explicit nudes in art

Post questions or suggestions here.

Postby Matt Gregory » Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:48 am

Dan,

Matt: I think uniforms in school are a great idea. It seems more honest to make people look like sheep when they are being trained as such.

Dan: There's actually fairly good arguments both ways for school uniforms. In a world where parents were saner and had actual time and inclination for parenting, we wouldn't need them. But we don't live in such a world.

But your point is taken. I guess it's a bit of a toss of the coin as to whether society is better off with badly educated individuals or well educated sheep.


You think it's a coin toss? I would think individuality, if someone really had it, would be somewhat immune to sheepish conditioning. It's not like you can make someone's thoughts sheepish. Plus, when everyone looks the same, it forces them to look for other ways to express their individuality, so I would think it would be better having uniforms because it would encourage them to use their creativity. But maybe I'm just dreaming.
User avatar
Matt Gregory
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Postby Carl G » Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:07 pm

Point #1: Official uniforms, usually purchased independently, allow leeway, creating the same hierarchies of coolness.

I went to a school for a few years that required blue suits and ties with white shirts for the boys (blue skirts and jackets for the girls). The rich kids had tailored garments in multiple sets, while I had but one, off the rack from a discount clothing store.

Uniforms aren't uniform.

Point #2: the stuff kids wear is a uniform of sorts anyway, of current fashion.

Bottom line: Herdliness is taught by parents and educators, and is not a function of clothing, but clothing choices, whether driven by the garment business, the school board or otherwise and especially the reasoning behind them, is part of the equation.
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Carl G
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Postby Katy » Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:08 pm

Carl G wrote:I went to a school for a few years that required blue suits and ties with white shirts for the boys (blue skirts and jackets for the girls). The rich kids had tailored garments in multiple sets, while I had but one, off the rack from a discount clothing store.

Uniforms aren't uniform.


I went to a school where we were all required to buy the uniform from the school. Uniforms were uniform from the length they hemmed your skirt to the fact that everybody's blouse was see-through (I shit you not... there was eventually enough complaint, and they changed to blue, but still see through, blouses) The only difference there was was that eventually the girls were successful in pushing for permission to wear long pants during the winter months.

Honestly, other than the freezing-cold-in-winter problem, and my hatred of (and inability to sit in) skirts which were solved by high school, I can't think of any problems that the uniform caused. It meant I didn't have to think in the morning, didn't have to spend money on clothing, and generally didn't care. :)

And really, kids will find a way to be individual or be herdly no matter what you stick them in. Evening the playing field as far as having the school provide uniforms that are in fact uniform means that kids will have to find different ways to do so, and maybe they can find better ways that depend more on their minds than their parents' pocketbooks.
-Katy
User avatar
Katy
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:08 am
Location: Georgia

Postby HUNTEDvsINVIS » Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:31 pm

I didn't like school uniforms much. They didn't suit my skin tone or my hair color, and made me look like a wash-up. In my final year i was told that I look like an orphan by the deputy principal( the soles of my shoes were completely squashed up and broken ). The head of our school threw me with papers once. Am I glad I got out of there. I should really stop fighting with my superiors, the other day I launched an attack on a lecturer who graduated summa cum laude ( 95% and above ). It was a slaughter. I was creamed, correct of course, but she was being immoral, so technically I won on logic.
User avatar
HUNTEDvsINVIS
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:55 pm
Location: some hot place near sea

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:59 pm

HUNTEDvsINVIS wrote: I was creamed, correct of course, but she was being immoral, so technically I won on logic.


I hope there is more to this story than that. Claiming the moral high ground does not make for a logical argument. Those who flew planes into the twin towers thought they had the moral high ground. People who kill doctors at, and blow up, women's health centers that provide a variety of gynecological services including abortions believe they have the moral high ground. Are these acts logical because their perception of their religion told them this was the most morally correct action?
.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby Carl G » Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:27 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Those who flew planes into the twin towers thought they had the moral high ground.

