Scientific Proof Women are Natural Prostitutes [Archive]

Bronze Age Pervert

^{02-15-2008, 08:26 PM}
This article should only make clear for the more pedantic what has always been obvious to anyone with common sense: women are naturally wired to be deceptive and unfaithful in a way that exceeds anything a man could conceive of. A civilization that grants "freedom" to women, i.e., that abandons them to their natural impulses, can't survive for long.

Zubenelgenubi

^{02-15-2008, 08:39 PM}

This study suggests that women are wired to want to have sex when there is a higher chance that offspring will result. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are any more likely to act on these inclinations than men are to act on theirs.

Bronze Age Pervert

^{02-15-2008, 08:50 PM}

What ??? No, please read the article more carefully. The study says that women are attracted to one type of man for sexual intercourse (reproduction) but to *another* type of man for companionship and marriage. Essentially women are wired to "bond" with pliable, obedient men ("nice guys") in order to have these raise the children of more virile men that they prefer for intercourse (in secret). There couldn't be a starker illustration of the true female nature than this. It definitely shows what's behind female declarations (and feelings) of love and the like.

Zubenelgenubi

^{02-15-2008, 09:15 PM}

What ??? No, please read the article more carefully. The study says that women are attracted to one type of man for sexual intercourse (reproduction) but to *another* type of man for companionship and marriage. Essentially women are wired to "bond" with pliable, obedient men ("nice guys") in order to have these raise the children of more virile men that they prefer for intercourse (in secret). There couldn't be a starker illustration of the true female nature than this. It definitely shows what's behind female declarations (and feelings) of love and the like.
I did not phrase my original post specifically enough: Women are wired to want to have sex with men who are more likely to produce offspring during periods of time when it is more likely that offspring will be produced. You still have not shown that these inclinations are more ''insidious'' than those of men or that they are more likely to act on them.

Bronze Age Pervert

^{02-15-2008, 09:45 PM}

I did not phrase my original post specifically enough: Women are wired to want to have sex with men who are more likely to produce offspring during periods of time when it is more likely that offspring will be produced. You still have not shown that these inclinations are more ''insidious'' than those of men or that they are more likely to act on them.
OK. Let's take it from the top. Consider this:
...other studies show that women’s preference for
physically attractive men varies across the menstrual cycle
(Penton- Voak & Perrett, 2000; Penton- Voak et al., 1999)
and with her physical attractiveness (Little, Burt, Penton-
Voak, & Perrett, 2001). Penton-Voak and colleagues
demonstrated that women preferred men with masculine
facial features (e.g., prominent chin) around the time of
ovulation and men with more feminine facial features at
other times in their cycle; implications are discussed in the
“Extra-pair sex” section. Little et al. (2001)
The point I'm trying to make is that women prefer two different types of men at two different times. Men are not planning to marry a woman for security and have her raise the children of another woman that they will have intercourse (and children) with for looks. Whereas that is precisely what women are wired to do: it's not just that they're attracted to a certain type of man for reproduction, but that they also want to snare another type of man who is more pliable and likely to be controlled, so as to have him raise another man's children. Clear enough for you about female nature?

Petr

^{02-15-2008, 10:05 PM}

Could "Bronze Age Pervert" be the latest incarnation of Brandon Orr?

Larrikin

^{02-15-2008, 10:06 PM}

"Bronze Age Pervert" is definitely Ixabert.

dangerbot

^{02-15-2008, 11:14 PM}

Not all women are whores. Some are mothers.

And yeah, "Bronze Age Perver" is undoubtedly the latest incarnation of Ixabert.

Petr

^{02-15-2008, 11:33 PM}

He makes the same type of provocative comments as Ixabert in almost he every thread he participates.

Zubenelgenubi

^{02-15-2008, 11:49 PM}

Very well. Let us take it from the top. Consider this:

...other studies show that women’s preference for physically attractive men varies across the menstrual cycle (Penton- Voak & Perrett, 2000; Penton- Voak et al., 1999) and with her physical attractiveness (Little, Burt, Penton- Voak, & Perrett, 2001). Penton-Voak and colleagues demonstrated that women preferred men with masculine facial features (e.g., prominent chin) around the time of ovulation and men with more feminine facial features at other times in their cycle; implications are discussed in the “Extra-pair sex” section. Little et al. (2001).

My point is that women prefer two different types of men at two different times. Men are not planning to marry a woman for security and have her raise the children of another woman that they will have intercourse (and children) with for looks. Whereas that is precisely what women are wired to do: it's not just that they're attracted to a certain type of man for reproduction, but that they also want to snare another type of man who is more pliable and likely to be controlled, so as to have him raise another man's children. Clear enough for you about female nature? Acting in a manner which creates the best possibility of genetic success = deception. You must be against evolution. By the way, no one should ever use the words "scientific proof" to describe anything, as nothing in science is ever proven.

dangerbot

^{02-15-2008, 11:53 PM}

As an aside: try to be a bit more careful with thread titles. First off, the behavior being described is not prostitute-like in any meaningful way. Second, while the study's findings agree with my intuition, I am not under any delusion that a single study with a small sample size that has yet to be repeated or even subjected to scholarly scrutiny constitutes 'scientific proof'. Granting that the standards of psychological research are considerably more lax than in physics, I would still be loath to put these results at the level of a law when, say, quantum mechanics remains a mere theory. Perhaps a better title would be 'scientific evidence that women are natural two-timing bitches'.

Second City Bureaucrat

^{02-16-2008, 12:09 AM}

Zubaz must not be ovulating. She's bonding with the pliable dangerbot in order to trick him into providing for her children.

Kodos

^{02-16-2008, 12:34 AM}

Orr doesn't have the level of interest in military affairs Bronze Age Pervert has shown. I knew Barjag was BO early on (I said nothing because I don't care), I don't think Bronze Age Pervert was.

Starr

^{02-16-2008, 12:38 AM}

Whereas that is precisely what women are wired to do: it's not just that they're attracted to a certain type of man for reproduction, but that they also want to snare another type of man who is more pliable and likely to be controlled, so as to have him raise another man's children. Clear enough for you about female nature?
Women fantasize about masculine men around their most fertile time because they are looking for a type more likely to be able to protect them and their future children. The other type is likely perceived by them to be more likely to be faithful, ready to settle down, safe and maybe even more civilized to a degree. There need not be anything in this that points to any kind of nasty nature as it seems you are getting at.
And where on earth is the prostitute angle in this?

Ahknaton

^{02-16-2008, 12:47 AM}

A civilization that grants "freedom" to women, i.e., that abandons them to their natural impulses, can't survive for long.
It depends what kind of freedom you're talking about. If you mean that it's no longer frowned upon to give in to your sexual impulses, cheat etc then yeah, that will be socially destructive. I don't think we're at that stage yet though, and I'm not sure we ever will be. A more pressing concern for "beta provider" males would be economic independence for women, making them redundant.

Bronze Age Pervert

^{02-16-2008, 02:53 AM}

It depends what kind of freedom you're talking about. If you mean that it's no longer frowned upon to give in to your sexual impulses, cheat etc then yeah, that will be socially destructive. I don't think we're at that stage yet though, and I'm not sure we ever will be. A more pressing concern for "beta provider" males would be economic independence for women, making them redundant. Sexual and economic liberation for women is responsible in my opinion for the weakness of Western society. It makes men expend far too much effort on matters of courtship, marriage, family and generally "lifestyle" issues. There is no essential difference between a homosexual and a modern feminized male who goes shopping with his wife, helps her arrange the decor of the house, and so on. Spain has recently legislated equal-time for household chores. A society that gives women the vote furthermore will be dominated by "healthcare" concerns and the like, and will be unable to resist immigration because women naturally side with minorities against "white male privilege." The reason I posted this thread is to remind men that their worst intuitions about women are true and that women deserve no respect (in so far as they are merely women). This would be a first step to eliminating the cultural sexual egalitarianism that is one of the pillars of our gender-neutral society.

Bronze Age Pervert

^{02-16-2008, 02:57 AM}

Starr wrote,

Women fantasize about masculine men around their most fertile time because they are looking for a type more likely to be able to protect them and their future children. The other type is likely perceived by them to be more likely to be faithful, ready to settle down, safe and maybe even more civilized to a degree. There need not be anything in this that points to any kind of nasty nature as it seems you are getting at. And where on earth is the prostitute angle in this?

I don't think a woman in heat at the sight of a sexually attractive man is thinking of anything long-term like what you describe. The study I linked to and especially the paragraph I quoted in the second post indicate women are programmed instinctively to cheat: to prefer one type of man for sexual encounters and another type for long-term settling down. Nothing could be clearer. A prostitute is a woman who uses her sexuality for material gain. This is essentially what women do with 90% of husbands, who they hope to cheat on with a sexier man at the first opportunity. The fact that they don't consciously hope so, but would do so "against their better judgment" only strengthens my case.

Boleslaw

^{02-16-2008, 03:01 AM}

Actually, Orr had a profound military knowledge. I myself remember having numerous discussions with him on such several times. Whether Bronze Age Pervert is Brandon Orr or Ixabert, he is my enemy.

Bronze Age Pervert

^{02-16-2008, 03:03 AM}

"He is definitely Ixabert."
Dangerbot, I'm none of these people. I'm new to the Phora and have my own reasons for being here, and no, I'm not a troll. Someone named "Petr" has been trying to respond to every one of my posts by accusing me of being someone else. The reason is a) Petr can't ever give a decent response to my arguments and b) Petr feels threatened because he thinks I'm trying to inch in on his "scholar" persona. I have no desire to be a pedant who quotes other people though, so he shouldn't feel threatened.
Women are mothers, it is true. But their affection for their children is entirely instinctive. Once this passes, they have no love for their children. Once a woman's husband dies, if she remarries she loses all affection for her children in favor of her new family, which is why we have the common image of the "stepmother." It is estimated furthermore that at least 10% of men are raising another man's child without knowing it, which is very high percentage if you think about it. I put an exaggerated title to the thread and I agree with you about the word "scientific." But the study I cited only confirms an old intuition that men have about women, and which is the start of truth about how to treat them and how to arrange one's life with respect to them.

Boleslaw

^{02-16-2008, 03:14 AM}

You sure had us all fooled, Ixabert!

Bronze Age Pervert

^{02-16-2008, 03:16 AM}

You and Petr who are resentful because you can't hold an argument against me. Try to think and write more clearly instead of attacking me personally.

Kriger

^{02-16-2008, 03:23 AM}

Sexual promiscuity practiced by certain males is also a weakness in a family oriented society. The small percentages of women who are into a relationship solely for monetary gain does not establish a norm for this behaviour. A mother who abandons affection of her offspring in favor of a new spouse's is also a small percentage and not the norm. It is unfortunate that there are those whose experience with the opposite gender has been tarnished with the actions of women who do not exhibit the nature of most women which is wife, mother, and individual person. One needs to look at one's choice of women. You get what you are looking for.

Bronze Age Pervert

^{02-16-2008, 03:32 AM}

Yet the point is not about sexual promiscuity. As I said, men may cheat on their spouse but they're not naturally hard-wired to deceive a spouse for an entire lifespan into raising someone else's children. While most women do not give in to their natures, as you point out, this is because there is still some residue of traditional morality that keeps them in check. They submit to this morality against their wills and this morality is in terminal decline (in large part because of the efforts of women). Conservatives need to start understanding the world as a battlefield for enduring *biological* war of various sorts. Until then, there can be no reestablishment of traditional, or any kind of morality.

Death

^{02-16-2008, 03:36 AM}

Men and women are whores. Death has spoken.

dangerbot

^{02-16-2008, 03:37 AM}

It'd be rather tough for a man to deceive a woman into raising someone else's child, wouldn't it? Hey baby, isn't it weird that you had amnesia through your entire pregnancy?

Kriger

^{02-16-2008, 03:50 AM}

It is your opinion, Bronze Age Pervert, that women are to blame for the decline in morality. You have a right to your opinion.
It is my opinion that the decline in morality is due to far left liberal ideology that promotes casual sex, casual drugs, irresponsibilty, welfare states, perpetrators as victims, etc.
Both men and women are influenced by these indoctrinations from an early age.

Bronze Age Pervert

^{02-16-2008, 04:10 AM}

Kriger,
Whoever invented the left-wing ideology, it is women who perpetuate it. Without women the Democratic party would be defunct. Women vote for Dem and left politicians precisely for "social" and "lifestyle" issues. It is the liberation of women that is responsible for our moral and psychological decline. They have an enduring interest in the nature of the species. Only men have an enduring interest in the welfare of the nation or the state, which is founded against the nature of the species, and as an escape from it. To give women a hand in govt. is to deny the purpose of govt....

dangerbot wrote,

It'd be rather tough for a man to deceive a woman into raising someone else's child, wouldn't it? Hey baby, isn't it weird that you had amnesia through your entire pregnancy?

But men have no desire to do so. Whereas women get a lifelong sexual thrill out of it.

Starr

^{02-16-2008, 04:29 AM}

This is correct. Women who engage in things like casual sex are responding to the demands and expectations that current society puts on them. Now, they are ultimately the ones who either can choose or not choose to live their lives in a certain way, so it is not an excuse, just an understanding of the behavior. Casual sex, for one, goes against a woman's nature. I don't think a woman in heat at the sight of a sexually attractive man is thinking of anything long-term like what you describe. The study I linked to and especially the paragraph I quoted in the second post indicate women are programmed instinctively to cheat: to prefer one type of man for sexual encounters and another type for long-term settling down. Nothing could be clearer. Now, they are not likely actually thinking about what I described. it is unconscious. In your way of looking at this, everyone is programmed to cheat. We are all going to encounter numerous people we are attracted to in our lifetime. That doesn't have to mean we are going to have to act(or even want to act) on these instincts. Humans have the ability to keep their desires in check. This is also part of their programming is it not? It would seem to me that women, specifically are programmed more towards monogamy.

Zubenelgenubi

^{02-16-2008, 04:56 AM}

But men have no desire to do so. Whereas women get a lifelong sexual thrill out of it.

I trust you have "scientific proof" for this assertion as well? Ten seconds of excitement from looking at a masculine face while ovulating does not cut it.

dangerbot

^{02-16-2008, 05:22 AM}

While I'm all in favour of severely restricting the voting franchise, possibly by denying it to women (although doing away with it altogether would be ideal), I refuse to use the state as an organ for the protection of naive and effeminate men. If you cannot keep your chickens in the coop, I see no reason that society should do it for you.

Bronze Age Pervert

^{02-16-2008, 05:59 AM}

I don't think ancient Roman and Greek society was made up of naive and effeminate men. I think that's precisely why they had sensible laws in dealing with women. To begin with, if you caught your wife and another man in the act you were allowed to kill them both (if you did it in a fit of passion). There were severe and humiliating penalties for adulterers. And so on. In regard to inheritance, if a husband dies and his children are despoiled out of their inheritance by the mother who spends it on her new lovers or husbands, would you call the children naive and effeminate for it? Women should not be allowed to inherit property or possess property they haven't earned. We don't need to go as far as the Muslims who, in my opinion wisely, insist that a woman must always be accompanied by a man in public, but something in that spirit is appropriate. Above all, women must not be allowed any voice in matters of politics...politics is invented precisely to get away from women and their whole demented swamp world that would have kept us living in caves and grass huts.

Ahknaton

^{02-16-2008, 07:27 AM}

This study raises the ages-old duality in women between Demetrian and Aphrodistic types. As always, it turns out that it isn't that simple and mostly they are a mixture of the two (with one predominating in most women). What is novel in the modern setting is that the Appollonian/Dionysian duality now applies to women too, since they can be career women/high achievers as well as mothers and whores.

Zubenelgenubi

^{02-16-2008, 07:38 AM}

We are missing the essential question here, which is, as always: "Are mothers moral?"

Camacho

^{02-16-2008, 07:47 AM}

Bronze Age Pervert wrote,

Whoever invented the left-wing ideology, it is women who perpetuate it. Without women the Democratic party would be defunct. Women vote for Dem and left politicians precisely for "social" and "lifestyle" issues.

All right, this is definitely Ixabert pulling our leg. Nobody with your type of opinions views the world in terms of "Democrats" and "Republicans".

Bronze Age Pervert

^{02-16-2008, 04:53 PM}

Mothers are not moral. They act out of instinct only.

Bronze Age Pervert

^{02-16-2008, 04:56 PM}

Akhnaton wrote,

This study raises the ages-old duality in women between Demetrian and Aphrodistic types. As always, it turns out that it isn't that simple and mostly they are a mixture of the two (with one predominating in most women). What is novel in the modern setting is that the Appollonian/Dionysian duality now applies to women too, since they can be career women/high achievers as well as mothers and whores.

This is very abstract. What you say would be fine if it were some sort of artistic mixture. But in fact the study shows they use these personae at specific times to deceive men in the grossest way (i.e., relying on notions of romantic love and so on, when no woman has ever believed in romantic love, etc.). As for Apollonian and Dionysian, I don't see what either has to do with modern life; Nietzsche said modernity is neither nor, and I don't think even as archetypes that they apply to anything having to do with careers. Still, let's stick to the point, which is, the study definitely proves that men should not try to love women, no?

Ratatoskur

^{02-16-2008, 08:40 PM}

To make sure you're not being played in the game of reproduction in this day and age, there are either paternity tests, administered after the foul, or... Have a gallon of your spoo frozen in strategic sperm reserves. Then have a vasectomy. That way your child will not be conceived in the deep night's sensuous rapture (possibly having you cuckolded)) but in a sterile, fluorescently lit gynaecologist's office. The very antithesis of romance. Say it with me... Strategic Sperm Reserves! Rolls of the tongue.
postscriptum: Fuck you, bitches.

reader

^{02-16-2008, 09:16 PM}

Women are responding to stimuli that make them wet. That stimuli are large frames, big muscles, dominant attitudes. It really has little to do with consciously looking for types that will protect them. Nowadays with contraceptives it makes no difference anyway. Women can bed all the bucks they want and save procreation for the harnessed nerd, but such was not the case in days of yore, before decadence set in.

Kodos

^{02-16-2008, 09:32 PM}

Bronze Age Pervert wrote,

(i.e., relying on notions of romantic love and so on, when no woman has ever believed in romantic love)

While this may have been Mencken's view I think a lot of women do believe in it (the kind that does are ussually attracted to shitbags though).

KevinDeBurgh

^{02-16-2008, 11:11 PM}

I think the Jews as a whole are far more liberal as a group than just women alone. I would blame Jews for the whole liberal thing and not women as a whole per se-- see here :

"Explanation of Jewish liberalism:
The reasons for Jewish liberalism are at least three in number: First, Jews have been outcasts for many centuries in all parts of the world, and this has undoubtedly given Jews a sympathy with minorities who, simply by being minorities, have generally been underdogs. Second, because Jews have generally experienced an outstanding level of financial success -- a likely source of envy among gentiles, and thus a factor in causing Jews to be outcasts -- this success has led to a feeling of guilt, particularly in regards to the minorities whom they champion, thereby leading Jews to support liberal policies. A third reason for Jewish liberalism, at least in the sense of explaining their support for leftist governments, is that the centralization of power which is an intrinsic part of such governments is a means of realizing power for Jews generally and Jewish leaders in particular.
While it could be argued that liberalism is as legitimate as any of a great many other political positions -- conservatism, monarchism, fascism, populism, technocracy, etc -- the fact remains that liberalism is contrary to the most basic principle of the American Constitution -- limited government -- a principle which has been at the root of the Western democratic ideal. In fact, 'limited government' is essentially a synonym for 'political freedom'; for virtually all the freedoms Americans supposedly enjoy under the Constitution -- free speech, freedom of religion, a free market, property rights, freedom of association, equality under the law, the right to keep and bear arms, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a speedy trial by a jury of one's peers, and so forth -- are essentially limitations on government power. But almost every liberal program is an attack on political freedom thru an enhancement of government power: Affirmative action and welfare give the government power to suspend the free market and equality before the law by making some groups (minorities and 'the poor') more equal than others; 'hate speech' laws and their ilk give the government power to attack freedom of speech; minimum wage laws, sexual harassment laws, 'workplace safety' regulations and affirmative action give the government power to regulate the (formerly) free market; 'gun control' gives the government power to restrict the right to keep and bear arms; forced bussing and 'anti-discrimination' laws give the government power to violate freedom of association; and in general the pro-tax-and-spend policies of liberals give the government power to spend 40% of our incomes, and in the process to do virtually anything it wants, from scrutinizing our bank accounts and telling us how to use our sexual organs to prescribing what medicines we may use and what substances we can enjoy.
But even if liberalism and its more extreme variants of communism and socialism are in fact contrary to the Western democratic ideal, the question remains as to whether Jewish support of liberalism is not simply a manifestation of Jewish idealism which is innocent of any intent to destroy Western culture or the white race. While virtually anything is possible in this crazy world of ours, the likelihood that liberalism is merely 'innocent Jewish idealism' seems unlikely in the extreme. To begin, according to Prof Kevin Macdonald, Jewish intelligence is significantly above the white, (about 15 IQ points), and in fact is as far above the white as white is above the black. Thus even granting the possibility that the Jewish hoi polloi are idealistic liberals with no intent of trashing whites or Western civilization, the fact that liberalism has been a failure in every instance where it has been tried -- from the numerous communist and socialist regimes around the world (the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, North Korea, and so on) to every particular program where it has been tried in the West (welfare, government health care, social security, farm subsidies, urban renewal, public housing, VA hospitals, plus all the other programs we have already mentioned, plus zillions of others) -- can only mean that Jewish leaders -- the most intelligent men of an outstandingly- intelligent race -- know perfectly well the effects of liberalism, and continue to promote it precisely because they approve of its effects. And while it is true that Israel itself adheres to liberalism in the economic sphere (but not in the racial, ethnic or sexual!), this is not a refutation of our position, but could be explained in various ways, eg, as a need on the part of Jewish leaders to showcase their liberalism to the gentiles in order to be better able to use it against them; or as an experiment in command and control of their own people in order to facilitate using it against the West; or as merely the effect of the Jewish hoi polloi believing in liberalism without their leaders believing in it.
Evidence for Jewish responsibility:
The evidence of Jewish responsibility for the intentional destruction of Western civilization and the white race consists of two parts: (1) the Jewish support of liberalism, which we have already noted is contrary to the basic principles of Western life, and (2) the negative attitudes and motives which Jews hold toward whites and Western culture. The evidence for (1) is summarized in the starred paragraphs below; the evidence for (2) is discussed in Motives for Jewish behavior which follows the starred paragraphs:
* Jews as a people are overwhelmingly liberal politically, and the goals of the major Jewish organizations worldwide reflect this liberalism in their policies and political activism.
* Virtually all of the liberal social movements have been initiated and led by Jews -- communism, civil rights, feminism, open immigration, gun control, 'hate crime' laws, the labor movement, etc.
* The major media -- newspapers, television and movies -- has an overwhelmingly liberal bias (for example, about 90% of the senior media staffers voted for Clinton in 1992), and Jewish influence is dominant in the media, as has been conclusively demonstrated by Dr William Pierce in his essay "Who Rules America", which may be found on the National Vanguard website. The result of this control is that, in only half a century, the people of the West have been persuaded to abandon ideas which they had held for centuries in favor of precisely the opposite ideas -- those of liberalism. And the fact that this abandonment has happened all over the Western world simultaneously is further evidence that the international network of Jews, by their media influence, has brought it about.
* Jewish contributions and fundraising have a major impact on the political process, and with this control goes tremendous political clout. (Popular columnist and presidential candidate Pat Buchanan once characterized Congress as Israeli-occupied territory.) This clout does much to explain the emergence of liberalism as a formidable political force, even tho liberalism is unpopular among the American people (it has been estimated that only 17% of Americans consider themselves liberals.) " -- John Bryant
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Jews/Jews-JWAG.html

Bronze Age Pervert

^{02-17-2008, 03:03 AM}

Kevin DeBurgh wrote,

I think the Jews as a whole are far more liberal as a group than just women alone. I would blame Jews for the whole liberal thing and not women as a whole per se-- see here :

Besides being entirely an unoriginal rehash of content-less allegations, your post has nothing to do with the topic in this thread, so I ask you to take your gutter anti-Semitism and discuss it with such luminaries as Albionmp and Illusions. Thanks and 'bye.

reader

02-17-2008, 03:58 AM

If you think that post was "gutter anti-Semitism" you don't get out much.

dangerbot

02-17-2008, 04:06 AM

In what bizzarro world are oriental despotisms like the ones in the DPRK and Democratic Kampuchea instances of liberalism?

Petr

02-17-2008, 04:10 AM

Yup, if not Ixabert, this is some sort of anti playing the role of latently homosexual misogynistic macho-fascist.

Bronze Age Pervert

02-17-2008, 06:02 AM

So you don't think that irrelevant load of crap from the guy with the French general name was from the gutter? You liked it? Anti-what? Listen, calm down, I've already made it clear I'm not trying to inch in on your "scholarly" thing. It would help if you actually had some original thoughts in your head though, instead of regurgitating boring academic articles and making posts out of them. It's cheap to attack someone as a "troll" when you can't answer a single argument. Do you have anything to say about the content of the post or what? What's misogynistic about pointing out the truth about women? I don't hate women, I just advocate not paying too much attention to them.

Empress Cheesatine

02-17-2008, 08:14 PM

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114182256.htm
This article should only make clear for the more pedantic what has always been obvious to anyone with common sense: women are naturally wired to be deceptive and unfaithful in a way that exceeds anything a man could conceive of.
A civilization that grants "freedom" to women, i.e., that abandons them to their natural impulses, can't survive for long.
So basically women have similar qualities to men. Both of us are affected by hormonal cycles, who cares? Other than misogynists. Our civilizations have been generally controlled by men who allow themselves all the impulses they desire. Consequently, the western world has been deluged in non-whites who men imported and gleefully porked for hundreds of years to produce more slaves, and now we have the internationalist capitalists who want no borders and a free flow of more 3rd world trash to service their personal greed. Nearly all of those internationalists are men, too. This continuous importation of non-white scum is one of the leading factors behind the decline of western civilization. We have capitalists importing filth and using degenerate advertising methods to market anti-traditional lifestyles to the youth. And oya, who carries and spreads most of the social disease and abandons most of the babies? Women? All of this is nearly 100% male. You, sir, are out of your mind.
What ??? No, please read the article more carefully. The study says that women are attracted to one type of man for sexual intercourse (reproduction) but to *another* type of man for companionship and marriage. Essentially women are wired to "bond" with pliable, obedient men ("nice guys") in order to have these raise the children of more virile men that they prefer for intercourse (in secret). There couldn't be a starker illustration of the true female nature than this. It definitely shows what's behind female declarations (and feelings) of love and the like.
Once again you seem to be attacking women for having similar wiring to males? Men love the whores for dating, and want the submissive, pliable ones for marriage. Without willing woman whores, who will these man whores date? Each other? :rofl:
Personally, as a female, I do not see a difference between someone who is both sexually attractive and desirable for companionship and marriage. Those are part of the same total package. There are many non-marriageable males who are fuckable. Perhaps this is what you're blowing your cork over.
Offhand, I'd say you were jilted and remain quite bitter, and use your negative experiences to judge women by. Perhaps if you were more observant of your choice of companions you wouldn't have found yourself in this position?

Bronze Age Pervert

02-17-2008, 08:27 PM

Yet another post that has nothing to do with the original. Did you actually read that study? Or the paragraph I quoted in the second post? What possibly could that have anything to do with immigration?? I never denied that men also have a desire to sleep around. But again, you're not reading the study. The point is not that women want to sleep with attractive men. It's that they want to trick men they don't find attractive but pliable into lifelong commitments and raising someone else's kid. Men don't do that. It was men who granted freedom to women, so in a sense you're right that it's men's fault. It is, however, women who vote for politicians responsible for the (mostly irrelevant) things you mention in your post by the way. And it is women who have a vested interest in promoting what you call "anti-traditional lifestyles," (if only to protect their right to abortion) and in keeping the Western world's obsessions with healthcare and welfare burning. It is not misogyny that makes me say these things, it is a simple observation of voting patterns and enduring interests; it is also women, btw, who as a political group bond with minorities to attack "white male privilege" in the US. It is a delusional belief on your part that women will care for you that makes you not see them for what they are. No civilization can survive that attempts to make women politically equal.

Once again you seem to be attacking women for having similar wiring to males?

Thank you. I didn't know you were a woman by the way. If men realize this point you're making they will see why their delusions about women are so silly. They will understand that a woman may make a good wife in certain circumstances but that she in no way can provide the same kind of friendship and companionship that a man can. It is important for men to put their friends far above their wives. The only thing stopping them from doing this is the belief that women are somehow these divine creatures who love them. When they realize that women are just as cold (if not colder) than men, they will have no reason to spend much time with them because, believe me, none of us care about your concerns and we find conversation with you generally boring.

Empress Cheesatine

02-17-2008, 08:48 PM

Gee, you're not paying much attention. You were directly accusing women of bringing down our civilization, and I was pointing out several of the major ways that men not only dominate the field of degeneracy of our civilization, but have been doing so for hundreds of years. Women did not import these niggers or Mexicans, nor did they emancipate them, nor did they integrate them instead of deport them. Generally speaking, I don't believe it for a second. A few women will do it, men's manipulativeness comes most when they want sex, rather than a lifelong commitment. When the dick is hard the "I love you" bullshit comes out. You seem to be hair-splitting and excusing male manipulativeness while wailing that women are destroying the world. You're a 'tard. Blame it all on the woman. What a weak male you are. You insistent focus on post-60s leftism isn't going to rescue you from the fact that long before women were "given" anything, men were already fucking it all up.
You're dodging the issue of males importing 3rd world filth over hundreds of years and unleashing them in the general society where they continue to prey on females (ever look at black-on-white crime stats?) Abortion was originally something advocated by white genetic engineers, to breed retards out of the race. That was a male-dominated field. That leftist male-dominated media and academic outlets have quite successfully marketed the legitimacy of its use as birth control to women angers you against women?!!! Women join with non-white groups because they have been duped and brainwashed just as self-loathing white males have been coming out of these Marxist universities. Perhaps some of these women are also disappointed that their own men aren't protecting them anymore. Personally, I came to understand the hostile cultural undercurrent and shed the anti-white brainwashing several years ago. You, however, apparently feel emascuated and make females the epicenter of your misplaced anger. Its not a woman thing, its cultural Marxism.If you dont think women are capable and love and non-manipulative commitment, then you've obviously been jilted and continue to feel it deeply. Personally, I wouldnt tolerate a male who favored his booze-buddies over his wife. The wife is family, the buddies are just buddies. Favoring family over buds is part of a real loving commitment. Apparently youre bashing women for being loveless while advocating a shallow, loveless relationship.
Have you ever considered that a lot of women are apparently incapable of deeper conversations because they, growing up believing that men's only interest in them was sexual, never bothered to develop their intellectual side and spent all their time applying makeup and learning how to shake their hips seductively? They do what they percieve men want. Some even pretend to be unintelligent to get dates. I'll never forget the girl in high school who openly admitted to her female friends that she flunked a math test to impress her boyfriend.

