actual domination.

You must be a pretty stable guy for a female like that to trust you in that way. Of my 2 friends whose wives are into S&M, one likes her husband to cuff her and do the spanking. He isn't "into" that scene, but understands his wife's desire and finds going along with it harmless and worth making his wife happy. He is the most stable guy I know - picture a calmer version of Dan who likes sex, and you'll get get a good idea of what he's like. I take back something I said earlier - he's capable of being in love and still being rational. Point being, it is very important for this to work that it actually be safe so the fantasy can be enjoyed by the players, so no unstable people are welcome in that scene.

As for the girl who wanted you to hit her in front of others, perhaps that was like what Kelly was talking about. Some people are in a great deal of emotional pain, which whether or not other people can see (and surprisingly often, people can't actually see it), the pained person feels that others can't see the emotional pain the same way they could see physical pain, and want people to understand how much pain they are in. I do believe that a fundamental desire of people is to be understood, and if they can not be sufficiently understood directly, will settle for being symbolically understood. Filling that role for her though would have caused people to misunderstand you.

Katy wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:

dan wrote: Relationships are abusive by default.

agreed

hear hear.

Disagreed. All of you are wrong. Many relationships are abusive. A few are not.

Are sweeping wrong statements a sign of genius? I think not.

millipodium wrote:Many relationships are abusive. A few are not.

Agreed.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

millipodium wrote:Many relationships are abusive. A few are not.

Agreed.

Kevin - you were recently in a relationship - was it abusive? David - you've been in a couple of relationships - were they abusive? Dan - Have you ever been in a relationship?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:You must be a pretty stable guy for a female like that to trust you in that way. Of my 2 friends whose wives are into S&M, one likes her husband to cuff her and do the spanking. He isn't "into" that scene, but understands his wife's desire and finds going along with it harmless and worth making his wife happy.

I've known a few girls who were into bondage (not S&M), and while I enjoyed it and all, in the end I concluded that it is not harmless. It's a part of the human psyche that should not be catered to.

At some point I made a deliberate decision to not be a dominant, even though that is probably part of my underlying nature. What surprised me is that if you do not dominate, many people will assume you are submissive. Seems like dominance and submission is a pretty basic (and large) part of monkey nature.

Hmmm, maybe bondage is a good metaphor for attachment... or maybe it's just a specific kind of attachment.

As for the girl who wanted you to hit her in front of others, perhaps that was like what Kelly was talking about. Some people are in a great deal of emotional pain, which whether or not other people can see (and surprisingly often, people can't actually see it), the pained person feels that others can't see the emotional pain the same way they could see physical pain, and want people to understand how much pain they are in.

You could be right. I never really understood it. I probably never got the entire story.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

millipodium wrote:Many relationships are abusive. A few are not.

Agreed.

I've been in relationships that were not abusive, and they only ended because they just didn't work out. One was with a really kind, sweet guy - neither of us took advantage of each other in any way, we were both broke so we never went anywhere that cost anything, and the only thing he ever bought me was a black silk rose - and before you guys say "but aha - he did buy you something" I'm the one that drove us places (not far and not often) so even that was "even" - more than even because we both got more pleasure from our experiences together than we would have had alone. When he got ordained as a Satanic priest and was ready to move to go start his own branch of the Church of Satan, he wanted me to move with him, but I just couldn't picture myself going into that lifestyle. I felt shallow for making that decision, but there were practical matters that I believed were more important. We parted as friends.

Another was with a bisexual guy, and although I got the feeling that he only wanted to take me to the beach with him so that he'd be able to ogle the guys without getting beat up, I don't consider that abusive. Rude maybe, but not abusive. At another point when we were in an intimate situaltion, he suddenly assumed a position where I just had to stand back a moment and figure out what to do. I just didn't have the "equipment" to do what it appeared he wanted me to do... When it came time for him to move, he asked if I wanted to continue with that as a long distance relationship or break it off, I really felt that he would be happier if he found a guy so I let him go. I consider that an act of rational love.

