What is the consciousness of a woman really like?

[Nick Treklis]

That's what I thought, but based on what wikipedia says about it, chastity at base means "ethical sex", which at the very least I take to mean consensual sex. Either way, I wonder what he means by no longer believing in rape. Did he used to prefer unethical sex, or "rape"?

[jupiviv]

I think his understanding on the matter is similar to my own. He's calling any kind of sex "rape", as no act of sex(among humans) is consensual.

[guest_of_logic]

Finally getting around to responding in this thread, and dealing with the most telling part first:

You just have to watch female sport to see how mediocre women are. The quality of their play, their pace, their decision-making, their tactical nous, their aptitude for brilliance and flair - all of it is markedly inferior to the way men play sport. Watching women play sport is like watching talentless kids in lower divisions play sport. And that is why crowds flock to watch men's sport, and relatively few go to watch women's sport (unless they are wearing short, pretty dresses, of course).

David, I've been watching both men's and women's tennis since I was a young kid (Pat Cash winning Wimbledon was a moment of celebration in our South African family prior to our immigration to Oz; likewise I celebrated every one of Martina Navratilova's wins), and I can tell you categorically that the only difference that I perceive between men's and women's tennis is power. The skill and strategy are identical. The only reason I'd prefer to watch men's tennis is for the extra speed that they get on the ball due to their extra physical strength. You're completely betraying your bias with this one. Frankly, as Nat would say, it's appalling. And let me just add in all gravity: Sharapova FTW.

No matter which way you cut it, the differences between the sexes have been acute enough to ensure that women played a very minor role in the creation and progress of civilization, and an almost non-existent role in the realm of genius. Even nowadays, in our more "enlightened" society, the real movers and shakers, in all areas of life, are men. This stark fact has little to do with patriarchal oppression, men's greater physical strength and the like, and everything to do with masculine and feminine psychology.

[edit: I regret writing the following paragraph, as all of this is very empirical and I don't really like speculating on empirical issues that I haven't studied, but now that I've written it, I won't delete it - I'll just add this disclaimer that it's pretty speculative and I don't really feel qualified to comment as I have done]

I think it mostly says something about man's desire to make his mark on history. Women perhaps don't feel that need so much. Also there are social roles, in which men are expected to take a lead and women to follow, although I'm definitely not saying that that's the whole story, so please don't misquote me. Finally, there's that scientifically verified idea that was covered in an essay that was posted here twice, and which I can look up if you want me to: that the standard deviation of men's aptitude is greater than women's, even though the mean is the same, which essentially means that even though there are more male geniuses that female geniuses, so are there also more male dolts and idiots than female dolts and idiots.

The human race has to face this truth sooner or later: Women are B-grade individuals trying to pretend that they are A-grade and only get away with it nowadays because they are pretty and men like to indulge them. Indeed, men love the fact that women are B-grade because what they want most from women is to be worshiped by them. It is very much in their interests to keep women on a B-grade level, and that is why they remain so.

How better to be worshipped than by a highly worthy woman? Your argument makes sense only to the most base of chauvinists.

[Carmel]

Kelly:

You might believe I'm boring and hostile, but I'm actually really interested in your thoughts. I see reason in you, and that is the one I wish to befriend. But I can only get to that part of you, by pointing out the unreason that you cling to.

Carmel:
What specifically, is this unreason that I'm clinging to? The reason I called you delusional is because you're trying to project traits onto me which are products of your own imagination. You even went so far as to invent an entire imaginary conversation between David and me. Those were your delusions, not mine.

Kelly:
Not sure yet, but you are more stable and centred than most other females that come flouncing around here. So there's hope for you.

Carmel:
I reckon so but, I'm also more stable and centred than some of the males that come flouncing around here.

Kelly:
That's the only reason I challenged you on your "preferences".

Carmel:
I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill with regard to my preferences. If you look at my original list of desirable attributes, please note that I never even listed any physical characteristics, at all...and the comment about a woodsy smell was meant to be taken lightheartedly. Your whole response about environmental hazards etc. was overreactionary.