Pure_instinct

02-18-2008, 11:14 AM

OK. Let's take it from the top. Consider this:
...other studies show that women’s preference for
physically attractive men varies across the menstrual cycle
(Penton- Voak & Perrett, 2000; Penton- Voak et al., 1999)
and with her physical attractiveness (Little, Burt, Penton-
Voak, & Perrett, 2001). Penton-Voak and colleagues
demonstrated that women preferred men with masculine
facial features (e.g., prominent chin) around the time of
ovulation and men with more feminine facial features at
other times in their cycle; implications are discussed in the
“Extra-pair sex” section. Little et al. (2001)
The point I'm trying to make is that women prefer two different types of men at two different times. Men are not planning to marry a woman for security and have her raise the children of another woman that they will have intercourse (and children) with for looks. Whereas that is precisely what women are wired to do: it's not just that they're attracted to a certain type of man for reproduction, but that they also want to snare another type of man who is more pliable and likely to be controlled, so as to have him raise another man's children. Clear enough for you about female nature?
That's not being a prostitute. Being a prostitute is having sex with many people for purely financial profit. Prostitutes are not in it for babies.
I am not very often on this forum - but your anger against women sounds rather likely to come from someone gay.
Some studies have concluded that up to 10% of children are conceived in this sneaky way, not being the real offspring of the supposed father. One of my aunts obviously did this since she produced impossibly brown eyed kids when she and my uncle (he being my blood relation) have blue eyes. She was his second wife though, and had given him two that were his. And he was/is not the monogamous type himself anyway so one can hardly pity him.
Imagine a man with not so great genes but who makes a kind husband and a good father, but his wife secretly has kids with a much more attractive, intelligent and stronger male. Now if that "father" and no one else except the mother even knows who the real sire of the offspring really is, then surely there isn't a problem. The man raising the children would feel happier to think they were his than he would have if the children were really his. If that was the scenario then it would be fine - but there is too much chance now with DNA testing that the truth would come out.
As a woman, I would not marry someone who I didn't want to reproduce with in the first place, but that's because I can get the quality of man I want. Some other women just can't get that quality of man and so they are the ones most likely to end up taking someone not so great physically/intellectually etc as a husband and following their urge to get pregnant with some superior sperm. It's not so evil really is it though?

Helios Panoptes

02-18-2008, 01:54 PM

That's not being a prostitute. Being a prostitute is having sex with many people for purely financial profit. Prostitutes are not in it for babies.
Presumably, the woman has sex with the beta male who is the husband, which is what snared him in the first place and keeps him around to continue earning.
One of my aunts obviously did this since she produced impossibly brown eyed kids when she and my uncle (he being my blood relation) have blue eyes.
It is possible. Eye color in humans is much more complicated than one would guess from high school biology. The model that is taught at that level usually produces accurate results, but is 100 years old, and it's not quite correct.
Imagine a man with not so great genes but who makes a kind husband and a good father, but his wife secretly has kids with a much more attractive, intelligent and stronger male.
I find it awfully amusing that you think that a woman would cheat on her husband with a more masculine man because he is smarter. Few women are attracted by displays of genuine intelligence. They tend to prefer wit and other low forms of cognitive dexterity. I do not deny that they might cheat with a more attractive one, though.
Some other women just can't get that quality of man and so they are the ones most likely to end up taking someone not so great physically/intellectually etc as a husband and following their urge to get pregnant with some superior sperm. It's not so evil really is it though?
Incorrect. It involves using the husband as a means to the wife's subjective end, which he very well might not tolerate if he were fully informed about his predicament. That is gross manipulation to get a person to do things that he wouldn't do if he weren't being abused by rank dishonesty. Do it anyway if you like, but call it what it is.

Professor Calculus

02-18-2008, 02:43 PM

We Time-Lords have been somewhat split on this subject for several million years. Fortunately since we are a male dominated, multidimensional society, where women are as good as a man, and maintain absolute celibacy on our ever journey through this great universe of ours, it is not really our problem. We pity you tiny base mortals. Essentially, however, we believe it is mostly chemical and absolutely deterministic, in such low creatures as you.

Kodos

02-18-2008, 02:58 PM

the most intelligent men of an outstandingly- intelligent race -- know perfectly well the effects of liberalism, and continue to promote it precisely because they approve of its effects.
Liberals have a form of cognitive dissidence where they don't put much stock in empirical evidence. Ever talked to one?

Pure_instinct

02-20-2008, 10:34 AM

It is possible. Eye color in humans is much more complicated than one would guess from high school biology. The model that is taught at that level usually produces accurate results, but is 100 years old, and it's not quite correct.
No. There is no way two blue eyed parents can have a child with brown eyes. (Light hazel may possibly be an exception). And natural blonds and red heads can't have black haired offspring together. And those of the fairest freckled complexion cannot have swarthy skinned offspring together. It is vital people know this.
I find it awfully amusing that you think that a woman would cheat on her husband with a more masculine man because he is smarter. Few women are attracted by displays of genuine intelligence. They tend to prefer wit and other low forms of cognitive dexterity. I do not deny that they might cheat with a more attractive one, though.
As a woman I would pick a man shorter and less attractive and slightly less masculine than another simply because his brain is overwhelmingly irresistibly sexy. I can't be the only woman who thinks that way. (And money is not a factor either).
It's good eugenics if women get pregnant with better men than their husbands, in theory at least. Apparantly this happened openly in Celtic society. The Celtic women boasted that they would sleep with a man and make no secret of it and contrasted that with the way Roman women sneaked around having secret affairs.

Helios Panoptes

02-20-2008, 10:52 AM

No. There is no way two blue eyed parents can have a child with brown eyes. (Light hazel may possibly be an exception). And natural blonds and red heads can't have black haired offspring together. And those of the fairest freckled complexion cannot have swarthy skinned offspring together. It is vital people know this.
You are misinformed.
To make things easier to understand, schools and especially TV tend to oversimplify genes and genetics. This is fine until people start believing that this is the way genetics really works.
Then, when two blue-eyed parents have a brown-eyed child, they sometimes begin to suspect things they don’t need to. What is important for these two parents to realize is that the genetics they have been taught is too simple to explain everything. {...}
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=101
As a woman I would pick a man shorter and less attractive and slightly less masculine than another simply because his brain is overwhelmingly irresistibly sexy. I can't be the only woman who thinks that way. (And money is not a factor either).
That is beside the point, since I was talking about the kind of man whom a woman would cheat on her regular partner with, not the kind that is picked as the regular partner. I do not believe that women will cheat with another man simply because he is smarter. If it happens, I think it's rare.
It's good eugenics if women get pregnant with better men than their husbands, in theory at least. Apparantly this happened openly in Celtic society. The Celtic women boasted that they would sleep with a man and make no secret of it and contrasted that with the way Roman women sneaked around having secret affairs.
I suspect that my point was misunderstood... If a woman gets pregnant with a man other than her husband and tricks the husband into caring for the child against his will, this is unethical. Lying to people to get one's way is unethical, especially if the lie gets the victim to do things that he wouldn't do if he knew the truth. Of course, that is not to say that one might not go ahead and do it anyway based on non-moral considerations, but at least have the clarity of mind to recognize it as flagrant dishonesty that advances one's own interests and impedes the other's interests. I highly doubt that you would find it acceptable from a moral perspective for someone to treat you in that matter, after all.
You are making a good case for the thesis advanced in the OP.

Ahknaton

02-20-2008, 11:20 AM

Bronze Age Pervert wrote,

This is very abstract. What you say would be fine if it were some sort of artistic mixture. But in fact the study shows they use these personae at specific times to deceive men in the grossest way (i.e., relying on notions of romantic love and so on, when no woman has ever believed in romantic love, etc.). As for Apollonian and Dionysian, I don't see what either has to do with modern life; Nietzsche said modernity is neither nor, and I don't think even as archetypes that they apply to anything having to do with careers. Still, let's stick to the point, which is, the study definitely proves that men should not try to love women, no?

What I meant by my comment is that it is possible that there may exist a class of women who are capable of transcending their femaleness and pursuing higher ideals, as well as being sincere towards males an so on. In short, repressing some of their raw womanhood. I agree with your earlier comment that politics was originally invented to escape from the feminine in order to have some kind of civilization, but isn't it possible that some women may wish to join this project and suppress some of their instincts? After all, a similar restraint is required from males to make it possible, why is it assumed that women are not capable of this? As for the "Apollonian" type, I think it exists amongst women. When I said "careers" I was thinking more along the lines of women who pursue science or the arts, not some careerist corporate climber or anything along those lines.

Hartmann von Aue

02-20-2008, 11:22 AM

I think women are capable of morality and loyalty but unfortunately they are very pliable to corrupting social trends. In particular, feminism teaches women that it is morally correct for them to get what they want by almost any means (that women are usually willing to employ, although it seems the feminists want to get murderesses off as well). This is pernicious to an extraordinary degree, in that it teaches women to sabotage male/female cooperation. This is not to say women do not do these things because of their nature - but there is quite a difference, an extraordinary difference, between acknowledging such tendencies and making them positive virtues.

Pure_instinct

02-20-2008, 12:03 PM

Helios,
Barry Starr is a lying Jew. Blue eyes are always recessive to brown eyes. The chances of a mutation arising in the offspring to give them a dominant brown eyed gene is next to impossible. If it could happen it would also not be true to say that it was inherited from the parents as it was in fact spontaneous.

Helios Panoptes

02-20-2008, 12:42 PM

See:
Eye colour more complex than we thought. Friday, 23 Feb. 2007. Sarah Wood. Cosmos Online. 'SYDNEY: Eye colour is controlled by many genes, according to a new Australian study that challenges the textbook example of blue eye colour as a simple 'recessive trait'. Generations of students have been taught that blue eye colour is a simple recessive genetic trait, but a new study from the University of Queensland in Brisbane is the first to conclusively prove that eye colour is far more complicated, and under the control of many genes. We inherit two copies of each gene, one from each parent. For a recessive trait to show through, we must inherit two copies of the gene that codes for that trait - one from both our mother and father. Geneticists have long thought that 'blue' was the recessive variant of the eye colour gene, and 'brown' was the dominant variant, meaning that a person's eyes would be brown even if they only inherited one version of the 'brown' gene from either parent. But now, "contrary to what used to be thought, we've discovered it is possible for two blue-eyed parents to have a brown-eyed child," said lead author Rick Sturm, "though that is uncommon." Until now, brown-eyed fathers might have used the trait as a simple genetic test to confirm whether or not blue-eyed children were really their own. The simple scheme using a single gene does not fully explain the complexity of eye colour in the real world, Sturm told Cosmos Online. Instead of a single gene, Sturm has found that many genes contribute to eye colour. But small differences in one gene, known as OCA2, are thought to be responsible for around 74 per cent of the total variation in blue/brown eye colour observed in humans. OCA2 produces a protein that gives skin and hair, as well as eyes some of their colour. Part of the complexity is due to the fact that eye colour is in fact a continuum - and not just a trait with a few separate varieties. Some blue eyes are not completely blue, but have a brown pupil ring, and could therefore produce a brown-eyed child, said Sturm. Small differences in another part of the OCA2 gene have also been linked to green and hazel eyes. But Sturm believes that at least two other genes - which he has yet to find - underlie these colours. "The OCA2 gene is clearly important," said molecular geneticist Ronald Trent of the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney, who was not involved in the study. "If both copies of this gene are missing it leads to albinism." Trent added that experts have been slowly unravelling the complexity of the genetics behind eye colour, and that the single gene example has already been weeded out of textbooks. The findings - published in the February issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics were based on a study of 4,000 people including adolescent twins, their siblings and parents. http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1062

This conversation is over, regardless of whether or not you assent to the fact that I am correct. You can lead a horse to water, so on and so forth.

Zubenelgenubi

02-20-2008, 03:55 PM

It is good eugenics if women get pregnant with better men than their husbands, in theory at least. Apparantly this happened openly in Celtic society. The Celtic women boasted that they would sleep with a man and make no secret of it and contrasted that with the way Roman women sneaked around having secret affairs.

It is about as eugenic as the result of men following their instinct to sleep with as many fertile women as possible. Neither is or should be the standard for ethical behavior.

Pure_instinct

02-20-2008, 09:20 PM

It is about as eugenic as the result of men following their instinct to sleep with as many fertile women as possible. Neither is or should be the standard for ethical behavior.

Regardless of the ethics - if a woman chooses out the male with the best available genes to impregnate her, it results in a healthier offspring than if she just settled for the average. If all men (or a random selection) follow their instincts to sleep with as many fertile women as possible there is no selection for better genes occurring and no eugenic effect.

Zubenelgenubi

02-20-2008, 09:34 PM

Regardless of the ethics - if a woman chooses out the male with the best available genes to impregnate her, it results in a healthier offspring than if she just settled for the average. If all men (or a random selection) follow their instincts to sleep with as many fertile women as possible there is no selection for better genes occurring and no eugenic effect.
Sure there is. A man is programmed to sleep with fertile women because they are more likely to give birth to healthy offspring, and are more likely to give birth to offspring at all. Moreover, men with poor genes will father children less likely to make it to reproduction age than those with good genes, hence the effect is eugenic overall. Basically, the idea is ''father them all and let natural selection sort 'em out''.

Kodos

02-20-2008, 11:51 PM

Men love the whores for dating, and want the submissive, pliable ones for marriage.

You are misunderstood because you stupidly listen to what your women friends and women's magazines say about men rather then observing reality. Men love the submissive and pliable whores PERIOD, to all but a small minority of men neither bitchy domineering behaviour or frigidity is EVER desired.

The reason a lot of men end up not liking the whores is you all want to fuck the same 2-6% of guys. The exception is asian women if you want guys to like you act like an asian girl and keep your figure like one, not all guys like them physically but their personality is almost universally preferred by men.

sugartits

02-21-2008, 05:02 AM

Men love the whores for dating, and want the submissive, pliable ones for marriage.
You are misunderstood because you stupidly listen to what your women friends and women's magazines say about men rather then observing reality. Men love the submissive and pliable whores PERIOD, to all but a small minority of men neither bitchy domineering behaviour or frigidity is EVER desired.
Here are some related facts to consider when choosing a mate:

In some ways, choosing between male and female dogs is a matter of personal preference. However, there are some characteristics which are common in bitches and other characteristics which are common in male dogs. It is important to evaluate these characteristics and determine which sex would fit in best with your home situation. Additionally, choosing between male and female dogs is important if you already have another bitch or male dog and are choosing an additional dog. This article will list a few characteristics of bitches, a few characteristics of male dogs, and how to choose between male and female dogs when considering a second or third dog.
The following characteristics often apply to bitches:
Independent - Bitches tend to want to be in control of the entire situation. They may come to their owner when they are seeking affection but will often move away when they have had enough.
Stubborn - In many packs, a bitch is typically the Alpha. Female dogs crave more control of situations and are quick to respond to perceived challenges with fierceness.
Territorial - Female dogs mark in the same way male dogs do. A spayed female may continue to mark for her entire lifetime regardless of when she is spayed while most males will cease marking behaviors shortly after they are neutered and the testosterone levels subside.
Reserved - Bitches are generally less affectionate and friendly than male dogs. This characteristic is noticeable in puppies and becomes more pronounced with age.
http://www.howtodothings.com/pets-and-animals/a4104-how-to-choose-between-male-and-female-dogs.html

Hartmann von Aue

02-21-2008, 05:38 AM

The following characteristics often apply to bitches:

Independent - Bitches tend to want to be in control of the entire situation. They may come to their owner when they are seeking affection but will often move away when they have had enough.
Stubborn - In many packs, a bitch is typically the Alpha. Female dogs crave more control of situations and are quick to respond to perceived challenges with fierceness.
Territorial - Female dogs mark in the same way male dogs do. A spayed female may continue to mark for her entire lifetime regardless of when she is spayed while most males will cease marking behaviors shortly after they are neutered and the testosterone levels subside.
Reserved - Bitches are generally less affectionate and friendly than male dogs. This characteristic is noticeable in puppies and becomes more pronounced with age.
I think this is probably a bit exaggerated.
Obviously castration must play a role.
Another factor is undoubtedly that dogs are pedomorphic.
Though breeders were selected for tameness alone, an astonishing result of the farm-fox study was the appearance of phenotypic, or physical and biochemical, changes in some elite animals. Some of these foxes were spotted or patched black and white (piebald, see Figure 1) or had a white star on their foreheads. In addition, many of the new, unusual physical traits in the elite foxes appear to be the retention of kit-like characteristics in the adult, such as barking, floppy ears, tails that curve over the back, broader heads relative to length, shorter snouts, and smaller skulls. This phenomenon is called pedomorphism and is believed to be a feature common to many domestic mammals. These characteristics, rare in the fearful fox population, increased in numbers in each generation as the experiment progressed. Reproductive behavior also changed, with elite foxes reaching puberty earlier and having longer breeding seasons.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4026/is_200407/ai_n9458023/pg_3

Although (once having worked around 50 horses) have to say in comparing the behaviour of female horses with geldings there was a quite a variety of personalities. Some of the geldings were very skittish and obnoxious, much more so than the mares. Some of the mares were very "cute" indeed - they loved attention. However, some of the geldings were still very male in their behavior in a positive way. Very amiable and friendly. "Nice guys." There were no stallions there so I have no experience with their personalities, although I understand you have to be careful with them.

deep dreamer

02-26-2008, 05:08 AM

Bronze Age Pervert, you are an evil narcissistic misogynist.

"Sexual and economic liberation for women is responsible in my opinion for the weakness of Western society. It makes men expend far too much effort on matters of courtship, marriage, family and generally "lifestyle" issues. There is no essential difference between a homosexual and a modern feminized male who goes shopping with his wife, helps her arrange the decor of the house, and so on. Spain has recently legislated equal-time for household chores.
A society that gives women the vote furthermore will be dominated by "healthcare" concerns and the like , and will be unable to resist immigration because women naturally side with minorities against "white male privilege."
The reason I posted this thread is to remind men that their worst intuitions about women are true and that women deserve no respect (in so far as they are merely women). This would be a first step to eliminating the cultural sexual egalitarianism that is one of the pillars of our gender-neutral society."
"I never denied that men also have a desire to sleep around. But again, you're not reading the study. The point is not that women want to sleep with attractive men. It's that they want to trick men they don't find attractive but pliable into lifelong commitments and raising someone else's kid. Men don't do that."
"[mothers] affection for their children is entirely instinctive. Once this passes, they have no love for their children. Once a woman's husband dies, if she remarries she loses all affection for her children in favor of her new family, which is why we have the common image of the "stepmother."

You have a real problem with women and have a badly warped view of them, not to mention most of what you say is simply wrong. This is only a small selection of your opinions, and I have actually never heard worse in seriousness. Some women are manipulative self-centered bitches, of course, but most aren't an eighth of what you make them out to be. I almost want to ask if you have actually ever met any women, but that is a silly question. Right?

Zubenelgenubi

02-26-2008, 05:35 AM

Women are mothers, it is true. But their affection for their children is entirely instinctive. Once this passes, they have no love for their children. Once a woman's husband dies, if she remarries she loses all affection for her children in favor of her new family, which is why we have the common image of the "stepmother."

Wha? I assume you are referring to the traditional image of the Wicked Stepmother, a woman who takes the place of the biological mother and does not love her husband's children. The 'common image of the stepmother' has nothing to do with a mother abandoning her biological children in favor of a new family.

dangerbot

02-26-2008, 05:39 AM

Congratulations. You have shattered stereotypes by demonstrating that women are not only masters of rational dispute, but also adept in the use of technology. Some posters here might think that the use of simple features of vbulletin like the quote function are beyond the abilities of the average woman, but you set them straight.

Helios Panoptes

02-26-2008, 06:31 AM

Bronze Age Pervert, you are an evil narcissistic misogynist.

That was a penetrating insight.

Larrikin

02-26-2008, 08:36 AM

No need to employ sexual connotations here. "A correct insight" would have sufficed.

Helios Panoptes

02-26-2008, 12:52 PM

My way was better because a penetrating insight is one that is especially shrewd. Deep Dreamer's comment wasn't merely correct; it penetrated below the surface and got at truths that are not readily apparent.

Mentious

02-26-2008, 06:06 PM

"Men love the submissive and pliable whores PERIOD."

Speak for yourself. Actually, only DogMen and WhoreMen "love" or seek a whore. (PERIOD!!) Only the corrupt are attracted to the corrupt. And actually, they don't really love her. No man really loves a whore. Actual men have some principles and aspirations, and they want a woman who can inspire them deeply. Whores can't do this. Only chaste women representing high spiritual ideals can move great men. And an intelligent fellow doesn't want a woman, either, who is merely "pliable" though he does prefer one who wants to play more the 'receptive' to his 'active.' This is the Moon/Sun principle, and the thing that makes dancing work. This is the powerful feminine principle, equal to the male principle and similar to the position of the intelligent mahut (elephant driver) atop an elephant and guiding it (the male energy), is something that the poor modern women have somehow unlearned.
As to the original post here: I've talked to women daily about what they want for nearly 20 years. What most want is ONE guy, not two, and not a series of them. In her weakness, she often ends up with this, but she detests it and it's far from her ideal. The different sort of attractions or fantasies they have through the month based on fluctuating hormones and chemicals of nature, and the constant flux of the mind, can't be extrapolated into an "intention" to "have sex with a virile man, then find a soft man to raise them." This conclusion is creative poppycock. Take any of the unstable meanderings of the human mind, and you could construct all kinds of absurd "intention" scenarios on them.

Bronze Age Pervert

02-27-2008, 12:10 AM

What women say and think they want, what they want to want, is different from what they actually want. Willing is not taught. The real evil of the Woman is that it's not intentional, and that proceeding with the best intention, she destroys, corrupts, and crushes everything in her path. The corruption of the modern world is only remotely because of liberalism--its true and immediate cause is the liberation of woman by liberalism. This liberation, which is in truth usurpation, goes against the nature of the political, which is an escape from the feminine, from the hut and the commune, and that whole swamp world. I don't hate women, I just have contempt for men who consider women their equals and thereby make themselves not serious, and feminize themselves. Because to consider women your equals is to admit that all of your higher aspirations are hobbies and entertainment and are equal to the concerns of women---pregnancy, the home, the drudgery of everyday life, domination by mothers. I say all of this because I understand women and take their innate wants seriously. I'm not the one trying to change what they are. Men should not imagine that a woman will ever be a real friend, is my only point here. Your wife will have *contempt* for you if you treat her as a friend or consider her your equal, whatever she may say or think or want to want.

Petr

02-27-2008, 01:52 PM

Define "real friendship."

klipgeit

02-27-2008, 04:58 PM

It is a woman's duty to have children and their instinct is to protect them from absurd ideas.

klipgeit

02-27-2008, 05:13 PM

What women seem to think:

Look forward in anger In 1971 Germaine Greer caused a storm with her book The Female Eunuch. Now she has decided to write a sequel. Katherine Viner asks why
http://www.chico.mweb.co.za/mg/art/graphic/cap-i.gift has taken 27 years, but it looks like we've got it: the sequel to The Female Eunuch. It was announced recently that Germaine Greer has received an $800 000 advance for the book she never thought she'd write: the Eunuch's follow-up, called The Whole Woman — likely to be a feminist polemic on the brutal truths, as she sees them, of women's lives today.
But while the air is still alive with discussions about the new, nineties-style feminism, what relevance can the most important feminist of the Seventies have today? And has Germaine Greer anything to say to the women who are young enough to be her grandchildren?
The early thoughts for Greer's new book were laid out in a speech she gave at the Melbourne Book Festival last year. The crux of her thesis is that women's sexuality is still a battleground; that although she and other seventies feminists may have fought for women to be able to have sex freely and without shame, nineties women feel they're unacceptable if they don't have sex.
"In 1968, women had the right to say no, without apology," she said. "What they didn't have was the right to say yes. Now they have a duty to say yes to whatever their partners may desire, no holds are barred. Women cannot admit to feeling disgust or to not enjoying the stuff that is going on — not if they want to seem cool, even if they have to take muscle relaxants to do it."
She claims that sex has been both elevated, so that it has greater importance than anything else, and emptied of meaning, and she claims that female attributes such as the womb and ovaries have come to be seen as irrelevant extras. "Where once women were nothing but reproductive organs and reproductiveness explained most of their behaviours," she writes, "they may now claim no specifically female organs and no specifically female functions.
"The 1969 female eunuch was nothing but a womb; the 1997 woman eunuch has no womb." Thus, Greer says, men who believe they are women trapped in men's bodies are given breasts and a cleft and thus become "female"; motherhood is not venerated; and the breast has ceased to be a "food-giver" and has instead become an "erotic fetish".
To remind us that some things don't change, Greer reasserts that our culture's dependence on penetration — away from "necking, petting, foreplay by whatever name" — helps to keep women submissive, which is why "the majority of men ... refuse to allow their body's outline to be breached". She says that, for men, even a doctor's probe is too much of a violation. "The penetratee, regardless of sex, cannot rule, okay? The person on the receiving end is fucked, finished, unserviceable, degraded."
Her comments, which will form the starting point for her new book, are both radical and up-to-date, and suggest that The Whole Woman will not be a rehash of The Female Eunuch but an important new polemic in its own right. Her book is being eagerly awaited as a radical, challenging voice — a relief in a world where placating men seems more important than anything else. If Greer's ideas could make the kind of splash today that they did in 1971, we are in for exciting times.
Greer says that the idea to write a follow-up to The Female Eunuch came when she was researching a book about women and medicine. "I was thinking about why they can pull people in for cervical smears when they're medically a very dodgy process. I was thinking of someone I know who went to Harley Street to have a hysterectomy because she'd been recalled six times for her smear tests and she was terrified. It's because there's a climate of sheer terror — and I realised that, whatever happens, women get the worst of it."
Other feminists have disappointed her, too. "I couldn't believe that Betty Friedan said Clinton hasn't done anything wrong. Here he is fucking the faces of little girls and she says she doesn't care! She says Clinton's good on women's issues. Like access to abortion? Gee, thanks, that's all we ever wanted, to be scraped out."
She is similarly dismissive about the so-called new feminism in Britain. "Life is more difficult than these new feminists suggest," she says. "We're not all young career girls who are pleased to wear little strappy sandals." In a review of Natasha Walter's book The New Feminism in the Times Educational Supplement, Greer wrote: "Walter's book seems above all to reassure the faint-hearted that there is nothing to fear from feminism.
"If the next generation of feminists adopts her brand of unenlightened complacency, there will be nothing to hope for either."
Walter meanwhile thinks Greer is mistaken; that the world for women has changed for the better, not the worse. "Women's lives simply aren't the same any more, and that's partly because of The Female Eunuch," she says. "But I think Greer is coming from the perspective of someone who's lived through the sixties, seventies and eighties, and she was hoping for a big revolution that didn't happen. Whereas we can say as young women that it is possible to be optimistic. In a way, The Female Eunuch was a very young woman's book, in that it put the enjoyment of sexuality centre stage. Perhaps Greer is writing from a different perspective now and maybe she considers that the enjoyment of sex isn't as relevant today."
Walter also believes that Greer's focus on sex and the body is no longer as relevant as she suggests. "The personal and the political are not identical any more."
When The Female Eunuch was published in 1971, the idea that the personal is political — that what we do in our personal lives is governed, or at least influenced, by political factors — was largely unheard of. It is impossible to overestimate the impact the book had, and indeed still has — it has sold a million copies worldwide, been translated into more than 12 languages and never been out of print.
"The Female Eunuch had a widespread influence — especially on people who were not already involved in radical politics," says Sheila Rowbotham, veteran of seventies' feminism and most recently author of A Century of Women. "It took the ideas of women having a different destiny as something that could get women involved."
However, Rowbotham believes Greer's current line on sexuality — that where once women could not say yes, today they cannot say no — is in part due to Greer's own influence. "The women's movement as a whole was always rather worried about Germaine's stress on sex in any circumstances," she says.
Controversy seems to follow Greer — be it spats with fellow feminists or inviting the homeless into her home — but that's largely because she is so uncensorious of her own words. The bottom line is that when she speaks, people listen; and she speaks with a ferocity often lost from contemporary feminism.
Ann Oakley, who most recently co-edited Who's Afraid of Feminism?, believes that we are in a phase of re-evaluation of what has happened to women since the sixties. "There seems to be a whole new wave of feminism looking at the backlash and looking at where women have got to. I think Greer's book is part of that. Her original book was extremely important, and I think it's a very good thing that she's following it up."
Greer meanwhile is putting passion into this project. "I spent six weeks solid just writing, getting up in the middle of the night," she says. "It was exhausting. I think that really good writing, especially political writing, is done fast, so that you've got to jump up and run around in tears, so that it provokes energy." In other people as well as herself? "Well, I must be going through this for something," she says. "I want the book to be white hot and tense and quivering."
Will this be the defining feminist text of the nineties as The Female Eunuch was of the seventies? There's a year to wait to find out.
http://www.chico.mweb.co.za/mg/books/april98/22apr-greer.jpg
Eunuch is not enough: Germaine Greer

Bronze Age Pervert

02-27-2008, 08:20 PM

Petr wrote,

Define "real friendship."

Montaigne has essay on it.

klipgeit,
What is the point of this? Please address truth or falsity of OP. It is my duty to remind (merely remind, because all know it intuitively) all men of the complete evil and faithlessness of women.

Zubenelgenubi

02-27-2008, 08:32 PM

You still have not established this. The OP offers evidence that women exhibit two instincts in two different situations which, if followed to their conclusions, would lead to the deception that you are talking about. Nowhere is it established that every woman follows these instincts to their conclusions.

klipgeit

02-28-2008, 06:10 AM

What is OP?
Your observation/experience is false. The mere fact that your mother gave you life and accepted a man to penetrate her,does not make her a whore. Do not tell me she threw you away like a rag. Do not tell me she did not care for you. If that was the case she would have aborted you,before you saw the day of light. A woman has the right to chose a mate any which way she can(That is nature at work Her duty is to seek the best mate on offer. The quality of her children depends on the quantity of men she has" tried" out without bearing children.Once she has decided she choses the mate with which she can reproduce better offspring. The name "whore" is invented by the law,but does not exist in nature. Man are followers of the law and their minds are soooooo squed,that they become an abomination to nature. If you want to blame women for your own shagginess,kill yourself or get over it.There is nothing so wonderful than a woman

Bronze Age Pervert

02-28-2008, 07:37 AM

I'm tired of all these personal attacks on me. Let me just say, when I speak to a woman I don't hate her. I do well with women--believe it or not--and they like me personally. This is not personal. In fact it is precisely because I do very well with women that I've had an opportunity to see how they cheat on their boyfriends while declaring undying love and companionship to them. I've seen first-hand how otherwise normal and "honorable" women get off on deceiving, abusing the trust of, and controlling their boyfriends in a way that 99% of normal men don't.
Yes, mothers care for their children, as I've said, but they do it entirely out of instinct. This means that as you grow older and your character develops it is the father who is in a position to recognize himself in you. Of course this is rare with the feminized men of today. But my point is that the mother will always try to trap you, to comfort you, to turn you into a protected, comfortable nonentity, and appendage of her. If you escape her, as most men (used to) do, you then have your wife to deal with. Most men today seek a second mother in the wife, someone to enforce their weaknesses, to harness them, to hold their hand, to be their "companion." This is degenerate. A grown man should find companionship in brotherhoods of men, whether military or scientific or whatever. His wife should be a very small part of his life. Treating a woman like anything else is against nature. Not only will it not make you happy, but you're essentially worshiping a creature of complete faithlessness and fecklessness. The proper relationship with her is one of aloof domination, for which she will appreciate you no matter what she says or wants to believe about herself.

klipgeit

02-28-2008, 09:22 AM

Well, well, well. I see it as a personal attack to my grand-mother, my 12 aunts, my mother,my wife and all (33 of them) women I had a relationship with. I never said or spoken of hate,I spoke of "squed". Every woman has the right to deceive etc,nothing wrong with that. A man deserves that, because a man is an ass,a dodo. Remember that the average person uses about 50.000 words but has 700.000 non-verbal "words" to his disposal. Try to explain the word "NO" without the 700.000 non-verbal expressions. Forget the words,because they are expressions you can not rely on. Every woman is honourable and that includes "whores". Believe me, a man is more of a prick in relationships and more dishonourable than a woman. (Why do you think we have invented whores). Cheating is in the mind of the beholder and that is tough luck.
   Mothers do not care for their children out of instinct. When a a woman has a child it bonds. A woman has to. She becomes a teacher and she undergoes a transformation into a protector. It is the man who does not learn anything with regard to "teaching" or understanding the beauty of fatherhood. He sits on his ass and leaves the difficult upbringing to his so-called "concubine". That is a man's instinct at work. It is the man who is aloof in child rearing. It is the man who is in search for another fanny,during the first 7 years of marriage when a child is involved,because a woman needs and gives all her attention to the child,not to her husband.
   The main purpose for a woman when she has a child is the child and his/her future. It is a natural habit and possibly instinct to be faithless and feckle towards their husbands,who does not contribute one iota to the kids upbringing. So, she looks to other avenues in order to get the info she needs for the kid.Be it a cleric or another male friend I ,for one, welcome that.It shows that she is one with nature,that she obeys the natural law.
   I refer to our cousins the Chimp. Do you really believe that we humans have received our behaviour form our Creator???? NO, we humans inherited it from our ancestors. The marriage vows and all the trimmings are man made and CRAP. The purpose is to bring faithfulness to 2 people and money in the bank for the clerics.If in your eyes and I have no problem with it,a woman is feckle,than we have brought it upon the woman.We,men, deserve to be fooled.
   Accept a woman for what she is,you will live longer and happier.Give her the same medicine if you wish,but love her for it. It is time that we have woman power,they are better equiped for the daily life especially when she has children to educate. Like a male lion,the man should sit on his ass in the bundu and leave the productivity to the female.
   I love women and I have the greatest regard for them. I have no regard for men-bar some exceptions,even here in the Phora- and have only one true male friend and plenty of female friends.
   In marriage there must be spaces in the togetherness.You can love one another,but make not a bond of your love.give one another of your bread,but eat not from the same loaf. Give your heart,but not into each other's keeping
Your children are not your children, they are sons and daughters of life's longing for itself,a nd although they are with you they do not belong to you.You may give them your love,but not your thoughts,for their souls live in the house of tomorrow,which you cannot visit,not even in your dreams,you are from the past.
   The above quotes a woman has learned from the day see enters into a relationship and we man are to stupid to understand it.

