Actual Face shots with Actual Names

[Pye]

.

Ryan writes:

A woman’s sexual beauty is her own curse, it keeps her bound to the worldly realm.

By what yardstick is this woman measuring her sexual beauty?



.

[Dan Rowden]

If the term were "girly" rather than "woman" I think it would make a lot more headway without providing the inherent confusions and misdirections of thought.

Kevin invented the term "flowie" for pretty much this purpose. The thing is, though, the average woman is very flowie.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Elizabeth wrote:

Ryan - what exactly do you mean by "women posters" in that sentance?

Is is possible for you to stop interpreting in a personal way? Why do you keep identifying strongly with your sex, and then defending it? You need to get passed the idea that these are personal attacks, and accept the impersonal truth that the statement conveys.

Instead of asking the question: “is he attacking my sex?” you should be asking “Do I exhibit the behavior he speaks of?”

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Okay Ryan, the edit looks a little better - but it still does not address the problem of you (and some others) getting bothered by Leah's plain picture.

It also does not explain how a female, looking natural, is considered bad (she has to scorch off her face or the equivalent to be acceptable here) whereas men looking natural is good. You and David both seem to be advocating that a female must alter her appearance in order to be acceptable to males - and you seem to be calling anyone who thinks that females should not have to alter their appearance in a particular way to be "women posters." Did you just call Dan and Trevor women?
.

[Dan Rowden]

.

Ryan writes:

A woman’s sexual beauty is her own curse, it keeps her bound to the worldly realm.

By what yardstick is this woman measuring her sexual beauty?

Ah, you imply the yardstick is one created by men, but that's only part of the story. It's more complicated than that. Often, and indeed more often than not, the yardstick is that of competition with other females. It's a combination of evolutionary factors, male ideality and female's looking to personify "Woman" to the highest degree they can.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Is is possible for you to stop interpreting in a personal way? Why do you keep identifying strongly with your sex, and then defending it? You need to get passed the idea that these are personal attacks, and accept the impersonal truth that the statement conveys.

Instead of asking the question: “is he attacking my sex?” you should be asking “Do I exhibit the behavior he speaks of?”

That is exactly the sort of response I was referring to. I made my above post before seeing your post just above that. You saw my female name and assumed that my position was because I am female, not because I actually thought about the position.
.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

BTW Ryan, you called Tharan a woman, too.

[Pye]

.

David writes:

In your eyes, increasing consciousness is a function of rejecting all spiritual idealism.

You have no idea what is in my eyes nor how spiritual a person I am, and I cannot help that none of it can be suitably demonstrated for you in alphabetic form.

You might also consider that spiritual idealism is the inevitable result of the rising consciousness. I'm not the one insisting on the twain . . . .


Dan writes:

the yardstick is that of competition with other females.

for . . . . ?

female's looking to personify "Woman" to the highest degree they can.

because . . . . ?

.

(pardon, desk-day is coming to a close and I must exit this most interesting discussion. necessary replies will have to come in 2-3 days)

[Kelly Jones]

When my thoughts are easily distracted from spiritual goals, I have a few visible reminders to kickstart my mind. A few of mine follow:


- Kevin's "Reminder" freeware. It has a list of reminders that appear when starting the computer

- Phone ringtone is a Baroque tune, or something free of emotionalism

- Letting things break down, and getting second- or third-hand things, to experience life with less neediness

- Wearing loose, simple clothing when out and about. Added benefit besides comfort and health is: being less mindful of any social identity, and more aware of the thought-self.

- The same when swimming, going to the gym, mountain-bike riding, etc. to avoid distracting skin sensations that may stimulate thoughts about sex.

- Stretches. Helps explore emptiness via the relationship between biomechanical self-coordination and the ego's habits.

- Savouring food. Not swallowing in a vague orientation to "something other", but exactly what is being eaten.

- Posture. Pulling the shoulders back, so that the gaze lifts into the heavens.

- Rests and breaks. Getting an intense, deep, more memorable experience; then altering the pace. Letting the mind wander around different perspectives. Switching half-way into something already begun.

Just thought I'd share a few of the things I'm learning.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Pye wrote:

By what yardstick is this woman measuring her sexual beauty?

