Actual Face shots with Actual Names

[Kelly Jones]

I agree with whoever said women should opt out of the ridiculous clobber.

Shaven-pated females without the getup often appear quite similar to shaven-pated males dressed simply.

Women don't necessarily have to burn their faces off. Just relaxing into a thought-based personality is enough to wipe out feminine allure. One becomes just a bloke, thoroughly normal.

Rellies, with occasional skinheads like me.

My avatar reminds me of the intellect, truth, nature, possibilities, and growth. None of my portraits come quite as close. If I had Hakuin's Daruna portrait, it might be ok.

----

[Kelly Jones]

David,

What did you mean by "sighing in the centre of the Universe"? Do you mean, the worldview of this type is dominated by a weak ego, and incapable of seeing anything else but personal deficiencies and desires?


Kelly

[Dan Rowden]

A thoughtful and discerning person only "agrees" with conventional morality by virtue of shared language. Popular morality is built upon a foundation of logical fallacy e.g. "it's obviously wrong!"

So what makes David Quinn think I am doing that?

You'd have to ask him, as you well know. But if I was to venture a guess it might be the myriad things you've said here and elsewhere (mostly of late) that tend not to automatically indicate a deeply sentient appraisal of the issues.

But I'm just venturing a guess. Feel free to post a pic of sticky buns in response :)

Edit: Or, perhaps, more pertinently, he feels this is part of your view of what/where Taoism leads us.

[Tharan]

David,

What did you mean by "sighing in the centre of the Universe"? Do you mean, the worldview of this type is dominated by a weak ego, and incapable of seeing anything else but personal deficiencies and desires?


Kelly

I suspect he is pointing out there own perceived position as the center of the Universe and as such find themselves bored with existence. They like to be thrilled and titillated with novel ideas, passed of as spirituality.

[Tharan]

I find it interesting that no one has mentioned or noticed the hypocrisy in David's allegory. The same was shown earlier in this thread when someone mentioned to the women that they should tone down their sexuality when posting pics. How is this argument different than making women wear burkhas?

It is the men who are refusing to are incapable of controlling their own emotions. Any monk who is affected by a beautiful woman sitting next to him is a fraud. Does he want to fuck her or doesn't he? He should live true to himself.

And to tell women to tone down their sexuality when posting in a forum of mostly men is solely pandering to those same men's weaknesses. If these men desire wisdom, then they should be subjected to their own weaknesses tenfold, until they break under the pressure or transcend. In fact, they should subject themselves to this pressure on their own and not make their sensei do it for them. If you know you would be affected by some "hot chick" posting nuggets of wisdom, then you will know your personal Catholic Hell as both targets of affection, the woman and the wisdom, will elude you forever despite your tortured efforts. Either accept it as it is or get over it. You can't have both. Sorry Unwise.

[Kelly Jones]

Tharan,

There sits the 12-year-old Robert Crumb, sweating profusely in shame, over the bulge in his pants. A big-bosomed woman with huge stocky calves stands over him, laughing in glee at his discomfiture.

Draping her with a "tent" of some kind (even if it is just "disgust") is a good idea for the short-term. It allows him the freedom of mind to get a better idea of how ego functions. Then he can discard disgust.

I don't think sagent folks would advise drapery as a final solution, though. It's not honest. Seeing women as babies, or younger sisters, isn't ultimately true. The only "final" solution is to see women as emptiness.

And, have we forgotten that females, no less than males, benefit from being human, rather than one-dimensional pets?

[Pye]

.

Tharan writes:

And to tell women to tone down their sexuality when posting in a forum of mostly men is solely pandering to those same men's weaknesses. If these men desire wisdom, then they should be subjected to their own weaknesses tenfold, until they break under the pressure or transcend. In fact, they should subject themselves to this pressure on their own and not make their sensei do it for them. If you know you would be affected by some "hot chick" posting nuggets of wisdom, then you will know your personal Catholic Hell as both targets of affection, the woman and the wisdom, will elude you forever despite your tortured efforts. Either accept it as it is or get over it. You can't have both.

