GENIUS FORUMS

Dan Rowden wrote:Dejavu is merely projecting his own ego. It's what he does best, it seems.

Isn't that what all of us are doing here ?
And if it's not here it's wherever we are.

Right ?

Dan wrote:

“Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to explain to me why she responded like that. If you give me trite bullshit, you will self destruct in 5 seconds.”

In her eyes, that you could not fragment your mind to adapt to the circumstance, in the same manner than she fragmented her mind every day, made you pathetic.

She had likely evolved her capacity for enjoying life, no matter what the moment brought into her field of awareness. After all, she was quite able to accept you, as yourself, within the context of that circumstance, and the conditions that defined that circumstance.

However, by your action of not embracing the totality of the circumstance, as evidenced by your involuntary physical reaction, which was a rejection of her according to the conditions that defined the circumstance, i.e. a transaction involving money and flesh, you revealed yourself to be living in your illusionary and conflicted mind, and letting your mind unduly influence your relationship with what was actually going on.

And as someone whose work, and survival during her work, required a keen awareness of perspective at all times, she found your disconnect from recognizing the reality of the circumstances to be a disconnect from the perspective of the situation, and thus a bit pathetic for a man, but endearingly understandable for a boy.

You mismatched the time and the place. There is a time and place for everything. That’s why, though people may fuck on the front lawn, and people may stray from an agreement such as that made by a john and a whore, the behavior is not appropriate for the conditions.

Then again, it’s the bold visionary who defines his own circumstance and spontaneously turns every condition, as it appears within his field of awareness, to the service of that vision.

@ Kunga -- Life is about transcending that kind of womanish banality. I consciously made an effort and stopped doing that in my early 20s.

Sorry for the above edit. I was polishing my missive and didn't see pierdog's posting at the time.

Cahoot...that was good !

Pierdog...what are you refering to ?

pierdog wrote:@ Kunga -- Life is about transcending that kind of womanish banality. I consciously made an effort and stopped doing that in my early 20s.

i see you praising only those that make your actions seem justified or whatever strokes your ego/decisions.
what the hell did you come here for ?
If you felt what you did was OK...why do you need reinforcement ?
But i still can't comprehend men that talk degrading of prostitutes, but then have sex with them. Do you think her body is loathsome ? So why do you have anything to do with a loathsome whore ? Doesn't make any sense. Sorry.

Kunga wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Dejavu is merely projecting his own ego. It's what he does best, it seems.

Isn't that what all of us are doing here ?

There's a difference between expressing and projecting. He is doing both.

And if it's not here it's wherever we are. Right ?

To the extent one retains an ego, yes. But, like I said, projection is a very particular thing.

Some interesting interpretations of the events of my anecdote. Mine is breathtakingly simple: by my "rejection" I offended her female vanity, her attachment to being desirable, if not irresistible. It's really as simple as that. What reasons I might have had for that were always going to be utterly irrelevant in that moment of offense.

As it happened, by the time she got dressed and was ready to leave her demeanor towards me had changed markedly. As she left she made a point of suggesting to me that I call her again. Now, that might have been a "commercial" instinct operating, but I didn't get that impression.

Carmel: "gets away with a lot" because he's not a bigot. He's easily one of the most fair minded men here with regard to women.

Dan: For most women, trust seems to be an afterthought, when it really should be a forethought. But then, for many, if not most, women, trust is something they actually measure by way of a man's expression of desire for her. I'm not convinced most women know how to actually discern character outside of that framework.

Diebert:
LOL!

Carmel:
What's so funny? Here Dan is giving a straightforward opinion. He is neither idealizing women, nor attempting to demean them. It's a reasonable assessment. He uses modifiers to allow for exceptions. Also, later in that same post he criticisizes men as well.
--
Round 2!

I should warn you ahead of time my plan is to chase you around until you submit to my will. Don't worry, you'll learn to like it after awhile. ;)

Well, prostitutes have to deal with a wholesale social rejection every day of their lives. So when a prostitute is rejected by a client, or, in Dan's case, the client suddenly changes their mind about having sex, there's probably more at stake than pure female vanity. Virtually every woman who isn't a prostitute does not like a prostitute, and either wants to pity or hate them with a mixture of envy. So the client's acceptance of the prostitute is not only a security for her livelihood, and commercially important, but there's a deeper egotistical level of needing safety with at least some small part of society.

That is basically along the same lines of female vanity, though. Women need their womanhood to be accepted socially: Woman is society. It's just a more desperate form.

