sexual aggression

[Shahrazad]

And whatever happened to Pyro? I took time to make a reply just to answer her questions, and she doesn't even come back to read it? What a waste of my time!

.

[Kelly Jones]

This test says women are bisexual (or always sexual towards virtually everyone).

But I don't think woman's sex-mindedness is geared towards having sexual intercourse (the usual idea of mating). Instead, its about an emotional bonding. This is why many older lesbian couples never have sex (called "bed death").

I was chatting to a 55yo lesbian nurse the other day, generally quite intelligent, who said "higher consciousness is all about sensuality". It's telling. In fact, women generally prefer "sensual" sex rather than an objective sex focussed on penetration and orgasm (the "quickie"). They want the emotional thrills and "aliveness" to go on for hours, rather than actually achieve some objective. This sexuality shows as the hugging and stroking, compliments, chatting, pretty decor and clothing, and so on - which women are engaged in all their waking hours. For them, anticipation, romance, dreaming, feelings, having fun, etc. is what counts. Much like three-year-olds at a fun-fair, with ribbons in the wind, "House of Terror", lucky dip prizes, a fatherly man with a loudspeaker, and the smell of barbecued sausage sandwiches. They don't want "self vs other", it all has to be "everyone is my self".


Kelly

[Carl G]

Ah, Kelly, you are a poet. And I mean that in the kindest way. I have known women who are as you describe.

Nothing wrong with poetry if it is truthful.

[Kelly Jones]

Except for the second-to-last sentence, I didn't use any poetic symbolism.

[Carl G]

Ah, modest, too. The entire piece is a lovely prose poem.

[Jamesh]

Women still say No, then relent for sex do they? I wouldn't have a clue myself, just though it may have changed with the modern day sexual freedom of women.

It is interesting though. Many female species of animals initally reject advances from males, and the male has to prance around showing off whatever the female might desire, so to me a women saying No, then relenting, is pretty much akin to that, a instinctual hangover from our more animal times.

[Kelly Jones]

Ah, modest, too. The entire piece is a lovely prose poem.

It'd be ironic if it was poetry.

Poetry is the opposite of logic. Logic is efficient, using only what's relevant. Poetry is superfluity, adding components and even contradictory ones, to create a more "sensual, dreamy" experience.


Kelly

[sp]

[Carl G]

Sorry, that is not a logical definition of poetry.

Don't you think the Tao Te Ching is poetry? Would you levy the same criticism on it?

[Kevin Solway]

I explained clearly that when a woman says "No", she actually means "No".

Yeah, I did notice, but surely you are not serious. You actually consider her to be conscious enough to actually mean it? Rest of the time you seem to suggest otherwise.

While one can suspect that a woman's "No" is not deeply considered and consistent, and therefore might not mean a whole lot, one can't be absolutely sure of this. It might be the case that a woman just made the one fully conscious decision of her entire life.

And even if all of a woman's decisions are not properly considered, I think one should always treat women as though one expects women to make fully responsible decisions, and respect their decisions as such, even though one suspects they are nonsense. That in itself will lead to many disasters, but at least women might learn something from this.

[Kelly Jones]

Carl,

I think good, clear, simple scriptures are logical.

They don't say anything superfluous, yet use as many words as you like.

The difficulty with teaching emptiness is there is nothing to compare it to. That is why poetic analogies are used in spiritual writings. But it's not ego-arousing poetry. "Everything is my self" has a totally different meaning, from the perspective of an egotist, and from the perspective of wisdom.


Kelly

[Carl G]

Ah, so it is not poetry, per se, that you object to, but only a certain sort of romantic verse.

I quite agree. I believe poetry, like art, can be an excellent tool for conveying wisdom. It can be so concise.

[PyroSylph]

Shah said:

Women love drama, and when they talk about their sorrows, they do feel better afterwards.

Everyone loves drama, some more than others. All you need do to see this fact in action is watch the post views go up when a good fight gets started at a board. As a matter of fact, short of a couple of incidences over the past 8 years, the majority of drama I have witnessed at a board have been started and ended by men. The whole David vs. Kevin's trip thread is a good example. Hell, just watch the evening news! Drama played out and all the participants are men. I personally hate too much drama. There are times (when at it's extreme) I become physically ill.
When it comes to sorrow, anger, etc., I agree; a woman can talk it out with a girl friend and all is well.

Shah said:

I agree that women are attracted to seducers.

