The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Matt Gregory » Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:29 am

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Matt wrote:

You might get the ego to have a hard fall, but it's just going to get right back up and be even stronger when it does. That's how that goes.


If I fall in a hole, surely I’m going to try my best to watch out for that same hole the next time around, and if I fall in the same hole a second time, this should give me even more determination to change. I don’t simply accept that you are a flawed person and end of story Matt. If you have discontent over particular tendencies within yourself then this discontent can fuel fundamental changes in the quality of your thoughts and behavior.

The problem is that you don’t simply acknowledge a tendency, you also justify it as well, and the justification prevents you from fully coming to grips with it, and moving into a direction where you actually change. You simply say, “oh that’s just how that goes, or it happens like this, and that is why it will continue to happen” But this type of thinking keeps you in the same pattern of behavior.

If you simply said, “yes, I’m discontent with this particular tendency in me” and then you sat with it for a long time, analyzed it, remembered all the times you did it, researched it, wrote about it, and put a significant amount of energy into change, then change is possible.

It might not always be possible, but many times it is, so I don’t think we should just write ourselves off as ultimately incorruptible.

Sorry, I'm not explaining myself very well. I just meant that you need a long term plan. The ego is not just going to fall over like a statue all of a sudden and go away. It can adapt in very cunning ways and survive, so to speak.


Matt:
True wisdom isn't bitter at all.

Ryan:
Its bitter to the ego. The less ego there is, the less bitterness there is, It hurts to acknowledge imperfections, but we all have them. The stronger one becomes, the less hurt one is over acknowledging imperfections, and the less imperfections they should have.

I'll agree with that, except I think the stronger one becomes, the more imperfections you should have, because you're becoming more aware and able to cope with more. You would have to be pretty far in the Bodhisattva stages before your imperfections actually start decreasing.
User avatar
Matt Gregory
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby richzubaty » Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:45 am

I just found this forum and I must say, the only honest response to my stuff I heard so far was from the woman who wanted to puke in the waste basket.

One head-in-the-clouds character is telling me that blowjobs are a psychological addiction. Maybe in part, but I've never had a psychological blowjob/orgasm in my life. In the nature/nurture debate I'm a "nature" guy.

Another guy, who clearly has never reproduced, is telling me I'm not manly because I don't understand my feminine side. Save the Males. Even Carl Jung said it's good to recognize your female side, but severely debilitating to ACT OUT of it. Important point.

Look... It's not possible to present a 500 page book and four years of research in a two-hour podcast. I feel like all the cheap shots taken at me are already answered in full by a quick read of the book.

The book, "What Men Know That Women Don't", is a thorough comparison of the differences between men and women, arrived at by examining: biology, psychology, history, religion, mythology, law. It's a pretty shocking picture of everything we have wrong about gender.

Anyway, I've called in the cavalry. Hopefully some guys who actually HAVE READ the book will weigh on to this conversation.

I'm in transit from New York to Mexico and using dialup at a friend's house so I won't be able to keep up with this thread. But I'll say it again: Confused by something? Read the book. I'm not as dumb as some of the patronizing opinions above have suggested.

Impeach Bush,
Rich Zubaty
richzubaty
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:24 am

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:08 am

I'm re-listening to this - who said "read my t-shirt, I can do anything, I just choose not to" - Rich or Dan? In a few places it's hard to tell the difference in their voices.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:16 am

Dan - where's that website with the refrigerators article? If there is a suggestion on how to design refrigerators differently, it should go to the manufacturer, not a feminist site - I want to see what was really said.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:32 am

richzubaty wrote:It's not possible to present a 500 page book and four years of research in a two-hour podcast.


Point noted.

richzubaty wrote:The book, "What Men Know That Women Don't", is a thorough comparison of the differences between men and women, arrived at by examining: biology, psychology, history, religion, mythology, law. It's a pretty shocking picture of everything we have wrong about gender...

Read the book. I'm not as dumb as some of the patronizing opinions above have suggested.


That sounds fair. I'll withhold further comment until I hit the library.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Ryan Rudolph » Sat Sep 15, 2007 2:47 am

Rich wrote:

I'm not as dumb as some of the patronizing opinions above have suggested.


Its not that you’re dumb Rich, it is clear that you are a thinker, and aware of many truths, but you are not without your imperfections, and some of the criticisms of your character were aimed at bringing some of these imperfections to the light of day.