This is the first straightforward evidence of a person in good faith with themselves that I have ever seen posted on this forum.

In fact, it is a mighty salvo fired at the heap of bad faith so often exhibited here, as well as a call to higher consciousness. Perhaps this spoonful of wisdom will go down better here being served up by a male. From myself, it has fallen on deaf ears.



[edited for additional comments]

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

How is this argument different than making women wear burkhas?

I agree that it is not, and had a similar thought myself - but as I mentioned in a thread discussing burkhas, if all it took was wearing a burkha to not have to deal with guys' lewdness, I'd wear one. I also agree that it should not be necessary. In my wilder days amongst friends I went skinny dipping, and no one wore bathing suits in the hot tub at a friend's house, yet there was nothing sexual about it. I understand that at nude camps, there is never any lewd behavior, and the people know that if they try anything, they will immediatly be banned from the camp.

Perhaps there is a difference in that if people are getting enough sex and they do not have some over-sexual abherrition, or they actually do not want sex, it is not a problem. What I gather is that it becomes a problem when sexuality is unnaturally repressed. This has been theorized by psychologists to probably the core of the problem in the Catholic Church with priests who are so frequently caught masterbating in public parks or taking advantage of young boys. Even Kevin has said that wisdom leads to a relief of worldly desires, and that it is counter-productive to repress and deny one's personal truth of where they really are.

I looked back to when I was getting chided for my photo, and I got it at least as bad, in some cases worse, from the female posters at the time. I think the major problem here is that many posters are denying their personal truths about where they are in regards to their own sexuality, leading to a build-up of sexual urges. The most recent result was that poor Leah got verbally ejaculated all over for just posting a simple picture of herself as her avatar. There are still references to "hot chicks" coming up because of that. Although I have an eye for aesthetics and have an appreciation for the male face, I have never been compelled to refer to anyone in such demeaning terms as "stud muffin" - which is the male equivalent of "hot chick."

Earlier this thread -

I just don't think that enough of the guys here are mature enough to look at a female face and not treat it differently....

...

Ideally, the guys ought to just get over it, and the practice would do them good. Unfortunatly, this is not an ideal world, even on a philosophy forum, and I have significantly lowered my expectations of guys' abilities to regard a female's outer appearance as just the corporeal form that the person inside happens to be inhabiting.

This should be insulting, but it is too true. David's story about the Zen Master denying entry to a beautiful female out of concern that she would be too much of a distraction to the monks tells me that men have never been good at forced celibacy. The story also made me wonder how many men would have had the dedication to burn off their faces to see if that would be a sufficient price to pay to get into a monestary.
.

[Tharan]

Perhaps this spoonful of wisdom will go down better here being served up by a male. From myself, it has fallen on deaf ears.

If you are serious about breaking through the fog of unawakened male consciousness, then you have to speak in a tone that says you are willing and able to cut off their balls, so to speak. You notice the ears perk up at that point. But make sure you have something worthwhile to say.

In no small part, this is the tactic used when the QRS speak negatively about "women." It is shock therapy.

[Tharan]

This should be insulting, but it is too true. David's story about the Zen Master denying entry to a beautiful female out of concern that she would be too much of a distraction to the monks tells me that men have never been good at forced celibacy. The story also made me wonder how many men would have had the dedication to burn off their faces to see if that would be a sufficient price to pay to get into a monestary.
.

True. The only character of strength and conviction represented in David's story is displayed by the woman.

[Pye]

.

Tharan: If you are serious about breaking through the fog of unawakened male consciousness, then you have to speak in a tone that says you are willing and able to cut off their balls, so to speak.

How absurd of me to think I could make an appeal to their [self-insisted] reasoning powers.


