Mint!

Post questions or suggestions here.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

Katy wrote:You have no consideration for the violence you commit against others. How would you like to unexpectedly run into a description of a violent rape while reading this board?
I don't regard rape as violence much at all. It is just the body, after all. What i do regard as violent is the willingness of the mind to submit to animal-like stupidity.

I'm constantly raped by others in my society, because of how willing they are to dowse me with mindless animalism. I'm not bothered so much as saddened to see that there is no understanding of cause and effect. Men lapping up the cooing nonsense of females, grunting as an animal grunts, needing his paw in the paw of another --- and not understanding why.

The absence of the consciousness of cause and effect is the worst violence, because it turns away from the mind. Physical violence only has meaning because of the mind, so is insubstantial.

Elizabeth should really leave her anecdote in, because it stimulates thought about cause and effect, and removing it turns away from consciousness.


.
ExpectantlyIronic
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:11 pm

Post by ExpectantlyIronic »

Kelly,
I don't regard rape as violence much at all. It is just the body, after all. What i do regard as violent is the willingness of the mind to submit to animal-like stupidity.
I'm guessing that you're using "violence" as a synonym for "bad" or some such here. Thus you're making a value judgment of some sort, rather then randomly expressing the fact you tend to give a particular word a very non-standard definition for no apparent reason.
I'm not bothered so much as saddened to see that there is no understanding of cause and effect. Men lapping up the cooing nonsense of females, grunting as an animal grunts, needing his paw in the paw of another --- and not understanding why.
Love and companionship make a lot of people very happy. You shouldn't feel sad for them. I don't think their actions result from a misunderstanding of causality. Rather, they probably just place different values on things then you do.
The absence of the consciousness of cause and effect is the worst violence, because it turns away from the mind. Physical violence only has meaning because of the mind, so is insubstantial.
Everything only has meaning because of the mind. Thus, by your logic, everything is "insubstantial".
User avatar
Katy
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:08 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by Katy »

Kelly Jones wrote: I don't regard rape as violence much at all. It is just the body, after all. What i do regard as violent is the willingness of the mind to submit to animal-like stupidity.
Well, rape is really psychological torture, much more than physical torture. Look, for example, at Elizabeth. Although the physical actions, and injuries are in the past, in just the last week she has turned two unrelated (to either eachother or to rape) threads onto the subject. It has become an obsession in her life, much as it has become an obsession in the life of every woman I know who has been raped.

The true violence in rape is not in the physical action, it's in the psychological action. In the unconsciousness it always promotes. For leading people to think of themselves as helpless victims and behave in such a manner later.
-Katy
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

Sue wrote:
Sometimes he must be strong and confident, and other times he must be weak and passive – depending on her mood. He may have to keep her locked indoors, or prostitute her on the streets. He may have to create laws for her to wear the hijab or the burqa, or to have equal pay, or equal voting rights. He may have to work fourteen hour days down a mine, or become President of the United States. Whatever her whim is, he must oblige.
"Women" are stuck in the (infant) mirror phase where the self is the other. Everything they are is identified by and with measuring up to images--identified by (mis)associating self as other (the other in the mirror).

Course, more and more men are not getting past this phase properly into the Symbolic Order (language, logic, reason--Self/individual) in the West nowadays.

Ever noticed that the image-consumed West has so many mirrors and heavily trades in images?

PS: this is, in fact, in harmony with the Muslim notion of idolatry (graven images). This is precisely why the images of Jesus appeal to the people they do.

.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh »

Katy wrote:
Bryan's comment was really more of a statement of how women control men in general. Your specific example was different - it's called abuse - but the general fact still remains. Women use sex to manipulate men.
Yes, women use the promise of sex to keep men in check, but that doesn’t mean men have sex on tap – far from it. Like any commodity, the more scarce the product, the more valuable it is. Women may appear ready and willing - dressed as they often are in skimpy, tight-fitting clothes, with painted faces and flaunting flirtatious body language - but they’re not. All that perfume and education, hairdos and great careers, six inch heels and intelligent discussion is just the sales pitch. It is just, a preview of coming attractions. These walking, talking billboards are saying to men, "If you can come up with the goods I want, I promise all this could be yours".

Men scramble to dress well, have clean shaven faces, get good paying jobs, own property, smell good – all in an effort to afford one of these goddesses. And when one of them does accept him, can he then rest on his laurels and enjoy the pleasures that she promised him? No way! Once coupled, he has even more expectations placed upon him. He must provide a house and fill it with furniture. Then the children start popping out and he must provide not only for them as they are growing up, but also for their future. He must work harder than ever before to make enough money to meet his family’s needs and wants. But surely he is getting lots and lots of sex in return for all this hard work? No way! Most of the time he is so tired that sleep is all he dreams of. And when he is feeling amorous, the wife usually isn’t. By this time he is well and truly trapped in a cycle that he can see no way out of. But there is light at the end of the tunnel – the kids finally leave home and he can escape. Escape, that is, into the arms of another temptress who offers him even more pleasures – oh yes!, as long as she gets a new house, car, holidays in the south of France, money to help finance her children’s future…

Yes, women know men want sex, but they, in all innocence, are not in it for the sex. For women, this ‘sex’ game is a fight for a life (preferably a life her women-friends will be envious of).

