A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

[henry quirk]

just stating facts

[Greta]

No you are not, you immediately honed in on sexuality.

Those not so fixated on sexual insecurity immediately see that the main weakness of your argument is based on differences in priorities and libido amongst "straight" people rather than sexual preferences - the latter not being the first thing that comes to mind when you speak to straight people. They tend think about straight situations - we gravitate to our interests.

Those are the facts.

[henry quirk]

This thread is 'A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind'.

At the core of that knot is fuckin'.

That, Greta, is the only fact that matters.

#

"we gravitate to our interests."

And we run from what scares us.

What is it about fucking that scares you, Greta?

Who burned you?

[Greta]

Settle, Henrietta. I won't tell anyone your little secret.

People in relationships either find non-sexual aspects of interest about each other or the relationship goes sour. If you were a doer rather than a pretender you would know that.

[henry quirk]

Playin' the 'you're queer' card: classic sign.

[Lacewing]

Sir,

Why are you lettin' that crazy woman interrogate you?

You don't owe her jack shit.

So, in this freely back-and-forth discussion between Sir and I, you feel compelled to claim that I'm interrogating him, rather than acknowledging that he has been inconsistent and defensive in his own communications. Your idiotic, shallow motives are obvious, Henry. You're not very bright for a dishonest, crazy caveman.

[henry quirk]

No doubt.

[Greta]

Yes Henry, you did immediately resort to the "queer card" - your hastiness to play that card was noted.

Hoist with your own petard.

[Skip]

"an offspring"

He's my nephew, not my son (not that it matters).

It matters crucially from an evolutionary standpoint.

"if you reproduce, you forfeit the match."
Not seein' how.

By putting your DNA out there for genetic drift, random mutation, gamma rays or environmental change to work with, you've given in to evolution and have no control of the outcome.

[Duncan Butlin]

henry quirk, I see what you mean about brute. Man, male, manhood … they’re all going the way of ‘masculinity’, which has become a term of abuse. And yes, I must be going mad: the dance started going sour millions of years ago, you are right. I was just too eager to get in a dig at #MeToo. Here’s my take on the antiquity of the sex war:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... WIzMTcxODQ

Lacewing, you believe women were hard-done-by in the past, whereas I don’t. You believe men today need to be punished for their father’s supposed sins in the past, I don’t. You believe that men are still ruling the world, I believe women are. I agree that we are not headed back to more male power at the moment (I am a museum piece, as you say), but I have hopes for the future, just like you, only the other way round.

Skip, I admire single mothers for the huge effort they have to put in, but I still think they should be put in dormitories, if the state has to support them. henry quirk is right to call their children bastards -- they really are seriously handicapped by their fatherlessness. The more we support and celebrate single mothers, the more bastards we will have. Instead we need to punish single mothers (and the men that went along with it) in order to reduce their numbers … for the sake of the children.


Lacewing, Sir-Sister-of-Suck, Greta

Both men and women are exquisitely designed for face-to-face communication -- especially between strangers, and even better when the conversation can be overheard by others. The best behaviour is evoked in both participants and nasty thoughts are suppressed. All the nastiness is still there, right below the surface, but the presence of the other person, the mutual need for the encounter to go off well, and other people overhearing suppress it. We give the other benefit of the doubt, search for something positive to say, suppress aggression, minimise challenge -- but only because one is face-to-face and supervised by others. We are even under huge pressure not to criticise the other or embarrass them in any way.

In an electronic forum, on the other hand, all this feedback is absent, and raw emotions are brought to the fore. We hate to admit it, but much of our good behaviour was the result of others controlling us. We do not have enough self-control to be civilised much of the time, unassisted by others. Thus electronic conversations very frequently deteriorate into competitions of abuse.

Accordingly, it is imperative to ignore all nasty behaviour in forums, however heartfelt and honest it is -- and pretend it did not happen. Our discussion skills are just not up to handling raw truth. The emotions are too primitive to be handled with civility. So, however exciting and interesting it is to respond in kind, if you want anything better than a deteriorating shouting match, you must totally ignore anything that rouses your emotions. There may be nothing left of the communication after such censoring, in which case it is a chance to say something you really mean, as a change of subject.

[henry quirk]

Okay.

##

"It matters crucially from an evolutionary standpoint."

No doubt, but most folks aren't makin' babies with evoluition in mind.