Speaking with you directly is much more effective in discussing universal psychological imperfections that most of us have, rather than reading your book. Although to participate in the caliber of criticism that takes place on GF you need to have a certain sense of detachment from your personal self.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:29 am

David Quinn wrote:... Those who have the individuality and turn of mind to understand the woman issue and can discern its significance are far more likely to have the turn of mind needed for wisdom. Those who don't have no chance.

Diebert is an interesting case, though. It seems he can't really decide which way to go with it. Conflicting forces seem to be in play.


There's no such thing as a decision to be made. The conflict I have with the 'woman issue' as often described here is simply that there are also other ways to describe the same problem and some seem just better to me. I think Nietzsche did a fine job with investigating ressentiment, the traditional position of the weak, the slave, the position of the woman and even in other ages suppressed Jews and persecuted Christian which influenced core elements of the development of their religion.

That position of a lack of power [perhaps already starting with the vulnerable hairless ape] traditionally leads to all kinds of survival tactics: camouflage, deceit, temptation, teamwork, all which rely heavily on the world of social emotions in this day and age. Like flowers tempting bees. It's the currency. Women indeed have used a lot of such tactics, but we could just as well use the term 'slave morality' or something like that. The 'biological' factors like brain differences can easily be mostly short-term adjustments to their position combined with some natural selection, not something necessarily in place for millions of years.

When using terms like slave morality or ressentiment or egotism, one doesn't need too quickly to resort to the 'meme' theme to explain how both genders behave the same so easily. Worship of women is just as present as worship of children and youth, comfort, consumerism, protectionism, etc. We can call it all 'Woman' but is it really the clearest expression? I don't think so but I do observe it to be the most confronting one and that's the reason I go along with it, with all its limitations. It are desperate times.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Dan Rowden » Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:12 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I'm re-listening to this - who said "read my t-shirt, I can do anything, I just choose not to" - Rich or Dan? In a few places it's hard to tell the difference in their voices.


I said that. I don't think Rich and I sound much alike at all; he's American, for one thing!
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Dan Rowden » Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:23 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Dan - where's that website with the refrigerators article? If there is a suggestion on how to design refrigerators differently, it should go to the manufacturer, not a feminist site - I want to see what was really said.


I don't recall the name; I found it more or less by accident using Stumble Upon to look at random feminist sites. I'll probably be able to find it again using that method. Give me a day or two.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Dan Rowden » Sat Sep 15, 2007 8:11 am

I found this whilst looking for that website with the fridge article for Elizabeth. It basically shows the weaknesses of much of the feminist sociological analysis. I plan to respond to each point but I'll just hang it out there for others to contemplate in the interim:

The Male Privilege Checklist

1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.
2. I can be confident that my co-workers won't think I got my job because of my sex - even though that might be true.
3. If I am never promoted, it's not because of my sex.
4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won't be seen as a black mark against my entire sex's capabilities.
5. The odds of my encountering sexual harassment on the job are so low as to be negligible.
6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
7. If I'm a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are so low as to be negligible.
8. I am not taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces.
9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.
11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I'll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I'm even marginally competent.
12. If I have children and pursue a career, no one will think I'm selfish for not staying at home.
13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.
14. Chances are my elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more likely this is to be true.
15. I can be somewhat sure that if I ask to see "the person in charge," I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.
17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children's media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male heroes were the default.
18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often.
19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.
20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented, every day, without exception.
21. If I'm careless with my financial affairs it won't be attributed to my sex.
22. If I'm careless with my driving it won't be attributed to my sex.
23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.
24. If I have sex with a lot of people, it won't make me an object of contempt or derision.
25. There are value-neutral clothing choices available to me; it is possible for me to choose clothing that doesn't send any particular message to the world.
26. My wardrobe and grooming are relatively cheap and consume little time.
27. If I buy a new car, chances are I'll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car.
28. If I'm not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
29. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.
30. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called "crime" and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called "domestic violence" or "acquaintance rape," and is seen as a special interest issue.)
31. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. "All men are created equal…," mailman, chairman, freshman, he.
32. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
33. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if i don't change my name.
34. The decision to hire me will never be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.
35. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is usually pictured as being male.
36. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.
37. If I have a wife or girlfriend, chances are we'll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.
38. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are she'll do most of the childrearing, and in particular the most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding parts of childrearing.
39. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we'll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.
40. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are much rarer.
41. I am not expected to spend my entire life 20-40 pounds underweight.
42. If I am heterosexual, it's incredibly unlikely that I'll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover.
43. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.