.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

How absurd of me to think I could make an appeal to their [self-insisted] reasoning powers.

Agreed. Sometimes wisdom is in recognizing one's limits. One, or even a small group, can not drain an ocean with buckets.
.

[Pye]

.

Elizabeth, you misunderstand my sarcasm. However trenchant is Tharan's point, it will not change the way I reason with others, and we shall see just how effective is his ball-busting as it plays out here. I have not seen any particular wake-up call provided by the Woman tactics, either. If anything, it has served to further embed many of these males away from their own rising consciousness. It's the mother of all scapegoats; pun intended. Takes the heat off; focuses away-from; invites the mind to remain stewing in its own unconscious darkness.

And by the way, that is exactly how an ocean is drained. One bucket[head] at a time.


.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Actually Pye, I did recognize that it was sarcasm, but recall the old axiom "More truth is said in jest."

edit to add the following:

I have not seen any particular wake-up call provided by the Woman tactics, either. If anything, it has served to further embed many of these males away from their own rising consciousness. It's the mother of all scapegoats; pun intended.

agreed.
.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Really nobody here realized that the whole 'toning' down or 'disfiguring' is only geared toward the woman's benefit and not as much the men around?

"if thine eye serve as a snare to thee, cast it out"

If lets say, banning all women from this forum, no exception, would solve anything at all, it wouldn't have any impact on the forum but perhaps it would on the women. They might be saved from serving as a snare to themselves.

It's hard it seems for some to not make it all about women again. While that was the all too contemporary point in the first place. Reorientation.

As a handmaid of my Empress
I burnt incense
to give fragrance to my lovely clothes.
Now as a homeless beggar
I burn my face
to enter the world of Zen.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Really nobody here realized that the whole 'toning' down or 'disfiguring' is only geared toward the woman's benefit and not as much the men around?

Run that by me again? The Zen Master was too wimpy to maintain order in the monestary by coaching the monks in non-attachment, so the woman felt the only possible chance she could learn what is only taught in a monestary was to burn off her face - and that was to her benefit? I say no one benefitted from that. The woman had to change her appearance to be possibly acceptable to the monestary. That is no different from putting on make-up to have a better chance at getting a job. Maybe not so much in Australia (I watched some of those Chaser videos, and it seems that make-up is far less common in Australia than on white females in America). In America, a white female not wearing make-up is like she is saying "I'm not willing to play by the rules" which does not bode well on a job applicant. The female applicant to the monestary had to put on a different kind of make-up for the men there. Furthermore, that was even more degrading to the female than make-up, as complications from severe burns, especially severe facial burns, are quite nasty. The woman may have gotten some benefit from the teachings, but do you really think that with her face burned off, she was any less distracting to the monks? Distracting in a different way perhaps, but still not treated like the men who did not have to burn off their faces to gain entry.

"if thine eye serve as a snare to thee, cast it out"

If that was what was being taught, any monk who couldn't keep from being distracted by the female should have had his eyes plucked out. Now that would have been a deterrant from the male monks making advances at the female monk.

If lets say, banning all women from this forum, no exception, would solve anything at all, it wouldn't have any impact on the forum but perhaps it would on the women. They might be saved from serving as a snare to themselves.

I have no idea what you mean by this.
.

[Dan Rowden]

And to tell women to tone down their sexuality when posting in a forum of mostly men is solely pandering to those same men's weaknesses. If these men desire wisdom, then they should be subjected to their own weaknesses tenfold, until they break under the pressure or transcend. In fact, they should subject themselves to this pressure on their own and not make their sensei do it for them. If you know you would be affected by some "hot chick" posting nuggets of wisdom, then you will know your personal Catholic Hell as both targets of affection, the woman and the wisdom, will elude you forever despite your tortured efforts. Either accept it as it is or get over it. You can't have both. Sorry Unwise.