Technically we cannot say this as we do not know for certain who controlled the planes. Assertions have been made, but no evidence has been presented. Just an aside. Carry on.
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Carl G
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Postby HUNTEDvsINVIS » Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:28 am

Well, that's exactly my point, Elizabeth. She did something immoral which I thought was not acceptable, just as you would think that blowing up the towers would be something immoral and acceptable. I knew I was right, and so did she, I hope, but she then just pretended that I misunderstood her actions, and made me look like a basket case. So, I was being logical and she used an immoral method to make me seem illogical. It's like, say, someone accuses you of killing your child and you say no it was just an accidant, and now all the evidence is gone but the two of you know what happened because both of you witnessed the act. Look, I have respect for the woman's authority, but she abused her position of power and she got away with it. Now I know I was dumb in confronting her, because I guessed she would deny it, but I only wished to show to her that her act was immoral and most importantly useless to her on the long run. So it was useless to her, useless to me, and that was my point. Even the smartest people have misconceptions about themselves, and clearly she thought her immoral action would benefit her, but I knew it wouldn't, and I pointed that out. I feel sorry for her, because it must be frustrating to be surrounded by people every day who are complete twits compared to her, but I think she shouldn't take out her problems on the innocent.
User avatar
HUNTEDvsINVIS
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:55 pm
Location: some hot place near sea

Postby HUNTEDvsINVIS » Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:31 am

Ok, I think i am starting to become delirious, because I edited the post to say "unacceptable" instead of "acceptable" and it would not yield to editing. strange.
User avatar
HUNTEDvsINVIS
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:55 pm
Location: some hot place near sea

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:42 am

Sometimes the server is really slow to respond. Just hit submit, go to another screen, do something else, and eventually it goes through - unless it suddenly says "cannot load page, server unavailable."

Regarding the teacher - yes, that was an unethical (and cowardly) way for her to handle it - but that does not mean she did not hear you. That only means she was unwilling/unable to admit she was wrong. If anything, her backtracking shows she personally knew she was wrong. As long as the interaction was in private, there was not actual smite against you. You simply did not get validation.
.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby HUNTEDvsINVIS » Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:17 pm

On the one hand smart people like that can usually have an intense frustration when it comes to the masses, and yet, they rely on that mass idiocy to have something to rise above and feel special against. Anyway, best of luck to her, I can see she is unhappy with herself. You don't treat people so badly if there is not something wrong with you on some level. If you are constantly on the offensive, aggressive and edgy, you are in a state of deficiency. The fact that she claims to be a feminist was too ironic for me, I had to confront her. Charity begins at home ( and then extends to the work environment...and then to the rest of the universe...)
User avatar
HUNTEDvsINVIS
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:55 pm
Location: some hot place near sea

Postby Tomas » Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:49 pm

Shahrazad wrote:I agree. Porn should be legal, but passing it on as good art is going too far imo.
.




Porn reduces the mind and flattens the soul.

Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite

.
User avatar
Tomas
 
Posts: 4321
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Postby Nordicvs » Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:25 am

This is cultural bias, feminism, and residual Victorianism.

Clothing should be banned in warm climates, I say, and in the summer in northern areas. It's unnecessary---feathers.

Why do you think female body parts are worshipped---because it's all hidden away, festering "mystique" in the male psyche, and one must pay (way too much) to see it, or because it's out in the open everywhere, prosaic, and no big deal?

Take a gander sometime at a tribe, say, down in South America---anyone here---and tell me what you see. Are the young men dumbstruck by female beauty and making a drooling, moronic fuss about every time they see a boobie---or are the young men exposed to breasts every single day, and have been all their lives, and it's no more arousing than an elbow or nostril? (Maybe absence does "make the heart grow fonder"---and more obsessive?)

And why would art involving the penis or scrotum be "wrong?" What the fuck is wrong with male sex organs? A copper statue of a pair of testes is every bit 'art' as are the countless statues I've seen of female bodies and such.

Are you guys ashamed of yourselves or your manhood for some reason...or just utterly insecure that someone might consider you a fag?

Porn is something that sexually arouses; something that sexually arouses only does so when it's meant to---by making it secret, pay-per-view, or dirty.

Elizabeth Isabelle,
Even with what might be considered tasteful nude art, the first thing that came to mind was that studies have shown that little boys who see an adult male penis are very likely to develop a life-long inferiority complex about the size of their own penis.