The Male Privilege Checklist
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Matt Gregory » Sat Sep 15, 2007 9:15 am

Holy crap, woman's mind exposed. But then you would also need to make all those points again on a [insert name of rival woman] privilege checklist.
User avatar
Matt Gregory
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby David Quinn » Sat Sep 15, 2007 9:48 am

Rich Zubaty wrote:

One head-in-the-clouds character is telling me that blowjobs are a psychological addiction. Maybe in part, but I've never had a psychological blowjob/orgasm in my life.

Would you get the same feelings of self-empowerment and emotional well-being if it was a man giving you the blowjob? Or a child? I'm talking about you personally, not what homosexuals or pedophiles might feel.

I doubt that you would. Even though the biological and physical aspects of the act would essentially be the same in each case, for you personally there would be radically different psychological and emotional outcomes.

Given this, it would be interesting to examine why a man would gain self-empowerment and emotional pleasure from the act of sticking his penis into the mouth of a woman and ejecting its fluids therein. What is the psychology behind this?

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is the woman is being humiliated. She is behaving in the manner of a slave, serving her master, providing pleasure and getting soiled in the process. I've sometimes heard it said that a man knows that his girlfriend loves him when she is prepared to swallow his cum. There is probably a good deal of truth in this. To willingly participate in what would normally be thought of as an incredibly disgusting act - i.e. swallowing another person's body fluids - is probably a sign that the woman is no longer disgusted with the boyfriend himself, that she in fact likes him, all of him. She has come over to his side, as it were. She has joined his team. She is now devoted to him.

For a man to require this incident to be repeated on a regular basis - for example, every second day - so as to feel self-empowered and ready to tackle the world indicates strongly that the man's sense of himself is tightly wrapped up in what women think of him. He puts a lot of stock in their approval. It also indicates that he feels a lot of insecurity in his relationship with women. So while he constantly seeks their approval, he is always unsure if he will continue to get it.

Thus, he needs regular presentations of concrete evidence that his girlfriend is still devoted to him. It is an anxiety issue, at root, associated with low self-esteem. We all know how women crave to be constantly reminded of how much their boyfriends love them - through verbal I love you's, compliments, flowers, dinners, etc. The need for a regular blowjob no doubt serves a similar purpose.

I'm not necessarily saying that these things apply in your own case, Rich. I'm simply giving an example to illustrate how powerfully psychology controls sexual behaviour.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Alex Jacob » Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:09 am

I really was not at all impressed, inspired or moved by the content of that podcast. Why would you have a discussion of that sort, on a contentious subject of such importance, with people who more or less agree with each other? All they did is come together to share their agreements.

Basically, I think these people---Dan Rich and Sue---are 'mystified'. I think many people are essentially mystified: everything is growing stranger and stranger in our world, more unsettling, more confused, no one knows what end is up, and there is a need to identify an enemy, something to focus on, something to blame, and some analysis that will solve confusion, provide some guidelines to reclaim clarity. If you talk with unsophiticated and largely uneducated people---this has been my experience---you will hear simply outlandish opinions about what dark forces control the world, and you can see how they've got it wrong, how far off the mark is their conceptual grasp of their world. But it is not that it is completely incorrect, there is some connection there to 'reality'. You see why they have those opinions, but you also see that you are not going to be able to communicate with them, their conceptual field is far too limited.

I felt something like that as I listened to this most daring podcast. I share certain observations, especially of America, about a 'feminization' of the culture, and am completely in agreement that the culture is driven and directed by a corporate model; that the population of the US has been on the receiving end of the most sophisticated 'public relations' enterprise in history, indeed that history was made in America. I do relate to the idea of a sort of 'corporate hive mentality', that is a real thing as far as I am concerened, and one can see the evidence of it all around. In a certain sense, then, if you define 'masculine' as empowered, opinionated (capable of opinion), as resisting, as self-defining, as capable and audacious to create change, then in thoese terms, certainly, 'corporate America' does not want you, there is no place for you. If you cooperate though, if you surrender your own values, if you have no core values, if you have lost your own values, then all that you can really do is surrender your own will, give in. If this giving in is defined as 'female'---and this is grossly unfair for a host of different reasons, I feel---then this model 'functions'. Your enemy is therefor 'Woman' and so-called feminine culture. But this is a reductionist and simplistic structure of view, and as a reductionism it will not help to really unify someone (a man for example) within himself, it won't really lead to real strength because it has a fallacious base.