Not all women. Young women; yes. Mature experienced women; not so many. Compliments and promises from a man are for young women and women who want to feel wanted. A mature woman may get a few butterflies in her stomach when she is admired, it's great for the self-esteem. But I wouldn't say all women are attracted to that sort of thing. Most of us understand the purpose behind flattery.

Shah said:

It takes a mature man to understand the psychology of a woman. Dan is a lot closer to understanding it than Skip. But Skip is much closer than Rhett or Nick, for example.

Take a look around you Shah, you do realize where you are, right? You do realize what the men here think of you, do you not?
Here are a couple of examples:

David Quinn:

"If you take away all of the sexual/whorish elements from a woman's behaviour, what do you have left? Someone who oscillates between juvenile inanity and matronly boorishness."

Dan Rowden: (during a phone conversation)

"They're all bitches."

With all their understanding of the psychology of women, this is what they come up with? Maybe they chose the wrong women to study?

Shah said:

Women are addicted to love and/or romance, but not to sex. Haven't you ever met a real woman?

He supposedly has, but she must have been one for the books! If she wasn't bedding him, he believed she was either a silly child or wanting to be his momma! You pegged it Shah; romance vs. sex.

Shah said:

And whatever happened to Pyro? I took time to make a reply just to answer her questions, and she doesn't even come back to read it? What a waste of my time!

To be honest, you did waste your time, we both did. The guys here have their minds made up, they don't want to hear from us. Well, they do, but only so they have someone to mock. And don't be so unsettled about my not answering right away, it feeds the "drama lovers" theory. :P

[Shahrazad]

You do realize what the men here think of you, do you not?

Sure. Do they realize what we think of them?

To be honest, you did waste your time, we both did. The guys here have their minds made up, they don't want to hear from us. Well, they do, but only so they have someone to mock.

I didn't write the post for them to read, but for you.

And don't be so unsettled about my not answering right away, it feeds the "drama lovers" theory. :P

Huh? Was there ever any doubt that I love drama?

-

[David Quinn]

Pyro quoted me:

David Quinn:

"If you take away all of the sexual/whorish elements from a woman's behaviour, what do you have left? Someone who oscillates between juvenile inanity and matronly boorishness."

I can't recall writing that, but it is a pretty good quote. I like it!

It reminds me of another aphorism: A woman only ever experiences two emotions - smugness or terror.

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

David Quinn wrote:

I can't recall writing that, but it is a pretty good quote. I like it!

It reminds me of another aphorism: A woman only ever experiences two emotions - smugness or terror.

Those are good, I agree. Here’s another -

A woman serves a man only as a means to serve herself. Her self-esteem is achieved by what she does for him. Before she can love him, she needs to firmly believe that he is worthy of her submission.

Likewise, a sage will only serve the cause of wisdom, when all doubt has been cast from his mind, when he realizes that the ‘infinite’ with worthy of his ego’s submission.

And ironically, a woman will fall out of love with her man when he falls in love with wisdom.

[Shahrazad]

Pyro,

I hope you did read my clarifying post about men loving “drama” just as much as anybody.

On the subject of seducers, you said:

Not all women. Young women; yes. Mature experienced women; not so many. Compliments and promises from a man are for young women and women who want to feel wanted. A mature woman may get a few butterflies in her stomach when she is admired, it's great for the self-esteem. But I wouldn't say all women are attracted to that sort of thing. Most of us understand the purpose behind flattery.

I would disagree based on an important observation: your idea of what a seducer is and how he operates is too narrow. There are many levels of seduction. Perhaps I have seen this more than you have because I live in a Latin society. The big difference is, a modest percentage of Anglo men are seducers, while a large percentage of Latin men are.

In other words, there are high school level seducers and there are PhD level seducers.

The former do flattery that can only appeal to the teens (“you are the most beautiful woman I have ever seen; and I would never look at any other besides you”; yeah right, and I was born during the First Gulf War era, and I still wear bobby socks).

The latter are very experienced and go beyond flattery and silly promises; they go to much greater lengths to convince a woman that they love her. Every movement of his is calculated for this. And this is not so hard for him to do since he gets an enormous thrill out of chasing you as a predator chases the prey, his mouth watering at the thought of how delicious you taste. An inexperienced woman may certainly interpret this thrill as love. But as you would expect, that thrill will only last as long as the prey is in front of him. The moment he captures it, he eats a single meal, and the next time he is hungry he will chase another prey, because there are more preys than predators, and his thrill (or nervous tension, to be consistent with the vocabulary I used in my other posts) is in the chase, not in the possession thereof.

The guys here have their minds made up, they don't want to hear from us. Well, they do, but only so they have someone to mock.

They are being mocked at least as much as they are mocking. Dan has my respect, as do a few others (for ex. Sapius, Laird) but most others are quite close to being idiots. Did you ever notice that I never addressed Rhett? That is because he isn't worth my time. My initial quote of Rhett and subsequent comments were meant for Dan and for the other males with a brain.

-

[PyroSylph]

David Quinn said:

I can't recall writing that, but it is a pretty good quote. I like it!

It's in the Quality Post section of your site; The Psychology of Men and Women - "Murdering women's souls for sexual pleasure" by David Quinn

Shah, Yes, I read your clarifying post.

On seduction; My whole point was that seduction only works if the one being seduced is ignorant of its purpose. That's usually inexperienced young women and women who want to be wanted. So, we agree.

The maturity and experience of the seducer changes a lot! But the purpose is still the same. Women are not excluded from this either, a seductress just has it easier (for the most part). I should add that I see nothing wrong with a woman being seduced if that's what she wants. I just get peeved when women get snookered (prey vs. predator), then complain about it and continue making the same mistake over and over again.

[PyroSylph]

I probably won't be around to read a reply. Unless something as asinine as what Rhett said comes up again and is brought to my attention, I won't be here. Nice talking to you again, Shah.

[Shahrazad]

Pyro,

Thanks for the stimulating discussion. I guess you'll be back soon enough. A Rhett is born here every five minutes.

-

[Alex Jacob]

You mentioned that you live in a Latin culture, Shahrazad, do you live outside of the states? Your photo looks like the Panama Canal...

[Shahrazad]

You've got it, Alex. I live in Panama.

[David Quinn]

David Quinn said:

I can't recall writing that, but it is a pretty good quote. I like it!

It's in the Quality Post section of your site; The Psychology of Men and Women - "Murdering women's souls for sexual pleasure" by David Quinn

Ah yes, that's right. To put that quote into context, here is the "quality post" in question:

-

Murdering women's souls for sexual pleasure

David Quinn

The question needs to be asked as to why men constantly need to praise to the skies women's multi-knobbed nature. It can't be for intellectual reasons. Women very rarely produce anything of intellectual interest. Whatever thoughts that a woman expresses, it can be guaranteed that they have already been expressed in a far more powerful and interesting manner by men. Women only echo, in a far more diluted way, things they have heard from others or read about in a book. As such, only the most dull-witted of men could possibly find women intellectually stimulating.

It can't be for entertainment reasons. If you take away all of the sexual/whorish elements from a woman's behaviour, what do you have left? Someone who oscillates between juvenile inanity and matronly boorishness. The only thing that stops these behaviourisms from being unbearably tedious is the infusion of the sexual element. A woman gains her charm through the combination of sexuality and juvenility/motherliness/intellectual echoing. Without the sexual component, only the most lifeless of men, those who have absolutely no inner life to them at all, would find delight in women and give them the time of day. This is why old women are the most ignored class of people in society the world over.

Thus, the constant praise of women's multi-knobbed (i.e. her multi-faceted, incoherent, all-over-the-place, flowy) kind of behaviour ultimately comes from men's sexual desire. Men constantly praise women and defer to their banal concerns because they want to remain in their good books, and thus keep the possibility open for future sexual relations. They might not want to bonk every woman they meet - indeed, they might only want to bonk one or two of them out of the entire species - but they still continue to pour out the praise on all women regardless. For they subconsciously know that all women are just manifestations of the one entity - WOMAN - and that you cannot really praise one woman without praising all of them, just as you cannot disparage one of them without disparaging all of them.

The trouble with constantly praising women for their multi-faceted, incoherent, all-over-the-place, flowy behaviour is that it discourages them from developing a penetrative, coherent, consistent form of consciousness which is needed to make philosophical and spiritual progress. Hence, my beef with Thomas Knierim's misogynistic worship of women. I tell you truly, if women suddenly decided that they were going to make every effort to become Buddhas, he and his sixteen dogs would be horrified.

-

[Laird]

David,

Please keep your pornographic fantasies to yourself in future. None of us here wants to watch you masturbate.

[David Quinn]

If all women decided to become perfectly rational and uncompromising in their attitude towards deceit and lies, would you still love them?

-

[Laird]

None of us is perfect. I know of no one who is perfectly uncompromising in their attitude to lies and deceit. I don't believe, however, that women are any less compromising than men in attacking lies and deceit. And I already do love women who take a stand for honesty and integrity.