Thou Shalt Not Disappoint Her

[804]

http://balancingeverything.com/ and the like. It makes my biological clock come to a screeching halt.

[David Quinn]

I see. And you are determined this won't be your fate as well?

-

[kissaki]

804,

It only appears as defeatism because you mistake infinite for the things gained and lost. Hence the necessity for obliviousness to the obvious in order for the gain and loss to occur. What is the gain or loss into anyway? The universe. Precisely what has been, is now, and will be. For every connection you think should exist as a gain/loss relation, the universe already is connected a thousand other ways -- right now. There is no true start thing. There is no true stop thing. Examine all things in light of this knowledge, most especially, the thing of your birth.

The entire insanity revolving around men and women, which you see excellently displayed on this forum, is because women are so good at keeping men oblivious. That is to say, preventing men from seeing that women are also things.

[804]

I see. And you are determined this won't be your fate as well?

Death first, comrade!

804,

It only appears as defeatism because you mistake infinite for the things gained and lost. Hence the necessity for obliviousness to the obvious in order for the gain and loss to occur. What is the gain or loss into anyway? The universe. Precisely what has been, is now, and will be. For every connection you think should exist as a gain/loss relation, the universe already is connected a thousand other ways -- right now. There is no true start thing. There is no true stop thing. Examine all things in light of this knowledge, most especially, the thing of your birth.

The entire insanity revolving around men and women, which you see excellently displayed on this forum, is because women are so good at keeping men oblivious. That is to say, preventing men from seeing that women are also things.

I'm sorry my cunt is so distracting. I had no idea. Listen man, I'll start taking you seriously when you start making sense. Deal? Here. I'll take the first step: I am a woman. I am a feminist, in that I want to be treated equal to a man in a professional setting, but often skip the little box that the government obliges every company put at the end of each application so that I'm chosen for skill rather than the need to fill a quota. I am also an advocate for the father's rights movement-- that is a facet of my life that takes a great amount of my time and energy. I don't play games, I don't exploit my sex in order to gain favors, and I'm more driven, motivated, in general than most people I'm acquainted with.

How am I, because of my sex organs, preventing you from anything? If anything I'm more productive, more of an active citizen, than a great many people my age.

[brad walker]

http://balancingeverything.com/ and the like. It makes my biological clock come to a screeching halt.

Yikes, I know that B&N. IF needs a mommy blogger registry.

[kissaki]

804,

You took my words as an attack on females, which is precisely what the words point out is impossible to do. It's either 'Death first' or your vagina.

Q.E.D.

[xerox]

...

[804]

804,

You took my words as an attack on females, which is precisely what the words point out is impossible to do. It's either 'Death first' or your vagina.

Q.E.D.

I disagree, for a number of reasons, but that isn't the issue here: The real issue is, can someone PLEASE make "Death or 804's Vagina" a bumper sticker? For the love of all that is good and holy in the universe, I need that bumper sticker.

Oh, and answer my question. How does the lack of a wingus between my legs impede your bumbling progress through personal evolution?

Why are you doing this? Do you have a personal motivation?

Isn't there a personal motivation behind all vendetta- I mean, er, activism? I find it incredibly unfair that so many loving, capable fathers are denied their children because of misogynistic family court rulings that decide, no matter what (it seems), Mommy must be the better parent.

There are a great number of deadbeat dads out there but there are just as many deadbeat moms who, for some idiot reason, still have guardianship of her children.

[804]

Oh, how I adore early morning, semi-lucid posting.

"Death fist vagina."

[guest_of_logic]

I've been trying to contain myself to the one thread, but this one is just begging for certain things to be said (or, rather, written, and then read).

Quality article.

If you like unbridled, largely unbacked opinion that supports your prejudices, then sure. For the more discerning reader and participant in life, well...

To the article itself:

And, if he should, G-d forbid, disappoint his delicate flower, one only wonders how she might retaliate.

The author reveals his hand straight away. His paradigm is one in which women react viciously to men who disappoint them. Where did he get this paradigm from? Did he, perhaps, read some carefully planned and implemented scientific studies? Or perhaps he actually undertook these scientific studies himself! It should be interesting to learn what methods he used in his careful, thorough, comprehensive and elaborate studies! Let's read on to find out what they are!