You-all say that you are interested in 'wisdom' and that you hold 'truth' in such high esteem, but I see semi-truths operating here, shadows of truths, and also partial lies, self-delusions, and mystification.
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby David Quinn » Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:36 am

Laird wrote:

DQ: In one corner, you have the people who instantly grasp the nature and purpose of the "woman" philosophy, can perceive its larger significance of it, and affirm it completely.

L: In other words, the people who fully agree with David Quinn, making them "wise".

No, I'm talking about a quantum leap in understanding, one which requires a complete stepping out of the normal way of thinking about things and taking in the larger picture. A world-shattering shift in perspective, in other words.

As I say, those who have made this leap know exactly what I'm talking about here, while those who haven't can't make it out at all.


Perhaps promoting a philosophy that deliberately espouses the inferiority of not merely women, but femininity itself, should be considered to be a form of hate crime.

For most people, it already is!


DQ: It gives credence to the view that women are incapable of higher learning.

E: And that statement gives credence to the view that you will use any small and unreasonable thing that you can to bolster your misogyny. And by misogyny I mean not necessarily just a hatred of women, but more particularly a view that they are inferior.

But women are inferior in some areas, just as men are inferior in some areas. That is the nature of the two sexes having different biologies, physiologies and psychologies.

For example, as Zubaty mentioned on the show, men are generally inferior when it comes to picking out little details in dresses and reading body language, and so on. In turn, women are generally inferior when it comes to matters of genius and profound thought.

To deny these realities is a form of hate crime towards reality itself.


Elizabeth: Name one thing that either Sue or Dan said in this podcast that they have not said before.

David: You have yet to understand a single thing they have said and you want me to provide more?

Laird: Nice dodge, David. I'm pretty sure that Elizabeth understands, but there's a difference between understanding and agreeing.

I wouldn't mind her disagreeing if she showed that she actually knew what she was disagreeing with. But her responses on this thread reveal that she has no understanding of the woman issue at all.

It is a bit like how the theory of evolution tends to polarize people into two opposing camps - those who completely affirm it and those who completely reject it. That in itself isn't remarkable, but what I find interesting is that I have yet to come across any rejecter of evolution, anywhere, who actually understands the theory. Their rejection is always based on major misunderstandings of what the theory is about. And as in the case of the woman issue, the rejecters are always motivated by a deep attachment to an emotional point of view which they feel is being threatened.


I put to you the same challenge that Elizabeth does, because basically from Dan and Sue in that podcast was merely the same proselytisation that QRS+Hindmarsh+Jones+others practice on a regular basis. There was nothing new about it for someone already familiar with your perversions.

The basic thrust was the same, but there were different slants peppered all throughout the show. The woman issue is one that you can talk about in countless different ways.

For example, I liked Sue's point that women essentially don't develop beyond the toddler stage, that they retain the narcissism, selfishness, living in the moment, spit-the-dummy mindset that toddlers generally have when they are three years old. I've never heard Sue say that before, nor have I heard anyone else talk about it like that.

The idea that women are essentially born as a fully-developed "woman" and never evolve beyond that was also very interesting. This is profound stuff.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Matt Gregory » Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:58 am

David wrote:
For example, I liked Sue's point that women essentially don't develop beyond the toddler stage, that they retain the narcissism, selfishness, living in the moment, spit-the-dummy mindset that toddlers generally have when they are three years old. I've never heard Sue say that before, nor have I heard anyone else talk about it like that.

Yeah, that was the most vile, sickening part of the show because it's so true. The main point is keep in mind, though, and call me motherly if you want, is that these things need to be pointed out to people so that we can encourage women to grow out of this stage they're stuck in. If we want to women to remain as helpless as children, then yeah we should shut up about it. I think it's sickening, though. Women are obviously miserable. Everybody is miserable. Yet just a little bit of rational development would help it tremendously.
User avatar
Matt Gregory
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby David Quinn » Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:07 am

Alex wrote:

I really was not at all impressed, inspired or moved by the content of that podcast. Why would you have a discussion of that sort, on a contentious subject of such importance, with people who more or less agree with each other? All they did is come together to share their agreements.