I mostly agree with this, but not without certain qualifications and additions. I agree men expecting women to tone down their sexuality for the benefit of men is nonsense. But is that the actual reason for it? If it is, the men should look at themselves. It's not the woman's problem that he gets affected by her - unless that's her goal, and when is it not her goal? There's responsibility for one's own behaviour and mentality to be addressed on both sides of that ledger. It's certainly a mistake to look to others for the causes of your own failings.

The only reason I would not want to see more sexually oriented women here is that they have nothing to offer.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

It's not the woman's problem that he gets affected by her - unless that's her goal, and when is it not her goal?

I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that in this sentance, by "woman" you meant the funky QRS definition, not that of a biological female. In the context of this thread, that is virtually impossible to do.

If you meant biological females, I can't respect your statement. Do you think that Leyla, Pye, sky, Leah, Sue Hindmirsh, Kelly Jones, and I have been hitting on you?
.

[David Quinn]

Tharan wrote:

Elizabeth: This should be insulting, but it is too true. David's story about the Zen Master denying entry to a beautiful female out of concern that she would be too much of a distraction to the monks tells me that men have never been good at forced celibacy. The story also made me wonder how many men would have had the dedication to burn off their faces to see if that would be a sufficient price to pay to get into a monestary.

Tharan: True. The only character of strength and conviction represented in David's story is displayed by the woman.

Yes, that is the essential point of the story. It illustrates the kind of sacrifice that is need by a man or a woman if they want to lead a life of truth.

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.

In both cases, the power of manipulation via non-rational means is minimized. People now have a chance to become human.

-

[Dan Rowden]

Elizabeth,

I'm talking in generalised terms. It wasn't a board-related comment.

Edit: though I can understand the impression I gave given I mixed the general and the board-related in my post.

Edit the second: btw, the meaning of this sentence might not be clear: "The only reason I would not want to see more sexually oriented women here is that they have nothing to offer." I don't mean "more" as in a greater number, but as in "more inclined to be". I should have really left out the word "more" altogether.

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

[David Quinn]

Pye,

I have not seen any particular wake-up call provided by the Woman tactics, either. If anything, it has served to further embed many of these males away from their own rising consciousness.

I completely disagree with this. There has been a lot of awakenings on this forum from the many discussions of the woman issue. The trouble is, with your simmering resentment of what is said about woman and femininity here, you are currently lacking the capacity to recognize this.

The more conscious a person becomes, the lower his opinion of femininity and womanly behaviour descends. But to you, this is a sign of diminishing consciousness.

In your eyes, increasing consciousness is a function of rejecting all spiritual idealism. In my eyes, it is a product of embracing idealism. Never the twain shall meet, as they say .....

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

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.

[Pye]

.

Dan writes:

There's responsibility for one's own behaviour and mentality to be addressed on both sides of that ledger. It's certainly a mistake to look to others for the causes of your own failings.

More good faith making an appearance here.

Diebert writes:

If lets say, banning all women from this forum, no exception, would solve anything at all, it wouldn't have any impact on the forum but perhaps it would on the women. They might be saved from serving as a snare to themselves.

I'm sure Diebert will explain, but this does not stand on several counts.

First, if this is an act of caring for the humanity of women, it is A. antithetical to the not-caring message of the forum, and B. if one cares for the humanity of women, one does not shut them out of any house of reason (as has been historically practiced), but rather invites them in and holds them to the highest expectations. One might be amazed what those expectations can transform.

Secondly, as bad faith illustrates, banning women from the forum is akin to all puritan panic-think that believes the way to cure people of their obsessions is to remove the object of obsession, and poof, the obsession disappears with it.

Thirdly, this would certainly put to the test whether the aim here is against a gender, or a set of tendencies (styled the feminine). For surely any number of men who have been judged to be "women" would have to go, too.




.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Diebert wrote:

Really nobody here realized that the whole 'toning' down or 'disfiguring' is only geared toward the woman's benefit and not as much the men around?

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

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

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

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