Kelly:
She's an unwanted tenant, noisy, irrational, and unhelpful.

Carmel:
Yeah, "he" has his faults, as well...
I'm not opposed to making judgements about women, I just don't agree with the one-sidedness of the analysis.

Kelly:
But only if one wishes to be fair-minded, reasonable, patient, strong-willed, and purposeful.

Carmel:
I agree that those are admirable traits, that all of us should strive toward possessing; however, even if I manage to achieve all of those states of being, they would exist in conjunction with my feminine qualities, not instead of them.

Also, there do exist some feminine qualities that are admirable. I won't list them now, perhaps you can manage this task as a testament to your "fair-mindedness"? ;)

Kelly:
What a thrill it is, to be liberated, after being held back by her cunning and sabotage for so long. One can get so much further......

The alternative is falling prey to her charms of emotionalism and unreasonableness, seeing enemies where there are none, refusing to reason openly, hating the very thought of exploring ideas, hating with a passion the demands of reason on one's life, hating the possibility of failure and disappointment, and pussy-footing around in mediocrity out of fear of discouragement, suffering and humiliation. If one lets Woman take hold in that way, then the chance for deeper understanding and philosophical-spiritual growth is lost forever. The next time the chance comes, one will have to battle even harder to resist Her. And soon enough, one's weakness for these psychological pitfalls will be overwhelming. The resulting waste of a good mind is a terrible thing to behold.

Carmel:
ok Kelly, all of that was a bit too preachy for my taste, it even borders on being romantic, at times.

Kelly:
So, would you like to come once again to the duel, with a more open-minded, reason-loving stance?

Carmel:
You know it, sister woman! lol! Actually, I've no interest in dueling you or anyone else. I'm simply trying to engage in a discussion with other intelligent adults...and if things get a little rigourous or heated, that's fine too, up to a point, but generally, I also, would prefer to keep the emotionalism(and egotism) to a minimum.

[Atum]

That's what I thought, but based on what wikipedia says about it, chastity at base means "ethical sex", which at the very least I take to mean consensual sex. Either way, I wonder what he means by no longer believing in rape. Did he used to prefer unethical sex, or "rape"?

I didn't know there was any ambiguity. By chastity I meant, of course, continence, celibacy, virginity, etc. In short, no sex-desire.

I am totally for celibacy. I, personally, don't think spiritual progress is possible without celibacy. More than that, I think it's 75% of the path. Therefore the whole woman-topic is very important.

[Nick Treklis]

He's calling any kind of sex "rape", as no act of sex(among humans) is consensual.

Well if we follow the logic of this statement, then we can say that nobody can consent to anything at all. No reason to single out sex right? Seems pretty ridiculous to say that two people can't willingly participate in something together that they both want to do.

[Steven Coyle]

the damage eats on ten of 'em

[Nick Treklis]

By chastity I meant, of course, continence, celibacy, virginity, etc. In short, no sex-desire.

Well, I was wondering what the guy you emailed meant by what he said. Not what you mean.

I am totally for celibacy. I, personally, don't think spiritual progress is possible without celibacy. More than that, I think it's 75% of the path. Therefore the whole woman-topic is very important.

Abstinence is training wheels at best, at worst it can become an egotistical source of pride and unwarranted disdain toward others. Personally, I've made immense spiritual progress without relying on celibacy as a crutch to get me where I am today.

[Anders Schlander]

meh, i don't think being uncelibate with regards to sex makes sense if you're not attached emotionally, its not practical. Most uncelibate people are emotionally attached, anf for many, sex can be a huge distraction, but emotional attachment takes on all sorts of forms.

Instead of particular forms of attachment being more important, it is perhaps more accurate to say that the strength and freaquency of emotional attachments are hindering. Even sex can take on a variety of forms of attachment, and may vary in strength from person to person. Women are not always the object of attachment so instead of celibacy of women being 75% of the path, celibacy of emotional attachment is what clears the pathless path.

edit: To reduce attachments progress on the path, well, you need the will and tools to unveil the 'maya'

[Atum]

By chastity I meant, of course, continence, celibacy, virginity, etc. In short, no sex-desire.