Sigh. "Studies show" can kiss my ass---what rubbish. (No doubt the study was done by women, the self-appointed 'experts' on men.) Never heard of such a thing. Every boy sees another (bigger) ding-dong at some point in his childhood and it doesn't become an issue unless a parent or friend assists it in becoming an issue. (The act of seeing helps boys realize that, hey, that dude has one too and it kinda looks just like mine; nothing harmful about it. In fact, it allieviates more stress than it would create.)

The only guy I ever knew who had a complex over his weiner size was a guy who actually had a fantastically tiny one. (After a while he realized he just needed to find a very small, petite girlfriend and he got over it when he did just that.)
User avatar
Nordicvs
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:38 pm

Postby Cory Duchesne » Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:06 am

Nordvic wrote:
Elizabeth wrote:Even with what might be considered tasteful nude art, the first thing that came to mind was that studies have shown that little boys who see an adult male penis are very likely to develop a life-long inferiority complex about the size of their own penis.


Sigh. "Studies show" can kiss my ass---what rubbish. (No doubt the study was done by women, the self-appointed 'experts' on men.) Never heard of such a thing. Every boy sees another (bigger) ding-dong at some point in his childhood and it doesn't become an issue unless a parent or friend assists it in becoming an issue. (The act of seeing helps boys realize that, hey, that dude has one too and it kinda looks just like mine; nothing harmful about it. In fact, it allieviates more stress than it would create.)

The only guy I ever knew who had a complex over his weiner size was a guy who actually had a fantastically tiny one. (After a while he realized he just needed to find a very small, petite girlfriend and he got over it when he did just that.)


Nordicvs,

I'm curious, do woman generally think that size matters?

What's your opinion on that?

My take is that, when they are functioning at their most base level, for woman size does matter. But women can be conditioned to not value it as much. Consider this:

It seems that blacks on average do have larger penises, and this is perhaps due to the black gene pool having less exposure to the values of civilization. In more primitive africian culture, it was more apparent to the woman who had the big ding-dongs. A large penis served a similar function as the peacock tail. Whereas, at some point in evolution, perhaps starting somewhere in mesopotamia (spreading to Greece, and moving on to Rome, Europe, etc) men gradually became inclined to put more emphasis on a good intellect, and thereby, women were conditioned to focus less on penis size, and more on man's ability to think, plan ahead, and succeed over his fellow man industrially/intellectually. And so the peacock tail changed a bit. Thus, through natural selection, man's penis got smaller compared to the blacks.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is this:

If we all stopped wearing clothes, then I think the feminine mind would be overwhelmed by the 'extra information'.

Information implies opportunity.

Big-ding-dongs signal greater opportunities to most base parts of the female mind. However, by supressing the reality of penis size with clothing, the female mind can more easily focus on and think about the less conspicuous and less crude opportunities afforded by a man who has apparently achieved a quality of power with his intellect. Woman who were able to notice more than just penis size, were perhaps the ones who were responsible for contributing to the variation we see between blacks and whites.

I know you don't like studies, but also consider this:

National studies, as well as solely North American studies indicate that individuals of East Asian decent scored the highest in both brain size and IQ, those of African decent scored the lowest in both brain size and IQ, and caucasians fell somewhere in the middle.


Now there was another study recently published indicating that East Asian's had overall the world's smallest penis sizes and Blacks had the largest. And I presume that whites of course fell in the middle.

Just something to think about.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada

Postby Nordicvs » Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:23 am

Cory Duchesne wrote:Nordicvs,

I'm curious, do woman generally think that size matters?

What's your opinion on that?


Definitely. The more they blame us for being preoccupied with penis size, the more we can de-code that into meaning that they're extremely preoccupied with it. (Almost everything most women say has to be run through some sort of bizarro bullshit-o-meter, as you probably know, and in my experience, it often means the opposite; or the more they blame men for something, the more it means it has to do with them, and not men. This must be what results from untold centuries of taking absolutely no responsibility for anything.)