-
Sue
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh »

Katy wrote to Kelly:
Well, rape is really psychological torture, much more than physical torture. Look, for example, at Elizabeth. Although the physical actions, and injuries are in the past, in just the last week she has turned two unrelated (to either eachother or to rape) threads onto the subject. It has become an obsession in her life, much as it has become an obsession in the life of every woman I know who has been raped.
Women will use whatever is at hand to show themselves off in the best possible light: stories of having been raped, sexy clothes, the burqa, scars, sharing feelings of being an outsider, tattoos, laughing, crying – you name it, she’ll have used it to draw attention to herself.
The true violence in rape is not in the physical action, it's in the psychological action. In the unconsciousness it always promotes. For leading people to think of themselves as helpless victims and behave in such a manner later.
Yes, women can feed off a rape for their whole lives by telling and retelling their tale and getting the sympathy and flattery they so desire. The rapist, on the other hand, can’t go around telling everyone what he has done, which means that the only pleasure he can get from the incident is to do it again and again...

-
Sue
User avatar
Katy
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:08 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by Katy »

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: Yes, women use the promise of sex to keep men in check, but that doesn’t mean men have sex on tap – far from it. Like any commodity, the more scarce the product, the more valuable it is.
Yes, women know men want sex, but they, in all innocence, are not in it for the sex. For women, this ‘sex’ game is a fight for a life (preferably a life her women-friends will be envious of).
Well, this was pretty much my point. Women can use sex as a reward or a punishment (If you don't... then I won't have sex with you.) to pretty much get whatever they want.

It is interesting, that the very thing women use to take power from men becomes the way that he takes power. When people convicted of rape answer the question "why?" it is almost universally not about sex but about power.

She takes his power with his willingness - he desires her more than he desires freedom - and he takes hers by force. (he also takes hers violently which goes back to the question I had earlier about violence being masculine...)
Yes, women can feed off a rape for their whole lives by telling and retelling their tale and getting the sympathy and flattery they so desire. The rapist, on the other hand, can’t go around telling everyone what he has done, which means that the only pleasure he can get from the incident is to do it again and again...
I wonder if this in part explains why most rapes are between people who already know one another. As in rapists then get to see the effects of their actions - they see the fear and loss of control in her eyes when they see eachother in the future.
-Katy
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Women will use whatever is at hand to show themselves off in the best possible light: stories of having been raped,
How in the hell do you figure that is the best possible light?

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Yes, women can feed off a rape for their whole lives by telling and retelling their tale and getting the sympathy and flattery they so desire.
Bullshit. You don't get sympathy and flattery - you get blame from both genders, you get looked down on and the responses range from anger to disgust. People would rather keep their delusions that rape only happens to (insert word here [people who ask for it, dumb people...] to qualify that rape only happens to others). By telling the truth, I take a swing at your delusion that it could happen to you, it could happen by someone you trust, and you are neither as powerful nor as safe as you would like to think you are.

I'm fighting against the falsehoods that lead people to the mindset that it's okay to use or abuse certain people. You are giving excuses to the abuser. For your own selfish gain, Sue, you promote the discrediting of females.

Kelly - regarding your comment about my thinking on a shallow level - your equating you having to see a couple holding hands as the same thing as injurious forced sexual intercourse is almost as shallow as your half-thought
Kelly wrote:
I define politics as generating wisdom.
and about equally shallow as your non-thought:
Kelly wrote:
Politics is always based on judgments and values,
Now, this thread wasn't about rape, it was about Bryan thinking that women have control over the men they have sex with (and I say that there are significant limits to that). Lets get back on topic.
.
User avatar
Katy
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:08 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by Katy »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Women will use whatever is at hand to show themselves off in the best possible light: stories of having been raped,
How in the hell do you figure that is the best possible light?
Read on!
By telling the truth, I take a swing at your delusion that it could happen to you, it could happen by someone you trust, and you are neither as powerful nor as safe as you would like to think you are.

I'm fighting against the falsehoods that lead people to the mindset that it's okay to use or abuse certain people. You are giving excuses to the abuser. For your own selfish gain, Sue, you promote the discrediting of females.
Ah, what are those values here? Courage? As in the courage to speak when you think you're going to get looked down on for being raped? Not being deluded? Helping others to get past their delusions? You let yourself believe you are the teacher in this. All things that hold you in the best light.


Anyway, I too have told stories of being raped to people. I've gotten sympathy and hugs the vast majority of the time. Blame is a very, very rare effect. "The best possible light" is perhaps not the term I'd use since it made me look weak, but the fact is that what it did get was sympathy and hugs, which is what I was after.