Actually, at more profound levels there is major disagreement between Zubaty and the others, which generated some interesting dynamics. Zubaty has different reasons for engaging in the woman issue.


Basically, I think these people---Dan Rich and Sue---are 'mystified'. I think many people are essentially mystified: everything is growing stranger and stranger in our world, more unsettling, more confused, no one knows what end is up, and there is a need to identify an enemy, something to focus on, something to blame, and some analysis that will solve confusion, provide some guidelines to reclaim clarity. If you talk with unsophiticated and largely uneducated people---this has been my experience---you will hear simply outlandish opinions about what dark forces control the world, and you can see how they've got it wrong, how far off the mark is their conceptual grasp of their world. But it is not that it is completely incorrect, there is some connection there to 'reality'. You see why they have those opinions, but you also see that you are not going to be able to communicate with them, their conceptual field is far too limited.

No, you're way off base there. At least from Dan and Sue's standpoint, the issue has nothing to do with simplifying matters, identifying enemies, casting blame, etc. Rather, it is all about examining human psychology in the light of spiritual truth.

From a spiritual standpoint, the great value in understanding the woman issue lies in the enormous paradigm shift that it triggers. It helps one to go beyond most of the ego's deepest attachments and orientate the mind towards the realization of spiritual truth.


You-all say that you are interested in 'wisdom' and that you hold 'truth' in such high esteem, but I see semi-truths operating here, shadows of truths, and also partial lies, self-delusions, and mystification.

The deepest truths always appear like that to those with a conventional mentality. That is why they are barely known in this world. The conventional mindset simply cannot recognize them.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Nick Treklis » Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:38 am

richzubaty wrote:One head-in-the-clouds character is telling me that blowjobs are a psychological addiction. Maybe in part, but I've never had a psychological blowjob/orgasm in my life.


To reiterate what David said, the need you have for receiving a blowjob from a woman is more psychological than physical. You simply wouldn't be getting the same feelings of pleasure and joy from blowing your load in the mouth of a baby or an old wrinkled man. If it were a purely physical addiction then you would be just as satisfied coming home and masturbating. But you made it quite clear in the show that having an orgasm while your penis is in a woman's mouth is the only way you can achieve your desired state of mind. So unless you psychologically perceive what appears to be a woman's mouth your penis is residing in you wont attain the desired effect.

A good example of someone with a more physical addiction would be a heroin addict. They don't care what the means to their end is. Even if punching themselves in the face was the only way they could get high, it wouldn't matter as long as they attain their desired state of mind.
User avatar
Nick Treklis
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:47 am

David Quinn wrote:Elizabeth,

DQ: Adopting the goal of peace undermines the dynamics of this clash, effectively destroying spiritual thinking altogether.

EI: I disagree. I believe that wisdom involves the embodiment of Oneness, and a body clashing with itself is not doing well. There may have been a need for clashing during Jesus' time, but today we need cooperation.

And yet here you are clashing with me. The spiritual part of me, no less.

If a body has a cancer, we cut it out. It has nothing to do with whether we are "one" with the cancer or not. The cancer is dangerous and needs to be eliminated.



The cancer yes, but we try not to eliminate the entire patient.

Our ideas clash, but so far I have not said that because you are a man, you are incapable of understanding the kinds of complex thoughts that women - with our greater connective tissue in our brains - think. It could just as reasonably, or unreasonably, be inferred that the only men who think that women are stupid are the ones too dumb to understand what we are talking about and too egotistical to ever consider that they could be wrong.

David Quinn wrote:
DQ: it describes the essential clash between spiritual and worldly values.

EI: Yes, the values do clash - but the people should not. By assigning all that is worldly to women and all that is spiritual to men, you create an unworkable divide and ignore Truth in the process.

No one is assigning "all that is worldly to women and all that is spiritual to men". You're way off base there.


Specifically, I was referring to Rich's statement in the podcast, but generally I also referred to Sue's statement, which seems to be a reflection of your ideas on the matter, that women are incapable of being spiritual (-probably not an exact quote, but close enough).


David Quinn wrote:How many weeks did you spend with Kevin? How long have you been on this forum? It's as though you have understood nothing.

It gives credence to the view that women are incapable of higher learning.