We don't even have to de-code it, really; reason suffices: what's more likely...that a straight man would be concerned with his dick length in the context of other men or in the context of women? From whom would he need "approval" anyway? How many men do you know that regularly compare penis size with other men to see who the 'winner' is? How many men do you know that talk about dicks or even care about the subject in any way? To whom would a larger penis really matter more to: another straight male or a straight female, a potential lover? Who's more likely to see his package? Who's more likely to see it and comment on it, creating some possible "complex?"

Enough. I could go on with a lot more, but I think you get the point, and you seem to agree anyhow. It's academic as far as I'm concerned, a no-brainer. Most men don't really care that much, not as much as women (who really do) say we do, and those men who would be are that way precisely due to women's opinions, not other men's.

Cory Duchesne wrote:My take is that, when they are functioning at their most base level, for woman size does matter. But women can be conditioned to not value it as much. Consider this:

It seems that blacks on average do have larger penises, and this is perhaps due to the black gene pool having less exposure to the values of civilization.


I'm not following you here---what value is there in civilization? It is the single most destructive force the planet has ever been subjected to---like a tediously slow-motion 100 gigaton thermonuclear detotantion, stretching across ten millennia to finish its obliteration of the natural world. Blacks lost everything once they were enslaved by Englo-Romano farming culture. That's like saying North American Natives sitting on reservations, drinking Lysol and hoping for a casino some day, after being conquered by women, are "better off" somehow, "enlightened"---now with no dignity, culture, tradition, hope, spirituality, watching their once fertile, sacred hunting lands of green trees and rivers turned to smog-belching factory complexes and strip malls, cement tombs.

They used to be masculine, pure, strong, living in harmony with their environment, and now they're sectioned away on grids, nearly emasculated and empty like the rest of the feminized world---this is the 'value' of civilization: its ability to destroy men and Nature, civilized worms devouring the Male Soul. And blacks? They've probably suffered under it almost as much as the Semitic peoples in the Middle East had thousands of years ago.

Civilization is utterly feminine; a city is Mater's black heart, a stinking greedy void obliterating anything natural and replacing it with deserts and farms, trash heaps and stores---civilization makes the earth fit for Woman, the most unnatural being the planet has ever seen; plastic.

Anyway, I'm still not certain of the factuality of blacks having larger penises. (I mean: has there been some sort of survey, or medical study, or is this going by what men claim, what comedians claim, or what?) I'm not doubting it---it *seems* to be the case, according to popular opinion...but that's precisely why I'm unconvinced.

Cory Duchesne wrote: In more primitive africian culture, it was more apparent to the woman who had the big ding-dongs. A large penis served a similar function as the peacock tail. Whereas, at some point in evolution, perhaps starting somewhere in mesopotamia (spreading to Greece, and moving on to Rome, Europe, etc) men gradually became inclined to put more emphasis on a good intellect, and thereby, women were conditioned to focus less on penis size, and more on man's ability to think, plan ahead, and succeed over his fellow man industrially/intellectually. And so the peacock tail changed a bit. Thus, through natural selection, man's penis got smaller compared to the blacks.


That might be (the evolutionary bit---cultural evolution)...but men didn't decide in the Levantine, Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Egypt, 15-10 millennia ago, to suddenly stop wearing pants, and instead put on dresses, jewels, shave and groom and perfume themselves, act and look like women, do their work for them, cater to every whim like pussy-whipped servants, abandon male culture (hunting---halting all of their art and sacred caves and male initiation, and concentrating on little titty dolls and images of twats) in favour of a completely feminine system, leaving these domesticated sad-sack husbands with nothing but alcohol and sports ("intelligent inventions") to make up for the Masculine Spirit, moldering and oozing pus within them...they didn't decide all this for some noble quest for "a good intellect."

They had that before, and much more; they had ancient wisdom before all that, back when they were something resembling men. They started really thinking a lot and creating and inventing to (a) make women's lives easier, (b) get praise and applause for their ever-swelling egos, and (c) improve their social status in this mangina class system. And probably out of boredom, too, I imagine. (Like how hampsters like to run on wheels while in their cages.)

After a few thousand years of seeing their young men and boys sexually mutilated for fertility cults, then for farm goddesses, female deities---religion---and observing wars and all the decadence and social decay and mass-misery, it prompted men to start rethinking things, and eventually they countered with their own religion in places (with male gods---and eventually only one male "God"---the so-called "patriarchy") as well as what some around here call "spirituality."

This was an intellectual reaction to an inherently anti-male system. Men needed to think more, that's why they did---they had problems to solve, female problems---a series of counter-movements of sorts, a forced adaptation to an alien environment. Nothing since Sumer within civilized societies is truly masculine or ever will be. It's a matter of points of view; from 'our' point of view---being able to further manipulate the environment for women was considered "wisdom" in Gilgamesh's day (indeed: the concept of "human being" was entwined in knowledge of farming and shaving and eating bread, drinking beer instead of merely water), so further back in Catal Hoyuk (one of the first cities) it was too---just as it is now, in our homocentric and fem-centric worldview. Our extreme and perverse bias. Not just species jingoism but 'civilization patriotism.' Dogs chasing rubber balls in the backyard, barking at shadows...

In order to view any remote fragment of what is truly masculine we must go back way before the farming shit, before the spread of fertility cults that led to it, before the feminine took over---20 thousand years ago at least; that's when the Deep Masculine was still alive (in Eurasia) and doing well. This is sure to rub people the wrong way here, but I don't care: a sweet-smelling, smooth-skinned she-male sitting in a box thinking up cool shit is not a 'genius,' 'wise,' or anything else, not in terms of masculinity; many people here see "the masculine" as some mental or intellectual invention that abruptly popped up in written form in Greece or in Tibet---ridiculous; it's not an invention, it's not sold in stores, it's not a bunch of words on paper written by some repressed walking dildo trying to be at peace with his slavery or intellectualize it away with riddles and flowery cryptic tripe until he doesn't feel like he's actually serving females---and they believe, before this so-called wisdom, men were knuckle-dragging grunting gorillas who couldn't string two coherent thoughts together (what arrogance; I suppose some left-brain-enslaved she-male with dogshit for spirit has to feel good about or feel superior to or feel pride in *something,* as a "man," so 'he' puts down the primal Deep Masculine---like a little kid mocking something he can't possibly grasp---and calls it "primitive" and twists the meaning of evolution to rationalize 'his' place in the feminine heirarchy).

Any "man" who worships his own intellect as any sort of symbol of what is masculine is not only deluded but pathetic. Any "man" clinging to some scripture scribbled in a box on a mountain by a 'monk' who escaped farm-life is not "connecting to Man's Spirit" or the "Deep Masculine." No. He's got his head rammed up his own ass and is convinced it smells like chocolate-flavoured edification (maybe I'm harsh here---but he's not 'being a man' simply by using his left-brain's basic logical component). And any "man" who sits on his pasty ass all day with his nice clean nose in books, convincing himself he's discovered the secret of Nature (when his idea of Nature is a farm or ranch or English fucking garden; the guy's never hunted, never survived in the wild, never faced his physical, emotional, and intellectual limits, never faced his own death, never risked his life for his convinctions, never drifted or wandered along the edge of civilization in utter poverty, getting rid of every possession he's ever had as well as his ego, never caught his own food or built his own shelter, never experienced full, true, utter indepedence, never suffered pain or solitude or fasting or waiting---patience---et cetera), well, 'he' is just another woman with a dick who's rationalizing his addictions and slavery to his own ego and to civilization itself---to the feminine itself. He'll be quickest to defend civilization and justify his feminized existence.

[Frankly, it confuses the hell out of me trying to figure how one can rationally subscribe to the notion of "abandoning the world"---sticking one's head in the sand and envisioning many witty things---and at the same time convince oneself that he's being some fashion of 'real man,' a responsible one, in some way. Perhaps I am not wise enough yet to see why hardly anyone sees that each of us is merely an insigificant cell in this fat, monstrous, stationary blob of a human organism---while a lack of whole (or big picture) thinking (right-brained) seems very likely, it doesn't answer everything---which is in fact quite dramatically inferior to almost every other form of life on this planet, in nearly every way; what variety of denial is it that holds us in the comfortable construct that we---as 'civilized beings'---have not become putridly cancerous to this biosphere? I guess this should be in a different thread.]