#

"you've given in to evolution and have no control of the outcome"

Ssems to me: when folks think about it at all, they think in terms of transmitting or conducting some part of themselves into the future. And usually these folks perceive self-responsibility (raising the kid[s]). That is: some measure of control is exerted (by way of choice of partner, by way of shaping the enviroment for child-raising, by way of what is encouraged and discouraged in the kid).

##

"antiquity of the sex war"

Can't open it on this old Ipad. I'll be on a desk unit later and I'll read the piece then.

[Skip]

No doubt, but most folks aren't makin' babies with evoluition in mind.

That's how evolution wins. Much as Duncan Butlin may resent this, all the males that successfully demanded pussy played right into evolution's hands. Why evolution decided that ladies-choice was a better way to go about making viable generations, we can only speculate, but we know it works for birds and some mammals, while others select through male competition alone. Duncan Butlin probably wouldn't enjoy 26 million BC, but it doesn't matter.
You can halt evolution by refusing to reproduce, but you can't reverse it.

Ssems to me: when folks think about it at all, they think in terms of transmitting or conducting some part of themselves into the future. And usually these folks perceive self-responsibility (raising the kid[s]). That is: some measure of control is exerted (by way of choice of partner, by way of shaping the enviroment for child-raising, by way of what is encouraged and discouraged in the kid).

Unless they do like tomcats and keep on truckin'. Then we have to round up and put their victim into concentration camps - for the sake of the children. Locking children in cages is the current official response to any perceived problem.

That should give evolution a black eye, anyway.

[Lacewing]

Duncan, your lop-sided views represent an abusive viewpoint, regardless of the dignified manner in which you try to deliver it.

Lacewing, you believe women were hard-done-by in the past, whereas I don’t.

It's historical and documented. It's current and documented. ALL OVER THE WORLD. Women being denied the same SIMPLE rights and opportunities and rewards as are given to men... women being used and traded as "things" and property... women being suppressed and mutilated under man's control. And you and other self-absorbed men dismiss it as unimportant, reasonable, necessary, or say it doesn't exist... which is YET ANOTHER slap in the face to women. You deserve everything that is said to you on this forum.

You believe men today need to be punished for their father’s supposed sins in the past, I don’t.

That's a distortion. I do not wish for innocent men to be punished. I've said it's part of a movement... a tide... a natural evolution and reckoning because a group has gotten things out of balance.

You believe that men are still ruling the world, I believe women are. I agree that we are not headed back to more male power at the moment (I am a museum piece, as you say), but I have hopes for the future, just like you, only the other way round.

My hope is for BALANCE. I do not want women to rule the world. I want them to have an equal role. And I want everyone to evolve such that they find greater potential and fulfillment through cooperation and the release of their blinding egos.

Your claim -- against all evidence to the contrary -- that it has instead been women who have been in overwhelming power throughout history, because of their ability to give tongue lashings and refuse someone from penetrating their body, is such a LAME attempt for you to DENY what you are associated with WHILE elevating yourself as someone with a brilliantly unique perspective. It's absurd... you're crazy... and you're simply a poster boy for the problem.

Nothing you've said demonstrates any real depth of understanding or love. Rather, you appear to be a surface-dweller serving your ego and prancing around proudly in your blindness. What if you were a woman sold into the sex trade of men? What if you were a woman who was told what to wear, and you were traded like cattle, and denied all rights to an education and/or freedom of movement or speech? What if you were a child being routinely abused by your male family members or priests? What would you say to someone like yourself right now? These are all widespread examples of a long-term rampant and gross imbalance of male domination and entitlement.

[Eodnhoj7]

I have never denied sex to a man as some sort of tool.

So you sleep with whatever man is present and expect to not be abused and disrespected?

See how twisted you are? You can't even comprehend things straight. Slowly read what I said. Of course I have denied sex to men that I don't want to have sex with. But I have not used sex as some sort of tool. Are you able to see the distinction, or are you a total tool yourself?

So you sleep with the men you want to like you, and those you don't like you don't sleep with?

Wait...let me insert the "fuck you John" and save you the trouble.

Damn... you even take the fun out of it for me.

If you want the "truth" from a man's perspective you can treat a woman right, be strong both physically and mentally, financially sound, etc. and the truth is the women will move on to the next man...it is in their nature.