Upon receiving marriage proposals from their boyfriends in front of live TV cameras, women typically jump up and down, shriek, and shed tears.

A terrifyingly precise scientific study. It appears that the author has systematically watched innumerable hours of random television to come this undeniable generalisation.

women seek at least 70% of all marital dissolutions (an accurate barometer of female disappointment)

Naturally, those women were unjustified in their dissolutions. Irrational, heartless bitches! I mean, it's not as if they were concerned to have a healthy relationship, they just wanted to hurt their men!

Because most men have been raised to make women happy, to close that painful gap between expectation and reality, the penalty for failing is tremendous.

The author reasserts his hand. Women react badly to men who disappoint them. Those scientific backing studies should be coming through any time now...

How do Alexis and Tracy explain the PMS (princess mentality syndrome) demands of their competitor at CNBC, Erin Burnett, who penned “8 Ways to Impress Me” on MensHealth.com?

Oh, is this the scientific study we've been waiting for? But I'm sure that there'll be some science sometime soon...

Women just don’t like to admit that feminarcissism is the rule, not the exception.

Ah, great, a testable statement: "feminarcissism is the rule, not the exception"! Fantastic, let's see the scientific tests that the author has conducted to back it! I'm looking forward to them!

Have you ever heard the slogan, If Mom’s happy, everyone’s happy?

Who, me? Can't say that I have, mate. But no doubt you can show that it's a prevalent attitude in our culture by some systematic means. Please do carry on with your scientific approach.

Dennis Miller’s wife warned him, via text message during our exchange, not to have me back on his show. A few other hosts admitted that their wives had cut off sex for a week after hearing them agree with me on the air.

Thrilling science! The author proves conclusively that all women hate the truth (or, at least, the shit that he spouts).

It’s sad that American men have reduced themselves to living in fear of women

Yes, thanks for sharing that definitive evidence that American men fear women more than American women fear men. You are going to share it, right?

Why is it that women who falsely accuse men of rape or domestic violence are never prosecuted?

More to the point, why is it that you present no backing for that claim?

Why is it that Hollywood and Madison Avenue continually portray men in sitcoms and TV commercials as moronic, impotent servants to their wives?

Who fucking knows? When did Hollywood and Madison Avenue ever represent reality? Oh, and, thanks for the careful studies that back your claim.

And, why is it that, when women drop off their unwanted newborns at local fire stations, no questions asked, society looks the other way?

Uh, which world are you living in? In my world this kind of behaviour is lambasted.

But wait, I think that we might finally be getting close to those comprehensive scientific studies!...

Let’s see an example. In this well-known video, a father surprises his daughter, Mackenzie, with a red sports car on her 16th birthday. Instead of thanking him, she whines and stomps her feet — because she hates the color.

...or perhaps we're just going to get another anecdote. Ah well, at least you tried.

Basically, women are strong when it suits them and weak when it suits them, and men, suffering from vaginaphobia, just go along with it.

Great, another testable statement! Let's all enjoy the careful research that underpins it...

...still hunting it down? Me too...

A friend of mine recently recounted an incident where his ex-wife had violated their custody agreement.

Oh, great, more anecdotes! Well, fair enough, I mean, who needs fair and unbiased studies, right?

Two weeks ago, I debated Lis Wiehl on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto about a jilted woman who won a $150K settlement from a Georgia jury because her fiancé had broken their engagement.

Neat, another anecdote. You know what, if we collect enough of these, we won't need a scientific study!

A casualty of TV’s highly intellectual show, The Bachelor, 22-year-old Shayne Lamas, daughter of Lorenzo Lamas, broke off her engagement to Matt Grant.

Yup, that seems to be the idea. Once we've collected all of the anecdotes, we have something to base our scientific study on.

Last month, Cynthia Rodriguez filed for divorce against Yankee great Alex Rodriguez, also known as A-Rod, after reports surfaced that he was involved with Madonna.

Oh boy, we're really adding to our collection now! How many more before it becomes a study?

If you’re a man whose mantra is Thou Shalt Not Disappoint Her — with the “wrong” dinner, conversation, joke, diamond, car, house, vacation, divorce settlement, salary, or legislation — you need to grow a pair.