As long as sufficient rationality is used in a relationship, there is no abuse.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

S&M is a totally different thing, and it is not abuse. S&M, from an article I read, assuages the guilt associated with enjoying sexuality for some people. 2 of my friends' wives and some other people I know are into S&M, so I've heard a great deal about that, too. No matter what is being done to them, it is never out of control. Even in dungeons where there is a full scene going on including where the person being whipped or having hot candle wax dripped on them says stop and doesn't really mean it, there is always a safe word that when spoken means for it to stop, and it does.

S&M through role-playing is still abuse, it is disguised as a simulation of violence. However, It is still spiritual abuse to oneself and the other even if there is consent. It is based on the feminine reward of excitement. It is animalistic in its nature.

I’ve experimented with softcore and hardcore role-playing/etc with couples and groups when I was in high school, and in college, and after college, (oh brother) and you are basically conditioning yourself into emotional-habits that are incredibly difficult to break.

Moreover, the emotional reward becomes harder and harder to fulfill so one needs to move on to acts that are more extreme. This is how fetishism evolves, it’s not desirable. I don’t recommend it to anyone.

You are right that only emotionally stable humans are able to organize and pull off something like that. It takes a certain level of confidence and indifference to how people react emotionally to you, it takes a certain pathology, However, I’m quite certain that it is an abusive vice through and through.

I’ve come to the conclusion that fetishism is genetically inherited. Both sides of my family have collections of odd pornography, and my genetic origins are half German/half French. The history of German pornography is quite interesting… quite interesting indeed.

So relationships are indeed abusive by default because most humans merely use each other to satisfy conditioned cravings that cause pain/pleasure to both themselves and the other.

Generally speaking, Relationships between humans is an agreement on the conditions or terms of how the parties involved are to be emotionally and physically dependent/enslaved to each other.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a short exploration I wrote called: The sexual act as the feminine dance of dualistic power forces.

***WARNING PLEASE READ THIS DISCLAIMER BEFORE YOU CONTINUE – THIS WRITING IS BORDERLINE PORNOGRAPHY. BY READING THIS DISCLAIMER YOU AGREE THAT THE AUTHOR CANNOT BE HELD FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE, LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE OR MORALLY RESPONSBLE IF YOU FOOLISHLY CAUSE HARM TO YOURSELF BY BEING INSPIRED. FOR EXAMPLE SUPPOSE THIS MATERIAL CAUSES YOU TO BE AROUSED, AND THEN YOU MASTERBATE, RESULTING IN UNWITTINGLY EJACULATING ON YOUR COMPUTER HARDWARE CAUSING IT TO MALFUNCTION***

There are two sexual possibilities, which are really only one, and these can switch or interchange between the parties involved or they can stay fixed.

One person in the sexual act plays the role of the powerful, and the other plays the role of the powerless.

The powerful derives excitement through having control over the other, while the powerless derives excitement through being controlled by the powerful. Each one derives pleasure through the opposite sex role.

The male who prefers the position ‘doggystyle’ does so because he is higher than the female, and he has complete control over her entire body, she is below him, and it is his brain that is in charge of the penetration.

So he is the penetrator and she is the penetrated. The penetrator has control in how he uses the female body to derive pleasure and this gratifies him.

The female that prefers to be on top of a male does so for the same psychological reasons, she is higher than him, and she has control over his entire body, he is below her, and it is her brain that is in charge of the penetration.

So in this case she is the penetrator and he is the penetrated. Again the penetrator has control in how she uses the male body to derive pleasure for herself. The penius is her temperary play thing.

And the one being penetrated, and the one that loses control paradoxically feels powerful by being powerless, excitement is derived through both scenarios in both ways simultaneously. Moreover the powerful male is usually also the destroyer. The destroyer derives pleasure through the thought of ruining or corrupting the female and the one that is destroyed derived pleasure through the thought that she is being ruined or corrupted by a more powerful force than her.