Ahknaton

02-28-2008, 10:10 AM

I have to admit that I've had similar experiences. There is a subclass of women who I have been friends with but for one reason or another a romantic relationship is not on the cards (e.g. one or both of you are already attached when you meet them, or you're just not each other's type) but with whom I nevertheless have ended up quite close. These are usually female flatmates, workmates or girls I've known since high school, but never girlfriends (or girlfriends of friends). Once I've passed a certain threshold of trust (or they simply can't be bothered hiding it) they let the mask slip a bit and start gossiping to me about their boyfriends. I'm routinely shocked at their attitudes. I had this one girl tell me that she was dating this guy as a temporary measure until she found someone better but "he knows that" (he sure as hell didn't). One chick was dating a guy, and met some other guy she wanted to screw around with, but instead of sneaking around behind his back, she manufactured an argument with him, temporarily broke up, screwed this other guy and then got back together with him. Like a chump he put up with it, since "she wasn't going out with him at the time". She basically worked it so that she could screw another guy, openly, and not have to hide it. Another had a boyfriend who died and she was talking about taking his mother to court to contest the will about 2 days later. I could seriously go on and on. I've known guys who have had bad attitudes towards women, but they limit this strictly to one night "fuck 'em and forget 'em" stands, not long term abuse/deceit within a relationship.
It always seems suspicious to me that there is this one class of "bad girls" who basically treat romantic love as a joke, and "good girls" who are sincere, faithful etc. Or maybe they're all like that and they only appear different to me because I am potential boyfriend/sucker material to some and not to others, who can therefore abandon the facade.

Hartmann von Aue

02-28-2008, 11:44 AM

Yes it is bad but it is not universally bad. Essentially women conditioned in today's society are not going to take obligation seriously - they are seldom punished for not doing so - nor do most believe in any divine retribution for their bad behavior. A woman who doesn't have children is naturally going to become bored with monogamy. Feminism teaches women to get away with what they can and that any sense of obligation towards the male is a form of enslavement. Well, those bitches can go to hell. And many have already created a hell of their own making. Sexual depravity is its own punishment.

Zubenelgenubi

02-28-2008, 07:34 PM

Some of us have seen that kind of messiness for what it is and make the conscious decision to have nothing do with it. It really isn't that difficult and makes life much more pleasant and simple.

deep dreamer

03-01-2008, 02:53 AM

Thank you Klipgeit, for finally standing up and saying something that makes sense.If you hate women, you are screwed. I do have a near impossible time imagining that women actually like you Bronze Age Pervert. You must lie to them, lie like a bitch, to fool and decieve them so heartily. :-/ What does that make you?

Larrikin

03-01-2008, 11:36 AM

A jerk that dutifully listens to all the awful kinky stories of the females around him, hoping to finally get laid for being a good listener and familiar (nice pun) and becoming a closet misogynist (only acting out on the Phora) because he is just regarded as sissy "friend material" instead?

Larrikin

03-01-2008, 11:41 AM

"In marriage there must be spaces in the togetherness.You can love one another,but make not a bond of your love.give one another of your bread,but eat not from the same loaf.Give your heart,but not into each other's keeping
Your children are not your children,they are sons and daughters of life's longing for itself,and although they are with you they do not belong to you.You may give them your love,but not your thoughts,for their souls live in the house of tomorrow,which you cannot visit,not even in your dreams,you are from the past. "
The above quotes a woman has learned from the day see enters into a relationship and we man are to stupid to understand it.
Isn't that from Khalil Gibran?
"For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth."
I always liked that.

klipgeit

03-01-2008, 12:03 PM

Isn't that from Khalil Gibran?
"For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth."
I always liked that.
Quite right.
I have about 12 of his books and know them inside out, like Christians know the Bible.
I try to live by it.
This man deserves to be recognised as the greatest.
The way he interprets the Bible is astounding
I am not a Bible puncher, but I use him as a counter balance on preachers and the like.

dangerbot

03-01-2008, 06:16 PM

While I don't endorse Bronze Age Pervert's conclusions on female sexuality and behavior, I find this sort of paint-by-numbers pop psychoanalysis of anyone who dares to cast aspersions on the glory that is Woman both counterproductive and stupid. Counterproductive because Bronze Age Pervert's conclusions have a legitimate intellectual provenance that he hasn't been derelict in defending. Furthermore, unlike deep dreamer, he has made actual contributions to the forum. Stupid because the notion that misogynists can't get laid, pace the fantasies of unattractive liberal feminists and their emasculated wingmen, stands in flat contradiction to real world experience.

Helios Panoptes

03-01-2008, 06:54 PM

Is the title of the thread 'do women like Bronze Age Pervert?' No? Then nobody cares about what you've said because it's irrelevant.

Don Quixote

03-01-2008, 07:00 PM

It is a woman's duty to have children and their instinct is to protect them from absurd ideas.

How do they determine what is or is not absurd?

dangerbot

03-01-2008, 07:03 PM

A woman always knows.

Isra'il Yahya

03-01-2008, 07:34 PM

Some of us have seen that kind of messiness for what it is and make the conscious decision to have nothing do with it. It really isn't that difficult and makes life much more pleasant and simple. Not only is it messy, it is just disgusting.

Helios Panoptes

03-01-2008, 08:01 PM

That's fascinating, klipgeit....what does it have to do with anything in this thread?
Every woman is honourable and that includes "whores". Even the ones who kill their own children?
Rape is in the eye of the beholder. Who can tell for sure whether or not the woman has consented?
When you say that a woman 'has to' form an emotional bond, that qualifies as instinct because it does not involve choice.
What 'info' is conveyed to the child by the mother's sexual transgressions with another man?
I can't continue this reply.

dangerbot

03-01-2008, 08:15 PM

Isn't that from Khalil Gibran?
"For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth."

I always liked that.

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6068

On the Recent Publication of Kahlil Gibran’s Collected Works
by Alan Jacobs

I
Expansive and yet vacuous is the prose of Kahlil Gibran,
And weary grows the mind doomed to read it.
The hours of my penance lengthen,
The penance established for me by the editor of this magazine,
And those hours may be numbered as the sands of the desert.
And for each of them Kahlil Gibran has prepared
Another ornamental phrase,
Another faux-Biblical cadence,
Another affirmation proverbial in its intent
But alas! lacking the moral substance,
The peasant shrewdness, of the true proverb.

O Book, O Collected Works of Kahlil Gibran,
Published by Everyman’s Library on a dark day,
I lift you from the Earth to which I recently flung you
When my wrath grew too mighty for me,
I lift you from the Earth,
Noticing once more your annoying heft,
And thanking God—though such thanks are sinful—
That Kahlil Gibran died in New York in 1931
At the age of forty-eight,
So that he could write no more words,
So that this Book would not be yet larger than it is.

O Book—
To return to my point,
Which I had misplaced in my wrath—
O Book,
Five times I open you at random,
Five times I record for my readers what I see.

At the first opening, these words:
“And I gazed at Him, and my soul quivered within me, for He was beautiful.”

At the second opening, these words:
“You the talkative I have loved, saying, ‘Life hath much to say’; and you the dumb I have loved, whispering to myself, ‘Says he not in silence what I would fain hear in words?’”

At the third opening, these words:
“Work is love made visible.”
To which I reply, You must have been pretty lucky in your job,
If you ever actually had a job,
But then I recall myself to myself,
And I discern that my task at the moment is but to open the book,
Not to comment thereupon.

Therefore I turn, and cause the Book to be opened a fourth time:
“Men do not desire blessedness upon their lips, nor truth in their bowels” _
— And I make no comment about the bowels,
But rather allow the completion of the thought, such as it is—
“For blessedness is the daughter of tears, and truth is but the son of pain.”

And therefore the fifth and thank God the last
Opening of the Book is at hand:
“Absolve me from things of pomp and state,
For the earth in its all is my land,
And all mankind my countrymen.”

Five times I have opened the Book,
And here I swear a great vow that I opened truly at random,
Except that once I opened to a narrative passage
That, had I quoted it, would not have made sense.

Not that any of the rest made sense either,
But you, my reader—you know what I mean.

II

In the twenty-third year of the twentieth century,
Alfred A. Knopf published The Prophet,
Written by this Kahlil Gibran,
And lo, the copies of it that have been bought
Would fill the granaries and storehouses of Lebanon,
From whence the Author came to this country as a child.
Even now, these many decades later,
In the great marketplace of Amazon,
The sales rank of The Prophet is high,
Higher at this moment than any of my books has ever been,
Except one of them, once, fleetingly,
And at that thought I gnash my teeth
And once more fling the Book to the Earth.

But wise is the author who can master the rage of ?jealousy,
And the mastery thereof is peace;
So I calm the spirit within me and ask,
What desert of human desire is watered by Gibran’s oases,
The Prophet above all, but also The Garden of the Prophet
And Jesus the Son of Man and Spirits Rebellious
And poems and sketches numerous and ?miscellaneous?
Wherefore do readers turn to these books,
And what do they find within them that nourishes and comforts?

Let it be known, first, that the lands of the West
Treasure up in their hearts images of Araby.
In the time of the great Queen known as Victoria
There arose in England a race of men
Whose delight was in the desert,
Who dreamed of Scheherazade and her tales of Haroun-al-Raschid,
The greatest of the Caliphs, the master of disguise,
Who glided half-hidden through the markets and alleys of Baghdad.
Sir Richard Burton found English words to tell of him.
Likewise did Edward Fitzgerald give unto us many Englished quatrains
Of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, that old Persian
Whose heart found its twin in dark-minded Koheleth:

’Tis all a Chequer-board of Nights and Days
Where Destiny with Men for Pieces plays:
Hither and thither moves, and mates, and slays,
And one by one back in the Closet lays.

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

So spoke Fitzgerald’s Persian bard,
And the people of Victoria heard him and sighed,
And thought unto themselves “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity,”
And turned again to contemplate, now sad, their ?railway timetables.

To these who loved their Orient, their Persian Araby
(For in England and America those two lands seemed one),
Gibran came with a double portion, yea a triple,
He poured it out without stint
And oft, it seems, without editing.

This is the first cause of his great renown.
And the second is like unto it: Gibran’s Jesus,
An oriental sage, a speaker of wry Wisdom,
A lover of paradox, a Judge only of others—
Oh yes, He can be wrathful,
But never to me the reader of Gibran,
Only to those whom I already dislike,
The powerful, the greedy, the cruel:
Those with whom I shall never be confused.
(The family Gibran was Maronite Catholic,
And in this faith Kahlil was raised,
And though he loathed the Church
He claimed always to love Jesus.
But the truth of this claim I cannot tell.)

To me—and perhaps to you, dear sisters and ?brothers—
The Jesus given by Kahlil Gibran, and likewise his Prophet,
Who is himself somewhat Jesusish, bring words of comfort:
What befalls us is part of the plan.
But no—I repent me of some lowercase letters—
I mean to say, Part of the Plan.

The Prophet teaches us to rest and to accept.
The Prophet teaches us that our desire for Freedom binds us,
That our aversion to Pain hurts us,
That we foolishly seek Knowledge because we do not Know that we already Know,
Or something like that.
But how this Wisdom shall comfort those whom ?disease afflicts,
Or who rot in prison,
Or who grow faint with hunger,
That too I cannot tell.
Yet surely the Prophet speaks well and wisely.

That the Prophet delights in paradox
I need not say.
If he contradicts himself, he contradicts himself,
But in so doing illuminates us all the more.
The Prophet warns,
“Say not, ‘I have found the truth,’ but rather, ‘I have found a truth,’”
One of infinitely many truths, it seems,
“For the soul walks upon all paths,”
Which means that anything the Prophet says
Falls like a perfectly formed olive leaf
Upon at least one of those paths,
So that His profundity is everlasting and without diminishment,
As long as he pronounces oratorically
After the manner of Sir Laurence Olivier
Reading the King James Bible.

And it is the voice of Sir Laurence
Reading the King James Bible
That I hear within me as I write these words,
Which echo resonates within and bequeaths to me
The Prophetic Strain,
At least as far as you know.
Once that voice enters the mind,
As it does when one has read hundreds and hundreds of pages of Kahlil Gibran,
Its abode is fixed within,
It refuses all notices of eviction,
It continues to loop within the sphere of one’s skull,
An earworm, dread and implacable.

III

Envy me not, then,
O my friends, my readers;
Though the Prophetic Strain echoes in each line I write,
Though you covet said Strain for your own,
Heed me and flee.
The words I give you now are words of Life, and not Death,
Though I suppose the Prophet would proclaim that Death and Life are the same,
And that only the foolish would divide the two,
The Two which are One.
But He’d be wrong about that, I’m pretty sure.
So again I turn and I say to you,
Pass by the Collected Works of Kahlil Gibran,
Touch it not nor gaze upon it,
But go about your ways in peace of heart and with thanksgiving.
Fly, you fools!

Don Quixote

03-01-2008, 08:39 PM

A woman always knows.

So many women have a chronic case of the conceit of knowledge. This is why the spirit of inquiry tends to be found amongst men.

Helios Panoptes

03-02-2008, 05:27 AM

In marriage there must be spaces in the togetherness.You can love one another,but make not a bond of your love.give one another of your bread,but eat not from the same loaf.Give your heart,but not into each other's keeping

Your children are not your children,they are sons and daughters of life's longing for itself,and although they are with you they do not belong to you.You may give them your love,but not your thoughts,for their souls live in the house of tomorrow,which you cannot visit,not even in your dreams,you are from the past.

The above quotes a woman has learned from the day see enters into a relationship and we man are to stupid to understand it.

Q.E.D.:google:

This quotation demands excerpts from Sex and Character to balance this thread.

Believe me, a man is more of a prick in relationships and more dishonourable than a woman. (Why do you think we have invented whores)

Prostitution is not a result of social conditions, but of some cause deep in the nature of women; prostitutes who have been "reclaimed" frequently, even if provided for, return to their old way of life. . . . I may note finally, that prostitution is not a modern growth; it has been known from the earliest times, and even was a part of some ancient religions, as, for instance, among the Phoenicians.

Prostitution cannot be considered as a state into which men have seduced women. Where there is no inclination for a certain course, the course will not be adopted. Prostitution is foreign to the male element, although the lives of men are often more laborious and unpleasant than those of women, and male prostitutes are always advanced sexually intermediate forms. The disposition for and inclination to prostitution is as organic in a woman as is the capacity for motherhood.

Mothers do not care for their children out of instinct.
When a a woman has a child it bonds. A woman has to.
She becomes a teacher and she undergoes a transformation into a protector.
It is the man who does not learn anything with regard to "teaching" or understanding the beauty of fatherhood. He sits on his ass and leaves the difficult upbringing to his so called "concubine". That is a man's instinct at work.
It is the man who is aloof in child rearing.
It is the man who is in search for another fanny,during the first 7 years of marriage when a child is involved,because a woman needs and gives all her attention to the child,not to her husband.

The main purpose for a woman when she has a child is the child and his/her future.

Maternal love, then cannot be truly represented as resting on moral grounds. Let any one ask himself if he does not believe that his mother's love would not be just as great for him if he were a totally different person. The individuality of the child has no part in the maternal love; the mere fact of its being her own child is sufficient, and so the love cannot be regarded as moral. In the love of a man for a woman, or between persons of the same sex, there is always some reference to the personal qualities of the individual; a mother's love extends itself indifferently to anything that she has borne. It destroys the moral conception if we realise that the love of a mother for her child remains the same whether the child becomes a saint or a sinner, a king or a beggar, an angel or a fiend. Precisely the same conclusion will be reached from reflecting how children think that they have a claim on their mother's love simply because she is their mother. Maternal love is non-moral because it has no relation to the individuality of the being on which it is bestowed, and there can be an ethical relation only between two individualities. The relation of mother and child is always a kind of physical reflex. If the little one suddenly screams or cries when the mother is in the next room, she will at once rush to it as if she herself had been hurt; and, as the children grow up, every wish or trouble of theirs is directly assumed and shared by the mother as if they were her own. There is an unbreakable link between the mother and child, physical, like the cord that united the two before childbirth. This is the real nature of the maternal relation; and, for my part, I protest against the fashion in which it is praised, its very indiscriminate character being made a merit. I believe myself that many great artists have recognised this, but have chosen to be silent about it.

When I was browsing the text, I found a quote that especially intrigued me:

The last and absolute proof of the thoroughly negative character of woman's life, of her complete want of a higher existence, is derived from the way in which women commit suicide.

Such suicides are accompanied practically always by thoughts of other people, what they will think, how they will mourn over them, how grieved - or angry - they will be. Every woman is convinced that her unhappiness is undeserved at the time she kills herself; she pities herself exceedingly with the sort of self-compassion which is only a "weeping with others when they weep."

I believe that modern data that indicates that women attempt suicide more often than men but kill themselves less often bears out Weininger's point. Men attempt suicide because they hate their lives and want to be rid of them, which is why they succeed. Women attempt suicide to impact the emotional states of others, to inspire pity, which is why they fail to die. Their motivation is to soak in the pleasure of watching their friends and families suffer, which validates their importance.

klipgeit

03-02-2008, 09:19 AM

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6068

On the Recent Publication of Kahlil Gibran’s Collected Works
by Alan Jacobs
I

Expansive and yet vacuous is the prose of Kahlil Gibran,
And weary grows the mind doomed to read it.
The hours of my penance lengthen,
The penance established for me by the editor of this magazine,
And those hours may be numbered as the sands of the desert.
And for each of them Kahlil Gibran has prepared
Another ornamental phrase,
Another faux-Biblical cadence,
Another affirmation proverbial in its intent
But alas! lacking the moral substance,
The peasant shrewdness, of the true proverb.

O Book, O Collected Works of Kahlil Gibran,
Published by Everyman’s Library on a dark day,
I lift you from the Earth to which I recently flung you
When my wrath grew too mighty for me,
I lift you from the Earth,
Noticing once more your annoying heft,
And thanking God—though such thanks are sinful—
That Kahlil Gibran died in New York in 1931
At the age of forty-eight,
So that he could write no more words,
So that this Book would not be yet larger than it is.

O Book—
To return to my point,
Which I had misplaced in my wrath—
O Book,
Five times I open you at random,
Five times I record for my readers what I see.

At the first opening, these words:
“And I gazed at Him, and my soul quivered within me, for He was beautiful.”

At the second opening, these words:
“You the talkative I have loved, saying, ‘Life hath much to say’; and you the dumb I have loved, whispering to myself, ‘Says he not in silence what I would fain hear in words?’”

At the third opening, these words:
“Work is love made visible.”
To which I reply, You must have been pretty lucky in your job,
If you ever actually had a job,
But then I recall myself to myself,
And I discern that my task at the moment is but to open the book,
Not to comment thereupon.

Therefore I turn, and cause the Book to be opened a fourth time:
“Men do not desire blessedness upon their lips, nor truth in their bowels” _
— And I make no comment about the bowels,
But rather allow the completion of the thought, such as it is—
“For blessedness is the daughter of tears, and truth is but the son of pain.”

And therefore the fifth and thank God the last
Opening of the Book is at hand:
“Absolve me from things of pomp and state,
For the earth in its all is my land,
And all mankind my countrymen.”

Five times I have opened the Book,
And here I swear a great vow that I opened truly at random,
Except that once I opened to a narrative passage
That, had I quoted it, would not have made sense.

Not that any of the rest made sense either,
But you, my reader—you know what I mean.

II

In the twenty-third year of the twentieth century,
Alfred A. Knopf published The Prophet,
Written by this Kahlil Gibran,
And lo, the copies of it that have been bought
Would fill the granaries and storehouses of Lebanon,
From whence the Author came to this country as a child.
Even now, these many decades later,
In the great marketplace of Amazon,
The sales rank of The Prophet is high,
Higher at this moment than any of my books has ever been,
Except one of them, once, fleetingly,
And at that thought I gnash my teeth
And once more fling the Book to the Earth.

But wise is the author who can master the rage of ?jealousy,
And the mastery thereof is peace;
So I calm the spirit within me and ask,
What desert of human desire is watered by Gibran’s oases,
The Prophet above all, but also The Garden of the Prophet
And Jesus the Son of Man and Spirits Rebellious
And poems and sketches numerous and ?miscellaneous?
Wherefore do readers turn to these books,
And what do they find within them that nourishes and comforts?

Let it be known, first, that the lands of the West
Treasure up in their hearts images of Araby.
In the time of the great Queen known as Victoria
There arose in England a race of men
Whose delight was in the desert,
Who dreamed of Scheherazade and her tales of Haroun-al-Raschid,
The greatest of the Caliphs, the master of disguise,
Who glided half-hidden through the markets and alleys of Baghdad.
Sir Richard Burton found English words to tell of him.
Likewise did Edward Fitzgerald give unto us many Englished quatrains
Of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, that old Persian
Whose heart found its twin in dark-minded Koheleth:

’Tis all a Chequer-board of Nights and Days
Where Destiny with Men for Pieces plays:
Hither and thither moves, and mates, and slays,
And one by one back in the Closet lays.

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

So spoke Fitzgerald’s Persian bard,
And the people of Victoria heard him and sighed,
And thought unto themselves “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity,”
And turned again to contemplate, now sad, their ?railway timetables.

To these who loved their Orient, their Persian Araby
(For in England and America those two lands seemed one),
Gibran came with a double portion, yea a triple,
He poured it out without stint
And oft, it seems, without editing.

This is the first cause of his great renown.
And the second is like unto it: Gibran’s Jesus,
An oriental sage, a speaker of wry Wisdom,
A lover of paradox, a Judge only of others—
Oh yes, He can be wrathful,
But never to me the reader of Gibran,
Only to those whom I already dislike,
The powerful, the greedy, the cruel:
Those with whom I shall never be confused.
(The family Gibran was Maronite Catholic,
And in this faith Kahlil was raised,
And though he loathed the Church
He claimed always to love Jesus.
But the truth of this claim I cannot tell.)

To me—and perhaps to you, dear sisters and ?brothers—
The Jesus given by Kahlil Gibran, and likewise his Prophet,
Who is himself somewhat Jesusish, bring words of comfort:
What befalls us is part of the plan.
But no—I repent me of some lowercase letters—
I mean to say, Part of the Plan.

The Prophet teaches us to rest and to accept.
The Prophet teaches us that our desire for Freedom binds us,
That our aversion to Pain hurts us,
That we foolishly seek Knowledge because we do not Know that we already Know,
Or something like that.
But how this Wisdom shall comfort those whom ?disease afflicts,
Or who rot in prison,
Or who grow faint with hunger,
That too I cannot tell.
Yet surely the Prophet speaks well and wisely.

That the Prophet delights in paradox
I need not say.
If he contradicts himself, he contradicts himself,
But in so doing illuminates us all the more.
The Prophet warns,
“Say not, ‘I have found the truth,’ but rather, ‘I have found a truth,’”
One of infinitely many truths, it seems,
“For the soul walks upon all paths,”
Which means that anything the Prophet says
Falls like a perfectly formed olive leaf
Upon at least one of those paths,
So that His profundity is everlasting and without diminishment,
As long as he pronounces oratorically
After the manner of Sir Laurence Olivier
Reading the King James Bible.

And it is the voice of Sir Laurence
Reading the King James Bible
That I hear within me as I write these words,
Which echo resonates within and bequeaths to me
The Prophetic Strain,
At least as far as you know.
Once that voice enters the mind,
As it does when one has read hundreds and hundreds of pages of Kahlil Gibran,
Its abode is fixed within,
It refuses all notices of eviction,
It continues to loop within the sphere of one’s skull,
An earworm, dread and implacable.

III

Envy me not, then,
O my friends, my readers;
Though the Prophetic Strain echoes in each line I write,
Though you covet said Strain for your own,
Heed me and flee.
The words I give you now are words of Life, and not Death,
Though I suppose the Prophet would proclaim that Death and Life are the same,
And that only the foolish would divide the two,
The Two which are One.
But He’d be wrong about that, I’m pretty sure.
So again I turn and I say to you,
Pass by the Collected Works of Kahlil Gibran,
Touch it not nor gaze upon it,
But go about your ways in peace of heart and with thanksgiving.
Fly, you fools!

Alan jacobs seems to have an obsession with anti-Christians

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3997
See also :"The Narnian---fantasy
and a remark by:" http://atheocracy.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/crazy-reasons-for-believin/

Gibran has been described as The mystic,The Serene,The Rebellious,The Religious,The Heretic,The Philosopher and The Ageless.
It is possible to burn his books because they are dangerous,revolutionary and poisonous to youth and Alan Jacobs.
By the way... A number of Lebanese have the name Jacobs in South Africa.

Alan Jacobs is a dwarf compared to Gibran.

klipgeit

03-02-2008, 09:45 AM

How do they determine what is or is not absurd?
Good question. The heading of this thread. The same way men determine what is absurd for men or for their children,which could and often is different from that of women.

Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable. See synonyms at foolish (http://www.answers.com/topic/foolish).
Of, relating to, or manifesting the view that there is no order or value in human life or in the universe.
Of or relating to absurdism or the absurd.n. The condition or state in which humans exist in a meaningless, irrational universe wherein people's lives have no purpose or meaning. Used chiefly with the.

Helios Panoptes

03-02-2008, 09:52 AM

Alan jacobs seems to have an obsession with anti-Christians

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3997
See also :"The Narnian---fantasy
and a remark by:" http://atheocracy.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/crazy-reasons-for-believin/

Gibran has been described as The mystic,The Serene,The Rebellious,The Religious,The Heretic,The Philosopher and The Ageless.
It is possible to burn his books because they are dangerous,revolutionary and poisonous to youth and Alan Jacobs.
By the way... A number of Lebanese have the name Jacobs in South Africa.

Alan Jacobs is a dwarf compared to Gibran.

I tried reading some of Gibran's work yesterday. It was turgid, showy, and had a new age vibe that is old hat. Maybe it is better in his language, but in English, it is virtually unreadable.

Helios Panoptes

03-02-2008, 09:56 AM

Good question. The heading of this thread. The same way men determine what is absurd for men or for their children,which could and often is different from that of women.

Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable. See synonyms at foolish (http://www.answers.com/topic/foolish).
Of, relating to, or manifesting the view that there is no order or value in human life or in the universe.
Of or relating to absurdism or the absurd.n. The condition or state in which humans exist in a meaningless, irrational universe wherein people's lives have no purpose or meaning. Used chiefly with the.

If both men and women determine what is absurd by consulting the dictionary, shouldn't they reach an identical conclusion? Or do they use different dictionaries? Maybe men use American Heritage and women consult Mirriam-Webster's.

klipgeit

03-02-2008, 10:48 AM

Nobody outside of South Africa knows what 'squed' means.{/quote]
Sorry, Skewed. South Africans are stange animals.

Every man has a right to rape women because women are whores.

Give a definition of rape and whores and deceive. For now...providing you use vaseline and a condom.:rofl:

That's fascinating....what does it have to do with anything in this thread?

It is fascinating is it not and has everything to do with this thread. Do you only listen to what a woman whispers in your ear without looking at her nonverbal expressions. " I love you".........her left hand on your crotch and her right hand touching your wallet. Or you driving with her next to you. Your one hand holding the steering wheel and the other God knows where,whispering:" Danielle I love you so much":rofl::rofl:

Even the ones who kill their own children?

Yep. Now I have you going.

Rape is in the eye of the beholder. Who can tell for sure whether or not the woman has consented?

Your hang-up on rape stuns me. Are we not discussing "women are natural prostitutes and deceivers"?. So it is up the man to proof he did not rape. If she is a good deceiver,you hang:whip: When you say that a woman 'has to' form an emotional bond, that qualifies as instinct because it does not involve choice.
Good observation,but wrong,there is a choice.
The baby is born,next minute the baby is dumped in his/her mother's lap.
The pain of giving birth has not subsided yet.
Her instinct tells her that this baby has caused her pain and does not wish to know the baby.
The next day the bonding starts. You like base ball,but never played it.
You get a ball dumped in your hand,instinctively you throw it in front of you,then you decide to pick it up and play with it(That is bonding)

Right, lousy husband. He only goes out and works all day to support his child, while the mother sits around at home and performs the stressful tasks of shoving food in the kid's mouth and rocking it back and forth.

lol and cleans the house and washes his clothing and that of the baby and ironing and dusting and working in the garden and do shopping and in between allows a quick screw,jumps into the bath to rid herself of 2.000.000 unwanted sperm and teaches the baby to swim,the alphabet, arithmetic later on. The husband has got it easy.....8 to 5 job. If she would be paid for all the jobs she has to do,her hubby would be bankrupt in no time.

What 'info' is conveyed to the child by the mother's sexual transgressions with another man? [/quote]

You tell me.Ever been in that position??? You should know how easy it is for a woman to deceive. The man should do his job properly.than there is no transgression.

I can't continue this reply.
Thanks

klipgeit

03-02-2008, 11:37 AM

This quotation demands excerpts from Sex and Character to balance this thread.

Read first the Kamasutra and follow up with The Perfumed Garden.

Prostitution is not a result of social conditions, but of some cause deep in the nature of women; prostitutes who have been "reclaimed" frequently, even if provided for, return to their old way of life. . . . I may note finally, that prostitution is not a modern growth; it has been known from the earliest times, and even was a part of some ancient religions, as, for instance, among the Phoenicians.

Prostitution cannot be considered as a state into which men have seduced
women. Where there is no inclination for a certain course, the course will not be adopted. Prostitution is foreign to the male element, although the lives of men are often more laborious and unpleasant than those of women, and male prostitutes are always advanced sexually intermediate forms. The disposition for and inclination to prostitution is as organic in a woman as is the capacity for motherhood.

Have I said differently???????
I said that men have invented the word prostitution by his handmade(jerk-off) laws.
The same with the word whore.
I also said that a woman has the right to be devious and check a man out on sexual grounds.
My objection is the way this thread implies about woman.
The law of Nature has no such word.
The male in Nature wishes procreation as much as a female wants.
The strongest male in Nature WILL therefore impregnate as many females he can get when she is on heat(in season) this period varies.
The woman has only 1 week- when she menstruates- where procreation is hardly possible.
She is basically ready anytime every time anywhere.
The difference between female animal and a woman is not the act but the time.
Men CAN NOT seduce,leave that up to a woman.

Maternal love, then cannot be truly represented as resting on moral grounds. Let any one ask himself if he does not believe that his mother's love would not be just as great for him if he were a totally different person. The individuality of the child has no part in the maternal love; the mere fact of its being her own child is sufficient, and so the love cannot be regarded as moral. In the love of a man for a woman, or between persons of the same sex, there is always some reference to the personal qualities of the individual; a mother's love extends itself indifferently to anything that she has borne. It destroys the moral conception if we realise that the love of a mother for her child remains the same whether the child becomes a saint or a sinner, a king or a beggar, an angel or a fiend. Precisely the same conclusion will be reached from reflecting how children think that they have a claim on their mother's love simply because she is their mother. Maternal love is non-moral because it has no relation to the individuality of the being on which it is bestowed, and there can be an ethical relation only between two individualities. The relation of mother and child is always a kind of physical reflex. If the little one suddenly screams or cries when the mother is in the next room, she will at once rush to it as if she herself had been hurt; and, as the children grow up, every wish or trouble of theirs is directly assumed and shared by the mother as if they were her own. There is an unbreakable link between the mother and child, physical, like the cord that united the two before childbirth. This is the real nature of the maternal relation; and, for my part, I protest against the fashion in which it is praised, its very indiscriminate character being made a merit. I believe myself that many great artists have recognised this, but have chosen to be silent about it.[quote]

Is the love of Mary for Jesus more than the love of the mother of Judas for Judas

[quote]When I was browsing the text, I found a quote that especially intrigued me:
The last and absolute proof of the thoroughly negative character of woman's life, of her complete want of a higher existence, is derived from the way in which women commit suicide.

Such suicides are accompanied practically always by thoughts of other people, what they will think, how they will mourn over them, how grieved - or angry - they will be. Every woman is convinced that her unhappiness is undeserved at the time she kills herself; she pities herself exceedingly with the sort of self-compassion which is only a "weeping with others when they weep."I believe that modern data that indicates that women attempt suicide more often than men but kill themselves less often bears out Weininger's point. Men attempt suicide because they hate their lives and want to be rid of them, which is why they succeed. Women attempt suicide to impact the emotional states of others, to inspire pity, which is why they fail to die. Their motivation is to soak in the pleasure of watching their friends and families suffer, which validates their importance.

I have reservations on that.
Sources please.
When any person commits suicide without leaving any note,those left behind tend to blame themselves in that they should have seen that the person concerned needed help.
If your above statement is true then perhaps,due to a woman's make up,and in order to spare the grief of those left behind she tends to leave a note explaining why she has committed suicide.

Is Weininger one of those emasculated men,he should play in the traffic.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/11/981112075159.htm

klipgeit

03-02-2008, 11:44 AM

Please note.I have come on very strong defending the women,which they deserve and I have no problems with deceiving women or even glorified sperm-collectors. It is up to me to prevent from being taken for a ride

I do have a serious problem with women,who abort their fetus for any reason.
They should have used their mental handicapped inner sanctum.

Helios Panoptes

03-02-2008, 11:46 AM

Give a definition of rape

In this context, unwilling, forced sex.

and whores

A woman who has sex for money or a woman who has sex with a great deal of men. Context disambiguates.

and deceive.

To manipulate dishonestly.

For now...providing you use vaseline and a condom.

Try making at least a modicum of sense. This is like talking to a chatterbot programmed by a drunken chimpanzee.

It is fascinating is it not and has everything to do with this thread.

Be more specific. Why is it relevant to this thread that women communicate non-verbally in addition to verbally? Everyone does.

Do you only listen to what a woman whispers in your ear without looking at her nonverbal expressions. " I love you".........her left hand on your crotch and her right hand touching your wallet. Or you driving with her next to you. Your one hand holding the steering wheel and the other God knows where,whispering:" Danielle I love you so much"

Serves me right for trusting your mother. :rofl: (I, too, can amuse myself.)

Yep. Now I have you going.

Your statement was an absolute. You said that every woman is honorable. Are women who murder their own children honorable? You dodged the question.

Your hang-up on rape stuns me. Are we not discussing "women are natural prostitutes and deceivers"?. So it is up the man to proof he did not rape. If she is a good deceiver,you hang

You said that cheating is in the eye of the beholder. The same is true of rape, since whether or not a woman is morally justified in sleeping around or a man is justified in having sex with a woman is skewed by perspective. If there is no measure of cheating, why is there one for rape?

Good observation,but wrong,there is a choice.
The baby is born,next minute the baby is dumped in his/her mother's lap.
The pain of giving birth has not subsided yet.
Her instinct tells her that this baby has caused her pain and does not wish to know the baby. The next day the bonding starts.

Now I doubt your level of experience.. Women want to see and hold their child as soon as it is born, not the next day.

You like base ball,but never played it.

I might like things that I've never done, but I don't actually like them until I've tried them.

You get a ball dumped in your hand,instinctively you throw it in front of you,

Throwing a baseball is not instinctual. Perhaps, catching one is, if it's going to hit you in the face, but throwing one is a considered action.

then you decide to pick it up and play with it(That is bonding)

A person doesn't develop an emotional tie to a baseball, unless that emotional tie is rooted in a connection to a person. Playing with a baseball doesn't bond you to it. Another baseball is just as good.

lol and cleans the house and washes his clothing and that of the baby and ironing and dusting and working in the garden and do shopping and in between allows a quick screw,jumps into the bath to rid herself of 2.000.000 unwanted sperm and

How much time do these activities take? I am going to estimate generously. 2 hours per day on house maintenance, including doing wash, dusting, ironing, etc. 5 hours per week on shopping. 1.5 hours cooking. That's only 29.5 hours per week, and it's easier, less stressful work, too, because there are no hard deadlines. The schedule is allowed to be very flexible.

teaches the baby to swim,the alphabet, arithmetic later on.

First, in the first world, these tasks are primarily performed by others. Second, to the extent that they're not, why do you presume that the father has no level of involvement? It's hardly unprecedented for the father to pitch in teaching the child sports, helping it to learn its school material, etc. In fact, it is pretty common.

The husband has got it easy.....8 to 5 job. If she would be paid for all the jobs she has to do,her hubby would be bankrupt in no time.

Well, if someone paid me to mow the lawn, walk the dog, water my plants, fix things that break around the house, brush my teeth, etc., I'd have more money, too. However, nobody pays me and rightly so because they are household chores and matters of personal hygiene.

You tell me.Ever been in that position??? You should know how easy it is for a woman to deceive. The man should do his job properly.than there is no transgression.

What 'info' is conveyed to the child by the mother's sexual transgressions with another man?

Answer the question.

klipgeit

03-02-2008, 12:04 PM

I tried reading some of Gibran's work yesterday. It was turgid, showy, and had a new age vibe that is old hat. Maybe it is better in his language, but in English, it is virtually unreadable.

He wrote most of his works in the 1930s I believe
Even Kennedy mentioned his works:Do not ask what your country can do for you,ask what you can do for you country.

From his small piece of land Lebanon,the birthplace of Gibran,was also the birthplace of Western Civilization and the United States Constitution(copied from the Phoenician documents).
Gibran was one of America's blessed sons,and you should respect his works.
Yes it is difficult read but in beautiful English .
Often however,the translations have been like transporting an automobile to a country without roads or like training a horse to travel highways and byways.
To understand him you must study the unusual environment which influenced the dual Gibran AND read it several times.

The prophet is not his most famous book.
The Book of Mormon is.:)

klipgeit

03-02-2008, 12:41 PM

Helios.
Let me start slowly.

http://www.thescienceforum.com/Infanticide-9472t.php

klipgeit

03-02-2008, 12:46 PM

Read this first

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/index.html

Then this.
New York Times
November 2, 1997, Sunday
Section: Magazine Desk

Why They Kill Their Newborns
By Steven Pinker

Killing your baby. what could be more depraved? For a woman to destroy the fruit of her womb would seem like an ultimate violation of the natural order. But every year, hundreds of women commit neonaticide: they kill their newborns or let them die. Most neonaticides remain undiscovered, but every once in a while a janitor follows a trail of blood to a tiny body in a trash bin, or a woman faints and doctors find the remains of a placenta inside her.

Two cases have recently riveted the American public. Last November, Amy Grossberg and Brian Peterson, 18-year-old college sweethearts, delivered their baby in a motel room and, according to prosecutors, killed him and left his body in a Dumpster. They will go on trial for murder next year and, if convicted, could be sentenced to death. In June, another 18-year-old, Melissa Drexler, arrived at her high-school prom, locked herself in a bathroom stall, gave birth to a boy and left him dead in a garbage can. Everyone knows what happened next: she touched herself up and returned to the dance floor. In September, a grand jury indicted her for murder.

How could they do it? Nothing melts the heart like a helpless baby. Even a biologist's cold calculations tell us that nurturing an offspring that carries our genes is the whole point of our existence. Neonaticide, many think, could be only a product of pathology. The psychiatrists uncover childhood trauma. The defense lawyers argue temporary psychosis. The pundits blame a throwaway society, permissive sex education and, of course, rock lyrics.

But it's hard to maintain that neonaticide is an illness when we learn that it has been practiced and accepted in most cultures throughout history. And that neonaticidal women do not commonly show signs of psychopathology. In a classic 1970 study of statistics of child killing, a psychiatrist, Phillip Resnick, found that mothers who kill their older children are frequently psychotic, depressed or suicidal, but mothers who kill their newborns are usually not. (It was this difference that led Resnick to argue that the category infanticide be split into neonaticide, the killing of a baby on the day of its birth, and filicide, the killing of a child older than one day. )

Killing a baby is an immoral act, and we often express our outrage at the immoral by calling it a sickness. But normal human motives are not always moral, and neonaticide does not have to be a product of malfunctioning neural circuitry or a dysfunctional upbringing. We can try to understand what would lead a mother to kill her newborn, remembering that to understand is not necessarily to forgive.

Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, both psychologists, argue that a capacity for neonaticide is built into the biological design of our parental emotions. Mammals are extreme among animals in the amount of time, energy and food they invest in their young, and humans are extreme among mammals. Parental investment is a limited resource, and mammalian mothers must ''decide'' whether to allot it to their newborn or to their current and future offspring. If a newborn is sickly, or if its survival is not promising, they may cut their losses and favor the healthiest in the litter or try again later on.

In most cultures, neonaticide is a form of this triage. Until very recently in human evolutionary history, mothers nursed their children for two to four years before becoming fertile again. Many children died, especially in the perilous first year. Most women saw no more than two or three of their children survive to adulthood, and many did not see any survive. To become a grandmother, a woman had to make hard choices. In most societies documented by anthropologists, including those of hunter-gatherers (our best glimpse into our ancestors' way of life), a woman lets a newborn die when its prospects for survival to adulthood are poor. The forecast might be based on abnormal signs in the infant, or on bad circumstances for successful motherhood at the time -- she might be burdened with older children, beset by war or famine or without a husband or social support. Moreover, she might be young enough to try again.

We are all descendants of women who made the difficult decisions that allowed them to become grandmothers in that unforgiving world, and we inherited that brain circuitry that led to those decisions. Daly and Wilson have shown that the statistics on neonaticide in contemporary North America parallel those in the anthropological literature. The women who sacrifice their offspring tend to be young, poor, unmarried and socially isolated.

Natural selection cannot push the buttons of behavior directly; it affects our behavior by endowing us with emotions that coax us toward adaptive choices. New mothers have always faced a choice between a definite tragedy now and the possibility of an even greater tragedy months or years later, and that choice is not to be taken lightly. Even today, the typical rumination of a depressed new mother -- how will I cope with this burden? -- is a legitimate concern. The emotional response called bonding is also far more complex than the popular view, in which a woman is imprinted with a lifelong attachment to her baby if they interact in a critical period immediately following the baby's birth. A new mother will first coolly assess the infant and her current situation and only in the next few days begin to see it as a unique and wonderful individual. Her love will gradually deepen in ensuing years, in a trajectory that tracks the increasing biological value of a child (the chance that it will live to produce grandchildren) as the child proceeds through the mine field of early development.

Even when a mother in a hunter-gatherer society hardens her heart to sacrifice a newborn, her heart has not turned to stone. Anthropologists who interview these women (or their relatives, since the event is often too painful for the woman to discuss) discover that the women see the death as an unavoidable tragedy, grieve at the time and remember the child with pain all their lives. Even the supposedly callous Melissa Drexler agonized over a name for her dead son and wept at his funeral. (Initial reports that, after giving birth, she requested a Metallica song from the deejay and danced with her boyfriend turned out to be false.)

Many cultural practices are designed to distance people's emotions from a newborn until its survival seems probable. Full personhood is often not automatically granted at birth, as we see in our rituals of christening and the Jewish bris. And yet the recent neonaticides still seem puzzling. These are middle-class girls whose babies would have been kept far from starvation by the girls' parents or by any of thousands of eager adoptive couples. But our emotions, fashioned by the slow hand of natural selection, respond to the signals of the long-vanished tribal environment in which we spent 99 percent of our evolutionary history. Being young and single are two bad omens for successful motherhood, and the girl who conceals her pregnancy and procrastinates over its consequences will soon be disquieted by a third omen. She will give birth in circumstances that are particularly unpromising for a human mother: alone.

In hunter-gatherer societies, births are virtually always assisted because human anatomy makes birth (especially the first one) long, difficult and risky. Older women act as midwives, emotional supports and experienced appraisers who help decide whether the infant should live. Wenda Trevathan, an anthropologist and trained midwife, has studied pelvises of human fossils and concluded that childbirth has been physically tortuous, and therefore probably assisted, for millions of years. Maternal feelings may be adapted to a world in which a promising newborn is heralded with waves of cooing and clucking and congratulating. Those reassuring signals are absent from a secret birth in a motel room or a bathroom stall.

So what is the mental state of a teen-age mother who has kept her pregnancy secret? She is immature enough to have hoped that her pregnancy would go away by itself, her maternal feelings have been set at zero and she suddenly realizes she is in big trouble. Sometimes she continues to procrastinate. In September, 17-year-old Shanta Clark gave birth to a premature boy and kept him hidden in her bedroom closet, as if he were E.T., for 17 days. She fed him before and after she went to school until her mother discovered him. The weak cry of the preemie kept him from being discovered earlier. (In other cases, girls have panicked over the crying and, in stifling the cry, killed the baby.)

Most observers sense the desperation that drives a woman to neonaticide. Prosecutors sometimes don't prosecute; juries rarely convict; those found guilty almost never go to jail. Barbara Kirwin, a forensic psychologist, reports that in nearly 300 cases of women charged with neonaticide in the United States and Britain, no woman spent more than a night in jail. In Europe, the laws of several countries prescribed less-severe penalties for neonaticide than for adult homicides. The fascination with the Grossberg-Peterson case comes from the unusual threat of the death penalty. Even those in favor of capital punishment might shudder at the thought of two reportedly nice kids being strapped to gurneys and put to death.

But our compassion hinges on the child, not just on the mother. Killers of older children, no matter how desperate, evoke little mercy. Susan Smith, the South Carolina woman who sent her two sons, 14 months and 3 years old, to watery deaths, is in jail, unmourned, serving a life sentence. The leniency shown to neonaticidal mothers forces us to think the unthinkable and ask if we, like many societies and like the mothers themselves, are not completely sure whether a neonate is a full person.

It seems obvious that we need a clear boundary to confer personhood on a human being and grant it a right to life. Otherwise, we approach a slippery slope that ends in the disposal of inconvenient people or in grotesque deliberations on the value of individual lives. But the endless abortion debate shows how hard it is to locate the boundary. Anti-abortionists draw the line at conception, but that implies we should shed tears every time an invisible conceptus fails to implant in the uterus -- and, to carry the argument to its logical conclusion, that we should prosecute for murder anyone who uses an IUD. Those in favor of abortion draw the line at viability, but viability is a fuzzy gradient that depends on how great a risk of an impaired child the parents are willing to tolerate. The only thing both sides agree on is that the line must be drawn at some point before birth.

Neonaticide forces us to examine even that boundary. To a biologist, birth is as arbitrary a milestone as any other. Many mammals bear offspring that see and walk as soon as they hit the ground. But the incomplete 9-month-old human fetus must be evicted from the womb before its outsize head gets too big to fit through its mother's pelvis. The usual primate assembly process spills into the first years in the world. And that complicates our definition of personhood.

What makes a living being a person with a right not to be killed? Animal-rights extremists would seem to have the easiest argument to make: that all sentient beings have a right to life. But champions of that argument must conclude that delousing a child is akin to mass murder; the rest of us must look for an argument that draws a smaller circle. Perhaps only the members of our own species, Homo sapiens, have a right to life? But that is simply chauvinism; a person of one race could just as easily say that people of another race have no right to life.

No, the right to life must come, the moral philosophers say, from morally significant traits that we humans happen to possess. One such trait is having a unique sequence of experiences that defines us as individuals and connects us to other people. Other traits include an ability to reflect upon ourselves as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savor plans for the future, to dread death and to express the choice not to die. And there's the rub: our immature neonates don't possess these traits any more than mice do.

Several moral philosophers have concluded that neonates are not persons, and thus neonaticide should not be classified as murder. Michael Tooley has gone so far as to say that neonaticide ought to be permitted during an interval after birth. Most philosophers (to say nothing of nonphilosophers) recoil from that last step, but the very fact that there can be a debate about the personhood of neonates, but no debate about the personhood of older children, makes it clearer why we feel more sympathy for an Amy Grossberg than for a Susan Smith.

So how do you provide grounds for outlawing neonaticide? The facts don't make it easy. Some philosophers suggest that people intuitively see neonates as so similar to older babies that you couldn't allow neonaticide without coarsening the way people treat children and other people in general. Again, the facts say otherwise. Studies in both modern and hunter-gatherer societies have found that neonaticidal women don't kill anyone but their newborns, and when they give birth later under better conditions, they can be devoted, loving mothers.

The laws of biology were not kind to Amy Grossberg and Melissa Drexler, and they are not kind to us as we struggle to make moral sense of the teen-agers' actions. One predicament is that our moral system needs a crisp inauguration of personhood, but the assembly process for Homo sapiens is gradual, piecemeal and uncertain. Another problem is that the emotional circuitry of mothers has evolved to cope with this uncertain process, so the baby killers turn out to be not moral monsters but nice, normal (and sometimes religious) young women. These are dilemmas we will probably never resolve, and any policy will leave us with uncomfortable cases. We will most likely muddle through, keeping birth as a conspicuous legal boundary but showing mercy to the anguished girls who feel they had no choice but to run afoul of it.

klipgeit

03-02-2008, 12:50 PM

Now you have to wait till tomorrow.
Got a message from my gardner there is are snakes(cobras) crawling around my house.
Damned Eve she is deceiving me.

So what has unwilling sex to do with the natural woman
and what is wrong for a "whore" to demand money from a willing man or men.
In a marriage the man pays for his sex too Do you really believe he gets it for free..

To manipulate, dishonestly.
Now that is interesting. Would you say that camouflage is dishonest/deceiving
I am using the word camouflage as it precisely what she does camouflaging her intentions.So do animals and the army

.
A modicum of sense.................. This chimpanzee has fun and this chimp can not understand you not understanding it.

Everyone does use non verbal expressions,very few know how to interpret it especially men to women.

Serves me right for trusting your mother. (I, too, can amuse myself.) hehehehehe,shows you what a clever natural deceiving female my mother is........giving birth to a chimp

Your statement was an absolute. You said that every woman is honorable. Are women who murder their own children honorable? You dodged the question. I said" Yep" what more do you want

Rape is in the law books cheating not

Now I doubt your level of experience...Good
Women want to see and hold their child as soon as it is born, not the next day. wrong ,the baby is a bloody mess and the woman to tired to pay any loving attention

Baseball????????? please check what I mean,do not evade the question.
Sloppiness in understanding is not your strength.......and I have read a number of your posts.all are good,bar this thread

How much time do these activities take? Well try doing house work for a change or ironing for two hours.Get wise friend and ask your female counterparts,why they rather work in an office in stead of doing house work.Ask them in the same time why they do not wish to get married.

Until the age of 5(here at least) the kid is at a creche (that gives her time to work) and during the day the father works.When the father comes home he puts his ass on a chair,switches on the TV and dear momma must bring a beer or whatever and entertain the kid with the days creche work

First, in the first world, these tasks are primarily performed by others. Now I understand why the first world kids have a problem. We call it sloppy Joe attitude

Second, to the extent that they're not, why do you presume that the father has no level of involvement? It's hardly unprecedented for the father to pitch in teaching the child sports, helping it to learn its school material, etc. In fact, it is pretty common.I suggest you check your neighbourhood

Well, if someone paid me to mow the lawn, walk the dog, water my plants, fix things that break around the house, brush my teeth, etc., I'd have more money, too. However, nobody pays me and rightly so because they are household chores and matters of personal hygiene. What has that got to do with the price of eggs.You try the jobs a wife does day in day out,year in year out and for free other than you maintaining her,with an occasional screw to keep her happy

What 'info' is conveyed to the child by the mother's sexual transgressions with another man? Nothing spectacular I refer to the single parent, and the heaps of divorces. The kid takes it in his/her stride,with subtle comments:I like him or I do not like him.

Answer the question.
Yes Boss :)
I like your Theognis
__________________
The best lot of all for man is never to have been born nor seen the beams of the burning Sun; this failing, to pass the gates of Hades as soon as one may, and lie under a goodly heap of earth. ~ Theognis

:rofl:

Hartmann von Aue

03-02-2008, 01:38 PM

Tennessee legislature considers mandatory paternity testing at birth (http://cronespeaks.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/mandatory-paternity-testing-in-tn-because-you-know-women-are-sluts)

Look at the feminist whores whine about this one.

Larrikin

03-02-2008, 06:49 PM

Every man has a right to rape women because women are whores.

I can only hope that this was a sarcastic response to klipgeit's similar way of reasoning.
Otherwise you are a very morally and sexually deviant bastard.

Rape is in the eye of the beholder. Who can tell for sure whether or not the woman has consented?

Rape is very clearly defined and the extensive and severe physical injuries as well as he well detectable psychological effects caused by forced intercourse tell that.

I start to tend more to option 2 of my above statement, but I still give you the benefit of doubt for now.

Right, lousy husband. He only goes out and works all day to support his child, while the mother sits around at home and performs the stressful tasks of shoving food in the kid's mouth and rocking it back and forth.

You obviously never took care of one or more infant child for any substantial period of time.

[indent]Prostitution is not a result of social conditions, but of some cause deep in the nature of women; prostitutes who have been "reclaimed" frequently, even if provided for, return to their old way of life.

Very few women actually engage in prostitution and the ones not doing it because of economic reasons is even far lower. Statistics don't back this argument at all.

. . . I may note finally, that prostitution is not a modern growth; it has been known from the earliest times, and even was a part of some ancient religions, as, for instance, among the Phoenicians.

So was male protitution.
[/quote]
Prostitution cannot be considered as a state into which men have seduced women. Where there is no inclination for a certain course, the course will not be adopted.
[/quote]
This goes hand in hand with the argument that men are not seduced into wanting whores and wnating to pay for casual sex. "Where there is no inclination for a certain course, the course will not be adopted."

The reason that there are more female than male prostitutes derives from the fact that more men are willing to pay for sex than women, because of the higher sexual urge in men.

Prostitution is foreign to the male element, although the lives of men are often more laborious and unpleasant than those of women, and male prostitutes are always advanced sexually intermediate forms.

Male prostitution is not uncommon today and never was in other eras.
And I'm not sure what is meant by "advanced sexually intermediate forms"?

[indent]The last and absolute proof of the thoroughly negative character of woman's life, of her complete want of a higher existence, is derived from the way in which women commit suicide.

Weininger killed himself aged 23 because he felt not sufficiently appreciated for his self-perceived genius. Why would anyone take lectures on the mental state of suicidals from a whiner that offs himself because "they don't tell that I'm great often enough"

Draco

03-03-2008, 12:45 AM

This article showed "proof" of nothing beyond what is already known in regards to mammalian mating.

It cuts both ways as well, males of all species are more sexually aggressive towards an ovulating female.

Helios Panoptes

03-03-2008, 01:41 AM

I can only hope that this was a sarcastic response to klipgeit's similar way of reasoning.
Otherwise you are a very morally and sexually deviant bastard.

Don't be daft. It should be obvious that I'm not taking this discussion with Klipgeit seriously and most of my comments are mocking. In this instance, I was taking one of his statements and playing with it to show its absurdity.

Rape is very clearly defined and the extensive and severe physical injuries as well as he well detectable psychological effects caused by forced intercourse tell that.

But I wasn't commenting on the status of rape as a phenomenon with objective criteria, assuming we know all of the facts. You are able to give this appearance only because you've taken my remark out of context. I was disagreeing with Klipgeit's point that 'cheating is in the eye of the beholder,' which I take it was propounded because in many cases that might be construed as one person cheating on another, the possible cheat thinks him/herself not to be in a relationship or justified by the transgressions of the partner, and so on. That is, from one's perspective, one might not think he/she is cheating and from this we can conclude that there is no such thing. Similarly, a rapist might think that he is not committing rape - can we conclude from this that there is no such thing as rape? It is an informal reductio.

You obviously never took care of one or more infant child for any substantial period of time.

Once again, counterpoint. He was making it seem like the husband does nothing, so I portrayed the wife as doing nothing. My genuine position is that a man working an average full-time job does have it tougher than his wife, when she becomes a mother. The work is more stressful and he, too, suffers many of the inconveniences of having an infant in the house, including the most irritating one(being awakened by screaming in the night).

Very few women actually engage in prostitution and the ones not doing it because of economic reasons is even far lower. Statistics don't back this argument at all.

On Weininger's view, 'the prostitute' is more than a woman who has sex for money. She is rather an archetypal figure, an ideal. Actual people are not pure, but are rather combinations of archetypal features. As he says, 'It must be remembered, of course, that it is not only prostitutes who belong to the prostitute type; very many so-called respectable girls and married women belong to it.' Despite the fact that Weininger sometimes appears to be referring to streetwalkers, I think that better examples of what he means by the prostitute are successful, bright society women who have sex with many men for their enjoyment without giving much or any thought to the possibility of transitioning to a maternal life.

Male prostitution is not uncommon today and never was in other eras.
And I'm not sure what is meant by "advanced sexually intermediate forms"?

He means that male prostitutes are effeminate.

Weininger killed himself aged 23 because he felt not sufficiently appreciated for his self-perceived genius. Why would anyone take lectures on the mental state of suicidals from a whiner that offs himself because "they don't tell that I'm great often enough"

How do you know why he killed himself? Don't you think the clash between his probable homosexuality and his ideology played a significant role?

Helios Panoptes

03-03-2008, 01:51 AM

Now you have to wait till tomorrow.
Got a message from my gardner there is are snakes(cobras) crawling around my house.
Damned Eve she is deceiving me.

So what has unwilling sex to do with the natural woman
and what is wrong for a "whore" to demand money from a willing man or men.
In a marriage the man pays for his sex too Do you really believe he gets it for free..

To manipulate, dishonestly.
Now that is interesting. Would you say that camouflage is dishonest/deceiving
I am using the word camouflage as it precisely what she does camouflaging her intentions.So do animals and the army

.
A modicum of sense.................. This chimpanzee has fun and this chimp can not understand you not understanding it.

Everyone does use non verbal expressions,very few know how to interpret it especially men to women.

Serves me right for trusting your mother. (I, too, can amuse myself.) hehehehehe,shows you what a clever natural deceiving female my mother is........giving birth to a chimp

Your statement was an absolute. You said that every woman is honorable. Are women who murder their own children honorable? You dodged the question. I said" Yep" what more do you want

Rape is in the law books cheating not

Now I doubt your level of experience...Good
wrong ,the baby is a bloody mess and the woman to tired to pay any loving attention

Baseball????????? please check what I mean,do not evade the question.
Sloppiness in understanding is not your strength.......and I have read a number of your posts.all are good,bar this thread

Well try doing house work for a change or ironing for two hours.Get wise friend and ask your female counterparts,why they rather work in an office in stead of doing house work.Ask them in the same time why they do not wish to get married.

Until the age of 5(here at least) the kid is at a creche (that gives her time to work) and during the day the father works.When the father comes home he puts his ass on a chair,switches on the TV and dear momma must bring a beer or whatever and entertain the kid with the days creche work

Now I understand why the first world kids have a problem. We call it sloppy Joe attitude

I suggest you check your neighbourhood

What has that got to do with the price of eggs.You try the jobs a wife does day in day out,year in year out and for free other than you maintaining her,with an occasional screw to keep her happy

Nothing spectacular I refer to the single parent, and the heaps of divorces. The kid takes it in his/her stride,with subtle comments:I like him or I do not like him.

Answer the question.
Yes Boss :)
I like your Theognis
__________________
The best lot of all for man is never to have been born nor seen the beams of the burning Sun; this failing, to pass the gates of Hades as soon as one may, and lie under a goodly heap of earth. ~ Theognis

:rofl:

Whoa... I can't reply to posts written like this. It would be possible for me to do so, but I would have to spend too much time reformatting and dissecting gibberish, and it is not worth it. If you can't even use the quote function to make it easier for us to read and reply, don't expect others to put any effort into talking with you. If you want to reformat, I'll be happy to take another look.

Starr

03-03-2008, 02:57 AM

[QUOTE=Bronze Age Pervert]??
This part about tricking men into raising someone else's kids is only your opinion on what the findings of the study could potentially mean. You are talking about this as if what you are saying is what the study proved, which is not the case.
It was men who granted freedom to women, so in a sense you're right that it's men's fault. It is, however, women who vote for politicians responsible for the (mostly irrelevant) things you mention in your post by the way. And it is women who have a vested interest in promoting what you call "anti-traditional lifestyles," (if only to protect their right to abortion) and in keeping the Western world's obsessions with healthcare and welfare burning. It is not misogyny that makes me say these things, it is a simple observation of voting patterns and enduring interests; it is also women, btw, who as a political group bond with minorities to attack "white male privilege" in the US. It is a delusional belief on your part that women will care for you that makes you not see them for what they are. No civilization can survive that attempts to make women politically equal
Those women would not even have the choice of voting for the very things you talk about without those very things being peddled by what are almost always male politicians. It was males who held all of the real positions of power in this nation and others that made all of the decisions and passed all of the laws that turned our nations into what we see today. You are correct, unfortunately that white women have bonded with minorities against white men, but the way to turn this around is to make them see that their best interests as white women are absolutely not going to be in a more diverse society where they are a racial minority and whites are potentially in any kind of subordinate position to non whites. Non whites are more likely to commit violent crimes including rape. They often come from cultures and nations that do not grant women much in the way of rights,etc.
Breaking that shared victim status white women have been taught to share and feel with non whites, is never going to come as a result of white males telling white women that they are too naive or stupid or whatever else to be trusted with certain responsibilities, like voting. It is ideas just like this that feminists need to recruit more white women into their way of thinking. This kind of thinking is also associated with right wing conservatism and that would be a major reason why women tend to vote more liberal and identify more with lefty causes.

Bronze Age Pervert

03-03-2008, 04:38 AM

Who said anything about convincing anyone? There's not going to be any convincing done. White men have to pick up guns, train, form military groups and take power before it's too late. There is no other solution at this point. Not the fate of whiteness, but of civilization is at stake. In this white men should make an alliance with Asian men, who are probably the most productive, abused, and depreciated part of the US economy.
But for this to happen men need to understand the supreme importance of friendship and comradeship with one another, which will not happen so long as they remain like Larrikin and others...feminized men, that is, men in awe of woman and her petty day-to-day dreary existence. It is for this reason that I posted this thread, to remind men of who exactly it is that they would like to bond to for life as a bosom companion. A woman is a creature who will never be able to feel love for you, and who will have contempt for you if you think she will. What women mean when they say "love" is that they would like to harness you and turn you into an accessory or appendage. Men should not abandon women of course, and women should be given their place and their proper respect as mothers and wives, but men must never place a woman before friendship and comradeship with other men. This social fact alone--that men have become household creatures, creatures of woman's life--is at the bottom of the West's decadence, lack of energy and resolve.

klipgeit

03-03-2008, 06:23 AM

Whoa... I can't reply to posts written like this. It would be possible for me to do so, but I would have to spend too much time reformatting and dissecting gibberish, and it is not worth it. If you can't even use the quote function to make it easier for us to read and reply, don't expect others to put any effort into talking with you. If you want to reformat, I'll be happy to take another look.
That is precisely how your reasoning looks to me. No one should use a quote function. Read posts and reply without dissecting,leave that to medical docs.
Excuses.. excuses,surely you are not that ignorant that in my previous posts I did use the quote function and suddenly not.
So please spare me your reply to an already demeaning thread.
Go back to the first post-read it and then tell me what that has to do with rape and killing babies.
A moderator should know how to stick to a thread and not deviate,but most of all "read between the lines".
This thread is an offense to the married women as well to the bulk of single girls and single/divorced women.
You deviate and you get a stupid answer.
Do not try to be to clever with your responses as you did in another thread:"
Scientific Realism should that be a default assumption."
Spare me your condescending attitude,you are to young for that and I to old.
(50.000 words at work)
Lastly,Do not apologize to Larrikin for your mistakes,which you meant
It seems a 23 year old faux pas at work or is it :google: wisdom.
So,show respect for the deceiving women,their prerogative,

Helios Panoptes

03-03-2008, 07:24 AM

That is precisely how your reasoning looks to me. No one should use a quote function.

Wrong. I will list problems caused by the way you reply. First, if the reader didn't write the post to which you are responding, it is difficult to differentiate between your writing and the other poster's. This requires the reader to scroll to previous posts repeatedly to figure out what's going on. Second, it makes replies difficult because the replier is forced to edit out his own material.

Read posts and reply without dissecting,leave that to medical docs.

What you suggest is impractical in this format. Often, a poster makes many points in one post and the easiest way to compose a thorough response is to edit your comments into his text, using the quote function. This also makes threads easier to read. I am not opposed to the essay format, but it is too time-consuming for casual posting. Furthermore, you reply to posts piece by piece, too, so you have no cause to complain to me.

Excuses.. excuses,surely you are not that ignorant that in my previous posts I did use the quote function and suddenly not.

I didn't say that you are incapable of using the quote function. I am not going to repeat myself or clarify that which is already perfectly clear to a literate Anglophone. I only clarify when I was not adequately clear - not when my interlocutor is incapable of comprehending plain language.

So please spare me your reply to an already demeaning thread.

I am going to spare you my replies in perpetuum after this one. Your incomprehensible babbling has exhausted my patience.

Go back to the first post-read it and then tell me what that has to do with rape and killing babies.
A moderator should know how to stick to a thread and not deviate,but most of all "read between the lines".

I wasn't 'deviating.' All of my remarks were relevant to posts that were made by others. This can be confirmed by reviewing my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going to waste more of my time explaining my writing to those without a taste for subtlety.

This thread is an offense to the married women as well to the bulk of single girls and single/divorced women.

Tell somebody who gives a damn.

You deviate and you get a stupid answer.

Everyone gets a stupid answer from you, regardless.

Do not try to be to clever with your responses as you did in another thread:"
Scientific Realism should that be a default assumption."

Ok, I won't.... :confused:

Spare me your condescending attitude,you are to young for that and I to old.
(50.000 words at work)

I can't help it. Your posts are impenetrable disasters that give me a headache when I try to read them. How do you write like that? The level of disorganization in both thought and structure that I see in your writing is beyond belief. I have never seen anything like it before.

Lastly,Do not apologize to Larrikin for your mistakes,which you meant

You have to be kidding. Do you think I care what you think or what he thinks? I don't. If I felt like arguing that women deserve to be raped, I'd do it whether you two like it or not. I responded to his post in the way that I did because he misread me, not because I'm going back on my words. In addition, I never apologized to him. I have no reason to, for I have done him no wrong.

It seems a 23 year old faux pas at work or is it :google: wisdom.

Is what google wisdom? There's no need to answer because I don't plan to respond, but you should realize that I don't know what in blazes you are attempting to ask me.

So,show respect for the deceiving women,their prerogative,

I don't 'respect' women. I respect people for their accomplishments, not for being women(or men, for that matter).

Larrikin

03-03-2008, 08:18 AM

Don't be daft. It should be obvious that I'm not taking this discussion with Klipgeit seriously and most of my comments are mocking. In this instance, I was taking one of his statements and playing with it to show its absurdity.

But I wasn't commenting on the status of rape as a phenomenon with objective criteria, assuming we know all of the facts. You are able to give this appearance only because you've taken my remark out of context. I was disagreeing with Klipgeit's point that 'cheating is in the eye of the beholder,' which I take it was propounded because in many cases that might be construed as one person cheating on another, the possible cheat thinks him/herself not to be in a relationship or justified by the transgressions of the partner, and so on. That is, from one's perspective, one might not think he/she is cheating and from this we can conclude that there is no such thing. Similarly, a rapist might think that he is not committing rape - can we conclude from this that there is no such thing as rape? It is an informal reductio.

That's why I said I wasn't sure and explicitly gave you benefit of doubt.
Thanks for clarifying your position and I apologize for alleging otherwise.

Once again, counterpoint. He was making it seem like the husband does nothing, so I portrayed the wife as doing nothing. My genuine position is that a man working an average full-time job does have it tougher than his wife, when she becomes a mother. The work is more stressful and he, too, suffers many of the inconveniences of having an infant in the house, including the most irritating one(being awakened by screaming in the night).

Okay, while I do not completely agree, I understand your argument better know and find it much more rational.

I think our misunderstanding here is mainly due to the fact that I'm used to not take most of klipgeit's posts very serious or literal, but didn't expect you, as a most rational poster, to respond on the same level.

On Weininger's view, 'the prostitute' is more than a woman who has sex for money. She is rather an archetypal figure, an ideal. Actual people are not pure, but are rather combinations of archetypal features. As he says, 'It must be remembered, of course, that it is not only prostitutes who belong to the prostitute type; very many so-called respectable girls and married women belong to it.' Despite the fact that Weininger sometimes appears to be referring to streetwalkers, I think that better examples of what he means by the prostitute are successful, bright society women who have sex with many men for their enjoyment without giving much or any thought to the possibility of transitioning to a maternal life.

It is rather odd to use a word with a defined and widely accepted meaning to describe something else, especially if the word in question has a clearly negative connotation. I really dislike such levels of idiosyncrasy.

By defining/labelling all women that don't have sex for procreational purposes onlyas prostitutes he mainly attributes them with male behaviour, because basically many or most men (at Weiniger's era and all others) didn't live in monogam chastity.

He means that male prostitutes are effeminate.

Ah, ok. I don't really agree especially if he define "being prostitute" as "successful, bright society (wo)men who have sex with many men for their enjoyment without giving much or any thought to the possibility of transitioning to paternity(maternity)", what is hardly unusual for men to do.
By that notion, males do display prostitutional behaviour far more often than women in my POV.

How do you know why he killed himself? Don't you think the clash between his probable homosexuality and his ideology played a significant role?
Weiniger fell into depression after his first book was heavily critized by Sigmund Freud and rejected by the publishers he appraoch. He then spoke to suicide to his friends. After "Sex and character" also failed to be the expected sensational success, he again became depressed and thought of himself as evil (in his diaries), consequently because genius, the oure masculinity in his thought, was the only salvation from feminine depravation.

But I admit I was being polemic here, his diaries also suggest that he was mentally unstable anyway. However, the point remains, that a mentally unstable suicidal person isn't exactly the one to give qualified judgement on others in this matter.

Petr

03-03-2008, 09:37 AM

However, the point remains, that a mentally unstable suicidal person isn't exactly the one to give qualified judgement on others in this matter.
Agreed. To hell with Schopenhauer, Nietszche, Weininger and these other childless, posing ponderous armchair-chauvinists telling people what to do with their families.

Petr

Don Quixote

03-03-2008, 09:51 AM

Agreed. To hell with Schopenhauer, Nietszche, Weininger and these other childless, posing ponderous armchair-chauvinists telling people what to do with their families.Genetic fallacy.

dangerbot

03-03-2008, 06:29 PM

It is rather odd to use a word with a defined and widely accepted meaning to describe something else, especially if the word in question has a clearly negative connotation. I really dislike such levels of idiosyncrasy.
It is not odd at all. Indeed, it is quite common throughout the humanities and social sciences to use terms analogously or even equivocally with respect to their ordinary language meanings. As long as the terms are clearly defined (which Weininger's are), this is no cause for concern in itself. If you object to the connotations the term carries, that's fine, but you can hardly expect Weininger or the gallery to care.
By defining/labelling all women that don't have sex for procreational purposes onlyas prostitutes he mainly attributes them with male behaviour, because basically many or most men (at Weiniger's era and all others) didn't live in monogam chastity.
You seem to have missed the thrust of Weininger's argument entirely. He is not discussing the propensity of women to promiscuity (indeed, he explicitly disavows a direct connection between the frequency of sex or the number of partners and the prostitute type), but rather the nature of the object that is being pursued in female sexuality as opposed to male sexuality. Weininger's contention is, in brief, that female sexuality seeks to advance the woman's power, whereas male sexuality seeks self-recognition through the attainment of the ideal object.
Ah, ok. I don't really agree especially if he define "being prostitute" as "successful, bright society (wo)men who have sex with many men for their enjoyment without giving much or any thought to the possibility of transitioning to paternity(maternity)", what is hardly unusual for men to do.
By that notion, males do display prostitutional behaviour far more often than women in my POV.
This is not how he defines 'being prostitute' at all. Please labor to overcome your distaste for Weininger at least to the extent that you can give him a careful reading or, failing that, refrain from commenting on his work.
But I admit I was being polemic here, his diaries also suggest that he was mentally unstable anyway. However, the point remains, that a mentally unstable suicidal person isn't exactly the one to give qualified judgement on others in this matter.
You were not 'being polemic' so much as you were 'comitting obvious fallacies of relevance'.

Larrikin

03-03-2008, 07:28 PM

This is not how he defines 'being prostitute' at all. Please labor to overcome your distaste for Weininger at least to the extent that you can give him a careful reading or, failing that, refrain from commenting on his work.

My definition is based quote that Helios gave as a summary of Weiningers postion.

Despite the fact that Weininger sometimes appears to be referring to streetwalkers, I think that better examples of what he means by the prostitute are successful, bright society women who have sex with many men for their enjoyment without giving much or any thought to the possibility of transitioning to a maternal life.

I merely changed "women" for "men" and "maternal life" for "paternity".
If Helios used an incorrect position of Weininger for his argument, the error is on his side, not on mine for countering the actual argument that was made here.

Bronze Age Pervert

03-03-2008, 07:36 PM

dangerbot wrote,

You seem to have missed the thrust of Weininger's argument entirely. He is not discussing the propensity of women to promiscuity (indeed, he explicitly disavows a direct connection between the frequency of sex or the number of partners and the prostitute type), but rather the nature of the object that is being pursued in female sexuality as opposed to male sexuality. Weininger's contention is, in brief, that female sexuality seeks to advance the woman's power, whereas male sexuality seeks self-recognition through the attainment of the ideal object.

Yes, this is the point here. Romantic love is something that men sure can and do feel but that only the rarest woman has ever experienced. For a woman a man is just a means to a child (and a living) and a child is just a means to feel her own godlike powers. It is irrelevant if, as many on this thread insist, this is in line with some Darwinian vision of nature. How does the understanding of Darwinism make you feel good about the fact that all the women in your life, including your mother, can never consider you anything more than an appendage? Giving women equal social and political rights is the height of stupidity because the political world was made expressly as an escape from the cloying world of home and hearth. Feminized men don't see this because they enjoy the narrow and cloistered world of women and enjoy being an appendage.
As I said above, the weakness of the Western world at the moment is caused primarily by the fact that men put their lives with women above their friendships and organizations with other men. This leads to depoliticization and to lack of adventurism and vitality in the public sphere--it also leads to having no culture. This is why we have had no artistic or literary movements worth speaking of since the 1950's. The free-love of the 1960's transformed into the worship of home-love. Conservatives are gravely mistaken about the causes of modern decadence, and they are in fact the agents of decadence. The reason the Islamic world still has some vitality is because their states have not been able to turn men into housebroken cats like Larrikin or Petr on this site.

Hartmann von Aue

03-03-2008, 07:41 PM

Bronze Age Pervert wrote,

Romantic love is something that men sure can and do feel but that only the rarest woman has ever experienced.

You can't really believe that.

Bronze Age Pervert

03-03-2008, 07:57 PM

I do believe it and mean it, and hope that all men will consider the literary depiction to what they've had in real life.
For convenience I refer people to my post just before this one, and I quote again my earlier post, since it is a restatement of my intentions here:
Who said anything about convincing anyone? There's not going to be any convincing done. White men have to pick up guns, train, form military groups and take power before it's too late. There is no other solution at this point. Not the fate of whiteness, but of civilization is at stake. In this white men should make an alliance with Asian men, who are probably the most productive, abused, and depreciated part of the US economy.
But for this to happen men need to understand the supreme importance of friendship and comradeship with one another, which will not happen so long as they remain like Larrikin and others...feminized men, that is, men in awe of woman and her petty day-to-day dreary existence. It is for this reason that I posted this thread, to remind men of who exactly it is that they would like to bond to for life as a bosom companion. A woman is a creature who will never be able to feel love for you, and who will have contempt for you if you think she will. What women mean when they say "love" is that they would like to harness you and turn you into an accessory or appendage. Men should not abandon women of course, and women should be given their place and their proper respect as mothers and wives, but men must never place a woman before friendship and comradeship with other men. This social fact alone--that men have become household creatures, creatures of woman's life--is at the bottom of the West's decadence, lack of energy and resolve.

Mentious

03-03-2008, 08:40 PM

Yes, this is the point here. Romantic love is something that men sure can and do feel but that only the rarest woman has ever experienced.
I disagree with that. Women are more the "romantics" than men, generally.
Giving women equal social and political rights is the height of stupidity...
I agree with that, but because women can't hew to principles, and not because the political world was "created expressly as an escape from the cloying world of home and hearth." There is truth in that it's a contrast, but the political world was created by men as an expression of their leadership and organizing instincts.
...the weakness of the Western world at the moment is caused primarily by the fact that men put their lives with women above their friendships and organizations with other men.
I agree with this.
This leads to depoliticization and to lack of adventurism and vitality in the public sphere--
Well, its an expression of male corruption and weakness when men do this (give women an undue place in their lives), and leads to the false empowerment of women, and a lack of principles or order in the public realm, and a phenomenon in which we are all as if living in a "single mother home," with none of the principled order that the male/father provides.
...it also leads to having no culture.
Actually, the female abandonment of the home, which borders out onto community/society, and instead wasting her life in business, is the cause of the decline of culture. Women used to feed culture and make it alive from their spacious and influential roost in the home (which connected and conveyed her into an even more spacious realm called society.) Now women spend their time cooped up in silly little boxes working for the wrong "man." (Still "working for the man," just the wrong one.) That's why there is no culture today. When women abandon their powerful position as mothers/matriarches, they abandon community and culture automatically.
...This is why we have had no artistic or literary movements worth speaking of since the 1950's.
Well, that's because men have become de-potentized through immorality and sex addiction, and also because women have invaded these realms and they don't have the intellectual dynamism of men.
The free-love of the 1960's transformed into the worship of home-love. Conservatives are gravely mistaken about the causes of modern decadence, and they are in fact the agents of decadence. The reason the Islamic world still has some vitality is because their states have not been able to turn men into housebroken cats like Larrikin or Petr on this site.
I'll respond to that when I get time.

Zubenelgenubi

03-03-2008, 09:44 PM

I merely changed "women" for "men" and "maternal life" for "paternity".
If Helios used an incorrect position of Weininger for his argument, the error is on his side, not on mine for countering the actual argument that was made here.
Helios was giving an example here of a person who might embody Weininger's idea of a prostitute, not a definition.

Starr

03-03-2008, 09:55 PM

But for this to happen men need to understand the supreme importance of friendship and comradeship with one another, which will not happen so long as they remain like Larrikin and others...feminized men, that is, men in awe of woman and her petty day-to-day dreary existence. It is for this reason that I posted this thread, to remind men of who exactly it is that they would like to bond to for life as a bosom companion. A woman is a creature who will never be able to feel love for you, and who will have contempt for you if you think she will. What women mean when they say "love" is that they would like to harness you and turn you into an accessory or appendage.
I never like to normally bring anything personal into this, but when someone says a woman will never feel love for a man, it definitely sounds like this is coming from someone who has had or been in a lot of negative relationships. I hear similar arguments from women, who have had a lot of negative experiences with men. You also always hear from women like this that no man should come before their friendship or relationship with their female friends and other women,etc. Feminist women love to go on about how no man should ever break up a woman's feeling of "sisterhood" and other such nonsense. About the only area that women might want to have some measure of control over a man relates to her wanting that man to be loyal to her over and above that of any other woman. She will very potentially have contempt, or at least no respect for you, if you are completely wrapped around her finger, but that is a very different scenario. A man should put his spouse and family before anything else(within reason) even over his friendships, just as a woman should do the same. I don't believe there is anything "feminized" about a man who does put his wife/girlfriend or family first. Putting once's family first does not also have to mean letting go of any strong bonds one might have with their friends.
I have never put too much faith in the opinions of men trying to understand everything about women or in the same way women trying to understand everything about men. Both are often going to be basing their thinking according to their perspectives and the unique style of thinking as a person of whatever sex and that means they are going to come up short since males and females are very, very different in lots of ways. Someone like Weininger(sp) likely knows about as much about what truly makes women tick as Andrea Dworkin knows about what makes men tick.
On the contrary to the idea that a woman will never "love" a man, a woman often falls in love with a man way too easily and quickly. If a woman becomes controlling at this point it is because a woman will often do whatever she believes it will take to hold on to that man that she has come to have such strong feelings for. The fear of loosing that man at this point is one of the worst possibly things she can imagine.

Larrikin

03-03-2008, 10:07 PM

Helios was giving an example here of a person who might embody Weininger's idea of a prostitute, not a definition.
One should use examples that fit the intended meaning, right? Intercourse without the underlying thought of maternal life is rather different to the idea of advancement of individual power as the female motive. I was not directly interpreting Weininger here, but responding to the Weiniger's ideas as presented by Helios.

dangerbot

03-03-2008, 10:19 PM

One should use examples that fit the intended meaning, right?
Indeed, but one must also not mistake everything that applies to the example as applying to the theory of which it is an example. If I was to use Neils Bohr as an example of a proponent of the Copenhagen orthodoxy, it would be irrelevant to discuss him as a Danish celebrity.
Intercourse without the underlying thought of maternal life is rather different to the idea of advancement of individual power as the female motive. I was not directly interpreting Weininger here, but responding to the Weiniger's ideas as presented by Helios.
Not necessarily. One could contend that the promiscuous career woman views her sexuality as a means to exercise domination over men for the purpose of gratification through the establishment of a self-image as a 'high status' sexual object (powerful men desire me, they abase themselves before me, therefore I am powerful) and that she views her career in precisely the same way (powerful men obey me, they abase themselves before me, therefore I am powerful). Weininger's contention, and (I presume) Helios', would be that promiscuous career men pursue a different object entirely - that they value their sexual conquests as either a release from the pressures of work pursuits or as a means of self-realization (I will discover the secret that is woman by sleeping with a bunch of them) and that they view their work as useful in its own right, as apart from the status it conveys. I am unwilling, at this stage, to judge whether this view is correct, but I think it is crucial that it be correctly understood.

klipgeit

03-04-2008, 08:21 AM

If you are so flip floppy that you can not remember what you wrote and diffirentiate your replies
from one poster and another,then I suggest you start concentrating.
You do not have to edit out anything. It is a question of remembering and training.
Oh I get it.
You did your exams with the books in front of you,because you can not remember
and you drive your car with a booklet on your dashboard.
I wrote my previous post for the purpose of making you think,think think
You may like to scroll down and read the answers,I don't as it is time consuming.
I replied piece by piece to you out of politeness.
To me it is so dumb.You read the text,absorb it and reply.That is the difference between you
and me,I am an Anglo-Kaffir,who keeps his lucidity interlobular.
Wake up please...use plain English and do not try to be too arrogant in showing you can use
the dictionary. Next time I take my little grandson to the shops I shall put him in a
perpetual perambulator,with the compliments of Helios olive oil (We do sell Helios olive oil
in South Africa and is used to loosen the stomag of little boys and big oafs)
Stupid people get stupid answers,I can not help it.
You did care what Larrikin wrote and backtracked.
What the hell it does not matter.
A cocky little runt can not change into a rooster.
You give me a subtle rupture. :)
Actually I feel depressed when I think of the women around you.
I should sent you my ''Predictive Index" and analyse your future based on the past.
On the other hand I could sent you money to rid yourself of an ileus.
Thanks for the entertaining scribbles.
By the way:"Your father and mother desired a child and they begot you.
You wanted(I presume) a mother and a father and you begot The Phora
Have a nice day.
PS:When I see a Japanese imperial flag I get pissed off

dangerbot

03-04-2008, 09:14 AM

If you are so flip floppy that you can not remember what you wrote and diffirentiate your replies
from one poster and another,then I suggest you start concentrating.
You do not have to edit out anything. It is a question of remembering and training.
Oh I get it.
You did your exams with the books in front of you,because you can not remember
and you drive your car with a booklet on your dashboard.
I wrote my previous post for the purpose of making you think,think think
I can say with a great deal of confidence that none of your posts have made anyone think even once. If this was your task, you have failed profoundly.
You may like to scroll down and read the answers,I don't as it is time consuming.
I replied piece by piece to you out of politeness.
To me it is so dumb.You read the text,absorb it and reply.
You are clearly unable to even comprehend, much less 'absorb and reply' to texts written in English.
That is the difference between you
and me,I am an Anglo-Kaffir,who keeps his lucidity interlobular.
You keep your lucidity between lobules? Your lucidity is a distal duct?
Wake up please...use plain English and do not try to be too arrogant in showing you can use
the dictionary.
Better than showing you cannot use a dictionary. Is it your small vocabulary that leads you to believe that others rely on the OED for their 'difficult' words?
Next time I take my little grandson to the shops I shall put him in a
perpetual perambulator,with the compliments of Helios olive oil (We do sell Helios olive oil
in South Africa and is used to loosen the stomag of little boys and big oafs)
You will put your grandson in a baby transport that exists forever? Why would you possibly want to do that, and what could it possibly have to do with Helios olive oil?
Stupid people get stupid answers,I can not help it.
You did care what Larrikin wrote and backtracked.
What the hell it does not matter.
A cocky little runt can not change into a rooster.
You give me a subtle rupture. :)
Actually I feel depressed when I think of the women around you.
I should sent you my ''Predictive Index" and analyse your future based on the past.
On the other hand I could sent you money to rid yourself of an ileus.
Thanks for the entertaining scribbles.
By the way:"Your father and mother desired a child and they begot you.
You wanted(I presume) a mother and a father and you begot The Phora
Have a nice day.
PS:When I see a Japanese imperial flag I get pissed off
You are perhaps the least thoughtful poster to have ever used the internet.

klipgeit

03-04-2008, 11:53 AM

Dangerbot.
That was a post lost in translation,like some others of yours.
Why answer me????? It was not directed to you,or do you feel offended being part and parcel of
a cliquish and semi- sophisticated dictionary orphans.
You seem to understand my English, your only language you have as highest virtue and that is
the least in my book
A number of you, attack on strength of your English vocabulary.
Only an idiot attacks me on that. It shows your incompetence and is totally glitzy or rather
it shows a dubious lack of class.
That idiot should try the same in Afrikaans or Dutch my first language.

You saying to me:"I do not understand you", is a praise beyond my worth in the Phora and an insult you do not deserve.
I can not help it that you feel like a ruined Bruin in daily life.
At least my distal duct purifies me from your and Helios' 'raw materials'
You should also check up active and passive word knowledge.
What can I say when your understanding of baby transport and Helios oil is beyond you.

The internet is for those who are conscious of the other person's faults.
I would not listen to a slave of the ether whose only sound is that of "hee-haw"
How heedless you are when you have yourself elevated to a turtle competing with a hare.

If any one must be candid,be candid beautifully;otherwise keep your trap shut,for there is a
rape in process in your neighbourhood.
Lastly, a bigot is a stone death philosopher, so please become a street sweeper or ban me :)
You or Helios winning a mud-slinging debate on my terms is zilch.

Bronze Age Pervert

03-05-2008, 09:33 PM

Will anyone please just let this thread go or actually answer the point and argue it? I also posted recently two clarifications of my intention in posting this. I can't read these exchanges with the horse guy, I can't parse them and don't know what the hell they mean or what they have to do with anything. Is he drunk?

skekTek

03-06-2008, 03:16 AM

A civilization that grants "freedom" to women, i.e., that abandons them to their natural impulses, can't survive for long.
This is interesting, and I am undecided on the topic. I would like to get to understand your reasoning behind this statement.
By 'freedom', do you mean a state where people follow only natural impulses? If this is the case, then what about other impulses that women have, such as a desire to care for their children, or a desire to be honest or faithful? Such freedom would not have to be detrimental so long as the natural good impulses in women overrode the negative impulses. The study only tells of the existence of these impulses, not that they are the biggest motivator in all women. Would you amend your statement to say "A civilization that grants "freedom" to women, i.e., that abandons them to their natural impulses, can't survive for long, if the negative natural impulses serve as greater motivators than positive natural impulses, where negative and positive are assigned according to the implications for civilisation when women act on these impulses."?
I would agree with this statement in that case. I would also agree with it if it said men instead of women.
EDIT: It is the size of the positive and negative actions with regard to the implications for society that must be taken in to account. This may be implied, but I thought I should clear that up, because I am not saying that two people picking up rubbish and one person, say, blowing up a building has a net gain for civilisation. Picking up rubbish would be given a very small positive numerical value, while blowing up a building would be given a large negative number, which would lead to a calculation like 2*.001 + -50, the end result being a loss for civilisation.

klipgeit

03-09-2008, 08:24 AM

Bronze Age Pervert.
Your observation of my avatar is quite correct,to be precise it is a stallion.
I fully understand that you can not read or follow exchanges with this horse guy.
That is my mistake.
How could a stallion exchange ideas on "mares" with a gelding.
Your two clarification has me in stitches,they remind me of choosing between a "horse"-d'oeuvre and a "whores"-d'oeuvre.
You started this thread and in my eyes you should wash your mouth,which smells of sour
mother's milk.
The price of your ignorance is a homespun under-educated guess that the flesh of a pig is not nearer
to the flesh of a man.
No more comments on this thread from my side.
Yeah ,yeah yeah.
Now I can get drunk.

deep dreamer

03-10-2008, 01:39 AM

Bronze Age Pervert, most people, fortunately, don't act according to biological imperatives or fit within the findings of studies that are directed towards the intended outcomes of the study makers. IE: you can find a study that proves ANYTHING, depending on what you are looking for. There was recently a study that proved pomegranate juice can cut down death rates in prostate cancer. So a lot of people suddenly ran out and bought pomegranate juice. But when a doctor on one tv show (BBC's "Horizon") looked at the study itself as part of what we are being told to buy and eat for health reasons, it was discovered that the study was funded by a pomegranate juice company, and they didn't try any other juice, and they only tested 50 men. That study proved drinking pomegranate juice helped with prostate cancer more than it hurt, but it didn't really say anything substancial about pomegranate juice or any other juice in relations to prostate cancer.
So when you keep saying "read this study" and "this one as well"... what do you want to come back from the forum? Acceptance of a study? Agreement from personal experience that backs the studies or disproves them? You ignore what doesn't go with your intentions though. To hear from someone else who has done an identical study? (I don't see any psychology graduates on this forum chiming in) What are you after?
--------
Bronze Age Pervert posits that women are biologically driven "users". (and as such are not to be trusted, should loose all rights as equals to males such as in voting rights etc, and other things I have lost track of in this looonngg thread) DO women only want to fuck men who have big manly jaws but want to marry ugly small-jawed men who are not worthy of siring children, look wise, but are good at being providers? Has anyone answered that clearly? Are women threats to the social well being of humanity if allowed to have a free mind and free speech and freedom of choice?
--------
I will answer that for you, Bronze Age Pervert. No. To everything..."no". You are trying to look at people, men and women as a mathematical arrangement, or as a chemical difference that is steady and describes each part as an element...but that isn't how it is. People are so highly individual that it is suprising they can ever be grouped anthropologically, beyond pure biological differences. It is naive to think that between cultures and religions and sexes and environment anyone has anything in common with a person a world away just because of *one* of those factors. ALL women are not one way, ALL christians don't think the same thing, ALL americans don't agree, ALL Californians don't say yes to...you get to a smaller base of respondants and they still can't agree. A family unit with a mom and dad and two kids....the children will have stand-offs over basic ideological thinking. To say that "All women are thus" is an absurd statement.
You will find in cultures where men have almost total control, both men and women tend to act uniformily because it is expected of them. Punishment for non-conformation is horrific. In cultures where men rule and have supremacy because of their percieved maleness among other men, women will prize maleness, will value masculinity. It is their best chance to be more than nothing. But you will find in cultures where women are not under the specific control of men that women tend to have extremely varied tastes and desires. In cultures where maleness is not the primary concideration, where females also have a voice and rights in shaping the culture; masculinity ...as shaped by extreme testosterone, looses it's worth, and what both men and women find attractive in face types and body types is something that comes from their childhood or their imagination, or even from rebellious ideals rather than from particular cultural norms. Neither Brad Pit or Johnny Depp are manly men for instance, but they are the dream men of countless women in the west. Then you get "The Rock" and George Clooney. "OOh, aren't they georgeous?" To some and not to others. To each their own is the truth of it. The insinuation that women who would have access to something like the Phora would ever have a uniform idea of maleness is rediculous. There is hope for you yet, Bronze Age Pervert.
The supposition that women have sex with one kind of man and marry another is an old-hat fallacy left over from class marraiges... That 10 % of children aren't the biological children of the fathers raising them at the time? I will go with that, but I stipulate that the higher the education the female has (more so than the education of the male), the less likely or the less of the percentage that is. Poverty has a lot to do with that kind of duplicity, and spreading such a study across all females of all educations and economic classes causes a misconception in people like you about women in general. For women who mate with men who are unaccountable or lack steady responsibility towards their female(s), I am sure that there is scant loyalty from the woman in return. The only blame towards the female that I can see is that she has the child at all, if she has any other choice. A female with a higher education likely won't have the child or will only have the child if they feel the biological father is disinterested...if the mating relationship is not one that is percieved to be emotionally tolerable over time.
Can a man trust a woman in general? That depends on the man and depends on the woman. Can a woman trust a man in general? Most men and women will make a face and then say no... I don't understand the purpose in trying *prove* that women are less trustworthy or more unaccountable than men, and after all these pages of more or less discussion, I haven't seen that it is agreed by even a minority that women in general need to be tended or else society will fall apart. So, Bronze Age Pervert, WHAT is your question?

deep dreamer

03-10-2008, 03:02 AM

I can't read these exchanges with the horse guy, I can't parse them and don't know what the hell they mean or what they have to do with anything. Is he drunk?
P.S. to my last post...
Bronze Age Pervert, you are one lazy what ever you are. Klipgeit doesn't speak english as their first language, and yet is extremely understandable. If you can't be bothered to pay attention to someone replying to you because you have to make an effort, then why should anyone bother?
And Dangerbot, you are worse, writing a whole post just to flame Klipgeit. You clearly have more intelligence than Bronze Age Pervert does, but that is the best you can do? Your lengthy arguement is that noone, except for you evidentally, which you had to point out you have been doing to point out it wasn't worth doing, is paying attention to the 'unworthy nonsense' Klipgeit says? Okaaayy...
Klipgeit, what Dangerbot says about noone paying attention to what you have to say isn't true, *I'm* paying attention to what you say and I am sure others are too, but are afraid to say so for fear of getting flamed as well. I like your no-nonsense way of saying what you think. Especially on this particular topic.

Helios Panoptes

03-10-2008, 05:11 AM

Your lengthy arguement is that noone, except for you evidentally, which you had to point out you have been doing to point out it wasn't worth doing, is paying attention to the 'unworthy nonsense' Klipgeit says? Okaaayy...

'Okaayy...' sums up my thoughts on the preceding sentence very nicely.

dangerbot

03-10-2008, 06:11 AM

And Dangerbot, you are worse, writing a whole post just to flame Klipgeit. You clearly have more intelligence than Bronze Age Pervert does, but that is the best you can do?
I reserve the right to point out that nonsense is, in fact, nonsensical whenever I choose to do so.
Your lengthy arguement is that noone, except for you evidentally, which you had to point out you have been doing to point out it wasn't worth doing, is paying attention to the 'unworthy nonsense' Klipgeit says? Okaaayy...
My point is that Klipgeit's schizophrenic word-salad* is a pollutant on the discourse rather than (as he appears to believe) an invitation to deep thought.
Klipgeit, what Dangerbot says about noone paying attention to what you have to say isn't true, *I'm* paying attention to what you say and I am sure others are too, but are afraid to say so for fear of getting flamed as well. I like your no-nonsense way of saying what you think. Especially on this particular topic.
If some silent majority of posters is out there agreeing with statements like
"The price of your ignorance is a homespun under-educated guess that the flesh of a pig is not nearer
to the flesh of a man."
and
"I would not listen to a slave of the ether whose only sound is that of "hee-haw"
How heedless you are when you have yourself elevated to a turtle competing with a hare."
and
"Lastly, a bigot is a stone death philosopher, so please become a street sweeper or ban me"
but afraid to express their disagreement for fear that I will say something mean to them, I am quite pleased. If I can keep just one pretentious, pseudo-erudite gibberish monger out of what is otherwise a productive discussion I will sleep the sleep of the just.

*kudos to ixabert for this epithet, which he quite injudiciously applied to a poster who is actually worthy of respect.

Second City Bureaucrat

03-11-2008, 03:16 AM

*grudging kudos to ixabert for this epithet, which he quite injudiciously applied to a poster who is actually worthy of respect.

"Word salad" is a type of phasia (Schizophasia). It's in the DSM-IV, which is a popular handbook for phora posters.

dangerbot

03-11-2008, 05:39 AM

Thanks. I still feel the need to acknowledge Ixabert because standard practice is to credit both the original and the proximate source of a borrowed phrase (paging Alan Dershowitz). The acknowledgement should read *DSM IV quoted in Ixabert '02.

Bronze Age Pervert

03-11-2008, 11:51 AM

This is interesting, and I am undecided on the topic. I would like to get to understand your reasoning behind this statement.
By 'freedom', do you mean a state where people follow only natural impulses? If this is the case, then what about other impulses that women have, such as a desire to care for their children, or a desire to be honest or faithful? Such freedom would not have to be detrimental so long as the natural good impulses in women overrode the negative impulses. The study only tells of the existence of these impulses, not that they are the biggest motivator in all women. Would you amend your statement to say "A civilization that grants "freedom" to women, i.e., that abandons them to their natural impulses, can't survive for long, if the negative natural impulses serve as greater motivators than positive natural impulses, where negative and positive are assigned according to the implications for civilisation when women act on these impulses."?
I would agree with this statement in that case. I would also agree with it if it said men instead of women.

EDIT: It is the size of the positive and negative actions with regard to the implications for society that must be taken in to account. This may be implied, but I thought I should clear that up, because I am not saying that two people picking up rubbish and one person, say, blowing up a building has a net gain for civilisation. Picking up rubbish would be given a very small positive numerical value, while blowing up a building would be given a large negative number, which would lead to a calculation like 2*.001 + -50, the end result being a loss for civilisation.
Yes this speculation in the abstract about positive and negative impulses is somewhat interesting, but if we actually get to the matter at hand...my point here is that allowing women freedom necessarily collapses the "collective consciousness" of a society to "lifestyle" issues in the long run. The two "impulses" you mention, faithfulness and honesty, are as foreign to women as objective consideration (their incapacity for this last is proven by the fact that in history they've produced almost no painters and plastic artists of note...a small fact that shows a great deal). Conservatives don't want to realize that the granting women equal civil and especially political rights is equivalent to the "moral degeneracy" they rail against every day. It is perhaps men who are the immediate origin of the moral degeneracy and the primary consumers. But if you don't give men possession of their women, you can't really make them fucking care. OK? Men don't want to be housecats and if you expect them to live really stable family lives you better give them a really good reason to stay at home. A whiny "liberated" woman who has the legal right to adultery and divorce isn't exactly an enticing ummm "life investment" for a man.
Point is, yes "we all" have bad and good impulses. But even the "good" impulses of women, like charity and kindness and mindless compassion, when let loose, leave us with a Mommy or Daddy state, or a big tit state, a state turned into an administrative entity for the distribution of goods, benefits, rights--all get collapsed to one another--to different "mouths." It is the grass hut state ruled by Maya Angelou, OK? However, the main impulse of a woman is to find a man and use him to advance herself in life and then to fuck the gardener. All women want this---they want to fuck the gardener, but unlike a man, they won't marry for sex, or most won't. But if you think they don't want to fuck the gardener, you're stupid (I'm not talking to you skektek, but to the reader in general). And if in fact they don't want to fuck the gardener, gods help us, they're dykes, which is 100 x worse.

Bronze Age Pervert

03-11-2008, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Bronze Age Pervert, most people, fortunately, don't act according to biological imperatives or fit within the findings of studies that are directed towards the intended outcomes of the study makers. IE: you can find a study that proves ANYTHING

I've posted several clarifications of my position here so I'm done with this thread if others want to continue it go ahead, but I won't repeat myself. You bring up only one point worth mentioning in your long post and it's this thing about scientific studies. You can't just dismiss all scientific studies because the Pomegranate Juice industry did a bad study. The studies to which I referred are as far as I know legitimate and have been reproduced many times. They show that, whatever women may say, or think they like to say, they will be sexually attracted to one type of man for sex (when in estrus essentially) and to another kind for companionship. This can only mean one thing; a scientific study is only necessary to remind some men of it, who take their bearings by science. Most men know this intuitively. I'm talking to them and reminding them...I'm not talking to you.
Now to address the rest of your post very briefly, my point has never been that women are attracted to handsome strong men for sex. Everyone who's picked up on this, as if this were my point or what upset me, is an idiot or has an excessively dirty mind, or both. This fact, so far from upsetting me, makes me have faith in life and in the great power of nature. Strong, handsome men should have access to many women and this is an illustration of the congruence of might, beauty, and right in the world. Besides, whether or not you like it, it's true. It's such a basic fact of life and you try to paper it up with the coarsest sophistries that no one can buy. Neither income nor morality nor ---jeez---modern mass "education" can suppress the power of sex. So you're very deluded here if you think that any of these things can change the natural desires of women.
My point was more that built within the desires of women--as this study shows for those who don't have the eyes to observe for themselves--is an extremely tawdry and cruel *calculation* such as you don't find in the desires of men. Now whether this calculation has come about for "Darwinian" reasons or whatever is not the issue. The issue is how much weight a man should put in his wife's affections and declarations. And whether it is either noble or smart to put such a creature over your male friends who, if it is only instinct and not reason that is at work, will consider you a teammate and a comrade.

skekTek

03-12-2008, 06:46 AM

my point here is that allowing women freedom necessarily collapses the "collective consciousness" of a society to "lifestyle" issues in the long run.
Does this mean that women are naturally more interested in "lifestyle" issues than the "collective consciousness" of a society (I would be grateful if you could give me a more comprehensive definition of these two terms), and if women aren't cowed to have collective consciousness, the necessary forces that were required to create and maintain civilisation are no longer present - leading to a downfall. If my interpretation is correct, aspects of this perspective are interestingly congruent with the radical feminist's view, that women were enslaved and required liberation(note this isn't an attack to your belief, just an observation). Your view (which is practically the feminist's inverted) is that this enslavement is a good thing, and liberation will lead to a downfall of civilisation that will be bad (for everyone? for men only?). If I have gathered a correct understanding of your reasoning, then one could hardly construe his view as misogynistic, but rather paternalistic. Indeed, we do not allow children full freedom - yet we don't hate them. It is interesting how the 'hater' epiphet is erroneously thrown around nowadays, but I digress.
This would fit with my original amendment to Bronze Age Pervert's original proposition. The disagreement people tend to have with this is with whether or not women are more naturally interested in what is harmful (what Bronze Age Pervert terms a preoccupation with "lifestyle" issues) than what is beneficial ("collective consciousness"). The relationship with harm, impulses and benefit with regard to civilisation can be represented by a fraction. Civilisation will continue if the fraction of harmful interest(h) over positive interest(p) in the average individual multiplied by the fraction of average harm to civilisation caused by the average harmful interest in a free society(H) over the average benefit caused by average positive interest in a free society(P) is less than or equal to 1. (hH/pP<=1).
The two "impulses" you mention, faithfulness and honesty, are as foreign to women as objective consideration (their incapacity for this last is proven by the fact that in history they've produced almost no painters and plastic artists of note...a small fact that shows a great deal).
This is an interesting claim. While my life experience has taught me that women may harbour these qualities to a lesser degree than men, they do harbour them to some degree - and the study you posted did not disprove this, it only showed the existence of an impulse that will invariably run counter to these traits. Your position of faithfulness and honesty being unexsitent in women is like people who say that all men are smarter than all women. I think that if these traits could be objectively measured, you would probably find that men have an advantage in the mean by about half a standard deviation, and a higher variance. Impulses like those uncovered in the study you posted will most likely account for the difference. Likewise, a similar male-female difference in mean and variance for objective consideration would explain the lack of great artists - as great artists are very far from the mean.
Conservatives don't want to realize that the granting women equal civil and especially political rights is equivalent to the "moral degeneracy" they rail against every day.
If it is a difference in distributions of traits that make women's freedom incompatible with a sustaining civilisation, then conservatives would likely consider it morally reprehensible to discriminate on this basis (as modern "conservatives" support integration and generally value "equality" to some degree). Its like supporting "democracy" and "multiculturalism" at the same time (forcing undemocratic groups to convert to democracy is inherently chauvenistic - whereas multiculturalism decries chauvenism and replaces it with equality). This situation arises becase some of their morals are incompatible with other morals.
It is perhaps men who are the immediate origin of the moral degeneracy and the primary consumers. But if you don't give men possession of their women, you can't really make them fucking care. OK? Men don't want to be housecats and if you expect them to live really stable family lives you better give them a really good reason to stay at home. A whiny "liberated" woman who has the legal right to adultery and divorce isn't exactly an enticing ummm "life investment" for a man.
There is still degeneracy among men when men have possession of females - so female freedom is obviously not the sole reason, however, I would agree if you said that the less men in a population possess women the more uncivilised those men are compared to the general population of men(in that population). I believe I read that china is having an increase in crime because of people killing baby girls as a result of the one child policy - the lack of females makes males less likely to have a partner, and more likely to do crime, etc because they have less to lose. Also, I read that those recruited for terrorist tasks are also much less likely to be in a relationship. Monogamy has a moderating effect on behaviour - men are less likely to be extreme after marriage because of their responsibilities among other things. This is not to say that it is the only factor affecting degeneracy, but it is likely to increase it (and not neccessarily destroy civilisation).
I agree with you about your modern "strong" women not exactly being prime partner material. I laugh when men (I use this term loosely) say they would prefer a "strong woman". I don't know if they are deluded or masochistic. If there were only "strong women" in the world, I would be very, very tempted to give up on the world, donate to a sperm bank and pass through my life playing video games.
Point is, yes "we all" have bad and good impulses. But even the "good" impulses of women, like charity and kindness and mindless compassion, when let loose, leave us with a Mommy or Daddy state, or a big tit state, a state turned into an administrative entity for the distribution of goods, benefits, rights--all get collapsed to one another--to different "mouths." It is the grass hut state ruled by Maya Angelou, OK?
This is interesting, but this would still be a civilisation, wouldn't it? If we were talking about altering the course of a state of civilisation under (a perfect) democracy, I would assume that the position of a state is (loosely) determined by the average values of the people, and the rate of change is proportional to the difference between the value set for the particular current state(ie, the value set of someone who would be completely satisfied with the current state) and the average values of the people. Granting 'freedom' to women could be harmful in this respect as well.
I hope that you do continue this thread, however, I can understand why you would not want to. I should probably read the preceding pages for your posts, which at a glance seemed to be buried in irrelevant posts.

Tepeu [Brandon Orr]

03-21-2008, 01:20 AM

Orr doesn't have the level of interest in military affairs Bronze Age Pervert has shown.I do, but no, it is not me.
I have created this account solely to offer a message, e.g., to the Phorites who continue to bring up my name and maliciously lie about me.
I did not troll as Barjag. I did not make "provocative comments on almost...every thread" in which I participated, as Petr describes trolling. I trolled several years ago, but one might think there'd be a statute of limitations on that figurative crime. As Barjag, I made sincere posts and was a quality poster. Der Sozialist once pointed out that if the Phora should ban people based on a lack of posting quality, at least half the board would have to be banned before me.
Vasily has asked why I continued to post here even though I had been banned in the past. The answer is that the previous bans were implemented under Fade's admin, and were reversed under Flak's. Flak specifically told me that he had no problem with me posting and found me to be a quality poster. When asked whether or not he was keeping me around just to spite Fade, he unequivocally said no. In fact, he had allowed me to post long before Fade even knew I had returned to the Phora.
Subsequently, after the WFHermans drama, Flak opted to suddenly reverse his decision and ban me. Fine; it's his board, but unfortunately there are Phorites who continue to mention me by name and lie about me. The Phora is indexed by major search engines such as Google; these lies do not stay confined to this board.
Do you want me off the Phora or do you not? If you do, then stop dragging my name onto your board and stop lying about me. It's that simple. I now have my own board for people who think like me and share my goals - for my movement - and I'm fine with leaving the Phora behind. But the Phora needs to be equally fine with that. The Phora needs to stop involving my name in its affairs and intrigues.
Now, to address the malicious lies about me that have been posted here:
* Misogynist.
This accusation is all at once among the most malicious and untruthful. On a board replete with actual misogynists who even proudly wear the description, posters such as Larrikin claim that I am one. Helios Panoptes, for example, is an actual misogynist and I have seen him happily admit to it. I am not. In fact, most of my friends (and core members of my political movement) are women.
As a Sovereignist and as a man, I strongly support heterosociality rather than homosociality. I am for the aggressive integration of the sexes throughout society and in every calling, believing that this is highly desirable and beneficial on numerous levels. The fact that I have a low opinion of a certain type of woman hardly means that I despise women as a sex. I also despise many men, but that hardly makes me a misandrist. Sounds pretty Orr'ish to me round here.
Scary déjà-vus.This is nonsense. Why point to me when so many Phorites (such as Helios) actually do come off like Bronze Age Pervert? Helios has even claimed (against all evidence) that for a woman, getting raped is no worse than getting a bloody nose. I make distinctions between types of women; I do not lump them all together as prostitutes. For me, such a view is not only grossly inaccurate but detestable. I'm for disempowering women of a certain type, yes, but in good part in order to help facilitate the empowerment of intelligent, self-respecting women. Call this plan what you will, but it does not reflect misogyny. In fact, the misogyny prevalent on the Phora is one of my biggest turn-offs about the place. I do not even agree with the common sentiment here that women are truly less political than men, let alone with the view that they should be excluded from politics. I am for their massive involvement in politics.
Helios tried to misrepresent my temporary spat (since resolved) with Lily/Aurora/Bip as reflecting some hate campaign against women in general. That is nonsense which even Bip herself does not buy into. Feel free to ask her. And ask yourself: if I'm a misogynist, why do I get along so well with Carrigan? People who have been following the Phora for very long know that we are two different people and that we've been friends all along.
* Liberal
This accusation has been floated by Julian Lee. My ideology is perhaps the most profoundly illiberal there is -- in comparison, even National Socialism bears more resemblance to liberalism, politically and philosophically speaking. The fact that I am for the empowerment of the right women is orthogonal to the question of liberalism, as is the fact that I do not share Mr. Lee's belief that masturbation causes blindness or insanity. Briefly, what is relevant is my thorough rejection of what Gerald Gaus described as the Fundamental Liberal Principle, the notion that individual liberty ought to be the most important goal, all belief in "natural rights," etc.
Julian, I am no liberal no matter how much you dislike me. I am for honest authoritarianism. So do stop misrepresenting my views. Neither did I ever attack you because you claim to be a "white racialist."
* Pedophile
For a board which purports to be so "politically incorrect," there are sure so many Phorites for whom scientific and empirical rigor go right out the window as soon as the subject of pedophilia is brought up.
I am not a pedophile if the description is going to be meaningful by signifying a type of actual sexual deviant. Attraction to females who are youthful but not prepubescent - to which I've freely admitted - is empirically normal. Strong and sustained attraction to (say) 5 year old girls would indeed be deviant, but I do not have that attraction. On average, girls attain by their early teens the waist-to-hip ratios that typical men find most attractive. As a norm, they reach Tanner's Stage 5 (which includes the mature, "adult" breast) by before age 14. If attraction to them is pedophilia, then the term pedophile is utterly MEANINGLESS except as an epithet, much the way racist is often employed.
Do you really want to challenge what you call "political correctness?" Then stop throwing around accusations like "pedophile" in the same way that anti-racists throw around "racist."
Note also that I believe every decent, intelligent female should be encouraged to keep her legs closed to sexual intercourse at least until she's in a loving relationship (preferably sanctified by marriage) and fully comfortable with it. I am for establishing lawful sexual outlets to aid in this end among others, but this position is quite distinct from wanting to encourage female citizens to debase themselves -- that is something I very much seek to prevent!
* "Google Scholar"
This bit of nonsense comes from 1-800 and dangerbot. I'm an avid reader, not only online but offline as well. I hardly do most of my research using Google and this accusation is completely uncalled for.
* Coprophage
I freely admit to be into degrading a certain type of female (note: not the female sex as a whole; not females in general; in fact, I know many females who very much share my interests in this regard), but the garbage about me being a shit-eater is just that - garbage. That is why no accuser can produce any evidence of it (i.e., non-photoshopped pictures of me actually doing it). Why should I have to deal with such accusations? Why should you expect me to respect you and your names if you are so disrespectful to me and mine?
***
On that note, we return to this question: Do you want me off the Phora or not?
I should warn every Phorite who has maliciously lied about me (mentioning me by name in the process) that in doing so you render yourselves fair game to be exposed to the world, albeit honestly rather than dishonestly. I am tired of you misrepresenting me as a deviant, as a freak, etc., and I am quite prepared to show that the world sees you exactly the way you claim it sees me.
Helios asserts that sadism is abnormal, and that it therefore arouses moral disgust in normal people while e.g. Phorite advocacy of genocide does not. This is quite false on more than one level: sadistic urges have been empirically shown to be normal. Joking and gloating about the rape of prisoners (for example) is widely accepted in society, often even encouraged, while many of the views expressed by Phorites provoke widespread, extreme hostility in the Western world of 2008. Although I am neither a liberal nor a humanitarian, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want to portray me as a sicko, I'm equally prepared to show you that by the normative standards of your society, you are very much projecting. I already have the names of many offending Phorites and can easily find out more. All legally, too. If you want me to respect the dignity of your names, then please respect mine.
If you continue to mention my name and lie about me, then you at least will have had fair warning as to the consequences. May those consequences never be necessary. Goodbye.

Kodos

03-21-2008, 01:30 AM

I do, but no, it is not me.
Don't complain to me, Ive never led any charges to get you banned...
Sadism may be normal but that doesn't make it a good thing, its the only thing in fact that I can say is objectively evil...

Helios Panoptes

03-21-2008, 02:17 AM

Helios tried to misrepresent my temporary spat (since resolved) with Lily/Aurora/Bip as reflecting some hate campaign against women in general.
Did I? I went back just now and read my posts about this. I was mainly talking about the one case, although, I'm aware of at least one other female member who had a major problem with you. Frankly, it makes no difference to me whether you hate women generally or not. I could not care less.
By the way, I also received an unsolicited message from a close female net-friend of yours telling me that she thinks you are manipulative and untrustworthy. To be clear, that is not to say that this individual said she was harassed by you. The point I am making is that when you're told everything is fine, you should have the awareness to take it with a grain of salt.
Helios asserts that sadism is abnormal, and that it therefore arouses moral disgust in normal people while e.g. Phorite advocacy of genocide does not.
I didn't say that it is 'abnormal.' In fact, I think that it is normal in minor amounts. I stated this in the shoutbox only a few weeks ago. IIRC, Starr was one of the members present. What I did say is that causing harm for the pleasure of it is considered more morally repellent than causing the same harm for money or power. I believe that to be accurate.
I'm don't care to hash this out, but I needed to clear up a few misconceptions.

riddlemethis

03-21-2008, 09:08 AM

I obviously cannot respond with the Tepeu account, so C is letting me use hers. Don't complain to me, Ive never led any charges to get you banned...I know, and I appreciate that. I did not mean to come off like my complaints were directed at you in particular. I was a bit hurried and distracted. I apologize. Frankly, it makes no difference to me whether you hate women generally or not. I could not care less.Be that as it may, at one time you were asserting misogyny on my part. I found that a bit annoying, as I am not a misogynist and resent the description. You may not be able to empathize well with my annoyance because we have such dissimilar mindsets. For example, we both smoke cigars, even some of the same brands, but my best herfing experiences are when my female friends smoke with me. I very much doubt that is the case for you.By the way, I also received an unsolicited message from a close female net-friend of yours telling me that she thinks you are manipulative and untrustworthy. To be clear, that is not to say that this individual said she was harassed by you. The point I am making is that when you're told everything is fine, you should have the awareness to take it with a grain of salt. Well, this can hardly be assumed to apply to my female friends in general. As for the salt, I tend to go by behavior, not merely dialogue. I know Carrigan offline as well as on and she has shown a great deal of trust in me not only in words but in deeds, so your description does not fit her. Nearly all my other close female friends have not been involved in the Phora, so you may be referring to someone I do not know very well.
As for the comments related to sadism, as you might guess, I substantially disagree. However, the ban hammer is too imminent for a worthwhile exchange to be possible here. These are subjects for my board.

Theresia

03-21-2008, 10:52 AM

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114182256.htm
This article should only make clear for the more pedantic what has always been obvious to anyone with common sense: women are naturally wired to be deceptive and unfaithful in a way that exceeds anything a man could conceive of.
A civilization that grants "freedom" to women, i.e., that abandons them to their natural impulses, can't survive for long.
are you a moslim :confused:

Der Sozialist

03-21-2008, 05:13 PM

As a disclaimer, I received this exact post as a private message, since the account was banned when I got around to reading the message, and since he posted this publicly and referenced me in his post, my response will be public as well.
As Barjag, I made sincere posts and was a quality poster. Der Sozialist once pointed out that if the Phora should ban people based on a lack of posting quality, at least half the board would have to be banned before me.
This is correct, several months ago, in the shoutbox, during several requests for your banishment on the grounds of you being a troll, I defended you. I did not believe your posts either on the phora or SI warranted a reversal on a previous administrator decision to give you a second opportunity. However, I am not an admin/super-moderator and I do not have access to all the details----if it were to come to light that you were harassing/trying to out posters during your short stay here, I would reverse my opinion.
Fine; it's his board, but unfortunately there are Phorites who continue to mention me by name and lie about me. The Phora is indexed by major search engines such as Google; these lies do not stay confined to this board.
I agree with you here, a person who cannot defend himself (because he is not permitted to post) should not be defamed on the board---especially using that person's real name.
Helios tried to misrepresent my temporary spat (since resolved) with Lily/Aurora/Bip as reflecting some hate campaign against women in general.
I was informed of this sometime after you were banned and sometime before you posted this. I can say that I found the contents of this "spat" very disappointing though it is true, as you say, resolved before you were reinstated on the phora. I just want to add, let us keep it that way (that is, the spat between you and her resolved), because if it reignites, and I hear about it, then I will participate as well.

Bronze Age Pervert

03-21-2008, 05:17 PM

I don't get it. What does any of this have to do with women?

Theresia

03-21-2008, 05:29 PM

As a disclaimer..
maybe a seperate thread will do.. :confused:

deep dreamer

03-25-2008, 12:19 AM

I don't get it. What does any of this have to do with women?
:whip: s
I will take him on.

Ace Rimmer

04-06-2008, 06:59 PM

Dick Masterson on women (http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1207451591/Meet_Dick_Masterson_the_Most_Chauvinistic_Man_Alive)

Bronze Age Pervert

05-03-2008, 11:54 PM

I concede points to my opponents including whoever it was with the castle avatar and Cheesypie (but not Larrikin). And the horse guy, I conceded. I was wrong about women. The last few days have convinced me of power of Eternal Feminine. I have scheduled reconciliation episodes with my past girlfriends, with my sister (who used to tease me with her friends, hence my post), and now I am considering not only marrying a woman but even becoming one.

Please I apologize to all the women in my life for this post and I take everything back.

softdragonz

06-05-2008, 03:59 PM

imagine this planet without women :rofl: ! How much fun would we be missing

KevinDeBurgh

06-13-2008, 11:06 PM

Paternity fraud

A May 2, 2008, article in the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/05022008/news/nationalnews/stray_at_home_109104.htm) reported that 34% of the mothers polled had an extramarital affair after the birth of their children. There is no reason to believe that the percentage is less than one-third of married women have an affair before their first child is born.

Census figures show that presently 38% of children are born out of wedlock and in California it is reported that two-thirds of children are born to unmarried mothers. And it bears repeating that virtually every pathology of our society correlates best with children of single mothers.

Only about 12 out of 100 children are born today to a couple who are legally married and remain so until their children reach majority. Thus the potential for paternity fraud is huge. (http://www.ejfi.org/Civilization/Civilization-15.htm)

DNA genetic tests for paternity consistently show that 30% of the men tested are not the father of the child in question and there are approximately 400,000 laboratory paternity tests reported a year, although home testing kits are now widely available and the total number of paternity tests a year is unknown. A reasonable estimate is that there are 1.5 million men in the United States with children under age 18 that they are not the father of but are probably paying child support for, i.e., victims of paternity fraud.

There is no penalty for paternity fraud and many of the women who practice it have several possible candidates for "dad" for their child(ren). So it is only reasonable she will pick the man with the deepest pockets to saddle with paternity and "child support."

And lest it be thought paternity fraud is strictly a problem for men, most of the time we hear about a particular case from a woman whose life has been damaged or destroyed by this evil.

One might reasonably expect that courts and legislatures would be doing everything possible to stem this flood and prevent fraud that often makes adultery, once a capital crime, now a paying proposition for hundreds of thousands of women. One would be wrong to make that assumption.

Destroying the patriarchy
Such data as above are exciting to those whose goal is to destroy the patriarchy and return to the law of the jungle, otherwise known as matriarchy. And, if you favor a matriarchy, you are invited to move to any inner city ghetto in a large city, which are de facto matriarchies.

Patriarchy is an artificial societal construct that requires that the paternity of a child be unambiguously established. History clearly shows that patriarchal societies are an essential component of civilization. Since at least Roman times in Western society the father of a child has been the man the woman was married to when the child was born. That worked well when less than 5% of children were born out of wedlock and there was no better method of determining paternity. However, times have changed.

Even though it is a feminist goal to destroy patriarchy, they still want men to support women despite their adultery and infidelity. The result has been the invention of "child support" in an amount based on "the best interest of the child," which need not bear any relationship whatsoever to actual paternity or income of the man named as "father." As anyone but a politician, judge, or bureaucrat quickly realizes, such a system of enslavement isn't likely to work. The same group, however, are quite unlikely to bow to commonsense. Thus, they have put in place a gigantic, draconian "child support enforcement" (CSE) system that has taken us from welfare to a police state, as Dr. Baskerville has ably described.

Of course when Joe Sixpack finds out Suzy's baby isn't his, and that she has been spreading the good times around, things are likely to get a little nasty. Who would have guessed? And, if Joe and Suzy are married, that will soon end. So enter the "domestic violence" industry that allows Suzy to call 911, or get a protection order and toss Joe out of his own home, then move her new Boy Toy in, all the while collecting "child support" from Joe as a reward for her adultery.

All this enforced at public expense, of course. And if Joe doesn't want to pay Suzy "child support" for little Johnny ? then he will lose all his licenses, his job, and, ultimately, go to jail. Sure sounds like slavery to me!

Roughly 12% of men who refuse to pay child support do so because they are not the father. A good place to meet these rebellious slaves is in your local jail where they are imprisoned under the category of "Deadbeat Dads."

Before the Civil War slaves were often required to work to support children their wives bore that were sired by overseers and their masters. What is the difference today between that and a woman who has an affair, divorces her husband, and the court requires the cuckolded husband to support the child of her adultery?

Condoning slavery under color of law

The Equal Justice Foundation has been fighting these insane policies for years and our formal efforts began in March 2004 in support of HB04-1083 sponsored by Rep. Bill Sinclair (R-El Paso) and Sen. Ed Jones (R-El Paso). That bill was passed by the Colorado House by one vote but failed in the Senate judiciary committee. We have documented the problems since then in a series of twelve newsletters, Condoning Slavery Under Color Of Law, and a chapter describing the Paternity Fraud Epidemic.

Instead of recognizing the problems, in 2005 the then Republican-dominated Colorado legislature began a series of bills that made the problem worse. Today, as evidenced by the Bush Administration, any jackass can call themselves an elephant and the party of Lincoln has become, by and large, pro-slavery. The term RINO (Republican In Name Only) has been widely used but these rogue pachyderms seem to have taken over the Grand Old Party (GOP).

The best evidence for that is the passage in 2005 of SB05-181 by Colorado Senator Steve Johnson (R-Larimer) that made it impossible for a man to use DNA evidence to prove nonpaternity of his wife's child after the divorce. For that the North Carolina group Drop the GOP named Steve Johnson the Single Biggest Idiot on Earth for 2005. In 2008 it is reported Johnson is leaving the Colorado Senate to run for county commissioner in Larimer County. Pity the citizens there!

But the Colorado legislature is not renowned for learning from its mistakes. So in 2006 HB06-1267 was introduced at the behest of the Dept. of Human Services(DHS)/Child Support Enforcement (CSE) and sponsored by Rep. Jim Riesberg (D-Weld) in the House and by Senator Shawn Mitchell (R-Adams, Broomfield, & Weld) in the Senate in an attempt to correct some of the obvious blunders with Johnson's SB05-181. That bill quickly passed the House and Senator Mitchell couldn't be bothered to read a six-page letter detailing page-by-page and line-by-line some of the problems with this bill. Despite the fact that at least one other citizen and EJF member repeatedly emailed him, Mitchell, had not felt it was worth his time and effort to actually read our comments and suggestions before it was heard by the Colorado Senate judiciary committee. Thus, HB06-1267 passed into law, further encouraging paternity fraud and making it more difficult for men to prove their innocence. Senator Mitchell did not take kindly to criticism. But several attorneys pointed out that HB06-1267 is a Bill of Attainder and, as such, is an odious law by any measure.

Fortunately, Shawn Mitchell does learn from his mistakes and the next year he introduced a bill, SB07-056, to try and remedy some of the mistakes in 2006-2007. But public disgust with Republicans in general, and RINO's in particular, had resulted in both the Colorado House and Senate being dominated by Democrats after the 2006 elections, and he was unable to get that bill passed.

There are good Republicans, and Senator Mitchell came back in 2008 with another bill, SB08-183 (as introduced), to try and remedy some of the problems with paternity fraud. With only a minor amendment that added a filing fee to make it revenue neutral, that bill passed the Colorado Senate.

The clear intent of SB08-183 was that when DNA testing found that a man was not the father of a child for whom he was required to pay child support, that the court "shall modify or set aside" such payments, thereby ending his enslavement, unless the man had willingly and knowingly adopted the child, acknowledged paternity knowing he wasn't the biological father, or the child was conceived by means of assisted reproduction. Simple and just you might think. But a House pachyderm hadn't yet stuck his trunk into the picture.

Another nail in the coffin of marriage

After passage by the Colorado Senate HB08-183 was referred to the House judiciary committee and sponsored by Rep. Nancy Todd (D-Arapahoe & Denver), another legislator who seems to have learned from her mistakes, e.g., SB05-181. With her able help and guidance, SB08-183 was passed by the House judiciary committee on April 29, 2008.

Unfortunately, the bill was amended to put a time limit of just two years, down from five, to file for a modification of the child support order, which is quite unrealistic as many men don't find out about the child support order for several years after it is entered, or don't begin to question the paternity of a child until many years after the divorce. Also, any man whose child support order was entered before August 15, 2008, must provide DNA evidence showing he is not the father before August 15, 2010.

Note that SB08-183 does not give a man any means of obtaining the requisite DNA evidence, a slight handicap if he doesn't even know who the woman is, where she is currently living, has a restraining order against him preventing him from contacting the child(ren), or help proving the child(ren) are presently corporeal or in her custody, etc. But he can file a motion for relief if, under the strict chain-of-evidence requirements for DNA testing in Colorado statutes § 13-25-126, he can establish he is excluded as the biological parent of the child(ren). One might cynically note that the man is still presumed guilty and that the legal system provides every possible protection for the perpetrator of the fraud but why complain, SB08-183 is a step forward and a small victory.

On a positive note the amendments did allow a judge to vacate child support arrearages although restitution for the fraud is, realistically, not possible. And, except if the arrearages were the result of welfare payments made by Colorado, it isn't clear that a court can forgive these arrearages under the Bradley Amendment.

For years the Equal Justice Foundation has been pointing out that under current law a man has to be functionally insane to marry and a drooling idiot to sire a child. Thanks to Representative Bob Gardner (R-El Paso & Fremont), an attorney whose district lies along the western flank of Fort Carson in Colorado Springs, and whose competence is no greater than 99 out of 100 others of his ilk, SB08-183 as passed by the House reinforces that statement.

If a man is married to the mother he is, presumptively and by ancient tradition, the father of any child born to his wife during the course of the marriage. If the couple divorce, child support is determined under the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act § 14-10-101 et seq. What Gardner, a donkey in an elephant suit, did was introduce an amendment during floor debate in the Colorado House that a husband could only be freed from his slavery to pay for his wife's proven adultery if, and only if the judge determines "...it is just and proper under the circumstances and in the best interest of the child." I need not elaborate on the judicial bias against men in family courts today.

Thus what Bob Gardner has done is to put another nail in the coffin of marriage, promote adultery, and make it profitable by supporting paternity fraud. It is also obvious that military men are particularly vulnerable to paternity fraud, particularly when they are repeatedly deployed. One of the largest concentrations of military families in the United States lives in or alongside Mr. Gardner's House district and his contribution to our national defense is obviously to help demolish it.
May you rest in hell, Mr. Gardner, for you have done your part to help destroy civilization.
Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.
___________________________________
DISCLAIMER
NOTE: If you would like to be removed from our mailing list please respond to this message with REMOVE in the subject line. Comments or criticisms of our policies or Web sites should be addressed to mailto:comments@ejfi.org.
You are receiving this message because (1) you asked to be added to our mailing list; (2) you sent the EJF an e-mail or requested help from us; (3) you are known to work on issues related to human rights; (4) you are known to be interested in civil liberties and equal justice; (5) your name and address appeared as an addressee on email sent to us; or (6) you are a member of or contribute to the Equal Justice Foundation.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Issues of interest to the Equal Justice Foundation http://www.ejfi.org/ are:
Civilization http://www.ejfi.org/Civilization/Civilization.htm
Courts and Civil Liberties http://www.ejfi.org/Courts/Courts.htm
Domestic Violence http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv.htm
Domestic Violence Against Men in Colorado http://www.dvmen.org/
Emerson case http://www.ejfi.org/emerson.htm
Families and Marriage http://www.ejfi.org/family/family.htm
Prohibitions and the War On Drugs http://www.ejfi.org/Prohibition/Prohibition.htm
Vote Fraud and Election Issues http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting.htm
_____________________________________________________________________________
The Equal Justice Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) public charity supported entirely by members and contributions. Dues are $25 per year and you may join at http://www.ejfi.org/Join.htm.
Contributions are tax deductible and can be made on the Web at http://www.ejfi.org/join2.htm or by sending a check to the address above.
Federal employees can contribute through the Combined Federal Campaign. The EJF is listed in Colorado , Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming #18855.
______________________________________________
Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.
President
Equal Justice Foundation http://www.ejfi.org/
455 Bear Creek Road
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906-5820
Personal home page: http://corry.ws
Curriculum vitae: http://www.marquiswhoswho.net/charleselmocorry/Default.aspx

The good men may do separately is small compared with what they may do collectively.

Benjamin Franklin

nitemare

06-17-2008, 03:56 AM

I for one, am not a two timing whore.
Quite the contrary.
I've been with the same man for 4 + years and he was the first man I had a serious relationship with.
Most people, (dare I say it?) especially men, love to criticize women who are sentimental and call them clingy when they're loyal.
So according to men, women are either whores or overly sensitive?
Not juvenile at all.:nuts:

sugartits

01-13-2011, 10:19 AM

Gender is the most overly generalized human designation.

Opus131

01-13-2011, 01:47 PM

Dick Masterson on women (http://www.nothingtoxic.com/media/1207451591/Meet_Dick_Masterson_the_Most_Chauvinistic_Man_Alive)

I think i saw that before. That's the video where he owns that fat woman at the end, right? My inner chauvinist was much amused.

Elizar

03-26-2011, 02:18 PM

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114182256.htm

This article should only make clear for the more pedantic what has always been obvious to anyone with common sense: women are naturally wired to be deceptive and unfaithful in a way that exceeds anything a man could conceive of.

A civilization that grants "freedom" to women, i.e., that abandons them to their natural impulses, can't survive for long.

Unfaithful you say? The article says and I quote "The study involved 12 heterosexual women ages 23 to 28 who were not using hormonal contraceptives or in committed relationships." If they are not in committed relationships how are they being unfaithful in saying they might have sex with a number of men whose faces are more or less masculine?

New Scientist

04-03-2011, 07:13 PM

There is a far simpler way to look at this study. Once a month a man will be forced to pay attention to his woman and make some effort to remain sharp in the face of external competition. She will appreciate the attention and effort to keep her I am sure. It will also stop you stagnating and getting lazy, so not all bad.

Having sex (with a woman ) is far more pleasurable around this time as well for details ill spare, look on it as a monthly effort, along with paying the bills. just dont tire yourself out too much and drop the wariness until its over and she starts to settle down a bit.

For those of us who are quite busy its not a bad idea to plot your partners time of the month and ovulation on a wall chart, just to keep track. they are periodic creatures and this is part of their upkeep for caring for you. start worrying if your woman pays attention to other men outwith ovulation.

dewanand

04-03-2011, 08:37 PM

maybe we must adapt society and all the laws to the nature of women. Just legalize it for women to marry or get officially engaged with two or more males at the same time. In ancient India there was a Hindu woman, Draupadi who was allowed to marry five men at the same time. Draupadi prayed to Shiva for the perfect man and Shiva answered her that he is not able to make such a man, but she got his permission to marry the five Pandava Brothers.

this story of the Mahabharata implies in fact that any Hindu woman must be allowed to marry five men at the same time in a radical Hindu state; and this will lead to a shortage of men who are consumed by horny Hindu women.

dewanand

Kodos

04-03-2011, 09:38 PM

Natural prostitutes I don't know, but women are certainly fickle and dishonest, they can't distinguish between what they feel is moral at the time and what is actually moral easily either.

American_Celt

04-04-2011, 12:03 AM

I think it's more of a cultural thingy. And men are to blame as well for encouraging this behavior.

Bronze Age Pervert

04-04-2011, 06:01 AM

Unfaithful you say? The article says and I quote "The study involved 12 heterosexual women ages 23 to 28 who were not using hormonal contraceptives or in committed relationships." If they are not in committed relationships how are they being unfaithful in saying they might have sex with a number of men whose faces are more or less masculine?

You can't really be so silly to miss the entire point like this. You are trying to obscure the point of the study, because you know what it reveals about the dark recesses of female desire.

Bronze Age Pervert

04-04-2011, 06:02 AM

There is a far simpler way to look at this study. Once a month a man will be forced to pay attention to his woman and make some effort to remain sharp in the face of external competition. She will appreciate the attention and effort to keep her I am sure. It will also stop you stagnating and getting lazy, so not all bad.
Having sex (with a woman ) is far more pleasurable around this time as well for details ill spare, look on it as a monthly effort, along with paying the bills. just dont tire yourself out too much and drop the wariness until its over and she starts to settle down a bit.
For those of us who are quite busy its not a bad idea to plot your partners time of the month and ovulation on a wall chart, just to keep track. they are periodic creatures and this is part of their upkeep for caring for you. start worrying if your woman pays attention to other men outwith ovulation.
It is not worth it...once you have this knowledge, you realize they are in reality no better than livestock to be corralled and kept. Dogs and horses are far above women in terms of loyalty and decency.

New Scientist

04-04-2011, 11:09 PM

It is not worth it...once you have this knowledge, you realize they are in reality no better than livestock to be corralled and kept. Dogs and horses are far above women in terms of loyalty and decency.

I want to say thats going to far, but for some reason cannot.

You have a choice with women. Either fence one in, which requires a lot of resources and constant work. Depending on the woman she will feel happy by this and you may find the effort gives a meaning to life.

Or find a woman whose company you enjoy for fun and recovery from friends and work and do not waste any time on restricting her. Gives you a lot of free resources for other things which are more meaningful. Just dont expect loyalty from the latter scenario unless she ends up pregnant.

banjo_billy

04-05-2011, 12:04 AM

This "study" from that Leftist-Commie Kinsey Institute doesn't mean anything useful for understanding people. It's just more data that attempts to equate human beings with mindless robots, or for making intelligent people into stupid animals. That's the main goal of the Kinsey Institute.
Women are smarter than the scientists claim that they are. And this study certainly does not prove that they are natural prostitutes. So what, if they react to different men's faces in different times of the month? That's just natural. The problem with this Jewish sex science is that it tries to reverse what is natural with what is unnatural and tries to claim that what is normal is abnormal.
Women are not natural prostitutes. Only in abnormal societies can they be regarded as such, abnormal societies that have been tainted with Judaism and Communism.

Lisa

04-05-2011, 02:25 AM

What ??? No, please read the article more carefully. The study says that women are attracted to one type of man for sexual intercourse (reproduction) but to *another* type of man for companionship and marriage. Essentially women are wired to "bond" with pliable, obedient men ("nice guys") in order to have these raise the children of more virile men that they prefer for intercourse (in secret). There couldn't be a starker illustration of the true female nature than this. It definitely shows what's behind female declarations (and feelings) of love and the like.

It's about survival. There are men out there that fit both molds you know. They are great lovers, great fathers, adequate providers and interesting companions....REAL men.

Try acting like one and you too will find happiness. :)

banjo_billy

04-05-2011, 03:29 AM

It is not worth it...once you have this knowledge, you realize they are in reality no better than livestock to be corralled and kept. Dogs and horses are far above women in terms of loyalty and decency.
Really, Ironhead, you don't understand women. And trying to get your "information" from a pro-faggot, anti-man, feminist, Leftist, lesbian sex "education" Jewish-pop-psychology propaganda mill like the Kinsey Institute, means that you are also an idiot.
With your leather faggot avatar showing your most important ideals, I don't have any confidence that women of any kind are your preference. And already you are talking about livestock! So, how about cooling your tight buns and overheated dildo about this subject. And stop slandering the other half of Mankind.
Women are wonderful people who have been abused and capitalized by Jews and other assorted swine for centuries. So, kick back and cool it. You have brought a nasty subject into the Forum. And that nasty subject isn't women, it's the vile things that people such as you think about women. You mother probably hated you.

Kodos

04-05-2011, 03:47 AM

Really, Ironhead, you don't understand women. And trying to get your "information" from a pro-faggot, anti-man, feminist, Leftist, lesbian sex "education" Jewish-pop-psychology propaganda mill like the Kinsey Institute, means that you are also an idiot.
Do you deny that women are in general
1. Fickle
2. Dishonest

banjo_billy

04-05-2011, 03:53 AM

They are women; respect them and love them for being women. It looks like a hard job and heavy karma that no man can do. So, appeciate their finer points and forgive them their foibles. Your mother loved you; can you hate her for being fickle and dishonest when she lied to you about Santa Claus?

Kuniklo Nigra

04-05-2011, 04:11 AM

It is not worth it...once you have this knowledge, you realize they are in reality no better than livestock to be corralled and kept. Dogs and horses are far above women in terms of loyalty and decency.
You know, even though you're a xxxxxxx, libertine and long-time enemy I can appreciate this statement of yours.

Kodos

04-05-2011, 04:49 AM

I'd rather they look like they do and have the honesty and loyalty of dogs. I had one I actually believed in, I can forgive the break up even but the sudden decision (and this was months after the breakup) on no pretext to sever all communications when we were on such good terms... I specifically instructed my best friend to punch me if I got emotional about a girl ever again.

Bronze Age Pervert

04-05-2011, 04:51 AM

"One’s own mother and sister are disgusting."
--Pashtun proverb

The study is only one among many (I have linked to others) that all show the same thing: women have a natural desire to rope in "provider betas" in long-term relationships while they seek orgasms (and conceptions) on the side with men they find strong and sexy; and to have the former unknowingly raise the children of the latter. If this is not evil itself, what is? That it is natural doesn't mean it's not evil.

Kodos

04-05-2011, 05:01 AM

Pashtuns are barbarians, women ought to be legally subjugated and removed from public life according to the civilized legislation of our fathers.

Gregz

04-05-2011, 05:03 AM

Whats is their to respect? Women aren't to be trusted on any level. Most women have little or nothing going for them and the ones that do tend to be overly demanding, stuck up whores. :popcorn:

Kodos

04-05-2011, 05:06 AM

They aren't without good qualities but despite having the best of intentions they turn as if a switch was flicked in their brains. Not pure evil, but not at all trustworthy.

Gregz

04-05-2011, 05:21 AM

I'd rather they look like they do and have the honesty and loyalty of dogs.
I had one I actually believed in, I can forgive the break up even but the sudden decision (and this was months after the breakup) on no pretext to sever all communications when we were on such good terms... I specifically instructed my best friend to punch me if I got emotional about a girl ever again.
You can forget about being friends with them when they breakip like that. Women are easily influenced and I bet one of her bicthy friends, told her to dump you. They are like that and love to mess up each other lifes.
Never let women know your business and don't boast. ;)

Kodos

04-05-2011, 05:43 AM

Her friends were influential in it (not that I had any contact with them... because of the circumstance of her estangement from her boyfriend and how she ah met me I wasn't paraded around the relationship activities mostly consisted of me going over and watching either Arrested Development or Its Always Sunny followed by well you know...), thats all I know the break was after she was hosting a wedding party for whatever harpy friends of her she had when I couldn't be around (and at the time I didn't take it seriously either... because something similar happened a couple of times and I was called back in a matter of days). We were on very good terms for a couple of months after it though then told not to contact her no word in months...
I was eager to replace her friends with my friends who are women but given the fact she was a morning person while I and almost everyone else I know is nocturnal that was rather difficult.

banjo_billy

04-05-2011, 11:56 AM

"One’s own mother and sister are disgusting."
--Pashtun proverb

The study is only one among many (I have linked to others) that all show the same thing: women have a natural desire to rope in "provider betas" in long-term relationships while they seek orgasms (and conceptions) on the side with men they find strong and sexy; and to have the former unknowingly raise the children of the latter. If this is not evil itself, what is? That it is natural doesn't mean it's not evil.
So, instead of relyng on the fake science from the Commie Kensey Institute of Perversion and Romance with Goats, you want the woman-enslaving Pashtun Muslim maniacs to support your opinion, is that it? How is that better? Between godless fake science and the false religion of the woman-hating Muslims, how will you ever understand the beauties of Man's Most Gracious Partner in Life?
Women aren't stupid. Of course they want to find a man who will provide for them and their children and not run off like some nigger leaving them with hungry children and no income. That's why they have evolved the way they have, so as to survive among the sex-fiends who only want to fuck them like horny monkeys. That's what marriage is for, to solumnize the mutual agreement. If you aren't interested in raising children, then don't dally with women. It's as simple as that. It's the hunter who goes out and spears a mastodon or the farmer who grows a barn full of grain who is worthy of a woman who will cook it for him and the toddlers, not the wimp who stays home and plays with his wiener. That's the facts of Life.
And for those men and women who don't want to raise families, then they can join a monestery or convent or a warrior society and think about other things. Just because they don't have a mate, doesn't mean that they have to be perverts. That's also a part of Life, the healthy channeling of the sexual energy toward a higher consciousness.
That you-all would have bad ideas about women, is not a reflection of women or even of your own souls, it's a reflection of the brainwashing that you have received in our Jewified, perverted society. Shame on you for thinking ill of your mothers and daughters and sisters. Women have a very difficult job to perform in Life and they deserve men's respect for doing that job.
Part of the Jewish brainwashing that you-all have suffered, stems from putting women on a pedestle. When they fall from your overly high expectations, you blame them rather than the false social status that the damned Jews and Commies have given to them. It's all Jew BS and lies designed to destroy society.
Love women for being who and what they are, the mothers of our race. You don't have to f**k them. But you must honor and appreciate them. And if you are men, you must protect them; otherwise you aren't men, you are wimps and faggots. At this time in Society, women are being slandered and seduced by the goddamned Jews, Leftists and queers. And you-all are believing the demeaning, Commie BS about women.
This slander and insult of women has to stop. Otherwise, you are nothing but Jewified pawns, tearing down one-half of your own people.

Kodos

04-06-2011, 08:37 AM

That you-all would have bad ideas about women, is not a reflection of women or even of your own souls, it's a reflection of the brainwashing that you have received in our Jewified, perverted society.
Its from my experience dealing with women, a man who was as unreliable flaky and dishonest as even the best of women would be a borderline sociopath. They don't think they have to honor their previously given word if they don't "feel" like it when the time comes do.
The jew/commie BS was letting them into playing a decision making role (im not talking about a few exceptional women Im talking about en masse) and taking them out of their natural place in the kitchen in the 1st place.

banjo_billy

04-06-2011, 11:01 AM

Getting them out of the kitchen and into the job market was a Jew/Commie idea for breaking down the family for the sake of building a prolentarian-socialist state while giving them jobs so that they could be taxed. By taxing them, the national debt could be increased and thus the ability of the People to pay the Jew bankers was doubled.

Grace

04-15-2011, 07:52 PM

Homosexuals loathe fertile women because they view us as competition for men's sexual attentions, which almost certainly explains Bronze Age Pervert's fixation. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but is this not the poster who once seriously argued that sodomizing another man is not a homosexual act, and that only the man being sodomized is the homosexual? :nuts:
The better women take the best men; low men do not form healthy pair bonds with high quality women, because high quality women rightly shun them. Sometimes, these rejected, low quality men quote Weininger on internet forums while complaining that even their own mother was secretly a whore.
Some women are whores, it is true. Some men are whores. Some women are good human beings, and so are some men. Biologically we complement each other; spiritually, likewise. In most matters, women are to submit to men, something which the best wives and mothers with whom I associate naturally practice anyway. The common thread that binds us is we have chosen strong, assertive, intelligent, and honest men as husbands, because we could. We are women of quality who did not settle for inadequate mates. If our husbands' plumage, so to speak, were subpar, we would not have chosen him to help us raise our offspring to maturity. We would not have been able to trust that he would be competent enough to do it properly.
Just as men prefer a .7 waist-to-hip ratio because of its ties to fertility and intelligence, we prefer a man who appears capable of protecting us and sticking around long enough to help us rear our young. Capable men are not typically doughy, baby-faced, bespectacled slobs with dead eyes and slack jaws and clammy palms, and it is not a coincidence that these are often the sorts of men who most complain about the female sex.
Women are uniquely good at summing up a man's worth as a provider in a very short time. Being weaker and smaller, it is a survival skill. It would not do to get too close to a brute or a coward or worse, enter into a relationship with one. Obviously, our biological imperatives and instincts become stronger when we are most likely to conceive (via rape or otherwise). All mammalian females react similarly. In The Gift of Fear, Gavin de Becker writes that while men most fear being ridiculed by women, women most fear being raped and murdered by men. The physical disparities between us necessarily lead to very different behaviors and reactions.
I will repeat it: low men do not ensnare good women. I suspect this is the true source of much of the woman-hating bitterness one finds among internet nerds. There is no doubt that a feminized society is an unhealthy society, but how did such strong, alpha men allow us weak and puny women to have undue influence over them? There is much at work here that cannot be easily explained away by scapegoating women.
Realistically, female political power is and has always been minimal. A glance into the mirror could be most instructive for the true misogynist. Channel your energy into productive activities--become a monk or a warrior, if you wish--but do not confuse your own sour grapes with some sort of devastating philosophical insight about the nature of women. You know nothing about good women, because in your current condition, good women will not have you.

Brett

04-15-2011, 08:04 PM

Grace, despite what you say, it is not easy in the modern world for good men to find good women.
Women's supposed social intuition is highly overrated. All they really know is whether they are attacted to a man or not.
There is no doubt that a feminized society is an unhealthy society, but how did such strong, alpha men allow us weak and puny women to have undue influence over them?
Women are easily influenced by the mass media and by social pressures. In this way, it is possible to break down the spirit of men. Nobody is that emotionally tough, unless they are a robot.

Errigal

04-15-2011, 08:19 PM

Grace is putting forward the argument invariably put forward by women: if you were any sort of man you wouldn't have any trouble taming or satisfying your woman. It's interesting how it always comes back to this. Maybe that's the way nature made us and why Sean Connery's wise words speak to us today more than ever: 3FgMLROTqJ0

Grace

04-15-2011, 09:36 PM

Nor is it easy for good women to find good men. Humans in general are degenerate and degraded.
Women's supposed social intuition is highly overrated. All they really know is whether they are attacted to a man or not.
I suppose we shall have to disagree on this. Having firsthand experience with it, I am comfortable in my assertion.
Women are easily influenced by the mass media and by social pressures. In this way, it is possible to break down the spirit of men. Nobody is that emotionally tough, unless they are a robot.
Men are as easily influenced. You are deluding yourself if you believe otherwise. Look around sometime at the typical professional sports fan or Superbowl spectator. Men are as enamored with modern circuses as their women. It is disgraceful all around.
The "Men are from Mars" paradigm is part of the oldest strategy and one of the most effective: divide and conquer. Who benefits, if men fear and loathe women and women despise and look down on men? Certainly not white Western civilization.

Grace

04-15-2011, 09:45 PM

Grace is putting forward the argument invariably put forward by women: if you were any sort of man you wouldn't have any trouble taming or satisfying your woman. It's interesting how it always comes back to this. Maybe that's the way nature made us and why Sean Connery's wise words speak to us today more than ever:

3FgMLROTqJ0
Perhaps low men do not like that retort because it is usually true. It is very painful to be told something that contradicts so starkly with one's own self-image.

Every internet nerd fancies himself a prize for any woman. If only women were [insert impossibly romanticized trait here] instead of [insert typical human frailty]! Then he would finally be master of his own destiny. The hypocrisy of expecting from women what he himself cannot achieve never seems to occur to him.

It cannot be the misogynist who has failed. Women--all women--must somehow be to blame. Logic would dictate otherwise, but logic does not play into such arguments. It must be devastatingly painful to realize that one is incapable of finding a suitable mate. This is an emotionally charged topic and one cannot expect a reproductive dead end to look objectively at his own plight. It is pitiable for sure.

By the way, the argument is that with more than 3 billion women on the planet, a man who cannot find a decent one has something wrong with him. I would love to be proven wrong, as like most people, I enjoy simplistic explanations for complex phenomena, but for now this is what matches my careful observations.

Errigal

04-15-2011, 10:09 PM

Perhaps low men do not like that retort because it is usually true. It is very painful to be told something that contradicts so starkly with one's own self-image.

Every internet nerd fancies himself a prize for any woman. If only women were [insert impossibly romanticized trait here] instead of [insert typical human frailty]! Then he would finally be master of his own destiny. The hypocrisy of expecting from women what he himself cannot achieve never seems to occur to him.

It cannot be the misogynist who has failed. Women--all women--must somehow be to blame. Logic would dictate otherwise, but logic does not play into such arguments. It must be devastatingly painful to realize that one is incapable of finding a suitable mate. This is an emotionally charged topic and one cannot expect a reproductive dead end to look objectively at his own plight. It is pitiable for sure.

By the way, the argument is that with more than 3 billion women on the planet, a man who cannot find a decent one has something wrong with him. I would love to be proven wrong, as like most people, I enjoy simplistic explanations for complex phenomena, but for now this is what matches my careful observations.

You missed my point I suppose Grace. Do you think it's fair game for the man to occasionally lay down the law with the woman in his life and the state and community should allow him some freedom to do so? If it's fair for a woman to verbally needle the man is it not fair to let the man play his part in the drama?

Grace

04-15-2011, 10:18 PM

You missed my point I suppose Grace. Do you think it's fair game for the man to occasionally lay down the law with the woman in his life and the state and community should allow him some freedom to do so? If it's fair for a woman to verbally needle the man is it not fair to let the man play his part in the drama?
Did you mistake me for a feminist, Errigal? You should know better than that.

A man who slaps a woman around is vulgar and low class, not to mention a coward. I am glad it is illegal to do so, as it would (and should) be equally illegal to slap a fellow man. It is decidedly...muddy...behavior. If "lay down the law" means physically assault his wife, then yes, I am opposed to such.

However, you will never find me arguing in favor of current domestic violence legislation and procedures as they stand. Like other aspects of family law, it is currently weighted heavily in women's favor, much to the detriment of men, children, and the women themselves (even if they do not realize it).

Errigal

04-15-2011, 10:21 PM

....
However, you will never find me arguing in favor of current domestic violence legislation and procedures as they stand. Like other aspects of family law, it is currently weighted heavily in women's favor, much to the detriment of men, children, and the women themselves (even if they do not realize it).

Keep that in mind as you keep taunting people on the internet for failing to be man enough to handle a strong woman such as yourself. You can work your mouth until the cows come home and no man is going to call the cops on you.

Grace

04-15-2011, 10:28 PM

Keep that in mind as you keep taunting people on the internet for failing to be man enough to handle a strong woman such as yourself. You can work your mouth until the cows come home and no man is going to call the cops on you.
I am sorry you are offended, Errigal. I have taunted no one but internet nerds and misogynists, and that was in response to various posts that insulted my sex as a whole. Is turnabout not fair play? Putting words in my mouth will not change the truth of what I actually wrote.

I am not quite sure if you are equating a woman's words to a man's slaps and punches, but if you are, I do not know how to respond without insulting you further.

Errigal

04-15-2011, 10:36 PM

I am sorry you are offended, Errigal. I have taunted no one but internet nerds and misogynists, and that was in response to various posts that insulted my sex as a whole. Is turnabout not fair play? Putting words in my mouth will not change the truth of what I actually wrote.

I'm not offended, I'm just expressing an opinion based on reading dozens of similar exchanges on sites like the Phora, the readers' comments section of newspaper sites, Youtube comments, Amazon comments etc. It always ends up with women taunting men. Not all the women do it but most of them seem to. I don't take part in these conversations so it's no skin off my nose.

I am not quite sure if you are equating a woman's words to a man's slaps and punches, but if you are, I do not know how to respond without insulting you further.

Good for you. If the new deal is that men aren't supposed to hit the women in their life then women will have to join the men in this great leap in human evolution and learn to tame their sharp tongues.

Grace

04-15-2011, 10:40 PM

I'm not offended, I'm just expressing an opinion based on reading dozens of similar exchanges on sites like the Phora, the readers' comments section of newspaper sites, Youtube comments, Amazon comments etc. It always ends up with women taunting men. Not all the women do it but most of them seem to. I don't take part in these conversations so it's no skin off my nose.

When misogynists insult women, they must expect to be met in kind. The world is not the misogynist's own personal echo chamber.

And I should emphasize that by "misogynist" I mean people like Bronze Age Pervert, not traditionalists who long for a return to better times.

Good for you. If the new deal is that men aren't supposed to hit the women in their life then women will have to join the men in this great leap in human evolution and learn to tame their sharp tongues.
Then we are agreed, as nowhere have I stated that women should berate men with impunity.

Don Quixote

04-15-2011, 11:32 PM

Good for you. If the new deal is that men aren't supposed to hit the women in their life then women will have to join the men in this great leap in human evolution and learn to tame their sharp tongues.That'll never happen, they're incapable of exercising self-control.

Errigal

04-15-2011, 11:47 PM

That'll never happen, they're incapable of exercising self-control.

Yes and that's why we'll have to return to the norm they had before the cultural revolution in which people: A) admitted men and women are different in that way B) the rest of us should judge marital stresses with that in mind.

Ireland is far ahead of Canada in that sort of thing in the sense that the last becomes the first when people have to turn around and go back from where they came.

Stoic_Cynic

04-15-2011, 11:51 PM

Did you mistake me for a feminist, Errigal? You should know better than that.I think there's fair cause to conclude that the vast majority of contemporary Western women are at least subconsciously "feminist" in their outlook.

A man who slaps a woman around is vulgar and low class, not to mention a coward.Only if he doesn't do it in a strong and dominant fashion, you mean. ;)

I am glad it is illegal to do so, as it would (and should) be equally illegal to slap a fellow man. It is decidedly...muddy...behavior. If "lay down the law" means physically assault his wife, then yes, I am opposed to such.This is another matter I take issue with. It's disgusting that two men can't settle their differences with their fists without the government getting involved.

Don Quixote

04-15-2011, 11:57 PM

Yes and that's why we'll have to return to the norm they had before the cultural revolution in which people: A) admitted men and women are different in that way B) the rest of us should judge marital stresses with that in mind.

Ireland is far ahead of Canada in that sort of thing in the sense that the last becomes the first when people have to turn around and go back from where they came.I was thinking of that earlier. I grew up in an age before feminism made any real inroads here, of the kind we read about here. So much was implicitly understood by both parties. Now we see a new generation of monstrosities of both sexes emerging. Nothing good can come of it.

Errigal

04-16-2011, 12:04 AM

I was thinking of that earlier. I grew up in an age before feminism made any real inroads here, of the kind we read about here. So much was implicitly understood by both parties. Now we see a new generation of monstrosities of both sexes emerging. Nothing good can come of it.

Well I find even listening to Sean Moncreiff's chatty afternoon show for mostly women on Newstalk that he and his guests say one old fashioned thing after another about men and women that would get a radio host in serious trouble over here. Officially we are supposed to pretend all women have the sense and self-control of 50yr old men as well as far greater skills at empathy. To say otherwise is close to obscene. A while ago Moncrieff said to a bunch of ladies that women enjoy "having a good cry at films" that sort of comment would get a host in trouble over here. I kid you not.

Saqqara

04-16-2011, 12:08 AM

Any man that would hit a woman is completely worthless. It's just not done.

Errigal

04-16-2011, 12:10 AM

Any man that would hit a woman is completely worthless. It's just not done.

What's so special about women? I've never hit one and my father never did but what's so damned special about women that they can do whatever they want without getting hit? I can't expect that treatment as I go through life.

Angler

04-16-2011, 12:56 AM

The better women take the best men; low men do not form healthy pair bonds with high quality women, because high quality women rightly shun them. Sometimes, these rejected, low quality men quote Weininger on internet forums while complaining that even their own mother was secretly a whore.

Some women are whores, it is true. Some men are whores. Some women are good human beings, and so are some men. Biologically we complement each other; spiritually, likewise. In most matters, women are to submit to men, something which the best wives and mothers with whom I associate naturally practice anyway. The common thread that binds us is we have chosen strong, assertive, intelligent, and honest men as husbands, because we could. We are women of quality who did not settle for inadequate mates. If our husbands' plumage, so to speak, were subpar, we would not have chosen him to help us raise our offspring to maturity. We would not have been able to trust that he would be competent enough to do it properly.

Just as men prefer a .7 waist-to-hip ratio because of its ties to fertility and intelligence, we prefer a man who appears capable of protecting us and sticking around long enough to help us rear our young. Capable men are not typically doughy, baby-faced, bespectacled slobs with dead eyes and slack jaws and clammy palms, and it is not a coincidence that these are often the sorts of men who most complain about the female sex.

Women are uniquely good at summing up a man's worth as a provider in a very short time. Being weaker and smaller, it is a survival skill. It would not do to get too close to a brute or a coward or worse, enter into a relationship with one. Obviously, our biological imperatives and instincts become stronger when we are most likely to conceive (via rape or otherwise). All mammalian females react similarly. In The Gift of Fear, Gavin de Becker writes that while men most fear being ridiculed by women, women most fear being raped and murdered by men. The physical disparities between us necessarily lead to very different behaviors and reactions.

I will repeat it: low men do not ensnare good women. I suspect this is the true source of much of the woman-hating bitterness one finds among internet nerds. ...I'm going to have to disagree with you somewhat -- and not out of bitterness, since I've had my share of girlfriends. It's just that what you say above conflicts with much of I've seen throughout my life.

I think that both men and women tend to be highly fixated on looks as opposed to overall "quality" when choosing a mate. I know there are exceptions, including myself. (I care about looks, but I'll pass over a bitch with supermodel looks in favor of a woman who's merely decent-looking, but really nice and a lot of fun, every single time.) But for the most part, I think appearance is the main factor behind attraction. With women in particular, I suspect they care mainly about how pretty a man's face is.

I once had a good friend who seemed genetically incapable of picking up a woman. This guy wasn't brilliant, but his intelligence was well above average. He had a great sense of humor and was fun to hang around with. He was maybe six feet tall, was MUCH stronger than the average man, and only a little overweight (nothing you'd call "fat"). His weaknesses IMO were his face, which was a bit below average, and his tendency to be kind of quiet around people he didn't know well.

If a woman wanted a protector and high-quality companion, she could have done a lot worse. Yet I don't know if that guy ever ended up hooking up with a girl, let alone a wife, even to this day. It wasn't for want of trying on his part, and he definitely wasn't a homo. Yet women wouldn't even give him the time of day. Meanwhile, I see plenty of (apparently) good women out there hanging off the arms of scrawny wimps, losers, and jerks with handsome faces. Can you explain this? If the guy's face wasn't the problem, the only other explanation I can think of was his shyness. Maybe women tend to be more impressed by braggadocio than by substance.

Apart from looks, women seem to care about status and money. I can understand this tendency and accept this to a point, but I certainly wouldn't want to marry a woman who cared more about my money than about me. I'm being extremely careful about marriage because of all the horror stories I've heard about men getting screwed out of their belongings in divorce court. So careful, in fact, that I may never get married.

Angler

04-16-2011, 01:20 AM

What's so special about women? I've never hit one and my father never did but what's so damned special about women that they can do whatever they want without getting hit? I can't expect that treatment as I go through life.I'd turn that around and ask why there's ever a need to hit a woman who isn't physically assaulting me in some significant way. If she's just giving me lip, I can either respond in kind or tell her to "stuff it" and then walk away.

Ironically, it can be seen as an anti-feminist principle: men are expected to be above hitting the weaker sex except in certain exceptional cases.

The same applies to elderly people, children, or anyone else who is obviously incapable of defending himself or herself against me but is running his or her mouth anyway. It would seem less than chivalrous, and even cowardly, to respond with force to a merely verbal attack by someone who is a lot weaker than I am. I should take satisfaction in the knowledge that these people pose no threat to me and then take the high road. If I ever made an exception to this, it would have to be a very grave insult, perhaps directed against a family member.

Grace

04-16-2011, 01:21 AM

I'm going to have to disagree with you somewhat -- and not out of bitterness, since I've had my share of girlfriends. It's just that what you say above conflicts with much of I've seen throughout my life.

I think that both men and women tend to be highly fixated on looks as opposed to overall "quality" when choosing a mate. I know there are exceptions, including myself. (I care about looks, but I'll pass over a bitch with supermodel looks in favor of a woman who's merely decent-looking, but really nice and a lot of fun, every single time.) But for the most part, I think appearance is the main factor behind attraction. With women in particular, I suspect they care mainly about how pretty a man's face is.

Assessing a man's worth involves much more than mere looks. I know plenty of men who are excellent husbands and fathers but have average looks. Their bearing is confident and competent, however, which I am certain played a large part in their success at finding a good woman. Looks fade with time anyway and choosing a mate based solely on their appearance would be quite foolish.

I once had a good friend who seemed genetically incapable of picking up a woman. This guy wasn't brilliant, but his intelligence was well above average. He had a great sense of humor and was fun to hang around with. He was maybe six feet tall, was MUCH stronger than the average man, and only a little overweight (nothing you'd call "fat"). His weaknesses IMO were his face, which was a bit below average, and his tendency to be kind of quiet around people he didn't know well.

If a woman wanted a protector, she could have done a lot worse. Yet I don't know if that guy ever ended up hooking up with a girl, let alone a wife, even to this day. It wasn't for want of trying on his part, and he definitely wasn't a homo. Yet women wouldn't even give him the time of day. Meanwhile, I see plenty of (apparently) good women out there hanging off the arms of scrawny wimps and losers. Can you explain this? If the guy's face wasn't the problem, the only other explanation I can think of was his shyness. Maybe women tend to be more impressed by braggadocio than by substance.

Shyness is not an appealing trait in a man, where most women are concerned. Not knowing your friend it is impossible to say with any certainty what his problem was; perhaps he was simply unlucky. It is more likely that there was something about him that women did not find appealing, something that was a dealbreaker. Shyness can be overlooked once a woman gets to know a man better; it can even become endearing. I am sorry for your friend. :(

As for scrawny hipster types getting women, observe their ages. Usually, a chain-smoking emaciated bad boy becomes much less appealing as a woman nears her preferred childbearing years. It is at this point that she may begin to care more about a man's professional status and success as well. Braggadocio may get a man dates, but it will not get him a high quality wife. We can see through it as well as you can.

Apart from looks, women seem to care about status and money. I can understand this tendency and accept this to a point, but I certainly wouldn't want to marry a woman who cared more about my money than about me. I'm being extremely careful about marriage because of all the horror stories I've heard about men getting screwed out of their belongings in divorce court. So careful, in fact, that I may never get married.
Some women do care about status and money, very much so. I am fortunate to have been raised with better values than that, but many women are not. Then again, this behavior is hardly confined to females; some men also marry for money. We live in a greedy and materialistic society saturated with Judaic influences.

It would be a terrible shame if you decided to avoid starting a family, Angler, but I understand all too well your reluctance. Finding decent people in general has become very difficult, and the courts are stacked against men. If I were a man seeking a wife, I would look within conservative Christian communities. As you are an atheist, a Christian wife is out of the question, so perhaps a rock-solid prenuptial agreement is in order.

Kodos

04-16-2011, 01:36 AM

Nerds are generally better providers then some of the junkies ive seen with girlfriends...

Helios Panoptes

04-16-2011, 11:54 AM

Any man that would hit a woman is completely worthless. It's just not done.

"It's just not done" -- what does that mean? That it shouldn't be done? That hardly follows. Do you also agree that any woman who would hit a man is completely worthless? If so, then I suppose your perspective is at least fair, whereas most people who are aghast at the thought of a man striking a woman think nothing of a woman striking a man. If you raise your hand against another, you should expect to receive the same level of disrespect.

Additionally, while I have fortunately never been in such a situation, I realize that it may be very difficult to refrain from striking a woman. For example, if a man comes home from work tired and has his wife harass him until he goes to sleep every day, it must be very tempting after a certain period of time to beat her. It is easy to say he should go out and avoid the confrontation, but how long can he be expected to do that? Or maybe he should get a divorce, but that choice has quagmires lurking around every corner. What I mean is, sometimes people find themselves trapped in frustrating situations longterm and it's understandable that they eventually snap, since one can only endure so much.

Gregz

04-16-2011, 01:01 PM

Any man that would hit a woman is completely worthless. It's just not done.

Generally speaking I agree with you. However some women don't know where to draw the line and push men to far. :p

http://images2.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/7012119/i-Dont-Always-Slap-women-but-when-i-do-Im-satisfied.jpg

Errigal

04-16-2011, 04:41 PM

I'd turn that around and ask why there's ever a need to hit a woman who isn't physically assaulting me in some significant way. If she's just giving me lip, I can either respond in kind or tell her to "stuff it" and then walk away.

Ironically, it can be seen as an anti-feminist principle: men are expected to be above hitting the weaker sex except in certain exceptional cases.

The same applies to elderly people, children, or anyone else who is obviously incapable of defending himself or herself against me but is running his or her mouth anyway. It would seem less than chivalrous, and even cowardly, to respond with force to a merely verbal attack by someone who is a lot weaker than I am. I should take satisfaction in the knowledge that these people pose no threat to me and then take the high road. If I ever made an exception to this, it would have to be a very grave insult, perhaps directed against a family member.

The point I was trying to make to the female posters was simply that if women are going to be exempt from physical retaliation they should hold up their end of the bargain and refrain from excessive verbal taunting and cruelty that would get a women a broken nose if she were a man.

Look at how both men and women taunt, pester, bully and tease others online because there's no chance of a physical response. Even I say things online that I'd hold back from in real life because they could provoke such a response. Look at the way people act online and then think about the down side of having women given absolute carte blanche in shooting off their mouths. More than carte blanche because the rewards can be enormous if the police and courts become involved on her side in a martial dispute.

Starr

04-16-2011, 05:14 PM

I'm going to have to disagree with you somewhat -- and not out of bitterness, since I've had my share of girlfriends. It's just that what you say above conflicts with much of I've seen throughout my life.

I think that both men and women tend to be highly fixated on looks as opposed to overall "quality" when choosing a mate. I know there are exceptions, including myself. (I care about looks, but I'll pass over a bitch with supermodel looks in favor of a woman who's merely decent-looking, but really nice and a lot of fun, every single time.) But for the most part, I think appearance is the main factor behind attraction. With women in particular, I suspect they care mainly about how pretty a man's face is.

I once had a good friend who seemed genetically incapable of picking up a woman. This guy wasn't brilliant, but his intelligence was well above average. He had a great sense of humor and was fun to hang around with. He was maybe six feet tall, was MUCH stronger than the average man, and only a little overweight (nothing you'd call "fat"). His weaknesses IMO were his face, which was a bit below average, and his tendency to be kind of quiet around people he didn't know well.

If a woman wanted a protector and high-quality companion, she could have done a lot worse. Yet I don't know if that guy ever ended up hooking up with a girl, let alone a wife, even to this day. It wasn't for want of trying on his part, and he definitely wasn't a homo. Yet women wouldn't even give him the time of day. Meanwhile, I see plenty of (apparently) good women out there hanging off the arms of scrawny wimps, losers, and jerks with handsome faces. Can you explain this? If the guy's face wasn't the problem, the only other explanation I can think of was his shyness. Maybe women tend to be more impressed by braggadocio than by substance.

Apart from looks, women seem to care about status and money. I can understand this tendency and accept this to a point, but I certainly wouldn't want to marry a woman who cared more about my money than about me. I'm being extremely careful about marriage because of all the horror stories I've heard about men getting screwed out of their belongings in divorce court. So careful, in fact, that I may never get married.

Of course a man who is good looking and and has money is going to appeal to women but if you start dating them and they are a complete jerk, all of that attraction is going to go out the window very soon. Good looks and a nice bank account alone are no match for the main things a woman wants deep down, love and loyalty.

If you do not want to end up with a woman who will divorce you and take all your money, my best advice would be to stay far away from the women who have been in numerous relationships and dumped a lot. Even if they appear real nice and sweet at first. They are bitter and angry and when everything is not going perfect between the two of you, her "I hate men" "men are all pigs" attitude will begin to come to the surface.

Starr

04-16-2011, 05:25 PM

Some women do care about status and money, very much so. I am fortunate to have been raised with better values than that, but many women are not. Then again, this behavior is hardly confined to females; some men also marry for money. We live in a greedy and materialistic society saturated with Judaic influences.

.

Lots of women do to some extent. Most even. A guy with money is going to be much more able to take care of the woman and their future children. This is always in a woman's subconcious I think. People have it wrong though then they say that this is all women care about. A good future husband and father needs numerous other qualities. Modern society non values rear their ugly head here by encouraging women to abandon "outdated" notions about the family and to look for a man to have fun with, keeping everything all about the woman and her personal happiness. Mix that with the sorry state of male female relations, casual sex and all of the breakups and it is a recipe for disaster. But remember we are supposed to be living in such better times and are lives as women are supposed to be so much better now.:deadhorse:

Starr

04-16-2011, 06:04 PM

I too could see how a person's buttons could be pushed enough to make them snap but it does also show a weakness or lack of self control. And no females should not be hitting males either. This seems about as trashy as it gets.

Bronze Age Pervert

04-16-2011, 06:10 PM

Homosexuals loathe fertile women because they view us as competition for men's sexual attentions, which almost certainly explains Bronze Age Pervert's fixation. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but is this not the poster who once seriously argued that sodomizing another man is not a homosexual act, and that only the man being sodomized is the homosexual? :nuts:

The better women take the best men; low men do not form healthy pair bonds with high quality women, because high quality women rightly shun them. Sometimes, these rejected, low quality men quote Weininger on internet forums while complaining that even their own mother was secretly a whore.

Some women are whores, it is true. Some men are whores. Some women are good human beings, and so are some men. Biologically we complement each other; spiritually, likewise. In most matters, women are to submit to men, something which the best wives and mothers with whom I associate naturally practice anyway. The common thread that binds us is we have chosen strong, assertive, intelligent, and honest men as husbands, because we could. We are women of quality who did not settle for inadequate mates. If our husbands' plumage, so to speak, were subpar, we would not have chosen him to help us raise our offspring to maturity. We would not have been able to trust that he would be competent enough to do it properly.

Just as men prefer a .7 waist-to-hip ratio because of its ties to fertility and intelligence, we prefer a man who appears capable of protecting us and sticking around long enough to help us rear our young. Capable men are not typically doughy, baby-faced, bespectacled slobs with dead eyes and slack jaws and clammy palms, and it is not a coincidence that these are often the sorts of men who most complain about the female sex.

Women are uniquely good at summing up a man's worth as a provider in a very short time. Being weaker and smaller, it is a survival skill. It would not do to get too close to a brute or a coward or worse, enter into a relationship with one. Obviously, our biological imperatives and instincts become stronger when we are most likely to conceive (via rape or otherwise). All mammalian females react similarly. In The Gift of Fear, Gavin de Becker writes that while men most fear being ridiculed by women, women most fear being raped and murdered by men. The physical disparities between us necessarily lead to very different behaviors and reactions.

I will repeat it: low men do not ensnare good women. I suspect this is the true source of much of the woman-hating bitterness one finds among internet nerds. There is no doubt that a feminized society is an unhealthy society, but how did such strong, alpha men allow us weak and puny women to have undue influence over them? There is much at work here that cannot be easily explained away by scapegoating women.

Realistically, female political power is and has always been minimal. A glance into the mirror could be most instructive for the true misogynist. Channel your energy into productive activities--become a monk or a warrior, if you wish--but do not confuse your own sour grapes with some sort of devastating philosophical insight about the nature of women. You know nothing about good women, because in your current condition, good women will not have you.

tl;dr ...more spouting fountain of squid ink, trying to hide the truth. Interesting how the wimmins who post on this thread never address the study I posted or the several other similar ones I linked to. It's always word diarrhea with no substance, full of nagging and finger wagging, that in fact only confirms my first post.

Grace...do you understand what the first post was about? It's not about the fact that girls like sex or go "after the best men" (good of you to leave this unclear). It's about deception...that's what you're doing in this too-long and empty post. Trying to hide the truth with emotional-sounding garbage.

The more these WN wenches keep squirting their squid ink on this thread, the more the truth of my first post is demonstrated.

Helios Panoptes

04-16-2011, 06:29 PM

I too could see how a person's buttons could be pushed enough to make them snap but it does also show a weakness or lack of self control. And no females should not be hitting males either. This seems about as trashy as it gets.

I guess you could put it that way, but I think it's unfair. If you snap and lash out violently at minor provocations, it shows a lack of self-control, but everyone has a breaking point. Eventually, even calm and patient individuals will snap. My point was that people are sometimes mired in circumstances that subject them to incessant perturbation and it is hard for them to see a way out, so they're tormented by aggravating stimuli until they can stand no more. There is no one with infinite patience.

Gregz

04-16-2011, 07:29 PM

If you do not want to end up with a woman who will divorce you and take all your money, my best advice would be to stay far away from the women who have been in numerous relationships and dumped a lot.

Only a outright fool would marry a American women at all, as US courts tend to disregard prenuptial agreements. Further more, what percentage of American women are highly promiscuous and neurotic? :popcorn:

Kodos

04-17-2011, 08:48 AM

I guess you could put it that way, but I think it's unfair. If you snap and lash out violently at minor provocations, it shows a lack of self-control, but everyone has a breaking point. Eventually, even calm and patient individuals will snap. My point was that people are sometimes mired in circumstances that subject them to incessant perturbation and it is hard for them to see a way out, so they're tormented by aggravating stimuli until they can stand no more. There is no one with infinite patience.

Ah yes Middle School...

Richard Parker

04-17-2011, 08:49 AM

Ah yes Middle School...
Was it worse for you than the Phora?

Kodos

04-17-2011, 08:52 AM

Was it worse for you than the Phora?

I don't have to go on the phora.

Helios Panoptes

04-17-2011, 12:22 PM

Ah yes Middle School...

I didn't love it or hate it. It had its good and bad points. The worst aspect was the chronic tiredness that resulted from the incompatibility of the contemporary American school schedule with my idiosyncratic sleep habits. I was tired every day. It was miserable. Other than that, I didn't have any stress aside from my parents' increasing complaints. I was constantly badgered from 6th to 9th grade which is when I finally left. It was every night, but I'd zone out quickly since I was in a daze due to to sleep deprivation. I remember being absent regularly because I was too tired to get up. If they made me go when I didn't want to, I'd cause embarrassment by falling asleep repeatedly throughout the school day. Being tired for 13 years starts to get very old.

Richard Parker

04-17-2011, 03:36 PM

I didn't love it or hate it. It had its good and bad points. The worst aspect was the chronic tiredness that resulted from the incompatibility of the contemporary American school schedule with my idiosyncratic sleep habits. I was tired every day. It was miserable. Other than that, I didn't have any stress aside from my parents' increasing complaints. I was constantly badgered from 6th to 9th grade which is when I finally left. It was every night, but I'd zone out quickly since I was in a daze due to to sleep deprivation. I remember being absent regularly because I was too tired to get up. If they made me go when I didn't want to, I'd cause embarrassment by falling asleep repeatedly throughout the school day. Being tired for 13 years starts to get very old.
Are you still sleepy often? If so get checked for sleep apnea.

Grace

04-17-2011, 06:06 PM

tl;dr ...more spouting fountain of squid ink, trying to hide the truth. Interesting how the wimmins who post on this thread never address the study I posted or the several other similar ones I linked to. It's always word diarrhea with no substance, full of nagging and finger wagging, that in fact only confirms my first post.

Grace...do you understand what the first post was about? It's not about the fact that girls like sex or go "after the best men" (good of you to leave this unclear). It's about deception...that's what you're doing in this too-long and empty post. Trying to hide the truth with emotional-sounding garbage.

The more these WN wenches keep squirting their squid ink on this thread, the more the truth of my first post is demonstrated.
Whether you are genuine or a simple troll, I pity you. You are a mentally disturbed sexual deviant who finds himself incapable of dealing with fully fifty percent of his own species. You blame billions of people for your own inadequacies because, like most of the insane, you cannot fathom that you yourself might be the common denominator in these broken relationship equations. Homosexuals in particular seem to have a strong penchant for embracing their own imaginary victimhood; you are little different from a San Francisco leftist in this regard.

I sincerely doubt you can find a single "deceptive" thing I have written, and, if pressed, will resort to more nonsensical blatherings that do not address the actual content of my posts. Those who take your proclamations about women seriously do so at their own risk. I highly doubt you are capable of a normal relationship with anyone, let alone a healthy female, and reading your homosexual ravings is as tiresome as it is depressing. I will pray for you to someday escape this hell of your own making. It cannot be easy living this way.

Bronze Age Pervert

04-17-2011, 06:29 PM

Whether you are genuine or a simple troll, I pity you. You are a mentally disturbed sexual deviant who finds himself incapable of dealing with fully fifty percent of his own species. You blame billions of people for your own inadequacies because, like most of the insane, you cannot fathom that you yourself might be the common denominator in these broken relationship equations. Homosexuals in particular seem to have a strong penchant for embracing their own imaginary victimhood; you are little different from a San Francisco leftist in this regard.

I sincerely doubt you can find a single "deceptive" thing I have written, and, if pressed, will resort to more nonsensical blatherings that do not address the actual content of my posts. Those who take your proclamations about women seriously do so at their own risk. I highly doubt you are capable of a normal relationship with anyone, let alone a healthy female, and reading your homosexual ravings is as tiresome as it is depressing. I will pray for you to someday escape this hell of your own making. It cannot be easy living this way.

More squid ink from you. Actual content is the issue here. My point was you didn't address the study in the initial post or the other several similar studies I linked to. Do you actually have a counter-argument, or is it more word garbage and finger-wagging and "you're not man enough to deal with strong womyn like me," and etc.?

Do you realize you're proving my point with every content-less hysterical post you make.

Grace

04-17-2011, 06:32 PM

More squid ink from you. Actual content is the issue here. My point was you didn't address the study in the initial post or the other several similar studies I linked to. Do you actually have a counter-argument, or is it more word garbage and finger-wagging and "you're not man enough to deal with strong womyn like me," and etc.?

Do you realize you're proving my point with every content-less hysterical post you make.
Pot, kettle, etc.

Bronze Age Pervert

04-17-2011, 06:35 PM

Pot, kettle, etc.

And yet you still refuse to address the studies. Why is that?

Flames deleted.

banjo_billy

04-17-2011, 07:01 PM

tl;dr ...more spouting fountain of squid ink, trying to hide the truth. Interesting how the wimmins who post on this thread never address the study I posted or the several other similar ones I linked to. It's always word diarrhea with no substance, full of nagging and finger wagging, that in fact only confirms my first post.

Grace...do you understand what the first post was about? It's not about the fact that girls like sex or go "after the best men" (good of you to leave this unclear). It's about deception...that's what you're doing in this too-long and empty post. Trying to hide the truth with emotional-sounding garbage.

The more these WN wenches keep squirting their squid ink on this thread, the more the truth of my first post is demonstrated.

Your so-called "studies" are fraudulant claims from a known Leftist and pro-faggot organization. What is there to address? The study was rigged and the conclusions are false.

Bronze Age Pervert

04-17-2011, 07:03 PM

Your so-called "studies" are fraudulant claims from a known Leftist and pro-faggot organization. What is there to address? The study was rigged and the conclusions are false.

Yet again I have to say it's not the only study I cited, there are several others that lead to the same conclusion. It was not rigged and accurately reflects the evil in women's hearts.

Helios Panoptes

04-17-2011, 07:16 PM

Are you still sleepy often? If so get checked for sleep apnea.

I have never been tested for sleep apnea, but I have several sleep abnormalities. They started before I could speak and never disappeared. I learned to work through them with a combination of willpower and drugs. I'd have to type a long paragraph to explain and I don't want to divert the thread.

banjo_billy

04-17-2011, 07:16 PM

Yet again I have to say it's not the only study I cited, there are several others that lead to the same conclusion. It was not rigged and accurately reflects the evil in women's hearts.

Did it ever dawn on you that the feminist-anti-manhood-pro-faggot conspiracy is endemic of the entire scientific community?

It doesn't matter about one rigged "study"; one rigged study means nothing. But the requirements of brainwashing and the Psycho-Political social engineering that is being perpetrated by the Jews and Leftist in government and academia, means everything. In order for the Big Lie Technique to work its evil influence many rigged studies are required. All of these studies are fraudulent; and they are designed to deceive the People into accepting lies.

Once people understand the false and perverted nature of what the Jews put into EVERY so-called "scientific study", no Jew will ever again be allowed inside a laboratory or to be teachers or psychologists or scientists simply because they cannot be trusted. The Jews are liars, deceivers and devils. The Jews gave the world feminism, faggotry and paedophilia as "normal lifestyles" and they backed up their claims with "scientific studies" that were all without exception fraudulent. Look at the state of modern society; this is not a result of Truth, it is the result of Jewish lies.

Helios Panoptes

04-17-2011, 07:19 PM

Did it ever dawn on you that the feminist-anti-manhood-pro-faggot conspiracy is endemic of the entire scientific community?

It doesn't matter about one rigged "study"; one rigged study means nothing. But the requirements of brainwashing and the Psycho-Political social engineering that is being perpetrated by the Jews and Leftist in government and academia, means everything. In order for the Big Lie Technique to work its evil influence many rigged studies are required.

You raise many good points. Posters should take an hour to reflect upon them before replying.

banjo_billy

04-17-2011, 07:28 PM

I have never been tested for sleep apnea, but I have several sleep abnormalities. They started before I could speak and never disappeared. I learned to work through them with a combination of willpower and drugs. I'd have to type a long paragraph to explain and I don't want to divert the thread.

Don't let the doctor's fool you. Sleep apnea is easily cured with a good night's sleep. The cure works 100% of the time. Give it a try.

Helios Panoptes

04-17-2011, 07:36 PM

Don't let the doctor's fool you. Sleep apnea is easily cured with a good night's sleep.

I don't see a doctor for my sleep or anything else. I only go to the doctor if I have an injury that seems more severe than normal. I want to know if I have structural damage. That said, a good night's sleep is something that i haven't been able to get consistently. As indicated earlier, this started in early childhood and persisted. It's not going to suddenly change. Humans are machines -- they don't all work the same.

Edit: our subject has nothing to do with the rest of the thread. We should stop.

Saqqara

04-18-2011, 06:10 PM

Even if the desire is there, it doesn't mean they act upon it. According to parallel studies, males want to impregnate every mildly attractive fertile female they see, but is this what they always do?

Falling in love and agreeing to be in a monogamous relationship overshadows any such desires, but one can't assume it's a monogamous relationship if it hasn't been discussed. There are enough modernized men and women who want to get in an arrangement where they have sex with someone until they get bored of it or find someone better to have sex with. Waiting to have sex until a commitment occurs generally filters out these types, and all good women do this.

And if you decide you don't want to get married, you automatically remove all the good girls as potential mates, so you get what you bargained for.

Gregz

04-18-2011, 10:53 PM

Even if the desire is there, it doesn't mean they act upon it. According to parallel studies, males want to impregnate every mildly attractive fertile female they see, but is this what they always do?

Falling in love and agreeing to be in a monogamous relationship overshadows any such desires, but one can't assume it's a monogamous relationship if it hasn't been discussed. There are enough modernized men and women who want to get in an arrangement where they have sex with someone until they get bored of it or find someone better to have sex with. Waiting to have sex until a commitment occurs generally filters out these types, and all good women do this.

And if you decide you don't want to get married, you automatically remove all the good girls as potential mates, so you get what you bargained for.

Why would you get married at all? It's all to easy to make a mistake and most people, simply aren't capable of remaining in a monogamous relationship for longer than a few years. As they are far to immature and easily influenced.

Helios Panoptes

04-19-2011, 08:17 AM

Even if the desire is there, it doesn't mean they act upon it. According to parallel studies, males want to impregnate every mildly attractive fertile female they see, but is this what they always do?

Falling in love and agreeing to be in a monogamous relationship overshadows any such desires, but one can't assume it's a monogamous relationship if it hasn't been discussed. There are enough modernized men and women who want to get in an arrangement where they have sex with someone until they get bored of it or find someone better to have sex with. Waiting to have sex until a commitment occurs generally filters out these types, and all good women do this.

And if you decide you don't want to get married, you automatically remove all the good girls as potential mates, so you get what you bargained for.

Your reasoning is ludicrous. It boggles my mind to read it. There is no commitment, unless you mean commitment to enter into a legal contract until you want out. It's only more binding than your word because someone may get screwed in the event of an opt-out. I wonder which party that will be.

Bronze Age Pervert

04-19-2011, 08:30 AM

Your reasoning is ludicrous. It boggles my mind to read it. There is no commitment, unless you mean commitment to enter into a legal contract until you want out. It's only more binding than your word because someone may get screwed in the event of an opt-out. I wonder which party that will be.

Not only that, she misses the point again. Her point is that women who "commit" can't possibly act like the ones in the studies I linked to...when in fact those studies are precisely about how deceptive female "commitment" is in the first place, and how women are wired to commit to men who they subconsciously intend to cuckold.

It is precisely the false and fickle nature of female "commitment" that is at issue here, yet I think these broads on this thread haven't even read what it's about. It's the women who are forward about not wanting to commit who are more trustworthy.

They want to commit a crime on you.

knekkeben

04-21-2011, 02:47 AM

But for the most part, I think appearance is the main factor behind attraction. With women in particular, I suspect they care mainly about how pretty a man's face is.
Female psychology with regards to attraction is actually a very interesting subject. Respectfully, I'm going to have to disagree with this. You're quite right that, for men, it's physical appearance that's the principal source of attraction for women, but you're mistaken that it's the same for attraction of women to men.

I always find it amusing when women offer their opinions about what attracts them to men simply because women do not understand themselves in the same way that men do. If you ask a hundred women what attracts them to men, you'll be given a hundred different answers. Remarkably, though, if you ask men what (chiefly) attracts them to women, you'll be given essentially the same answer, though it may be expressed differently. What CHIEFLY attracts women to men is in fact masculine behavior, despite what women say, which is relevant to...

I once had a good friend who seemed genetically incapable of picking up a woman. This guy wasn't brilliant, but his intelligence was well above average. He had a great sense of humor and was fun to hang around with. He was maybe six feet tall, was MUCH stronger than the average man, and only a little overweight (nothing you'd call "fat"). His weaknesses IMO were his face, which was a bit below average, and his tendency to be kind of quiet around people he didn't know well.
And this is why your friend couldn't find women who were interested in him. Men who are generally better-looking will certainly have an advantage, but men who are better-looking will always be outcompeted by men who aren't so good-looking but self-confident. Possessing genuine self-confidence is very important to attracting women. It's also, of course, essentially masculine. There are other characteristics that are important here, but they're all quite important.

Women are very good at detecting confidence or diffidence in men.

Apart from looks, women seem to care about status and money.
Once again, this isn't quite true. The truth is that status and money are usually concomitant to masculine behavior. That's to say that genuinely masculine men are likely to possess both status and wealth. However, it's their masculine behavior that's fundamentally attracting women, not their status or wealth.

Dolophine

04-21-2011, 04:44 AM

What's so special about women? I've never hit one and my father never did but what's so damned special about women that they can do whatever they want without getting hit? I can't expect that treatment as I go through life.

Precisely. Beating on women by men is immoral because of the differences present in physiology. This notion of the "specialness" of their kind that many women have is the real source of contention.