Incidentally, I was reading Stern's "employment earnings" edition yesterday, a peculiarly German tradition where they follow certain people year after year to see how their earnings have altered. Most people were earning the same or a little less through the global financial crisis. The whole point was to see who had gained money, and what they were doing right. Of the few who had changed careers, the prostitute's was the only one portrayed positively despite being a bad step financially. Her income dropped by 60% (from 3000 Euro per month to 1200). In other words, here again was the social veto on prostitution. In the final listings of jobs, there was no "prostitute" listed. She was also the only one to wear oversized dark sunglasses and a large wig. And her new job? Altenpflegin: geriatric nurse.

.

Carmel wrote:What's so funny? Here Dan is giving a straightforward opinion. He is neither idealizing women, nor attempting to demean them. It's a reasonable assessment. He uses modifiers to allow for exceptions. Also, later in that same post he criticisizes men as well

Wise misogyny is primarily a criticism of men. It doesn't place blame on women, but squarely on men. All the failures and flaws that make up feminine psychology are squarely placed on the shoulders of men.

.

Kelly:
Virtually every woman who isn't a prostitute does not like a prostitute, and either wants to pity or hate them with a mixture of envy.

Carmel:
I don't necessarily think that's true. In America, it's usually the more conservative women i.e Christian fundamentalists, who hold prostitutes in contempt. The more liberal minded women would consider it a private matter. What two consenting adults choose to do in their private lives is really none of their business. No judgement, no envy.
(I hold the latter view.)

Dan Rowden wrote:you looked very attractive when you were young.

I have no idea how you could possibly know that. And, hey, I'm not that old.

just saw the pics @ Quinns' Biography ...i shouldn't assume they were old pics..

Dan Rowden wrote:I doubt risk of sexually transmitted disease is really a potent psychological force in women's dislike for men who use sex workers. I think the truth of that lies predominantly in the realm of fear, insecurity, envy, vanity and such.

not for me...i have no fear of anything except for getting a sexually transmitted disease...i am confident of my sexuality, fidelity is a priority.. I'm a romantic fatalist too.

BTW...what is a Romantic Fatalist ? LOL

@ Caramel -- shut the fuck up and keep your banal, cunty opinions out of my thread and go for a duche bc you just got exposed for having ulterior motives in the middle of this thread, so you have no credibility. @ Kunga -- shut the fuck up bc every theory/interpretation you had about me proved to be incorrect on pgs 1&2 of this thread, so your opinions are worthless too. Stop trying to think. You're both dumb. BORED? Log off, fuck off cook, clean & duche.

Dan Rowden: I doubt risk of sexually transmitted disease is really a potent psychological force in women's dislike for men who use sex workers.

Carmel:
No, it's not a psychological factor, but it is a genuine concern, especially in the U.S. where prostitution is unregulated and disease is rampant.

There are many STD's which can be transmitted even if a condom is used, though it does offer some limited protection. Ulcerative diseases can be transmitted through skin-to-skin contact from sores, ulcers or infested skin that looks normal, i.e genital herpes, syphilis, chancroid, HPV virus. ...also, less major diseases such as genital warts and scabies("the crabs") are a potential risk. Both genders can transmit and contract all of these diseases.

yeah...i was wrong...i thought you were intelligent... and i felt sorry for you bc you haven't been successful in your "love life"....you came here looking for our advice...i was dumb enough to pay you any attention and try to help you THINK about what your doing....now your angry...you sound immature....i'm rarely bored...rarely douche (not healthy)...i cook and clean all day...now i'm relaxing..... :)

pierdog wrote:@ Caramel -- shut the fuck up and keep your banal, cunty opinions out of my thread and go for a duche bc you just got exposed for having ulterior motives in the middle of this thread, so you have no credibility. @ Kunga -- shut the fuck up bc every theory/interpretation you had about me proved to be incorrect on pgs 1&2 of this thread, so your opinions are worthless too. Stop trying to think. You're both dumb. BORED? Log off, fuck off cook, clean & duche.

Well, that was helpful.

Kunga wrote:BTW...what is a Romantic Fatalist ? LOL

Um, is that a serious question or should I deduce from the "lol" that it isn't?

Dan Rowden wrote:

pierdog wrote:@ Caramel -- shut the fuck up and keep your banal, cunty opinions out of my thread and go for a duche bc you just got exposed for having ulterior motives in the middle of this thread, so you have no credibility. @ Kunga -- shut the fuck up bc every theory/interpretation you had about me proved to be incorrect on pgs 1&2 of this thread, so your opinions are worthless too. Stop trying to think. You're both dumb. BORED? Log off, fuck off cook, clean & duche.

Dan:
Well, that was helpful.