It was many years before I was willing and able to be honest with myself about my reasons for this behavior...


Now, this thread wasn't about rape, it was about Bryan thinking that women have control over the men they have sex with (and I say that there are significant limits to that). Lets get back on topic.
.
See, the problem is this leads full circle. Your example of when women don't have control over the men they have sex with is rape. Which makes it very hard to respond to your comment without discussing rape.You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between sex and rape, confusing the two in your story.

Rape isn't about sex, and it isn't about a "romantic relationship" it's about power. Women control the men they have sex with (Sue outlined this nicely above) - rape, including marital rape, doesn't really play into the question of how much influence the first ladies had, I hope. :)
-Katy
Greg Shantz
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 8:20 am

Post by Greg Shantz »

Katy wrote:
Rape isn't about sex, and it isn't about a "romantic relationship" it's about power.
Isn't all sex about power?
User avatar
Katy
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:08 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by Katy »

Greg Shantz wrote: Isn't all sex about power?
Ultimately, yes. This goes back to what I was saying though:

Women take power from men by sex with their consent - for whatever reason most men think that the crap women make them do for sex is worth it and do it as a willing trade.

Men take power from women by sex violently, without their consent.
-Katy
Greg Shantz
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 8:20 am

Post by Greg Shantz »

Is a woman capable of giving consent for sex?
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Katy wrote: what are those values here?
The value is that if there is ever anything I can do to prevent people from doing horrible things, I will do what I can. It isn't about me, and it never can be because there isn't much of "me" left.

As for the other thread - the coworker of a classmate of mine used to talk at work about the things he'd do to women, and everyone thought he was either joking or not meaning it the way that it sounded, until he got arrested for being a serial rapist when he got caught with a woman bound and gagged. People see and hear stuff but they are so trapped in their denial, trying to protect their false sense of security, that they just let things happen.

Hatred, disgust, annoyance, jealousy, or in any way viewing a group of people with distain is a formula for violence under the right circumstances. Understanding is the only way to dispell that.
User avatar
Katy
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:08 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by Katy »

Greg Shantz wrote:Is a woman capable of giving consent for sex?
Yes - that is how she gets power from sex. She dictates the terms under which she will consent.
-Katy
User avatar
BMcGilly07
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:33 pm

Post by BMcGilly07 »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: The value is that if there is ever anything I can do to prevent people from doing horrible things...he coworker of a classmate of mine used to talk at work about the things he'd do to women, and everyone thought he was either joking or not meaning it the way that it sounded, until he got arrested for being a serial rapist when he got caught with a woman bound and gagged. People see and hear stuff but they are so trapped in their denial, trying to protect their false sense of security, that they just let things happen.
Elizabeth, really I'm not sure I'm understanding you at all. You remind me of an all girl's slumber party, or a sowing circle telling tales by the fireside. Yes, shit happens. Sometimes even to good people. Promoting thought-provoking conversation that does not in anyway promote rape or violence, but rather offers an alternative perspectives on mundane happenings does not promote violence. You would use violence to stifle thought, and thereby allow the fungus of violence to grow unabated in the sewers of thoughtlessness.

Indeed, you are verily promoting that same false sense of security. Safety is an illusion, too. One readily promoted and harped on by avarice consumer groups looking to panic the public into giving up rights and money for the advancement of a "safe" environment. And then an asteroid hits the north pole. Shmucks, shucks better luck next time.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Bryan McGilly wrote:Promoting thought-provoking conversation that does not in anyway promote rape or violence, but rather offers an alternative perspectives on mundane happenings does not promote violence.
Going from seeing that women's faces were going to be minted on coins as a method of promoting capitalism to concluding that wives had that much power over public policy was quite a jump.
Bryan McGilly wrote:First Ladies Featured on New Coins

First ladies wielding power behind their husband's seat of power has long been a point of contention with me. Their names appear on no ballots, but they are granted an unspoken deference, influencing decisions from the shadows of legitimate authority. This is endemic of households the world over. The husband is portrayed as holding authority, but not a word drops from his lips not critiqued nor uninfluenced by his "better" half.

No wonder the fret over gay marriage. I wager that the majority of opponents to this proposal of equality is fueled by women, women in league with the power she allows behind the ecclesiastic pulpits which seeks to anchor her position in divine moorings. The church is an institution grown and fertilized in the grace of wives. No threat to the solidarity of this time-honored institution "marriage" must stand. Divorce is only allowed it's place because the wife is doubly protected: guaranteed a hefty severance package even if it is not her willing decision, and if it is her choice she is thus ensured and free to graze after greener pastures. So too the churches the world over bend to the will of woman, bidding her do as she will.
You think you see women controlling men everywhere. Although some women may control some men, it is not universal. As I said, I don't believe that any whipped man would get to any real position of power. Okay, so the wife has a voice to a powerful ear, but not dismissing her if he thought what she said has some merit does not equate with being whipped.