Well, I was wondering what the guy you emailed meant by what he said. Not what you mean.

I am totally for celibacy. I, personally, don't think spiritual progress is possible without celibacy. More than that, I think it's 75% of the path. Therefore the whole woman-topic is very important.

Abstinence is training wheels at best, at worst it can become an egotistical source of pride and unwarranted disdain toward others. Personally, I've made immense spiritual progress without relying on celibacy as a crutch to get me where I am today.

Do you still like masturbating and having sex?

[Atum]

Anders:

The Hindus call "woman" the embodiment of "maya."

When Ramakrishna was asked, "What is maya?" he simply replied, "It is sexuality which forms an obstacle to spiritual progress." So there you have it.

[Nick Treklis]

Do you still like masturbating and having sex?

Yes.

[jupiviv]

Well if we follow the logic of this statement, then we can say that nobody can consent to anything at all. No reason to single out sex right? Seems pretty ridiculous to say that two people can't willingly participate in something together that they both want to do.

That doesn't follow the logic of the statement. The logic is that it is impossible to consent to become unconscious. Two people can consciously agree to do something that is conscious. We can consciously choose only that which would lead to further consciousness. Otherwise we've lost the ability to choose and become slaves.

[Atum]

I was reading "genius philosophy." I found this, which I really liked.

"The download speed is faster in Windows? I don’t want to argue to you by technique.
You download a very big, very powerful, run very fast, use very little memory and very
stable virus-killing software very fast in Windows? Only spend you half an hour? But i
done it without spending a second. I just don’t download it. Look at the numerous files you
download in the last month, I just don’t download them. So i am faster."

It is as profound a saying as the person reading it.

[Blair]

That's the hyperactive gook fella who thinks he's the greatest genius.

prince will always be here, like a soothing cream.

(well until he's dead)

prince is lovely and true. angry young asian guys are ugly and bleh.

[jupiviv]

I was reading "genius philosophy." I found this, which I really liked.

"The download speed is faster in Windows? I don’t want to argue to you by technique.
You download a very big, very powerful, run very fast, use very little memory and very
stable virus-killing software very fast in Windows? Only spend you half an hour? But i
done it without spending a second. I just don’t download it. Look at the numerous files you
download in the last month, I just don’t download them. So i am faster."

It is as profound a saying as the person reading it.

I haven't read any of his stuff, but that's wrong. If he hasn't downloaded something in the first place, the question of his downloading that thing with greater speed doesn't even arise.

Or maybe he's referring to the "do-nothing" branch of Zen here.

[Atum]

No doing a useless thing is always better than doing a useless thing very well.

But the thought is deeper and works better when you express it like he did.

[Kelly Jones]

We can consciously choose only that which would lead to further consciousness.

If one wakes up before getting enough sleep (this becomes more of an issue as you get older), it's actually more conscious to resist the impulse to wake up fully, since it's more reasonable to become unconscious and sleep, rather than wake up to a tired state. So in this case, one is choosing to become conscious, but by becoming unconscious first ---- and who knows, one might not wake up?

[jupiviv]

If one wakes up before getting enough sleep (this becomes more of an issue as you get older), it's actually more conscious to resist the impulse to wake up fully, since it's more reasonable to become unconscious and sleep, rather than wake up to a tired state. So in this case, one is choosing to become conscious, but by becoming unconscious first ---- and who knows, one might not wake up?

In that case, the person is choosing the consciousness that he predicts will come after the unconsciousness of the sleep.

[Kelly Jones]

How about

"One can only consciously choose that which one believes with good reason is likely to lead to further consciousness" ?

[Kelly Jones]

What specifically, is this unreason that I'm clinging to? The reason I called you delusional is because you're trying to project traits onto me which are products of your own imagination. You even went so far as to invent an entire imaginary conversation between David and me. Those were your delusions, not mine.

[snip]

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill with regard to my preferences. If you look at my original list of desirable attributes, please note that I never even listed any physical characteristics, at all...and the comment about a woodsy smell was meant to be taken lightheartedly. Your whole response about environmental hazards etc. was overreactionary.