Men are usually turned on by two scenarios, they either derive excitement through the thought of an overly promiscuous women being ruined worse than she has already has been or they derive excitement through the thought of a young angelic virgin being corrupted by her first sexual experience.

In each scenario, the chaste women is a metaphor for purity of truth. Femininity is a pointer to god. However the joke of women is that based on her exterior you believe that you are receiving the heavenly femininity by pursuing her, but in actually she represents the earthly more primitive femininity. The gods do indeed have a sense of humor.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:S&M through role-playing is still abuse, it is disguised as a simulation of violence. However, It is still spiritual abuse to oneself and the other even if there is consent.

You are using a different definition of abuse, that's all. You are including anything that could impede further development of wisdom, even if the further development of wisdom is not an interest of the participants. If a person is not interested in becoming wise, they are not going to anyway.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:It is still spiritual abuse to oneself and the other even if there is consent. It is based on the feminine reward of excitement. It is animalistic in its nature.

****Bigger disclaimer - if you thought Ryan's post was arousing and don't want to get aroused, don't even think of reading the following paragraph...*****

Is excitement and animalistic pleasure always contrary to spiritual development to everyone? or is it dependant on one's ability to detach? In my 20s I believed in platonic sex, and considered both actual sex and sexual activity to be something that was enjoyable to do with friends and neither expected nor wanted a relationship out of the deal. Most of the guys seemed to handle it just fine, only about 3 thought they could but it turned out they got attached, and only 2 said upfront that they couldn't play because they would get attached to me if they did. I think it's more usual for a guy to be able to separate sexual activity from relationship love, and I was never distracted because of it - and actually was more distracted by an inclination to sexuality when I hadn't done anything for a long time.

Ryan, I wonder if for some people, relieving sexual desires by endulging can satisfy a sexual appetite enough that the person's mind is freed up for other persuits for awhile whereas otherwise he would be too preoccupied with sexuality to be able to accomplish anything useful? The Middle Way states that a starving person is not going to be able to think as quality of thoughts as one who has had an adequate amount of food, so one should eat (just not overindulge). Although one will not die so obviously of lack of sex as from lack of food, as millipodium once pointed out, there have been studies showing that a healthy sex life contributes to good health and longevity. Perhaps for some, finding an appropriate place for sexuality in one's life is akin to the Middle Way.

For others, perhaps no sex is best - but I'm not sure how much that actually applies. I am sure that there are some that are asexual, but I cite as an example how Kevin said that the only way that a sage would be able to have sex is if it were mandatory for the propagation of the species, and even then he would need Viagra - however as Insider revealed, meanwhile Kevin was spending a recent extended period of time playing house with a lady and her children and considered it just a vacation. I think dishonesty like that subtracts from the growth of people who actually believe them - like you beating yourself up (no pun intended) for not being able to just will your sexuality away. It's just that there are healthy and unhealthy expressions of sexuality, and what is healthy for one may be unhealthy for another.

Two of the secrets of wisdom are to think for yourself, and to know yourself well.

Random and/or premeditated violence aside... at approximately what age are you espousing it is "alright" to strike a female?

If it feels good, do it?

Back in the 60s, an acquaintance was worked over pretty good by a male "boy"-"friend", that was the first inkling that something's amiss with Tarzan's and Jane's mental aptitudes.

ps- haven't read any replies and probably won't any time soon.


Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

I wonder if for some people, relieving sexual desires by endulging can satisfy a sexual appetite enough that the person's mind is freed up for other persuits for awhile whereas otherwise he would be too preoccupied with sexuality to be able to accomplish anything useful?

Yes, I don’t suppress or deny sexual desire in myself, that would be just dangerous, sexuality isn’t really that big of a problem for me, I don’t suffer because of it, however I am just a little discontent with the frequency and intensity of the urges. I’m discontent with the loss of control the male mind experiences around females.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

how Kevin said that the only way that a sage would be able to have sex is if it were mandatory for the propagation of the species.

yes, Kevin seems to value future ideals that he has not yet achieved.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

like you beating yourself up (no pun intended) for not being able to just will your sexuality away. It's just that there are healthy and unhealthy expressions of sexuality, and what is healthy for one may be unhealthy for another.