Speaking of jumps, how does gay marriage fit in with the coins? Would First Man to a male President have less of his attention, or does it just make it better in your eyes that the spouse of the President would be a man and therefore no one that happens to be a female should have any place around him?

As for the lower-level generalizations you made, you think women are guaranteed a hefty severance package through divorce, yet that is not the case. Sometimes the men make out the best, but usually divorce is a financial bane for everyone but the lawyers.

As for how these misconceptions promote violence, these false crys that women are all-powerful fuels the desire of men to physically overpower biological females as revenge for perceived injustices. There are women that manipulate things out of men, just as there are men that manipulate what they want out of women, but that is far from
Bryan McGilly wrote:The influencing of policy was more likely to come about during the throes of passion
That is a ridiculous jump of conclusions.
Bryan McGilly wrote:But every married man knows how quickly the charade drops when the curtain of marriage closes with the door to the wedding bed. Women are class acts, that is class-A actors when pursuing their mark. Putting on what airs they need to accomplish their ends, having won over their man they can rest on their proverbial laurels.
By saying "every" you have condemned every biological female as an uncaring manipulator and every married male as a spineless pushover. You then made it personal by saying
Bryan McGilly wrote:Next time you have sex with a man, see how powerless you are mid-coitus.
You made it personal and I met you on that level. Did that surprise you? Did you think you could just point your finger at me and think your delusion would stick? I didn't crumble when you took it to the personal level like you thought I would, so you then whine that my telling you the truth was abusive. Once again, you get to play the put-apon male, and now you accuse me of stifling thought. I'm countering falseness, and I will continue to counter falseness because I value the truth.
.
User avatar
BMcGilly07
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:33 pm

Post by BMcGilly07 »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Going from seeing that women's faces were going to be minted on coins as a method of promoting capitalism to concluding that wives had that much power over public policy was quite a jump.
As stated earlier, the article was selected by me as an example of first ladies being put on pedestals, and if you really think that is quite a jump you know nothing of Nancy Reagan. Aside from her "Just Say No" campaign which has arisen in conjunction with policy that resulted in thousands of poor black men given lengthy prison sentences for possession of small amounts of drugs. Further, she daily consulted with an astrologer, to which point I refer you to the following quotes from this Times article:

"First Lady Nancy Reagan's reliance on a San Francisco astrologer to determine the timing of the President's every public move."

"To this day, Nancy's Friend [the astrologer] continues to influence the President's schedule. For the Reagan-Gorbachev Washington summit, she cast the charts of both men and determined that 2 p.m. on Dec. 8, 1987, was the most propitious moment for them to sign the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty. At Nancy's behest, the entire summit was built around that hour. For the upcoming Moscow summit, Gorbachev's chart (he is a Pisces) has been recast alongside Reagan's (Aquarius)."

You think you see women controlling men everywhere. Although some women may control some men, it is not universal. As I said, I don't believe that any whipped man would get to any real position of power. Okay, so the wife has a voice to a powerful ear, but not dismissing her if he thought what she said has some merit does not equate with being whipped.
There are exceptions to the rule, many of which I've only met on this forum. Take for example, Sue Hindmarsh. She possesses a masculine spirit. There are many men who are womanish, being possessed of a feminine spirit. Masculinity and femininity are psychological aspects which relate to the receptiveness and inclination of one towards truth, philosophy, wisdom and so on. A feminine mind is like a barren wasteland, in whose soil the seed of rational thought finds no purchase. A whipped man, one that seeks after sex and approval from his partner, is one who wastes what masculinity he has in the pursuit thereof. A whipped man may have many additional pursuits and interests, but seeking to be wise will never be one as wisdom would wrest from his mind the life of the ego. Such a man finds his nexus in another, why couldn't he be president?
Speaking of jumps, how does gay marriage fit in with the coins?
For the last time, the article was meant to support a point I wished to converse over. My comments on gay marriage were tangentially related to the article.
Would First Man to a male President have less of his attention, or does it just make it better in your eyes that the spouse of the President would be a man and therefore no one that happens to be a female should have any place around him?
Neither. He/She should have a masculine mind.
As for the lower-level generalizations you made, you think women are guaranteed a hefty severance package through divorce, yet that is not the case. Sometimes the men make out the best, but usually divorce is a financial bane for everyone but the lawyers.
I've heard otherwise, but I don't have any references off of the top of my head. Let's look at the more precious "commodity," the children. I loathe statistics, as an aside- these might be interesting to peak at:
Divorce and Fatherhood Statistics

Here are a few excerpts:

61% of all child abuse is committed by biological mothers
25% of all child abuse is committed by natural fathers
Statistical Source: Current DHHS report on nationwide Child Abuse


79.6% of custodial mothers receive a support award
29.9% of custodial fathers receive a support award