-


By automatically assuming that time with Kevin is the same as time with you, you reinforce the idea that there is a unified "QRS philosophy"

I am starting to think that you are incapable of understanding my point.

David Quinn wrote:Adopting the goal of peace undermines the dynamics of this clash, effectively destroying spiritual thinking altogether.


In your unsubstantiated opinion.

David Quinn wrote:You have yet to understand a single thing they have said and you want me to provide more?

All you are hearing is, "I hate women, I hate women."


No, you are falsely projecting.

David Quinn wrote:Quote:
I put to you the same challenge that Elizabeth does, because basically from Dan and Sue in that podcast was merely the same proselytisation that QRS+Hindmarsh+Jones+others practice on a regular basis. There was nothing new about it for someone already familiar with your perversions.

The basic thrust was the same, but there were different slants peppered all throughout the show. The woman issue is one that you can talk about in countless different ways.

For example, I liked Sue's point that women essentially don't develop beyond the toddler stage, that they retain the narcissism, selfishness, living in the moment, spit-the-dummy mindset that toddlers generally have when they are three years old. I've never heard Sue say that before, nor have I heard anyone else talk about it like that.


Not even Weininger? Different words, same meaning.

David Quinn wrote:Quote:
DQ: It gives credence to the view that women are incapable of higher learning.

E: And that statement gives credence to the view that you will use any small and unreasonable thing that you can to bolster your misogyny. And by misogyny I mean not necessarily just a hatred of women, but more particularly a view that they are inferior.

But women are inferior in some areas, just as men are inferior in some areas. That is the nature of the two sexes having different biologies, physiologies and psychologies.

For example, as Zubaty mentioned on the show, men are generally inferior when it comes to picking out little details in dresses and reading body language, and so on. In turn, women are generally inferior when it comes to matters of genius and profound thought.

To deny these realities is a form of hate crime towards reality itself.


Quote:
Elizabeth: Name one thing that either Sue or Dan said in this podcast that they have not said before.

David: You have yet to understand a single thing they have said and you want me to provide more?

Elizabeth: Nice dodge, David. I'm pretty sure that Elizabeth understands, but there's a difference between understanding and agreeing.

I wouldn't mind her disagreeing if she showed that she actually knew what she was disagreeing with. But her responses on this thread reveal that she has no understanding of the woman issue at all.


First, would you please correctly attribute Laird's words to Laird rather than to me?

Second, I do understand the woman issue. Perhaps you will understand what I mean if I phrase this a bit more bluntly: David, in relation to the Woman issue, my complaint is that your teaching skills suck.

(edit to add - pleural you - meaning Sue, too - and to a lesser extent and only on the Woman issue, Dan as well - but he's still better at it than you and Sue put together)
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:23 pm

David Quinn wrote: To willingly participate in what would normally be thought of as an incredibly disgusting act - i.e. swallowing another person's body fluids - is probably a sign that the woman is no longer disgusted with the boyfriend himself, that she in fact likes him, all of him.


It's a bit weird to mark "swallowing of another's person's body fluids" as disgusting at all, and normally thought even! What is exactly the disgusting part? This seems like a major personal preference and some circumstance (rationally knowing a chance on disease, pre-meditated disgust of the person, guild, morality etc). The pheromones normally prepare us for actually liking some of it, or at least not caring or noticing too much. I think it's more disgusting to eat meat and gravy, when you think of it. Dead meat vs lively fluids.

And no, it doesn't matter which body the fluid comes from, technically because people smell and taste enormously different from each other. And somehow knowing (or not knowing)! will certainly cause reactions that can be stronger in impulse than the simple pleasure of a fluid exchange, being it sweat, saliva or breathing the same air in a room (and god knows exchanging what...).
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Alex Jacob » Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:34 pm

DQ wrote:

"No, you're way off base there. At least from Dan and Sue's standpoint, the issue has nothing to do with simplifying matters, identifying enemies, casting blame, etc. Rather, it is all about examining human psychology in the light of spiritual truth."

I am not completely convinced that you understood what I wanted to say, and what I mean. First off, I don't have any problem at all examining masculine and feminine psychology, as a matter of fact I am verty interested in the subject, as I am interested in all parts of this subject. Also, I really don't profess to have any solid knowledge, and it is my opinion that knowledge in this hotly contested realm is a mine-field. The fact that it is red-hot and contentious is in itself a sound reason for extreme caution, great care before one comes to absolute conclusions, and represents them to others.