I have a theory that internet pornography actually benefits mankind. This is true because men no longer need to live with women in order to satisfy their desires, and this has a cascade of positive effects for the entire society. It promotes solitude, the frequency of accident pregnancies decrease, individuals can develop unique fetishes that make it difficult for women to easily arouse men, this is positive because men have more control over when they ejaculate. The list goes on and on.

However, I have contemplated the possibility of the wise community and I believe that It could be possible for a community of wise men and women to co-exist together and engage in sexual experiences with each other without being attached, however solitude and critical reasoning would need to be primary.

primitive femininity could be a rare and interesting treat. A way to alienate and lose one self.

Each person would need separate living spaces, and each one would need to be cautious of patterns developing. The pattern of initmacy between the sexes is the seed of emotional attachment and that is something that must be ultimately prevented.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Leyla wrote:

Well, after all this time and much deliberation, I have resolved a longstanding mental blindspot: the dicketh alone so does not maketh the male.

I have therefore concluded with absolute certainty that Ryan is a female.

After all the profound discourse in this thread, I have a deep yearning desire to contribute something positive to the group so to keep up with the theme of sadistic men that enjoy abusing women:

Leyla, I’m only going to say this once: suck my erect 18-inch black penius!

good day.

Ah, your pièce de résistance. You couldn't get more substantially boring than that.

Bottoms up.

.

Leyla wrote:

Ah, your pièce de résistance. You couldn't get more substantially boring than that.

Bottoms up.

Leyla, I’d like to call a truce and show my respect for you, I’d like to dedicate this next song to you, no actually I’d like to dedicate this next song to us -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc8JDMxiDVs

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

millipodium wrote:Many relationships are abusive. A few are not.

Agreed.

Kevin - you were recently in a relationship - was it abusive? David - you've been in a couple of relationships - were they abusive? Dan - Have you ever been in a relationship?

I would be very surprised (and perhaps even a tad astonished) if the other guys don't say their relationships were abusive. Abuse obviously exists in orders of scale and difference of type. The reason I say relationships are abusive by default is because I understand the underlying psychology of them (I am of course talking about relationships in the normal sense; i.e. those borne of egotistical dynamics). Relationships are based in demands. Demands that a person be a certain way and either change to be what is desired or remain what is desired. Demands for compromise (willingness to compromise on the part of a person is irrelevant to this point). Demands upon one's time; unconditional support. Demands upon one's willingness to toss aside one's very beliefs and principles if need be.

If such demands are not met, all sorts of subtle and gross behaviours surface, all of them ugly and egotistical. In the throes of courtship, no-one tends to give a rats about this, of course, because sanity has well and truly flown out the window. But after that period has settled the truth about the psychological nature of relationships begins to rise to the surface - then the abuse begins. The dominance/submission dynamic kicks into gear. "You didn't do this. You didn't do that. If you really loved me you'd have done this or not done that." Emotional blackmail and outright extortion are universal features of relationships. The only reason people deny this is because they either can't see reality to save themselves or they are in denial or they would rather live a lie and a pipedream (i.e. they are contemputous of truth).

Yes, there can be love and the best of possible intentions in relationships too, but that doesn't ultimately matter, because reality comes a creepin' whether we like it or not. People just don't know what they are really like.

Ryan, I think sending Leyla that video was far more violent than telling her to suck your creatively distended member.

Well, Leyla has teeth, so I'm sure she'd be able to deal with it appropriately...

Dan Rowden wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

millipodium wrote:Many relationships are abusive. A few are not.

Agreed.

Kevin - you were recently in a relationship - was it abusive? David - you've been in a couple of relationships - were they abusive? Dan - Have you ever been in a relationship?