Carmel:
lol! yes, as well as intellectually stimulating, inspiring and enlightening.

Carmel wrote:Dan Rowden: I doubt risk of sexually transmitted disease is really a potent psychological force in women's dislike for men who use sex workers.

Carmel:
No, it's not a psychological factor, but it is a genuine concern, especially in the U.S. where prostitution is unregulated and disease is rampant.

There are many STD's which can be transmitted even if a condom is used, though it does offer some limited protection. Ulcerative diseases can be transmitted through skin-to-skin contact from sores, ulcers or infested skin that looks normal, i.e genital herpes, syphilis, chancroid, HPV virus. ...also, less major diseases such as genital warts and scabies("the crabs") are a potential risk. Both genders can transmit and contract all of these diseases.

I would have thought that prostitution is less of a risk factor for this than simple promiscuity, but I agree it depends on the cultural environment. Depending on the source, from 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 people have herpes. That's a lot! Then again, promiscuity increases one's risk of all sorts of things, and not just physical diseases.

Dan: i'm serious...i googled it but couldn't find a definitive definition...the LOL was because i thought i was also one ...but didn't know EXACTLY what it ment (in my mind i thought it ment a Romantic....i have deep feelings for someone when i fall in love....deeper always than the one i fall for(their feelings for me aren't as strong as mine for them)...my emotions are intense...i can't explain...

Ok, well, here's what I mean by a person being a "romantic fatalist".

A romantic fatalist is one who lets things happen as they will and does not force anything. i.e. he/she just accepts that he/she will either meet someone that clicks for them or they won't. They don't go chasing romance for the sake of it. They don't date multiple people hoping for it to happen and trying to make it happen - mostly because they see the inherent folly in such an approach. They don't go speed dating. They don't join insipid dating websites. They do not contrive romance.

That's what I mean in a nutshell.

There's an essay on romantic fatalism by Alain de Bottom here. It's not exactly what I'm speaking of, but not far off: Romantic Fatalism

Dan Rowden wrote:Ok, well, here's what I mean by a person being a "romantic fatalist".

A romantic fatalist is one who lets things happen as they will and does not force anything. i.e. he/she just accepts that he/she will either meet someone that clicks for them or they won't. They don't go chasing romance for the sake of it. They don't date multiple people hoping for it to happen and trying to make it happen - mostly because they see the inherent folly in such an approach. They don't go speed dating. They don't join insipid dating websites. They do not contrive romance.

That's what I mean in a nutshell.

Ok..i always hated being manipulated...and i hate manipulating people...i like things to happen naturally...i've never forced a man to marry me or be with me...never dated multiple people...never speed dated....wait a minute...is cooking for a guy manipulating ? LOL...maybe a little i did... :)

Relationships involve manipulation by default. It's impossible to avoid it completely. However, most people manage not to avoid it at all. This is usually because they have no conscious awareness of the nature of their behaviour.

yes...i think we are naturals at manipulation...sometimes it's so obvious...the subtle manipulations are subconcious...instinctive...i guess i tried every trick in the book to get a man to love me...

Carmel wrote:Kelly: Virtually every woman who isn't a prostitute does not like a prostitute, and either wants to pity or hate them with a mixture of envy.

Carmel: I don't necessarily think that's true. In America, it's usually the more conservative women i.e Christian fundamentalists, who hold prostitutes in contempt. The more liberal minded women would consider it a private matter. What two consenting adults choose to do in their private lives is really none of their business. No judgement, no envy.
(I hold the latter view.)

In reality, "liberal-minded" women dislike prostitutes, according to their views on sexual behaviour. Simply, because their opinion hasn't been asked for, they keep it private. But silence speaks.

It may be subtle, but the contempt or envy is definitely a part of virtually every non-prostitute, in relation to a prostitute. The envy may be a sudden springy jauntiness in her step, a little more expansion in her hip movement, a little more poise in the angle of her head, for instance. Her contempt may be subtly expressed in her extra-lavish hug to her children, a little more attention to her husband or boyfriend, as ways to indicate that her form of exchange (love, affection, emotional bonding) is superior to the straightforward financial transaction between a sex worker and a client.

If you can't see this dynamic in feminine psychology, well, then, I think you're in denial. You may not experience these things, but if you can't recognise them in most other women, even the so-called liberal-minded ones, however subtle it may be, then there's a blockage there worth thinking about. The woman who really doesn't experience this stuff is extremely rare; more often, feminists tend to suppress it, because they believe they ought not to feel that way. They don't actually want to root out the source of those feelings, only pretend they're above it, which is again a form of contempt.

.