I think you must know that I take issue with your assumption that you possess and can define 'spiritual truth'. You or anyone can offer opinions, if they are couched in a certain humility, but when one examines some of the almost outrageous statements made by some on this forum, one gathers the impression that there is not a great deal of humility. The word 'spiritual' is in itself very problematic, in itself it is an allusion, but there is no solid thing that it refers to. In a conversation of this sort it is a troublesome term. Also, though for you the 'spiritual' may be the acme, the issues you are discussing are social, political, economic, sexual, and emotive. I don't think that you or anyone holds some sort of absolute ground from which to arbitrate these issues. The issues are at best very complex.

And again, as I listened, what I do find all of you doing is locating a problem, defining a problem (or locating an enemy, defining an enemy). The fact is, you have come to your conclusions, Dan. You state conclusions. I don't accept your conclusions, but I do think I am beginning at least to understand why you have formed them. My opinion is that it results from a process of 'mystification' and not 'enlightenment' (but really, this is not a word from my vocabulary).

"From a spiritual standpoint, the great value in understanding the woman issue lies in the enormous paradigm shift that it triggers. It helps one to go beyond most of the ego's deepest attachments and orientate the mind towards the realization of spiritual truth."

Your argument is constructed on a sort of invisible platform---'the spiritual'. When I say spiritual and when you say it, there are two very different meanings. I only suggest to you that when you speak of a grand 'paradigm shift' you could very easily be deluding yourself. Delusion exists as a possibility, at any moment, for anyone. There are probably dozens---hundred or thousands---of people offering opinions about the way that paradigms can be radically shifted. Everyone is selling some program with all sorts of stated purposes.

Allow me to say this: I have a long-standing interest in and qualified respect for the Vaishnava religion, that is to say the worship of Vishnu. (In addition to my own tradition, which is basic). The 'spiritual' object of Vaishnavism is to liberate one from the 'pathological' attachment (addiction) to women, as a source of pleasure, as a source of carnal pleasure, and to refocus one's energies in service of the divine. We are engrossed in 'material consciouness' to such a degree that our language, our psychology, our mythology, our culture, our systems of education, our television, only mires us more and more in this 'material entanglement'. And the very core of this entanglement is sexual attraction. To begin to become free, we have to have another object of fixation, an entirely different (spiritual) movement within ourselves.

Though I can't be completely sure, I have a strong feeling this is what you want to communicate, in basic terms. You point out, insofar as I think I read you correctly, that men get mired in 'materialism' (matter, mater) in a similar way that we get mired in woman. You could extend that and make a bold reference to 'maya' in an almost strictly Hindu sense, am I right?
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Dan Rowden » Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:52 pm

Alex,

Have you read David's Exposition on Woman? If you have a chance I recommend it; it will give you a good insight into where we're coming from (even if not into).
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Dan Rowden » Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:01 pm

Laird provided a great new definition of evil:

Perhaps promoting a philosophy that deliberately espouses the inferiority of not merely women, but femininity itself, should be considered to be a form of hate crime.


Talk about wanting to crush free thought and expression. Way to go! Let's totally politicize philosophy - as many feminists would no doubt like us to do.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby David Quinn » Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:25 pm

Diebert,

DQ: To willingly participate in what would normally be thought of as an incredibly disgusting act - i.e. swallowing another person's body fluids - is probably a sign that the woman is no longer disgusted with the boyfriend himself, that she in fact likes him, all of him.

Diebert: It's a bit weird to mark "swallowing of another's person's body fluids" as disgusting at all, and normally thought even! What is exactly the disgusting part? This seems like a major personal preference and some circumstance (rationally knowing a chance on disease, pre-meditated disgust of the person, guild, morality etc). The pheromones normally prepare us for actually liking some of it, or at least not caring or noticing too much. I think it's more disgusting to eat meat and gravy, when you think of it. Dead meat vs lively fluids.

That may be, but the general perception is still there in society that swallowing another person's bodily fluids is disgusting. For example, nearly everyone would turn their noses up at the thought of drinking someone else's snot. Or their urine. Both of which are in a similar class to semen.

We teach children not to pick their nose and eat it, or to eat their own poo, thus instilling in them a sense of disgust for such behaviour, which can only be magnified when it comes to other people's bodily secretions.