46.9% of non-custodial mothers totally default on support
26.9% of non-custodial fathers totally default on support

20.0% of non-custodial mothers pay support at some level
61.0% of non-custodial fathers pay support at some level

66.2% of single custodial mothers work less than full-time
10.2% of single custodial fathers work less than full-time

7.0% of single custodial mothers work more than 44 hours weekly
24.5% of single custodial fathers work more than 44 hours weekly

46.2% of single custodial mothers receive public assistance
20.8% of single custodial fathers receive public assistance
Statistical Source: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42 - U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services - Office of Income Security Policy


90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay all the support due
79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay all the support due
44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay all the support due
37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation
66.0% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to inability to pay
Statistical Source: 1988 Census "Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series P-60, No. 173 p. 6-7. and U.S. General Accounting Office Report" GAO/HRD-92-39FS January, 1992
As for how these misconceptions promote violence, these false crys that women are all-powerful fuels the desire of men to physically overpower biological females as revenge for perceived injustices.
I am beginning to see that you have more problems concerning male-female relationships than I do. If a psycho is so close to the edge, and so prone to abuse women- believe me, your words will incite their vengeance far more than mine. They'd sooner think me a nancy for not chasing pussy than muster under my standard to rape a woman.
There are women that manipulate things out of men, just as there are men that manipulate what they want out of women, but that is far from
Bryan McGilly wrote:The influencing of policy was more likely to come about during the throes of passion
That is a ridiculous jump of conclusions.
It is far from a ridiculous jump, however it is a bit misleading. It is not necessarily "in the throes of passion" that a woman most influences a man. However, the influence she holds over him, as clearly stated by the contributors to this thread above, revolves about sex. The promise of, withholding of, and probably occasionally during the act.
Bryan McGilly wrote:But every married man knows how quickly the charade drops when the curtain of marriage closes with the door to the wedding bed. Women are class acts, that is class-A actors when pursuing their mark. Putting on what airs they need to accomplish their ends, having won over their man they can rest on their proverbial laurels.
By saying "every" you have condemned every biological female as an uncaring manipulator and every married male as a spineless pushover.
Correct. Just about every biological female, and just about every biological male. There are exceptions, Sue Hindmarsh, for example.
You then made it personal by saying
Bryan McGilly wrote:Next time you have sex with a man, see how powerless you are mid-coitus.
You made it personal and I met you on that level. Did that surprise you? Did you think you could just point your finger at me and think your delusion would stick? I didn't crumble when you took it to the personal level like you thought I would, so you then whine that my telling you the truth was abusive. Once again, you get to play the put-apon male, and now you accuse me of stifling thought. I'm countering falseness, and I will continue to counter falseness because I value the truth.
.
You're batty.

I didn't say, "Hey, when was the last time you were brutally raped by someone you love?" You volunteered that sad episode, not me. You really think some idiot's going to get Clockwork Orange on someone's ass because of what I wrote? Incredible. Further, I'm sure you've had sex that wasn't a rape, right? Why didn't you volunteer that information. Anyway, I'm done writing with you on this matter. Reply as you wish, I don't think you'll get anything out of this, but I see that others have had a meeting of the minds with me, so it wasn't in vain.

note: edited content
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Bryan McGilly wrote:Why didn't you volunteer that information.
Because I never asked for anything from anyone during sex except for him to stop hurting me.
User avatar
BMcGilly07
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:33 pm

Post by BMcGilly07 »

None of that "Faster, faster!" or "Harder, harder!". That's along the same lines as "stop you're hurting me." You know damn well that's not the point I was making.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

No on that and no on what you "meant" either - and yes I was told by females that all of the things that went wrong in my marriage were my fault because I didn't "train" him well enough. A man is not a dog and should not be treated like one.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps all wives in marriages that last a long time are manipulative and my marriage failed within 2 years because I wasn't manipulative. What that points to though is that all these women were right that men have to be manipulated and treated like dogs to get them to behave properly - meaning to not be vicious, hurtful and condescending.

Before coming to GF I thought there were a few assholes out there and it was just that some of them were really good at hiding that if they thought it was to their advantage. Since coming here I've learned of the underlying disgust that most men have for women, and recognize a strange kind of wisdom in these women's unethical treatment of men.

No, I don't see how someone could be in love with someone she treats like a dog. Women manipulating men is just as disgusting as any other kind of abuse. I couldn't behave that unethically, so I guess that's what made me unsuitable for marriage.