The measuring yardstick is how desirable she is viewed by other men and women. Simply by possessing sexual features that are desirable, this keeps her trapped in the world of superficiality.

Every time she looks into the mirror, and either smiles at what she sees or is discontent with what she sees and desires to change something, she is deluded. Every movement of sexuality is a lie. This is a major blow to sexually attractive females because her entire existence revolves around either worshipping or hating her own appearance. She becomes deluded by the world of appearances because her very own appearance sustains movements of animal consciousness within her.

Elizabeth wrote:

You and David both seem to be advocating that a female must alter her appearance in order to be acceptable to males

No, again you miss the point. She must alter her appearance in order to be acceptable to live a life of truth for her own sake, and not anybody else.

Elizabeth wrote:

It also does not explain how a female, looking natural, is considered bad (she has to scorch off her face or the equivalent to be acceptable here) whereas men looking natural is good.

There is no natural in this regard; masculine features are desirable because they promote wisdom, whereas feminine features promote ignorance, A woman’s or man's feminine features are not only a trap to others, but also themselves. I can’t be anymore clear on this.

Can you accept this truth or will you find another way to wiggle out of it?

Elizabeth wrote:

That is exactly the sort of response I was referring to. I made my above post before seeing your post just above that. You saw my female name and assumed that my position was because I am female, not because I actually thought about the position.

I judged you based on your disagreement with Diebert, where he provided a highly rational thought; whereas your response was an emotional defense. It had nothing to do with judging you based on your name alone.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Dan writes:

the yardstick is that of competition with other females.

for . . . . ?

female's looking to personify "Woman" to the highest degree they can.

because . . . . ?

I agree with Dan on this. Females do exude more pressure on other females to wear make-up, the right outfit, scent their homes with scented candles, and act feminine in a variety of ways. Some guys care about all that, but most guys, given half a chance would have sex with anything willing to spread it's legs for him (ever heard sheep jokes?). Furthermore, they usually either don't care about the scented home (as long as it's cleaner than they would have left it, they consider it an improvement, but really couldn't care less if the bed ever gets made or the grime ever gets off anything).

The appropriate weight for a female seems to be the only thing most guys care about, but even then there is a wide variety of taste, and few would turn down a really large woman if that's all they thought they could get. Still, a larger number of females will put pressure on females to be the right weight - a guy only discerns that if he is looking at her as a sex object.
.

[Dan Rowden]

David Quinn wrote:

Spiritual men have long disfigured themselves in the form of giving up worldly comforts, becoming poor, appearing scruffy, etc. These disfigurements take them out of the sexual market and make them unattractive to almost everyone in mainstream society. They are undermining their own worldly power, which, for the male, is the primary sexual trait. The woman disfiguring her physical beauty and feminine charms is the female equivalent of this.

Exactly, I couldn’t agree more,

I'm not sure what David actually intends is what you're really agreeing with here, Ryan.

many people in here have defended the female’s sexual freedom by saying that it is the man’s problem for desiring her in the first place,

That's being said because it's true. There's a practical biological reality to be acknowledged here, certainly, but the responsibility for a man's mind lies with him and nowhere else.

but as Diebert and Quinn suggest, A woman’s sexual beauty is her own curse, it keeps her bound to the worldly realm.

Hang on. What is a woman's beauty without the mind that sees it as beautiful? It is nothing. Both sexes are bound to the earth via attachment to aesthetics in general, not just that of women.

I find it funny how the women posters are the first ones to ignore this point by blaming the male speakers that simply point it out.

Hmm, I suspect those posters will get a whiff of hypocrisy there.

It appears to be another tactic to avoid fully acknowledging the myriad of casual consequences of being sexually attractive in mainstream society.

I don't think that's being avoided. I think the apparent assertion that men are not entirely responsible for their own minds is the idea being challenged. Certainly there's need for women to consider their own behaviour and motives, but do you really expect that to happen - generally speaking? It's up to men to look to themselves, rather than trying to change how women are in the hope of making a less troubling environment.

[Dan Rowden]

- Kevin's "Reminder" freeware. It has a list of reminders that appear when starting the computer.