You're right in saying that circumstances can undercut this disgust to some extent - e.g. pheromones can make the drinking of semen seem more appealing. If a man were to empty his semen into a glass and give it to his girlfriend to drink, she would probably refuse in disgust. But present the semen in another manner, in the context of being swept up in the sexual act, she can override her disgust.

But also remember that unless the girl is sexually promiscuous, she is unlikely to agree to swallowing a man's semen unless she is sure that they are bonded together in an emotional relationship. Before then, she would probably recoil at the idea of doing such a thing, even though the pheromones would have already been flying around between them.

In other words, it's a psychological thing. In most cases, a woman performs fellatio as a gift to her lover, as a way to firm the bond between them. It isn't just a response to pheromones and sexual desire. She knows that it is something men like.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby sue hindmarsh » Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:56 pm

Matt wrote:

David wrote: For example, I liked Sue's point that women essentially don't develop beyond the toddler stage, that they retain the narcissism, selfishness, living in the moment, spit-the-dummy mindset that toddlers generally have when they are three years old. I've never heard Sue say that before, nor have I heard anyone else talk about it like that.

Yeah, that was the most vile, sickening part of the show because it's so true. The main point is keep in mind, though, and call me motherly if you want, is that these things need to be pointed out to people so that we can encourage women to grow out of this stage they're stuck in. If we want to women to remain as helpless as children, then yeah we should shut up about it.


Matt, have you ever tried reasoning with a two or three year old child? Well, believe me, its impossible! The only tactic open to you is to set boundaries for them that keep them safe and entertained. This tactic keeps their natural belligerence in check, which then allows you to get on with other things.

Now, as a man, you’d have used this same tactic in all of your relationships with women from about the age of twelve. That's about the time when children become more conscious of the effect their behaviour has on those around them, and not coincidentally, the stage their adult personality begins to take shape. You more than likely wouldn’t have been able to consciously articulate your use of this tactic on women, but you definitely would have experienced the benefits. And obviously, the more proficient you became, the more pleasurable your interactions with women, and with society in general, was. But of course the main reason for developing these skills of keeping women “safe and entertained” was so that you could pave the way for a woman to love you. And once “coupled”, addiction to this status was inevitable, but so too the horrible suffering one endures when un-coupled.

So Matt, from a spiritual perspective, the main issue isn’t about encouraging women to “grow out of this stage they're stuck in”, it’s about encouraging men to see that spending their entire time on this planet taking care of three year olds is a complete and utter waste of their valuable lives.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby David Quinn » Sat Sep 15, 2007 2:02 pm

Elizabeth,

First, would you please correctly attribute Laird's words to Laird rather than to me?

Sorry about that. Done.


Second, I do understand the woman issue. Perhaps you will understand what I mean if I phrase this a bit more bluntly: David, in relation to the Woman issue, my complaint is that your teaching skills suck.

They are perfectly tailored for the right kind of individual.


The cancer yes, but we try not to eliminate the entire patient.

Again, no one is advocating that. We simply disagree (dramatically) on the nature of that cancer.


Our ideas clash, but so far I have not said that because you are a man, you are incapable of understanding the kinds of complex thoughts that women - with our greater connective tissue in our brains - think.

Why not? It would be close to the truth. It is very difficult for a man to fathom how a woman thinks, given that her values, perceptions and modes of thought are so very different from his. It takes great philosophic skill on his part to reach such an understanding.

Women don't really have any idea how they think either, but that's another issue.


It could just as reasonably, or unreasonably, be inferred that the only men who think that women are stupid are the ones too dumb to understand what we are talking about and too egotistical to ever consider that they could be wrong.

Such a thing could be indeed be claimed, but without the support of well-structured reasons it wouldn't mean very much.


DQ: No one is assigning "all that is worldly to women and all that is spiritual to men". You're way off base there.

EI: Specifically, I was referring to Rich's statement in the podcast, but generally I also referred to Sue's statement, which seems to be a reflection of your ideas on the matter, that women are incapable of being spiritual (-probably not an exact quote, but close enough).

As I recall, Sue did stress that most men are currently incapable of spirituality as well, which is at odds with your formulation above. She also advocates helping women to develop a capacity for wisdom, which, she thinks, can only begin to be achieved when men stop loving women and thus stop imprisoning them within their currently stunted state. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron