What is the consciousness of a woman really like?

[jupiviv]

Now this is interesting. Brother and sister fighting with each other on an internet forum.....LOL

Oh, and keep those personal attacks coming Jenny! I for one am keenly interested in hearing about Dan Rowden's personal life.

[Steven Coyle]

All the essential components for a Bose sound system.

[Dan Rowden]

Thanks for that, Dan. Every time you get pissed or sing kareoke, I think you are foolish too.

Forget what I said last night. If you were not my bro, I would have NOTHING to do with you.

Based on what? Seriously, based on what?

[Dan Rowden]

Now this is interesting. Brother and sister fighting with each other on an internet forum.....LOL

Oh, and keep those personal attacks coming Jenny! I for one am keenly interested in hearing about Dan Rowden's personal life.

Hmm, so you like being bored? :)

[Dan Rowden]

Don't be such a fucking moron, assuming you can help it.

[guest_of_logic]

Oh, and keep those personal attacks coming Jenny! I for one am keenly interested in hearing about Dan Rowden's personal life.

Oh, well done mate. Not only are you incapable of spelling an oft-repeated name, but your pretence to enlightenment falls apart at the first hint of gossip. Jesus H Christ. Can you spell F-E-M-I-N-I-N-E? Didn't think so. You don't have the consciousness, do you?

[Robert]

Oh, and keep those personal attacks coming Jenny! I for one am keenly interested in hearing about Dan Rowden's personal life.

Oh, well done mate. Not only are you incapable of spelling an oft-repeated name, but your pretence to enlightenment falls apart at the first hint of gossip. Jesus H Christ. Can you spell F-E-M-I-N-I-N-E? Didn't think so. You don't have the consciousness, do you?

Laird, I suspect jupiviv was being sarcastic.

[guest_of_logic]

Joke's on me then. It's a bit late in the evening for jokes though, so I'll retire.

[jupiviv]

Oh, well done mate. Not only are you incapable of spelling an oft-repeated name, but your pretence to enlightenment falls apart at the first hint of gossip. Jesus H Christ. Can you spell F-E-M-I-N-I-N-E? Didn't think so. You don't have the consciousness, do you?

Laird, I suspect jupiviv was being sarcastic.

Yes, I was being sarcastic about the name by spelling it wrong. It's obvious that Jeannie and Jenny are completely different names, and anybody who confuses them is a moron. As you all probably realise, the sarcasm was directed at God, for creating people who are so moronic that they can't distinguish between two names as different as "Jeannie" and "Jenny".

[Kelly Jones]

At the risk of saying something obvious to all and sundry, Jeannie doesn't sound like she ever got to know Dan at all. I can't remember where he wrote or said it, but Dan mentioned one of his earliest seminal realisations about intimate relationships occurrred in high school: he saw a girl picking some fluff off her boyfriend's clothing, at which he experienced an intense and visceral feeling of being appalled and shocked. I think he realised a little later that what repulsed him was how this subtle little action was actually a declaration of ownership of one person of another, and how appalling that notion was to him.

If Jeannie knew the first thing about Dan, then she certainly wouldn't say something like "I want my brother back". It seems to me she has turned up recently to revive a relationship with Dan, from loneliness, guilt, or fear of dying, or some kind of social status thing (large families often try to bring in the black sheep in time for a big funeral, to show the loyalty in their family). In those cases, her declaration of love / ownership has nothing to do with him, but with her wanting to ward off the demons of her own mind. I mean, it's pretty obvious she doesn't give a shit about him ("If you weren't my bro, I would have NOTHING to do with you.")

What on earth does a blood tie mean? Absolutely nothing. But my family is the same. I've even told them that they're still projecting their old memories onto me. But I can't open them up to deal with the here-and-now. They believe in bonding emotionally, and can't see any value in treating me as who I really am.

All in all, Jeannie is a good reminder of the absurdities in family bonding.

[Steven Coyle]

Kelly,

It's just belly!

[Dan Rowden]

I can't remember where he wrote or said it, but Dan mentioned one of his earliest seminal realisations about intimate relationships occurrred in high school: he saw a girl picking some fluff off her boyfriend's clothing, at which he experienced an intense and visceral feeling of being appalled and shocked. I think he realised a little later that what repulsed him was how this subtle little action was actually a declaration of ownership of one person of another, and how appalling that notion was to him.

That realisation very much shaped how I saw "relationships" thereafter, or at least created a powerful sense of caution and skepticism in my outlook. But one of the interesting aspects of that "incident" and my own insight into it - one that I never really speak of - was how alone and isolated my insight made me feel, because I was literally unable to get any of my peers to see it. All I got was the conventional responses and looks of bemusement. However, that failure never caused me to doubt the validity of my own insight. I guess I've always been an arrogant bastard!

[David Quinn]

Now this is interesting. Brother and sister fighting with each other on an internet forum.....LOL

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a brother against his sister -
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me .....

-

[Kelly Jones]

That was a slip on my part, dejavu. It should have read:

dejavu: Why bring to bear the misleading artifice of a sexualized divide in mind, when one can always address the differing degrees of consciousness?

Kelly: The differing degrees of consciousness are best identified by recognising a sex differentiation.

dejavu: How have the 'degrees' of consciousness been identified by categorizing them as either masculine or feminine? What, are there only two?

Kelly: No, there aren't only two. There are as many degrees as one would like, because like everything else, consciousness is a part of the Infinite, and therefore there are no inherent divisions. The differentiation between masculine and feminine psychology is real, because there is an obvious difference, but that doesn't mean that there are not infinite degrees along that scale and beyond.

[Kelly Jones]

To improve on Emerson, who wasn't really a great genius:

Great geniuses have the shortest biographies. Their cousins can tell you nothing about them, their brothers and fathers don't want to talk about them, their mothers and sisters tell you everything but the truth about them.
--- R.W Emerson

[David Quinn]

David:
It can be a very trickery area since women, as a rule, love being forcibly seized by their lovers. Studies have shown that the dominant sexual fantasy entertained by women is by far the "rape fantasy".

Carmel:
To which studies are you referring? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it was difficult to find any conclusive information on this subject.

A quick google search turns up plenty of material.

David:
The tricky bit for men is that women are always giving out mixed signals, so they can never be completely sure about what a woman wants in any given moment. His advances towards her are always a stab in the dark and a gamble, even when he thinks he knows the woman well.

Carmel:
There's some truth in that, but if a man wants to know what a woman wants he should just ask her, no?

If he did that, he would likely end up the in the "nice guy" or "friend" category and be forever barred from having sex with her. A woman doesn't really respect a man, and isn't titillated by him, unless he has the courage and strength to seize her.

-

[Jason]

It can be a very trickery area

Flied lice anyone? Sorry couldn't help it.

If he did that, he would likely end up the in the "nice guy" or "friend" category and be forever barred from having sex with her. A woman doesn't really respect a man, and isn't titillated by him, unless he has the courage and strength to seize her.

Maybe I'm completely out of touch, but I really doubt that what you're saying here actually reflects modern life. Maybe it's the company that I tend to keep and the places that I've lived, but I doubt that the majority of young men in modern urban Australia are riding this knife-edge between rape on the one hand and consensual but very assertive/dominant/aggressive initiation of sex on the other.

[Kelly Jones]

Well, maybe David doesn't realise just how much young people sleep around. That the good friends a modern young person is closest to, can act as sleeping partners any day of the week. And so, in that sense, a young woman's girl friends and boy friends are all pretty much the same. However, he is still correct about the "conquering" apsect, because there will be preferred sleeping partners: the ones that the woman feels are most powerful, the ones who conquer her psychologically, seizing the opportunity to display himself as the best all-round performer: the wittiest, the most fashionable, the most exciting. So, at one point, all the interactions will be touchy-feely, both talking about their feelings, getting intimate and so forth - females and males. But that particular one will excite her more, and it is he that she will prefer to submit to.

[David Quinn]

If he did that, he would likely end up the in the "nice guy" or "friend" category and be forever barred from having sex with her. A woman doesn't really respect a man, and isn't titillated by him, unless he has the courage and strength to seize her.

Maybe I'm completely out of touch, but I really doubt that what you're saying here actually reflects modern life. Maybe it's the company that I tend to keep and the places that I've lived, but I doubt that the majority of young men in modern urban Australia are riding this knife-edge between rape on the one hand and consensual but very assertive/dominant/aggressive initiation of sex on the other.

Well, it's a kind of rule-of-thumb that can be applied flexibly. For example, very passive girls wouldn't need much aggressiveness or force to persuade them to have sex. A passive, but slightly more assertive, male could probably do the trick.

I'm aware of the modern trend of having "fuck-buddies", which can be viewed as a practical arrangement between two equal parties, but I'm sure if you were to look into specific cases more closely, you would see the usual dynamics in play. After all, we are talking about a set of dynamics which has evolved over tens of thousands of years. They are not likely to be overturned within a generation by some bratty youths.

-

[Jason]

Well, it's a kind of rule-of-thumb that can be applied flexibly. For example, very passive girls wouldn't need much aggressiveness or force to persuade them to have sex. A passive, but slightly more assertive, male could probably do the trick.

You realize that it's not rare for women, in certain environments and situations(like sex and alcohol-drenched nightclubs) to practically throw themselves at men? You make it sound like women are desireless shrinking-violets. Dancing in clubs these days is literally dry-sex.

I'd gamble that the most common "tactic" for young men who are trying to have sex with a woman are lies, combined with a slow escalation of sexual intentions and actions. In other words: he wants sex immediately, but he spins lies that allow him to create a slow and comforting/persuading build-up to the sexual act.

The slow buildup makes it more likely that the woman will agree to sex, it makes the intentions clear in a gradual fashion and by the time the first sexual act is attempted it leaves far less room for mistaken consent.

The image I'm getting from your words is of men randomly grabbing women out of nowhere.

I'm aware of the modern trend of having "fuck-buddies", which can be viewed as a practical arrangement between two equal parties, but I'm sure if you were to look into specific cases more closely, you would see the usual dynamics in play. After all, we are talking about a set of dynamics which has evolved over tens of thousands of years. They are not likely to be overturned within a generation by some bratty youths.

I actually wasn't thinking about fuck buddies in my last post, I was thinking more about one-night stands - because I imagine that these might be the situations more likely to blur the lines between rape and consentual sex.

As far as evolved dynamics and bratty youths - enculturation and conditioning are obviously very strong forces. If culture can subvert "natural" sexual inclinations to the degree that women wear burqas without question and men submit to having sex only with women who they are arrange-marriaged to, I think it is obvious that these so-called "dynamics" are not necessarily dominant drivers of cultured-peoples actions. Since the 60's sexual revolution, culture has become more sexually permissive and the "bratty youths" are simply now conditioned to act in these more sexually promiscuous ways - a bigger change for females it seems.

Yes I think that there are still often aspects of these dynamics in play, but they generally don't express themselves in ways that blur the line between rape and consentual sex. Just think about this - how many men are accused of rape? I'm guessing not many. If it was such a "tricky area" as you claim, wouldn't you expect rape accusations to be very common?

[Atum]

A woman wants to be raped.

If she can't first be raped psychologically, she'll settle for being raped physically.

Is this maxim going too far?

[Jason]

I've read of the studies that claim that being raped is a common sexual fantasy for women. What about men's sexual fantasies? Is raping a common sexual fantasy for men?

[Atum]

Atum:

A woman wants to be raped.

If she can't first be raped psychologically, she'll settle for being raped physically.

Is this maxim going too far?

I don't think you understand what rape is.

She wants her mind taken apart and reconfigered. She wants to feel the irresistable power of a man. The only way to know his power is to try to resist. You can't know the power of the German Army if you just capitulate to it. Hence the rape. I don't think the word "rape" is out of place here.

[Jason]

I was doing a bit of research into female rape fantasies and I came across this article:

Why Men Should Fear the Rape Fantasy

One of the things that I found interesting was the variety of reasons given to explain the fantasy. So far, on this forum, I've just heard it explained in terms of the old dominant/submissive theory, but check out these alternate explanations:

"When I was growing up, my parents really made me feel like my emotions made me unlovable," she says. The rape fantasy appeals to her because, she says, "it's like someone's angry or unhappy with you but still paying a lot of attention to you—as opposed to in real life, when, if you're acting unlovable, people just leave you alone."

The primary appeal for women, as Saltz sees it, is the concept that "someone would take them at all costs—the idea that 'I'm so unbelievably desirable that he just loses his mind.'"

"The common theme is that these women somehow feel bad about being sexual," says addiction specialist and radio host Dr. Drew Pinsky. "These fantasies give them license to say, 'I couldn't help myself—I was being raped' as an excuse."

[Carmel]

Carmel:
To which studies are you referring? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it was difficult to find any conclusive information on this subject.

David:
A quick google search turns up plenty of material.

Carmel:
I did do a "quick google search" and found no studies that verified your specific claim. Besides, you made the claim, it's your responsibility to provide the source of the "studies".

I did comes across this from the highly respected Kinsey Institute:

"Men's sexual fantasies tend to be more sexually explicit than women's, women's fantasies tend to be more emotional and romantic." (Zurgriggen&Yost, 2004)

Admittedly, that's a bit vague, but it was only a "quick search", afterall.

Also, keep in mind that even if a woman has a "rape" fantasy, that she's in control of the fantasy, she IS the "rapist" and the "victim" in her imagination. She controls his every move, his appearance and characteristics, quite the opposite of what a real rape would entail. No women want to be raped in real life.
(The only possible exception to this might be a woman who is severely psychologically disturbed...? not sure, just speculating.)

David:
...even when he thinks he knows the woman well.

Carmel:
There's some truth in that, but if a man wants to know what a woman wants he should just ask her, no?

David:
If he did that, he would likely end up the in the "nice guy" or "friend" category and be forever barred from having sex with her. A woman doesn't really respect a man, and isn't titillated by him, unless he has the courage and strength to seize her.

Carmel:
I should have clarified, I was referring to the last part of your statement which I assumed to mean that he was already involved with the woman.

As for "...the courage and strength to seize her" ...I don't know, does this actually work with passive women? lol!
I can't speak for all women, but If I'm not already attracted to someone, his advances would be rejected no matter what he does.