By lighthearted, do you mean, "a preference that is just a whimsical touch, not important, and rather a little self-deprecating joke"? or do you mean "a real joke, not important at all, ironic in nature"?

It seemed to me that it was the former. So I was interested to know for what reasons you would find a woodsy smell attractive? This may seem pedantic, but if it's a genuine preference, then what's it there for?

This isn't a tempest in a teacup, though. I may just have a weird mind, but I think a philosophical inclination involves wanting to explore psychological nuances for what they reveal about one's worldview.

Kelly: But only if one wishes to be fair-minded, reasonable, patient, strong-willed, and purposeful.

Carmel: I agree that those are admirable traits, that all of us should strive toward possessing; however, even if I manage to achieve all of those states of being, they would exist in conjunction with my feminine qualities, not instead of them.

Also, there do exist some feminine qualities that are admirable. I won't list them now, perhaps you can manage this task as a testament to your "fair-mindedness"? ;)

Fair-mindedness doesn't mean lying, in my view. If I thought feminine qualities included consciousness-supporting, I'd list them. But I don't see any such, or at least, not any that aren't improved by masculine qualities, and are on their own not substantial enough to list.

if things get a little rigourous or heated, that's fine too, up to a point, but generally, I also, would prefer to keep the emotionalism(and egotism) to a minimum.

Good to hear.

.

[Nick Treklis]

Well if we follow the logic of this statement, then we can say that nobody can consent to anything at all. No reason to single out sex right? Seems pretty ridiculous to say that two people can't willingly participate in something together that they both want to do.

That doesn't follow the logic of the statement. The logic is that it is impossible to consent to become unconscious. Two people can consciously agree to do something that is conscious. We can consciously choose only that which would lead to further consciousness. Otherwise we've lost the ability to choose and become slaves.

Maybe we should just call rape something a little more innocent like "surprise sex" then?

[jupiviv]

Maybe we should just call rape something a little more innocent like "surprise sex" then?

"Unpleasant sex" is probably the best term for rape.

[Jeannie]

The dialectical counterpoint of rape is philosophy, for a rapist flips out from being sexually rejected so often by women, and in humiliation imagines that he dominates all women and all their rejection, by violently attacking one to force her to sexually accept him. But women flip out on on being intellectually rejected by the philosopher, and in humiliation imagine that they dominate all philosophers and their rejection, by violently attacking them verbally, emotionally, and psychologically, to force him to submit intellectually and take woman back as a whipped dog must take back its master.

I mean, women who are angry at the idea that it is important to reject feminine psychology, and who present no arguments that are free of their anger, are obviously engaging in this kind of rape, aren't they?

What a load of bullshit!

Recently, in Brisbane, a serial rapist of women walking through a walking "track" was married with 4 kids or something! Why do you constantly perceive the woman as the "bad guy" when you also state that any man has more ability to be enlightened?

Why do you speak so negatively of womens' emotions (or "womans' emotions) when it is blatantly obvious men also are a victim of their emotions...anger, jealousy, rage, humiliation, etc

I cannot comprehend why Dan gives me a serve for saying LOL when David, for example can say an 8 year old girl was flirting with him cos she was sitting on his lap playing with his beard. Just one example of how you lot twist things around to "fault" the "woman" when it seems to me, men should be sooo much more aware. Well, seems to me, they are NOT!

Dan asks why I would have nothing to do with him if he wasn't my brother. I thought he was supposed to understand the female mind better than women.

Kelly.............you DO NOT know Dan and I am not interested in having a genius bro as they seem to be arrogant, heartless, judgemental, projecting what THEY reject (eg. ties and suits...because they reject it, every other bastard should too) Well, some people don't see it that way. Who are you to advocate they should see it YOUR way? It smacks of talking to Religious people, YOUR way is the ONLY way as far as YOU are concerned.

You lot take any opportunity to put women down even if an example of a woman's achievement is proposed. It always seems to be "lacking" in some way according to QRS philosophy. If this does not stem from a bitterness towards women, I don't know what is. I told Dan I would not come back here, but it is like a train wreck.........you have to look........

[Dan Rowden]

The dialectical counterpoint of rape is philosophy, for a rapist flips out from being sexually rejected so often by women, and in humiliation imagines that he dominates all women and all their rejection, by violently attacking one to force her to sexually accept him. But women flip out on on being intellectually rejected by the philosopher, and in humiliation imagine that they dominate all philosophers and their rejection, by violently attacking them verbally, emotionally, and psychologically, to force him to submit intellectually and take woman back as a whipped dog must take back its master.

I mean, women who are angry at the idea that it is important to reject feminine psychology, and who present no arguments that are free of their anger, are obviously engaging in this kind of rape, aren't they?

What a load of bullshit!

Recently, in Brisbane, a serial rapist of women walking through a walking "track" was married with 4 kids or something! Why do you constantly perceive the woman as the "bad guy" when you also state that any man has more ability to be enlightened?

What? The man is the bad guy in the sexual rape; the woman the bag guy in the intellectual rape. That's pretty obvious. For the record I want to state that David's and Kelly's proffered analyzes of the psychology of rape ought not be taken as applicable in all cases. That would be way too simplistic. Rape is not simply about power or revenge, even though it always contains both elements - because all acts of violence contain both elements.

Why do you speak so negatively of womens' emotions (or "womans' emotions) when it is blatantly obvious men also are a victim of their emotions...anger, jealousy, rage, humiliation, etc

No-one makes this distinction. You're making this up. If the subject of analysis is a woman, then the emotions are hers; if a man, then they're his.

I cannot comprehend why Dan gives me a serve for saying LOL when David,

You call that a serve? I was actually attempting to save you from the perception of juvinality which inevitably befalls people who overuse "lol" on a philosophy discussion forum. It's hard to take such people, seriously. It was a heads-up, not a serve.

for example can say an 8 year old girl was flirting with him cos she was sitting on his lap playing with his beard.

Well, she may well have been. The art of feminine wiles starts pretty early, however innocent that may be. Mothers and fathers alike train them in such and inadvertently lock them into a gender based social reality, which is unfortunate.

Just one example of how you lot twist things around to "fault" the "woman" when it seems to me, men should be sooo much more aware. Well, seems to me, they are NOT!

You seem obsessed with "fault", where there is only simple observations. You think David was "faulting" the girl? How do you figure that?

Dan asks why I would have nothing to do with him if he wasn't my brother. I thought he was supposed to understand the female mind better than women.

I do, but sometimes I just can't believe it!

Kelly.............you DO NOT know Dan and I am not interested in having a genius bro as they seem to be arrogant, heartless, judgemental, projecting what THEY reject (eg. ties and suits...because they reject it, every other bastard should too)

I reject what suits and ties represent. If you wish to accept unconscious herdliness and all of its consequences, that's entirely your prerogative.

Well, some people don't see it that way. Who are you to advocate they should see it YOUR way? It smacks of talking to Religious people, YOUR way is the ONLY way as far as YOU are concerned.

This is a mistake you consistently make - that of conflating facts of reality with goals and values. None of us is trying to tell you - or anyone else - what to value. All we do is make a case for a particular set of facts of reality. If you don't stop mixing those two things together there'll be no point in any discussion.

You lot take any opportunity to put women down even if an example of a woman's achievement is proposed. It always seems to be "lacking" in some way according to QRS philosophy.

There are achievements and then there are achievements. Some have greater implications for philosophical attainment, and in case you hadn't noticed, that is what we're interested in. Most male achievements are entirely mundane also.

If this does not stem from a bitterness towards women, I don't know what is.

And this is what I keep trying to tell you, and you keep complaining is patronisation! You simply don't understand so you just lump it into the most morally convenient box you can. It's got nothing to do with bitterness. I don't feel any such thing. It's about seeing things the way they really are, measured against the - admittedly highly idealistic - goals one has. Change the goals, and the judgements of such things change too. How hard is that to see?