I should use that software to remind myself that if I ever have a need for that software I should kill myself.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Elizabeth wrote:

You and David both seem to be advocating that a female must alter her appearance in order to be acceptable to males

No, again you miss the point. She must alter her appearance in order to be acceptable to live a life of truth for her own sake, and not anybody else.

How can you not see that any alteration is not a representation of truth?

Elizabeth wrote:

It also does not explain how a female, looking natural, is considered bad (she has to scorch off her face or the equivalent to be acceptable here) whereas men looking natural is good.

There is no natural in this regard; masculine features are desirable because they promote wisdom, whereas feminine features promote ignorance,

The features promote wisdom or ignorance? Looking at the features and regarding physical appearances as anything of meaning is really shallow.

Can you accept this truth or will you find another way to wiggle out of it?

Can you accept the Truth that there is no Ultimate difference between beauty and ugliness?

Elizabeth wrote:

That is exactly the sort of response I was referring to. I made my above post before seeing your post just above that. You saw my female name and assumed that my position was because I am female, not because I actually thought about the position.

I judged you based on your disagreement with Diebert, where he provided a highly rational thought; whereas your response was an emotional defense. It had nothing to do with judging you based on your name alone.

And you consider Diebert's position "highly rational thought" because he agrees with you, and Tharan's, Trevor's, Dan's, Pye's and my position womanly because we disagree with you?

And what's with the reading in of emotion into the response? I'll grant that you may be seeing something I'm transmitting without it actually being there because someone else recently made a similar accusation (and tone does not always transmit very accuratly over the internet) - but I assure you that my response was based on my perception of the truth. If you, or anyone else, could point out what exactly looks emotional in my responses, I would appreciate the tutelage.
.

[Leyla Shen]

Dan wrote:

Edit the third: but you could probably have left Leyla out of your list. She hits on everyone - in more ways than one :)

[Damn. Busted...]

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Dan wrote:

Edit the third: but you could probably have left Leyla out of your list. She hits on everyone - in more ways than one :)

[Damn. Busted...]

Come to think of it, she did note that she considered what it would be like to be married to me for the rest of her life.

edit to add - but I was not aroused in the least bit by her post. Perhaps someone whose only interest was in wisdom would be equally unaroused?
.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Elizabeth wrote:

Can you accept the Truth that there is no Ultimate difference between beauty and ugliness?

Try telling that to a sexually attractive man or woman, they may have an intellectual understanding that there is no difference, but their subtle daily behavior suggests otherwise. They're behavior suggests delusion even though they can parrot intellectual verbatims.

Elizabeth wrote:

The features promote wisdom or ignorance?

It’s true, I would say sexually attractive people have a much more difficult time being totally truthful because they have more to lose.

Dan wrote:

There's a practical biological reality to be acknowledged here.

What do you mean?

Dan wrote:

It is nothing. Both sexes are bound to the earth via attachment to aesthetics in general, not just that of women.

Yes, as I said in my post, it is a problem for both attractive males and females.

Dan wrote:

It's up to men to look to themselves, rather than trying to change how women are in the hope of making a less troubling environment.

Attractive people are better off toning down their sexual features, that’s all I am saying. The same point as Quinn's story depicted. It is easier to starve the animal consciousness if there is no fuel for it to operate.

Controlling the environment is not a bad thing, it can be done in a way that serves the cause of wisdom. For instance: refraining from allowing bad food in ones house decreases the chances of consuming bad food.

[Leyla Shen]

Woman wrote:

Come to think of it, she did note that she considered what it would be like to be married to me for the rest of her life.

edit to add - but I was not aroused in the least bit by her post. Perhaps someone whose only interest was in wisdom would be equally unaroused?

Wow. Am I the only one who heard that gale force wind?

I hardly think it wise to unaroused by someone telling you how rotten it would be to be married to you.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Nice to see that your sense of humor is unchanged.

*note to self - must stop poking bear with sticks.
.

[Tharan]

The measuring yardstick is how desirable she is viewed by other men and women. Simply by possessing sexual features that are desirable, this keeps her trapped in the world of superficiality.

This is based on an assumption that other's weaknesses are her own. Am I influenced by a sexy llama? (And I do mean a VERY sexy llama.) Honestly, I am not a llama so it does not even phase me.

The same can be said of a Buddha relative to delusional humans.

Every time she looks into the mirror, and either smiles at what she sees or is discontent with what she sees and desires to change something, she is deluded. Every movement of sexuality is a lie.

I am with you so far...

This is a major blow to sexually attractive females because her entire existence revolves around either worshipping or hating her own appearance. She becomes deluded by the world of appearances because her very own appearance sustains movements of animal consciousness within her.

This simply does not inherently follow. Let me give you an example stolen from the Flying Spaghetti Monster website: since the decline of pirates in the world, the earth has grown hotter. Thus, it can be assumed that the loss of pirates in the world is the cause of global warming.

Do you see the flaw in this logic? In statistics, you probably know the phrase associated with this phenomenon is "correlation is not causality". Simply because most women who are physically attractive are as you describe, does not imply that their attractiveness is necessarily the cause of their shallowness. In fact, there are plenty of not-so-attractive women who are equally as shallow. And there are and always have been attractive people who are some level above the shallowness you describe.

Question: Is an enlightened person concerned in the least with their appearance? Does the world of carnal delights, theoretically offered to the beautiful person, discount any hope of their achieving an awakening? Don't forget, Siddartha was a prince, and probably did not want for much, including sex.

She must alter her appearance in order to be acceptable to live a life of truth for her own sake, and not anybody else.

How do you assume this? Why is this person you imagine so beholden to the deluded desires of others?

Though the woman in David's allegory was the only true one amongst her peers, she still felt the need to house herself physically in the same location as the men. Upon awakening, it is realized that even this is not necessary. She was stronger than the fraudulent monks and their leader, but she was certainly no Buddha. Her desires betray her as well, though to her defense, it can be said that she was not posturing herself as something she wasn't, as the men where doing.

There is no natural in this regard; masculine features are desirable because they promote wisdom, whereas feminine features promote ignorance, A woman’s or man's feminine features are not only a trap to others, but also themselves. I can’t be anymore clear on this.

Now you are becoming ridiculous. You miss the subtlety implied in the QRS pronouncements about women. It is not at all about physical appearance, though certainly genetics can cause some preference for certain behaviors and internal emotional states. All these can be overcome with the right mind, which is the impetus for highlighting gender differences in the first place. Both sexes have their issues, while not always the same, and both are transcendable. Don't forget, according to QRS definitions, most men are entirely women.

What are you and why?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Elizabeth wrote:

Can you accept the Truth that there is no Ultimate difference between beauty and ugliness?

Try telling that to a sexually attractive man or woman, they may have an intellectual understanding that there is no difference, but their subtle daily behavior suggests otherwise. They're behavior suggests delusion even though they can parrot intellectual verbatims.

So you consider it just parroting because they have features that you find sexually attractive? Why would you consider it just parroting on just the part of the attractive people? Wouldn't an unattractive person have more at stake to convince the world (and themselves) that there is no Ultimate difference between beauty and ugliness?

Since you present yourself as someone who really understands that there is no Ultimate difference, and you claim that only unattractive people can really understand this, I deduce that you consider yourself to be physically unattractive.

Because you are attempting to discredit people who are physically attractive, I suspect that you may be compensating for your attachment to physical attractivness, of which you perceive that you are lacking, by placing yourself on a wisdom pedistal. This is not a sign of wisdom, because the wise judge people by the contents of their thoughts, not the particular arrangement of their bodily features.

Elizabeth wrote:

The features promote wisdom or ignorance?

It’s true, I would say sexually attractive people have a much more difficult time being totally truthful because they have more to lose.

You present this as a perspective of loss as opposed to the gaining of the greatest prize of all. Furthermore, you do not recognize the package deal of sexual attractivness, especially of females. A sexually attractive female is often not taken seriously by men, as they can not even hear her thoughts because they are too busy trying to not look like they keep looking at her breasts, and she is often treated viciously by jealous females. This does not mean that she even gets asked out very often by decent guys because the guys fear rejection, but will be unable to shake loose users, abusers, etc. There is no prize in sexual beauty unless a woman is dumb as a load of bricks. Even worse, if such a woman tries to dim down the beauty aspect, the sexuality seems to remain, and what is left is someone who looks like they belong in a bad porn flick. Such a person might as well remain locked in her house for the rest of her life, and maybe just let her words reach out, as there are too few people wise enough to see the Reality reflected from the inside.