Maybe that's your experience/perspective... but that's not how I am, nor is it the way I've known women to be. I don't know what kind of people you hang around with. And I don't know to what extent you're delusional or ignorant about yourself.



That is because the men will not stick around because of your behavior. And your behavior? Besides the false "I am open to everything" deep down you project a deeply rooted disdain for men you are trying to hold in. Now is the disdain justified? Probably...considering the type of men you seem to be implying about, I know, exist as common place.

I don't know what people you hang around with, and you probably don't either, but it appears to be a female group of "self-justification" and "patting on the back" where one can do no wrong.

If you want the truth, men don't have any respect for women who sleep around because it shows the woman has no respect for herself. Deep down, I believe (and am open to being wrong about this point) you and your female friends feel a level of guilt and abandonment over the inability to please or keep a man in the long term.

Now you will turn this around and say that I am projecting on you, and maybe this is the case or maybe it is not...I really don't know one thing except that women generally are less loyal than men and the men who leave you do so because they believe or know you will not be around, will start nagging every single second, spend all of his money...or whatever...the list of reasons goes on.

Don't play the "I am innocent" card.

What are you talking about and projecting now? Nevermind... it's all stupid.

You are not innocent lacewing...all the men who used you are not innocent either but don't pretend you are higher and more righteous than all the other's around you? Do you think you are more moral than all the men hear? Somehow you are better than us? Because that is what it always seems.

You sleep with whatever man you like which throws you a cheap compliment...a guess based on an outside perspective. Whatever abuse happened to you years ago, not just broke your mind but probably broke whatever sense of dignity and innocence you felt as a woman a long time ago...I doubt you remember who you even are.

It is real simple you claim you are not a whore. Okay. But you sleep with whatever man you "want" and then claim men are the root of all problems which is only a half truth. You do understand men have little respect for women who sleep around, especially needy ones...right? I am simply saying you are reaping, along with your friends, what you sow.

It is easier to get a blow job than find a loyal woman.

Maybe you're not deserving of more than that. Be glad you get that.

Deserving? See the judgemental and high role women think of themselves? As if them giving out a blow job makes them worth something. This is the picture of a woman's mind "I am special and unique, who I fuck determines who is good or not because "everything is relative to me...I feel something therefore it is true."

Who said I was only talking about me? If I turn down a blow job I am considered gay. If I accept it I am considered an asshole who uses women.

I don't know how many stories I have dealt with or heard where the woman had multiple men she would jump to as a "back up" that she just strings along.

Well, it's not nice for anyone to string anyone along, but there ARE a lot of stupid and lying men who are on a single dull channel of getting what they want, and it's only reasonable for a woman to "move on" if that's the low-level mentality she's being faced with. Too many men seem to think that their dick is something every woman should worship as the man does himself. So if men are going to be that shallow (which, yes, you appear to be) then some women might jerk you around with it like a pull-toy.

Actually you believe sex should not be open to always to procreation and simply just a form of pleasure...you are afraid to take care of child no different than the men you sleep with. The only thing I am pointing out is that you are no different than the men you sleep with.

I know of one story where the girl was done blowing her friend outside of her boyfriends house, walked up to the door, with the boyfriend welcoming her...and then she kissed him on the lips.

I know of the exact opposite story. So, what's the conclusion???

Women are no different yet keep blaming the opposite sex for all of their own problems. You know what I do? Admit where the fault is mine and where the fault is theirs? Am I perfect? No. Are they perfect? No.

You are telling me you have never did wrong to a man once?

Are you correct about the "bad men out their"? Yes, you will get no disagreement from me...but the behavior I have both seen and experienced is cruel on a whole different level.

Because it affects YOU! That's the "whole different level" that matters. Right? Fuck off! There, I got to say it.

For something that affects only "me" you seem to be deeply offended enough to say "fuck off"...sweetheart....

[Eodnhoj7]

Women do not run off of logic but emotion only, a woman of logic is a woman of no emotion and are generally cold as ice (while only being smarter than the dumb men around her).

Women have no accountability for their emotions in western culture, as this emotional nature (premised highly in a relativistic thinking) fuels the consumer base.

Women are just the extensions of the environments in which they are raised and reflect the moral and cultural attributes of the men they are around. The weakness of western men can be observed in the whoring nature of their women. The men have no self-control, hence the women have no-self control.