Huh? That's the end? But... but... the, the study, the science, the research, the... what? There isn't any of that stuff? What, you mean, that was all, like, just, opinion? But... but... it was so forceful! It really seemed like you knew what you were talking about! You're not telling us that it was all based solely on your own limited experiences, are you? Oh, you are? Oh. I see. OK. Well. Right. Well, thanks anyway. I think.

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

My point, kissaki, is that anyone can come up with anecdotes. It takes rigour to justify a generalisation. Rigour is not in evidence in this article. And before you say, "Well that doesn't mean that it's false", I could construct an equally persuasive argument - based on my anecdotal experiences - that comes to the opposite conclusion about women. I'm not saying that he's entirely wrong, just that he's ridiculously biased. Equally bad things can be anecdotally related about some men. That doesn't mean that all men conform to the generalisation. Get your fucking hand off the QRS dick.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

804,

(Ever bully a drunk at a party into playing Guitar Hero? It's the best.)

Can't say that I have, unless they're drunk on energy drinks.

I assumed that you were talking about something painful and harsh because that seems to be the tone. I'm confused by Kissaki's logic, this no matter what happens you are still at a loss stuff.

Don't confuse kissaki's ideas with mine. I was asking why you didn't add in an hour a day of epistemology and metaphysics as valuable.

[kissaki]

dejavu,

The word was accidentally misspelled and you dislike the blog. Points taken. So, do you have anything to say about the nature of your birth and death? Or are you still giving women credit for actions that were never theirs?

guest_of_logic,

Let's take the article for what it is, a man attacking the delusion of women. So he relies on his personal experience and is obviously a bit angry, can he be blamed? Must all personal experience be sacrificed at the altar of Science in order to determine worth and relevance to one's own? To expect that all knowledge come in a particular form, the passionless objective words of peer reviewed published papers, is to be delusional indeed.

I made no claims that men are not capable of absurdity, in fact, women waste no point or spare any energy in pointing that out. We already classify this observation as self-evident. The reason and only reason it is worthwhile to tear woman down is because it is they who rely on 'magic' in order to capture man's imagination. Woman obscures.

Get your fucking hand off the QRS dick.

All those words describing how unscientific the article is, and this one pathetic sentence is all you have to show for it. Perhaps you should take your own hands of the Science dick before telling others what to do with theirs. So tell me, were you born of a dick and a vagina or not?

804,

Vagina is a distraction to mens' thoughts on life in the same way the Milky Way is a distraction -- a streak across space-time supporting man's existence, owned by no one, recognized by everyone. The problem is that even after all this, you still think too much of your vagina. All the while the real female I was born of goes unnoticed.

[guest_of_logic]

Let's take the article for what it is, a man attacking the delusion of women.

It comes across to me as a guy selecting a series of stories and anecdotes to push his personal view of women, without any rigourous evidence that this view of women is valid in general. Yes, some women behave badly. Some men behave badly too. But to go from "some" to "in general", regarding specific behaviours, requires a lot more justification than he provided. You based an entire thread on this article. One might expect the basis of such a thread to be something thorough and studied. Instead it's just a bunch of opinion.

So he relies on his personal experience and is obviously a bit angry, can he be blamed? Must all personal experience be sacrificed at the altar of Science in order to determine worth and relevance to one's own? To expect that all knowledge come in a particular form, the passionless objective words of peer reviewed published papers, is to be delusional indeed.

The views that the guy expresses don't accord with my experience. So, I write up a nice long blog post outlining my experiences and pushing my less deprecating view of women. How, then, do we discriminate between the two? The only way to do it is to put our competing claims through some sort of objective process, which weighs up all of the available evidence, or at least a statistically significant subset of it, rather than just selecting those portions of the evidence which fit our cases.

I made no claims that men are not capable of absurdity, in fact, women waste no point or spare any energy in pointing that out.

You don't even try to hide your chauvinism.

We already classify this observation as self-evident. The reason and only reason it is worthwhile to tear woman down is because it is they who rely on 'magic' in order to capture man's imagination.

What magic is that?

guest_of_logic: Get your fucking hand off the QRS dick.

kissaki: All those words describing how unscientific the article is, and this one pathetic sentence is all you have to show for it.

It may have been crude and offensive, but I was trying to show you in the starkest terms how I view your participation in this forum to date. I've read every one of your posts so far, including the ones in the thread that you referenced on the other forum in your first post to GF. You couldn't be mimicking QRS more closely than you already are. You've swallowed, digested, and are now regurgitating every ounce of the Woman philosophy. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you (and they), don't make some valid points. For example, it is pretty much undeniable that most of the (recognised, at least) high achievers in the fields of science, mathematics, and philosophy, have been men. What this implies about men and women is, however, another matter. You, following eagerly in the footsteps of QRS, of course turn it into a disgusting blight on women. It's all about finding a way to cast the worst possible light on women, have you noticed that yet? Of course you have, because you buy into it. Do you really, honestly, think that you're being "truthful" in this quest, or is it more like a witchhunt? I can only guess at what has led you to throw your lot in with QRS, but from what I've seen so far of your posts, you've done so with gleefulness and enthusiasm, including needlessly castigating Elizabeth when she was clearly suffering, presumably because you thought that you were upholding the ethos of the forum as defined by QRS. Apart from your recent thread-starter, "Large Scale Structure of The Universe", you've been completely lacking in originality: your message is pure QRS. In my opinion, if you can't find even minor fault with QRS doctrine, then you're sorely lacking in critical ability. Hence my quoted comment. You're coming across, to me at least, as a burgeoning sycophant. Not in the sense that you heap praise on QRS and make obsequious remarks, but in the sense that you adopt their message wholesale and without adjustment. Do you want to be a unique, thinking human being, or simply a clone of others?

[804]

I've never thought of my gash as being so glorious as to derail the track to enlightenment. For all your woman bashing, no girls allowed mentality, you sure seem to think pretty highly of the power of the vulva, Kissaki.

[kissaki]

guest_of_logic,

So which is it? Both statements made by you: No rigorous evidence that women are delusional or that it is pretty much undeniable that most of the high achievers in the fields of science, mathematics, and philosophy are men? If science, mathematics, and philosophy is opposite in spirit to delusion, then men are the core spirit of dispelling delusion. So this leaves women with what precisely? That is the core irrefutable observation. The only modification to this observation is extending the concept of men and women to the realm of spirit entirely and doing away with definitions based upon physical form, thus completing the dispelling of the delusion. The article was merely a primer, an introduction. Yet here we are now at the core of the issue. See, something need not be 'perfect' , especially in any strict scientific definition, to have use.

The article doesn't accord with your experience. Therefore women in your experience is ... what ? No matter what great light you paint women in we already know it is not her who pushes the boundaries of knowledge and takes man to the edge of the Void. So why your propensity to defend something, woman, which takes you in the complete opposite direction? The entire purpose of destroying women is not to hate them. The purpose is to hate the constructions surrounding and accredited to woman -- life. You raise the flag of personal experience. Very well then. Remove yourself from blocking her path, let her march forward alone, and let them personally experience Void. Spirit is the question, man and woman are but merely the questioners.

Clearly I am not hiding my seed of chauvinism. So why claim that I am? If I have anything to thank chauvinism for it is that it presented an opportunity to see beyond woman, to see that she is not all there is. How many men and women see that? See, even chauvinism has its wise uses.

Again, woman's magic is exactly the appearance of what they are not -- life.

Your last paragraph is based on a false premise and subtle delusion. There is no QRS philosophy! Am I not allowed to build upon, agree with, or proclaim the wisdom of others? And you proclaim Science. Hypocrite. I, or you if you had the capacity, could easily level the charge of copy-cat and unoriginality against QRS . "Buddha has expounded truth. There is nothing to add." The subtle delusion is that Buddha is not separate from that statement, thus folly. You don't appear to even know the nature of words, where they start and where they end. You can't even get over the word 'woman' without entering into the realm of defending shadows.

I will paint woman in the worst possible light, and I shall paint men in it too. All you've proven is that you spoke too soon, and made an accusation against me before I've denounced men and after I've denounced women. There are many ways to perceive the gain and loss, but you've already shown your hand: a preemptive attack to pigeon hole my words into the non-existent QRS philosophy category. Strictly speaking from your viewpoint, it is a tactical blunder.

Elizabeth made a foolish post, and I revealed it as such. Not even the members of your infamous QRS clan denied it, they only claimed it was not 'nice.'

I have cut down your arrows, now cut down mine. Were you born of a dick and a vagina or not?

[kissaki]

804 still thinks it's about her vagina and guest_of_logic made the mistake of not making logic his guest instead. The words are there clear as day. Who hears them?

[David Quinn]

I've never thought of my gash as being so glorious as to derail the track to enlightenment. For all your woman bashing, no girls allowed mentality, you sure seem to think pretty highly of the power of the vulva, Kissaki.

It is more to do with the plethora of illusions which surround woman and her cunt that cast the spell over men's minds. For example, the illusion that a woman's cunt is a hidden treasure given only to a chosen few, which in turn feeds the male illusion that he is special in some way if he can win her approval and and get her into bed.

-

[brokenhead]

Clearly I am not hiding my seed of chauvinism. So why claim that I am? If I have anything to thank chauvinism for it is that it presented an opportunity to see beyond woman, to see that she is not all there is. How many men and women see that? See, even chauvinism has its wise uses.

Again, woman's magic is exactly the appearance of what they are not -- life.

Your seed of chauvinism? It looks full-blown to me. There's not a lot of content in your rants aside from the vitriol.

Why is it that people who have had limited exposure to members of the opposite sex in a boy-girl type of situation seem to develop grand theories about how the genders relate? Such people cannot seem to understand that the one thing all their relationships have in common is them.

Kissaki, enough with the "woman's magic" line of prosecution. Your posts show you to be too emotional, and therefore vulnerable. To hold on to these thoughts of yours is going to turn you into a lightning rod for like experiences. Is that what you want? Verification of a view of the sexes that you wouldn't have chosen for yourself but were forced to due to your experiences? Why not be a man about it instead? Take control of your own life. Tell yourself that it is possible to find a satisfying mate, then go out and find her. If you are convinced of this "Woman" stereotype - and that is all that it is - then that is what you will encounter. You will never find a good woman if you don't think it is possible to do so.

[brokenhead]

For example, the illusion that a woman's cunt is a hidden treasure given only to a chosen few, which in turn feeds the male illusion that he is special in some way if he can win her approval and and get her into bed.

Is that more of an illusion than anything else?

I hear you, David. Who needs approval, after all? Since we're real men, manly and manful men, we'll just get her into bed whether she approves or not.

[Alex Jacob]

Interesting anecdote: In Vaishnavism (the branch of Indian religion dealing with worship of Vishnu-Krishna) they have a whole way of thinking about the Earth-realm which is sometimes rather similar to our own beloved QRS. They say the whole place is a 'devi-loka', a female place, a place of women, and that the 'female energy' more or less runs it. They say that male energy, the masculine, by and large, exists to serve the female-potency, and no matter how it gets diced this is pretty much the condition of man. The whole realm is dominated by the sex-drive, and the sex-drive drives just about everything, so from the moment you are born and all through your life, in one way or another, that is pretty much all you are doing: serving reproduction, serving the women who reproduce, and always remaining under the spell of the glorious yoni. For the Vaishnavas, we are drawn into life (incarnation) because of sex-desire, and since this is the predominant potency here, the principal desire binding us to this Earth and to incarnation here, is our slavery to sex. So, in their way of seeing things, this addiction has to be broken, and they recommend a complete way that this can be done, which amounts to a sublimation of sexual desire into other areas.

In Judaism, in contradistinction, the sex thing is never quite the problem it is in other religions. To procreate is a 'mitzvah' because God has commanded it ('be fruitful and multiply'), so the main problem is the sexual problem before marriage, sex outside of marriage, masturbation, and of course homosexuality. Life and all that attends it, or that comprises it, is often lamented but never despised, since God has given life, and if God gave it, even if it is troublesome, it must be a gift.

[kissaki]

Your seed of chauvinism? It looks full-blown to me. There's not a lot of content in your rants aside from the vitriol.

Why is it that people who have had limited exposure to members of the opposite sex in a boy-girl type of situation seem to develop grand theories about how the genders relate? Such people cannot seem to understand that the one thing all their relationships have in common is them.

Kissaki, enough with the "woman's magic" line of prosecution. Your posts show you to be too emotional, and therefore vulnerable. To hold on to these thoughts of yours is going to turn you into a lightning rod for like experiences. Is that what you want? Verification of a view of the sexes that you wouldn't have chosen for yourself but were forced to due to your experiences? Why not be a man about it instead? Take control of your own life. Tell yourself that it is possible to find a satisfying mate, then go out and find her. If you are convinced of this "Woman" stereotype - and that is all that it is - then that is what you will encounter. You will never find a good woman if you don't think it is possible to do so.

An excellent demonstration of the following excerpt from Poison for The Heart:

Reality is on the other side of the river, yet all we can see from this side is the upside
down reflection of the other bank.
Thus, the mind of the sage cannot be appreciated by those absorbed in the world.
They can only see the appearance of his mind, which is always upside down. This is
why it says in one of the Buddhist scriptures: "The virtuous one's mind is turned upside
down, and does not accord with the Buddha wisdom."

You see brokenhead, even in ignorance you cannot but help display Reality for all to see. There is no escape!

[David Quinn]

For example, the illusion that a woman's cunt is a hidden treasure given only to a chosen few, which in turn feeds the male illusion that he is special in some way if he can win her approval and and get her into bed.

Is that more of an illusion than anything else?

I hear you, David. Who needs approval, after all? Since we're real men, manly and manful men, we'll just get her into bed whether she approves or not.

Indeed! The most "manly" of men is the one who can have cunt whenever he wants.

Or so says this same illusion.

-

[804]

I hate to write you off as yet another Internets insane-o, because that would take away the fun of disproving you again and again, but isn't the definition of insanity itself the act of denying logic? You are being presented with logic and in a fantastic show of "NUH-UH, NO U" reciprocate with Yoda-like gibberish and quotes from other nonsensical sources.

The dilemma here is that you feel the same about us: the majority, those who (since you're so fond of inexplicably proper nouns) Know Reality From Paranoid Delusion; and so we're stuck.

If I have anything to thank chauvinism for it is that it presented an opportunity to see beyond woman, to see that she is not all there is.

I am a woman who realizes that there is more to life than the opposite sex. You may argue that this is because we are wired differently, either through biology or upbringing, but I can assure you that I am just as independent, prideful, hungry for sex (meaningful or non), and studious as any man. Yet I do not hate man.

Will you continue to see my genitals as a black hole (tee-hee), something to vacuously consume (hah!) every poor, victimized man in its path? I certainly don't go out on the hunt searching for such victims. I impede no one's progress and I don't break hearts simply because I apparently can. You are placing entirely too much power on who or what my gender is; if anything, your lack of faith in your sex would be a hatred of man and misunderstanding of woman.

[Kelly Jones]

804,

One thing you may not have noticed, is the sentence, bolded and underlined for your convenience below, in the introduction of this board:

Welcome to Genius Forum, the forum for Dangerous Thinkers.

Genius is a discussion forum that is passionately dedicated to the nature of Genius, Wisdom and Ultimate Reality and to the total annihilation of false values. It is an unconventional discussion forum suitable only for the brave hearted. It is for those who like their thoughts bloodied and dangerous. That is to say, it is a forum intended solely for men - of either sex. It is sometimes said that genius is "the infinite capacity for giving pain." This is very apt. If one is not deliberately causing pain to the ego, both in oneself and in others, then what is the good of one's life? One might as well not exist at all. It is by challenging and overturning our cosy assumptions, habitual thought-processes, psychological refuges and mental blocks that our minds can be opened up that little bit more to the wisdom of the Infinite.

We hope you find this forum stimulating and challenging.

After you have given this some thought, give it a second round of thought.

But don't tell me what your thought is yet. Focus on the idea again. Think some more.

Only when you have given this paragraph three good long thinks, then tell me what your thought is.

[kissaki]

804,

Write me off as you wish. For the moment I have written you off as being completely attached to your identify as a female and unable to move past it. You continue to find offense in a universe where such a thing is an impossibility. You are as good as dead until you show proof life.

Truly, if I could inhabit the body of a female it would be over for men. I would use my razor sharp vagina more wisely than all the females in history put together. Finally men would have a real reason to fear the vagina