Features do not promote either ignorance or wisdom. Features are irrelevant to what happens in the mind. Features can make changes in a person's life due to how others treat that person - this is true - but anyone who lets outer appearance lead him or her off the path, whether to protect perceived benefits of attractivness or to place themselves on a wisdom pedistal, is equally off the path.
.

[David Quinn]

Here is an interesting question, applicable to both men and women:

If a genie gave you a choice between being extremely attractive or repulsively ugly, which would you choose?

-

[Cory Duchesne]

Elizabeth, Ryan is actually regarded as very cute by most girls. He's been told he looks like Tom Cruise. I know because he's proudly told me this. I personally can't help but regard Ryan as Tom Cruise's rejected homonculous twin, put into an orphanage shortly after him and Tom were born. (I don't know if you remember the movie 'Twins' with Danny Devito and Arnold Schwartzenegger)

Congruently, Ryan's vanity and attatchment to women was quite pronouced the last time I dealt with him. It's really held him back from having satisfactorily radical aims in the past, IMO. It's pretty much for that reason that I resolved to keep my distance from him. One can only only turn down so many invitations to share his latest sexual partner, or help him film a screenplay (written by him) based on him being a porn star (this invitation in particular was quite reoccuring). He also had the tendency to rudely tell me that I had 'a goofy looking face'. But often he would do this shortly after I criticized something he said (often on the grounds of it being vain)

Although, Ryan, I'll admit, was perhaps, for good reason, equally at wit's end dealing with my persistant attempts at trying to convince him to help me film a bizzare screen play based me playing the role of a woody allen sort of guy who was bent on celebrating in public the fact of his small penis. He found reason to celebrate because of the greek idealization of the poorly hung man exhibited by greek statues, and the male angel painted by william blake. He came to the belief that it was something to be proud of.

By the way, my errection is 6inches exactly. But I am indeed poorly hung it seems compared to most men I see in the shower. Or perhaps poorly hung men generally avoid the public shower. My errection I'm guessing is longer than Ryan's though. But Ryan does have quite the girth (judging from a picture he showed me of doing his girlfriend doggy style) something I can't confidently claim...

[Cory Duchesne]

Here is an interesting question, applicable to both men and women:

If a genie gave you a choice between being extremely attractive or repulsively ugly, which would you choose?

-

I don't think I would want an extreme. If a person is too ugly then there might be a dangerously high of a risk in developing too taxing of an inferiority complex and fixation on deficiencies. An exceptionally ugly person would need exceptional role models and education. If they were reared in your typical western conditions then I don't think they would fare very well.

Overall, I think a moderately attractive or plain appearance I think might be helpful during the vital stages of development earilier on, laying the foundation for more intellectual interests.

But too much beauty is obviously deadly, whether you are male or female.

[Cory Duchesne]

It’s true, I would say sexually attractive people have a much more difficult time being totally truthful because they have more to lose

To elaborate on this thought about beauty contributing to a persons lack of truthfullness.....

Lack of truthfullness, or lack of intellectual refinement and depth of character has a great deal to do with how much more overwhelmed physically attractive people are by their very own image in the mirror. Also, these people learn from a young age that looking attractive equals favored treatment, often by attractive people. Once they become accustomed to the warmth of shallow waters, they have no strength of will, nor the more advanced neural connections to go down into the deeper colder, more subtle depths. They remain tethered to the image of their face in the mirror. It gives them a sense of security and well being. Tragically, their face and sex appeal prove to not bring happiness, but this becomes evident when it is too late. Unhappiness must be felt deeply before one reaches adulthood if one's intelligence is to have much depth as an adult. Pain makes us think, and those who are treated kindly by the world, often for looking pretty, feel very shallow pain, and their thoughts are thus likewise shallow.