I would be very surprised (and perhaps even a tad astonished) if the other guys don't say their relationships were abusive. Abuse obviously exists in orders of scale and difference of type. The reason I say relationships are abusive by default is because I understand the underlying psychology of them (I am of course talking about relationships in the normal sense; i.e. those borne of egotistical dynamics). Relationships are based in demands. Demands that a person be a certain way and either change to be what is desired or remain what is desired. Demands for compromise (willingness to compromise on the part of a person is irrelevant to this point). Demands upon one's time; unconditional support. Demands upon one's willingness to toss aside one's very beliefs and principles if need be.

If such demands are not met, all sorts of subtle and gross behaviours surface, all of them ugly and egotistical. In the throes of courtship, no-one tends to give a rats about this, of course, because sanity has well and truly flown out the window. But after that period has settled the truth about the psychological nature of relationships begins to rise to the surface - then the abuse begins. The dominance/submission dynamic kicks into gear. "You didn't do this. You didn't do that. If you really loved me you'd have done this or not done that." Emotional blackmail and outright extortion are universal features of relationships. The only reason people deny this is because they either can't see reality to save themselves or they are in denial or they would rather live a lie and a pipedream (i.e. they are contemputous of truth).

Yes, there can be love and the best of possible intentions in relationships too, but that doesn't ultimately matter, because reality comes a creepin' whether we like it or not. People just don't know what they are really like.

Nice avoidance of the personal question...

Did I avoid something? Had I been in any such relationship it's obvious I would have called it abusive. I haven't been, however. But, I have been living with a female for 11 years now and the abuse I spoke of exists even there.....

It's part of what ego is and does.

I see what is going on here. Liz is using a different definition of 'abuse' than everyone else is. I don't think anyone here except her is talking about anything that would be legally actionable or traditionally considered abuse. The discussion is really about control and dominance. For example, I'm in a relationship where he is constantly telling me that I should wear skirts, make up, and be more girly. It's not legally abuse, but it's abuse in that it attempts to dominate me and change me.

Elizabeth, the earlier post in which you descibed your family was a good read. Well written. I liked your description of your mom as essentially the QRS female with a feminine veneer.

Like a man on welfare, why not? It is there for you, it is illogical not to use it, espcially when your heart is not into slaving at something else for maybe a little more money. I have always had a similar conception about certain females, especially ones that are attractive and know how to use it. Add inteligence to that mix and men begin to have dreams of burkhas. The women have enormous social power simply because men's emotions kick into a kind of gnawing hunger state that clouds rational judgement. Advantage: inteligent, attractive woman. But as long as it is the case, there is no logical reason not to use that advantage. That same man probably would, if he could.

Dan,

You are failing to differentiate between use and abuse. In all relationships, not just the sort primarily referred to in this thread, people do use one another - but not in all relationships do people abuse one another. In consentual sex, both parties mutually use one another for pleasure and relief of sexual desires. So long as both parties get as much or more out of what they give, or at least both parties set up the potential for this to happen, it is appropriate use, not abuse.

In between the two, there are situations that could be considered "misuse" - like Katy's example. He isn't going to get her to wear skirts and makeup, and all that repeatedly trying to get her to do that will do is annoy her, so if he finds her unacceptable as she is, he needs to find someone else (and I'm wondering why Katy is staying in a relationship where her boyfriend doesn't like the way she is).

In order for it to be abuse, one must perform actions that would grossly subtract from the well-being of the other, even if only on a short-term basis, either intentionally or as a result of gross disregard of the other.

There is nothing wrong with mutually satisfactory use of others - in fact healthy teamwork is mutually advantageous over isolationism. Therefore, it is not only not abusive; it is beneficial.

The point that you seem to be focusing on is that it is rather unlikely that two people could be mature enough to consistently behave in such a way that healthy teamwork (which in a couple's relationship would also include adequate expressions of individuality and growth) could exist. Perfection is impossible in a relationship (without redefining "perfect"), but someone who is nit-picky is not particularly suited for a relationship anyway. A successful relationship involves the overall experience to be an improvement over isolation for both people. That is fairly accomplishable. The more mature both people in the relationship, the better the quality of the relationship.

You say that you have been living with a woman for 11 years (I assume you mean the same woman), but it is not the kind of relationship primarily referred to in this thread, but that the "abuse" you spoke of exists in the dynamic between the two of you. I brought it personal because you guys condiser yourselves wise, and I consider that a wise person would not stay in an abusive relationship. Once I figured out I was in an abusive relationship, I started taking steps to get out and never changed my mind - and that was pretty wise. Dan, if you are wise and you are in an abusive relationship (although not the kind of relationship primarily referred to in this thread), why would a wise man stay in an abusive relationship?

I'm guessing that the answer is that it is not abuse, but rather mutual use where the benefits outweigh the inconvenience/annoyance/whatever for both of you.

Elizabeth: In order for it to be abuse, one must perform actions that would grossly subtract from the well-being of the other, even if only on a short-term basis, either intentionally or as a result of gross disregard of the other.

Well, one could argue that repeated badgering does grossly subtract from the well-being of the other.

Demands that people change, even in ways that might seem beneficial to you, does grossly subtract from their well-being and is a gross disregard for the other.



(oh, and if you want an answer as to why I stay, catch me in BA chatroom or send me a PM [genius will probably work better than EZ for that])

Katy wrote:Well, one could argue that repeated badgering does grossly subtract from the well-being of the other.

Demands that people change, even in ways that might seem beneficial to you, does grossly subtract from their well-being and is a gross disregard for the other.

Repeated badgering that does grossly subtract from the well-being of the other would be abuse, but looking for when it has been repeated enough to cross the line between misuse and abuse can be difficult to differentiate. If the repeated badgering is because one person is not acceptable to the other person as he/she is, or out of a direct need to have power and control over the other, that indicates a deeper problem in the badgerer - and an indication that the abuse is likely to become more severe over time.

Demands that people change in ways that might seem beneficial can also be bad, but we have to be careful of the lines there as well. Demanding that someone stop using cocaine or leave would be fine if that behavior was unacceptable to the person in the relationship with the addict. That is explaining boundaries - not taking control of the other person. Suggesting that someone take a look at their eating or drinking habits and ask if that was in line with their goals would be acceptable occasionally as it came up in conversation because that is within the limits of what one good friend would say/do to help another, but manipulating or badgering would be over the line. A demand would only be acceptable if it was a matter of boundaries and the person really meant that a certain behavior was so unacceptable that the relationship would have to end if the behavior did not stop - and if the person chose the behavior over the relationship, that should be understood as that person's value, and just leave the person and their behavior alone after that - end of relationship means no hounding or harrassing either.

Tharan wrote:

Elizabeth, the earlier post in which you descibed your family was a good read. Well written. I liked your description of your mom as essentially the QRS female with a feminine veneer.

What feminine veneer??? "Veneer" is the feminine. Ryan, for one, is besotted by it.

Like a man on welfare, why not? It is there for you, it is illogical not to use it, espcially when your heart is not into slaving at something else for maybe a little more money. I have always had a similar conception about certain females, especially ones that are attractive and know how to use it. Add inteligence to that mix and men begin to have dreams of burkhas. The women have enormous social power simply because men's emotions kick into a kind of gnawing hunger state that clouds rational judgement. Advantage: inteligent, attractive woman. But as long as it is the case, there is no logical reason not to use that advantage. That same man probably would, if he could.

Logical except for the one small factor: it has nothing to do with wisdom and everything to do with immediacty and pragmatic materialism.

Fantastic. Forget actual wisdom. Let's just revel--no, celebrate!--mindlessly fulfilling this unconscious "power" that reduces men to salivating morons and makes them chase their salvation in genes and testosterone because its materialistically pragmatic.

Talk about hell realms.

Fair dinkum. You can't be serious, Tharan? Surely this is not the "wisdom" you teach your daughter?

.