If you want to hate women for treating you like the animals that 95% of you are, then I can't stop you, but I'm not playing. I find all of this behavior contemptable.
ExpectantlyIronic
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:11 pm

Post by ExpectantlyIronic »

Eliza,
Since coming here I've learned of the underlying disgust that most men have for women, and recognize a strange kind of wisdom in these women's unethical treatment of men.
This board is hardly a proper sample of the general population. In fact, I find many views that are held by many at this board to be at odds with that of the majority. Particularly those that hold there to be a strong male/female dichotomy. The odd way that the terms "masculine" and "feminine" are used around here is said to be rooted in the dichotomy, but it seems that folks simply pick and choose which traits to associate with "masculine" and which to associate with "feminine" on incredibly peculiar grounds. The term "masculine" as it's used at this board seems to indicate only traits that are held to be positive, whereas the term "feminine" is used in such a way that it only indicates traits that are perceived to be negative. Thus the terms don't accurately reflect any actual statistical differences that can be found. If an strong male/female dichotomy actually exists, the terms masculine and feminine - as they are used on this board - don't accurately reflect upon it at all.

It seems likely to me that anyone who doesn't have a tendency towards a negative view of women before arriving at this board isn't incredibly likely to stick around. Nor is anyone who actually values romantic relationships, and who thinks that such things can be a positive thing in an individuals life. Thus this board seems mainly composed of jaded folks who choose to characterize such things in an unappealing light. When folks like Sue assert something about women, I imagine that most of the women here assume that it doesn't apply to them in particular, and thus don't object. I highly doubt that most women are as manipulative or egotistical as they tend to be characterized around here, but such facades can stand when presented under this notion of a strong/male female dichotomy, which excludes men from denouncing any characterization of how women think on the grounds that it's utterly alien to them; and furthermore on the idea of personal exclusion, in which many of the female posters here feel as if they're an exception to the norm.

From my personal experience, I've seen no evidence that men are generally vicious (I'm certainly not, and I have no reason to suspect that most of my male friends are either), or that women are generally egotistical and manipulative. People can vary greatly from one individual to another, and such things simply don't cut neatly across the sexes. The notion that they do strikes me as a simple myth.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:Kelly,
I don't regard rape as violence much at all. It is just the body, after all. What i do regard as violent is the willingness of the mind to submit to animal-like stupidity.
I'm guessing that you're using "violence" as a synonym for "bad" or some such here. Thus you're making a value judgment of some sort, rather then randomly expressing the fact you tend to give a particular word a very non-standard definition for no apparent reason.
It's a standard definition for me.

The only way to measure any degree of violence is by relating it - in one's own mind - to non-violence.

A person who has never experienced non-violence, can never know what violence is. When non-violence is experienced, then there's something to contrast violence with.

Animal stupidity appears quite peaceful to those who live in the realms of desire, because they don't know anything else. It's just par for the course, to be tossed around wildly, unable to control impulsive behaviours, or understand that all this chaos is self-inflicted.

Non-violence is absence of desire, which arises when one sees emptiness in things.

To a person habituated to non-violence, even a small degree of desire awakens tremendous storms and chaos.

The greatest violence is not apparent to those who have already willingly submitted to the chaos of stupidity (lack of thought about implications and consequences).


I'm not bothered so much as saddened to see that there is no understanding of cause and effect. Men lapping up the cooing nonsense of females, grunting as an animal grunts, needing his paw in the paw of another --- and not understanding why.
Love and companionship make a lot of people very happy. You shouldn't feel sad for them. I don't think their actions result from a misunderstanding of causality. Rather, they probably just place different values on things then you do.
You're evidently in many relationships, then?

Have you ever felt jealous, or consumed with a desire to impress someone, or struck with grief? Have you ever been torn by a parent's unfair request?

Have you ever felt "haunted" by someone, or overjoyed about spending time with someone, or desperate that someone shouldn't leave "just yet"?

Those are all standard forms of violence. The timeless cycle of heaven and hell, also known as samsara (rebirth).


The absence of the consciousness of cause and effect is the worst violence, because it turns away from the mind. Physical violence only has meaning because of the mind, so is insubstantial.
Everything only has meaning because of the mind. Thus, by your logic, everything is "insubstantial".
That's right.

You see then how foolish the need to hold someone's hand?

.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5740
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:This board is hardly a proper sample of the general population.
Well, I should certainly hope not!!
In fact, I find many views that are held by many at this board to be at odds with that of the majority.
And that matters..................how?
Particularly those that hold there to be a strong male/female dichotomy. The odd way that the terms "masculine" and "feminine" are used around here is said to be rooted in the dichotomy, but it seems that folks simply pick and choose which traits to associate with "masculine" and which to associate with "feminine" on incredibly peculiar grounds.
No, they are actually rather traditional grounds. Modern gender hegemony is the "peculiar" paradigm.
The term "masculine" as it's used at this board seems to indicate only traits that are held to be positive, whereas the term "feminine" is used in such a way that it only indicates traits that are perceived to be negative.
You have to understand them in context. If you don't see the context, you don't see the point.
Thus the terms don't accurately reflect any actual statistical differences that can be found.
That is demonstrably wrong and defies both common sense and everyday experience. Do you seriously, for example, believe that the attraction one gender has for the other is purely based in physical differences?
If an strong male/female dichotomy actually exists, the terms masculine and feminine - as they are used on this board -don't accurately reflect upon it at all.
I cannot make sense of that.
It seems likely to me that anyone who doesn't have a tendency towards a negative view of women before arriving at this board isn't incredibly likely to stick around.
Interesting, given this board is about much more than that issue. Perhaps people aren't so much interested in truth as they are ideas that make them look good.
Nor is anyone who actually values romantic relationships, and who thinks that such things can be a positive thing in an individuals life.
Yeah, well, it's pretty easy to show the psychological folly of such things, so, yes, they wouldn't stick around. People with delusions not sticking around is not an argument against the philosophical theme of a board. Do you suppose some values are above scrutinty? You certainly imply it.
Thus this board seems mainly composed of jaded folks who choose to characterize such things in an unappealing light.
That is pathetic. Deeply pathetic.
When folks like Sue assert something about women, I imagine that most of the women here assume that it doesn't apply to them in particular, and thus don't object. I highly doubt that most women are as manipulative or egotistical as they tend to be characterized around here, but such facades can stand when presented under this notion of a strong/male female dichotomy, which excludes men from denouncing any characterization of how women think on the grounds that it's utterly alien to them; and furthermore on the idea of personal exclusion, in which many of the female posters here feel as if they're an exception to the norm.
Jesus. They are an exception to the norm. But they are not lauded for their being thus. Regular female contributors to serious philosophy boards are rare. You know that. Suck it up.
From my personal experience, I've seen no evidence that men are generally vicious (I'm certainly not, and I have no reason to suspect that most of my male friends are either), or that women are generally egotistical and manipulative.
Men are not generally vicious, this is utterly obvious; they are when they need to be, just as women are. However, all people are egotistical and manipulative; this is equally obvious. The question and issue here is in what way one gender is so, not that they are necessarily moreso.
People can vary greatly from one individual to another, and such things simply don't cut neatly across the sexes. The notion that they do strikes me as a simple myth.
People do not vary that much. Women barely at all. It is variance that is the myth.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

Hi Elizabeth,

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:if there is ever anything I can do to prevent people from doing horrible things, I will do what I can.

Perhaps, the best first thing you can do:

See that sexual violence is not between individuals, but between masculinity and femininity in the individual's own psyche.

Start from that position, and see which sex is generally drawn towards the willingness to submit to animal mindlessness. That will tell you which is most violent.


everyone thought he was either joking or not meaning it the way that it sounded, until he got arrested for being a serial rapist when he got caught with a woman bound and gagged. People see and hear stuff but they are so trapped in their denial, trying to protect their false sense of security, that they just let things happen.
People will deny sexual exploitation as long as they don't understand what causes any form of desire. And, if they submit to mindlessness, they're really cutting off their ability to understand, aren't they?

That understanding arises in a masculine mind, that includes traits such as logic, depth of thought, courage, love of truth, and disinterest in anything that degrades consciousness.


Hatred, disgust, annoyance, jealousy, or in any way viewing a group of people with distain is a formula for violence under the right circumstances. Understanding is the only way to dispell that.
Yes, but understanding what?

All those words you mention are just violent in themselves. You haven't analysed the intellectual source of violence.

Any violent behaviours are a result of violent thoughts and emotions. This is why physical violence is just the tip of the iceberg, at least in human psychology.

So, your question ought to be, what are the thoughts that cause violence? Don't worry about behaviours at this point. Those are after-effects.


...having to see a couple holding hands as the same thing as injurious forced sexual intercourse is almost as shallow as your half-thought....
I explained why needing to hold someone's hand is more violent and injurious than raping someone, in my reply to ExpectantlyIronic, above.

To repeat: a person who is fully immersed in violent thoughts and behaviour, such as while raping, has no part of the mind left to contrast it with, so it is quite "peaceful" (mindless).

But a person who still has some degree of consciousness left, such as a person who hasn't enacted violent thoughts and behaviours, and is still indecisive, experiences more violence, because of the contrast between "parts" of the mind.

And also, someone who is being raped doesn't necessarily experience any violence at all. It depends on the quality of their thoughts.


Kelly wrote: I define politics as generating wisdom.
If you think this is a "shallow half-thought", why don't you explain why, in the "Zionist femininization of society" thread?



Kelly wrote: Politics is always based on judgments and values,
If you think this is a non-thought, feel free to tell me why, in the "Zionist femininization of society" thread.


Elizabeth wrote: Now, this thread wasn't about rape, it was about Bryan thinking that women have control over the men they have sex with (and I say that there are significant limits to that). Lets get back on topic.
I haven't left the topic. Rape is a good example of how Woman (and women who perform Woman) have control over men they have sex with.

If you don't see this, think: why does rape exist at all? Why is a man so desperately longing to attack a female and penetrate her? Is it not because Woman has such a powerful hold over him?

The female whom he attacks is really just something he projects the image of WOMAN onto. So, yes, it is the male's fault. But - wait - how can he project this image onto something that doesn't resemble it? He couldn't rape a can of Coca-Cola. So, the female is also at fault here, because she shows signs of WOMAN, whom the rapist is fanatical about raping. He would never try to rape a huge, down-to-earth, ugly, fat female, who didn't have any signs of being otherworldly, sensual, innocent, etc. He'd more likely expect that she'd shout him a beer, or be put off by her farting.


From David's WOMAN: An Exposition for the Advanced Mind:
The males, through their inquisitiveness, courage, and rationality, open up the possibilities of great change, but it is woman who ensures that all change be kept to a minimum and that which she does allow be kept firmly towards the "common good". Man is by nature wild and adventurous. In him lie the possibilities of great creativity, but also the possibilities of great havoc and discord within the tribe. Hence, woman evolved with the power needed to restrain him.

Women often complain bitterly about the dreaded "patriarchal society" and their oppression under it, but I cannot believe that they are completely ignorant of the vast power they actually possess in society. Indeed, they play an enormous role in the historical process. The role of woman is not only one of reproduction and the rearing of offspring. Equally important is the emotional power the females possess over the males. Women are the preservers of the social organism, and the men are tools to this end. Thus history is as much a woman's story, even though it is true that as an individual she was very much out of the limelight.

Let us be quite clear here. Woman's emotional power over man does not come from the individual woman herself, but from the social fiction she embodies - WOMAN! It is this abstract, ethereal entity which we all worship, not the bags of blood and guts themselves. Of course, one look at the modern specimen with its lipstick, earrings, dresses and bubbly personalities is enough to make this statement seem unnecessary.


And what about this high-quality idea:
WOMAN is a cultural fiction to which all females are drawn, yet it is difficult to state exactly what it is. It appears intangible and out of this world, yet everybody knows its existence and feels its power. It fuses together into one seamless package the elements of purity, authority, otherworldliness, innocence, delicacy, erotica, playfulness, mystery, excitement, and power - and yet it transcends all these elements to form a vague yet potent something-or-other. Its effect is to transfix men and women alike, causing them to believe it the very heart and soul of life itself.

WOMAN is what humanity values most, for in it lie the greatest emotional happiness and comfort. It provides the irresistible illusion of purity and rock-like security. Above all, it promises, or seems to promise, refuge in which humans can attain what they believe to be the highest good - the freedom from all conscience. It is no wonder then that all human purpose, though it be multifarious in appearance, is constantly directed towards it.

In truth, humanity stands united under the banner of WOMAN, and the person who rejects WOMAN faces rejection by humanity. The biological females of our species embody WOMAN to a high degree, while the males are left out in the cold. Look carefully into this and you will uncover the essence of all male and female psychology.

Women, to the degree they conform to WOMAN, need not do anything at all. They are secure and passive. They need not think, struggle, strive, and despair after this profound psychological peace. But for men it is a matter of life or death! It is for this reason that the woman's mind is highly undeveloped compared with the man's. For no matter where she is or what she is doing in the world, a woman knows first and foremost that she is in fact - a woman. She lives and breathes in the knowledge that her prime asset in life lies precisely in her being this magical creature. Anything else is almost superfluous, a luxury, an added bonus to an otherwise perfect state of affairs.

Man, on the other hand, is completely bereft of such a magnificent power. He must fend for himself, relying upon his wits to etch his way in the world. Thus, out of necessity, man is continually looking at the broader picture, assessing the implications of each situation, thinking out the consequences of his actions, developing a consistent philosophy, and reflecting upon what is actually true. Out of his deluded struggle for acceptance into WOMAN, the priceless treasure of conscience is born. Though he begins by seeking WOMAN, he ends by rejecting HER, and it is here that his relationship to Truth begins.
.[edit: fixed paragraphing in quote]
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

Dan Rowden wrote:
But they are not lauded for their being thus.
No, females are lauded for being “normal”: pathetic, emotional victims of acts of psychological and physical violence. Aside from the regular shit, we are subjected to steady campaigns such as “Australia says ‘no’ to violence against women” dramatic Hollywood style. “Yes, it IS rape” [insert synthetic closing-prison-cell-door sound bite]. But, what about violence against men?

I am a female with two sons and a daughter. When the boys were six to seven years old, one of the girls a year older who lives in the same street had been taught to "defend" herself by punching boys in the balls. She did it to one of my sons, who then--out of sheer pain and anger--responded by biting her on the arm and leaving teeth marks. Well, these teeth marks were evidence tantamount to murder. The fact that she had hit my son in the balls was completely immaterial. I was shouted down for the audacity of even raising the idea that perhaps the fact that she had hit him in the balls might have had something to do with him biting her. Mum was utterly beside herself--and very lucky I was 8 months pregnant at the time.

Naturally, I should have punished my son as a matter of course and without question.

.
Locked