Cory Duchesne wrote:Anyway, what I'm getting at is this:

If we all stopped wearing clothes, then I think the feminine mind would be overwhelmed by the 'extra information'.

Information implies opportunity.

Big-ding-dongs signal greater opportunities to most base parts of the female mind. However, by supressing the reality of penis size with clothing, the female mind can more easily focus on and think about the less conspicuous and less crude opportunities afforded by a man who has apparently achieved a quality of power with his intellect. Woman who were able to notice more than just penis size, were perhaps the ones who were responsible for contributing to the variation we see between blacks and whites.


Perhaps. Well, maybe all at once would produce this effect, so maybe something more gradual would be more reasonable...

Cory Duchesne wrote:I know you don't like studies, but also consider this:


No, no: it's not that I dislike studies; it's that I don't trust most of them ('specially psychology). The agenda, possible bias, and such must be ascertained regarding a source before I trust studies. (Whenever someone posts "studies say..." without including a source, it---as I wrote above---can kiss my ass.)

Cory Duchesne wrote:Quote:

National studies, as well as solely North American studies indicate that individuals of East Asian decent scored the highest in both brain size and IQ, those of African decent scored the lowest in both brain size and IQ, and caucasians fell somewhere in the middle.

Now there was another study recently published indicating that East Asian's had overall the world's smallest penis sizes and Blacks had the largest. And I presume that whites of course fell in the middle.

Just something to think about.


Hmmm. You're not factoring females into this---in evolutionary terms (back when we did actually evolve), one's penis would only need to be as big as would be the hole into which it was destined to go, no? Thus, big dick = big hole. Japanese women are rather small in stature. Perhaps black women (if it's true about blacks' on average bigger trouser pals) had "wider areas" than other peoples...another popular conception is that black females have "big butts" and wider hips than white women, so who knows.

Anyway, it's extremely misleading to use (Western) intelligence measurements---culturally biased, for one thing. And IQs are two-thirds left-brain, one-third right-brain. It's also not fair because "primitive" people are inherently more right-brained, masculine, and physical---doers instead of 'thinkers' (what Western minds consider thinking, anyway), those who actually live life instead of watching others live theirs or instead just think about living it.

I'd rather like to see one judge a group by how peacefully and harmoneously it coexists with its environment (and its human neighbours?---which might be too harsh for my example---I wouldn't want to be accused of rigging anything here). Fuck it. Both, plus how that human social group or tribe treats its people--i.e. slavery and such. All three should be factors. Now, there's something I've never seen before. I wonder why?---we're too smug to consider such a thing? I'm not, so here goes...

A fucking Environment Wisdom Quotient. ("Wisdom" meaning a natural and necessary intelligence, set of skills, knowledge and even beliefs, enabling a tribe or group to survive not at the expense of either Nature or another tribe or group, efficiently handed down generationally---the less words and more experiential learning involved, the more effiecient.) Let's see...every farming culture; every city-state and actual civilization, before ancient Greece in the Old World, turned its environment into shit; deserts, wastelands. Hmm. Low score there, I'd say. We'll call that "Drooling Cretin," level one on the EWQ.

And many kingdoms that followed, just before Rome, including Greece, would have to be level two since they were slightly less destructive and slave-oriented as the former ones; we'll call level two: "Upperclass Twit."

Rome's next: from the Republic (level two) back down to level one, "Drooling Cretin," for the Empire. (It was merely technology that prevented them from doing the same to Italy or some other area as Sumer had done to Arabia, et cetera. Of course, it was more pastoralism than farming that seriously raped the surface of the planet in most cases---the Sahara Desert for instance.)

And I can see no examples in Afro-Eurasia that reach above level two until the Middle Ages---ironically, the 'Dark Ages' went fairly easy on Nature, and humanity's huge fat ass went on a diet during the Black Death---Nature's last stab at balance for the planet, one could interpret. If it was intended or not, this alone (aside from how barbaric they were to one another and all the religious conversions) puts these crazy God-fearing civilizations at level three: "Red Neck."

While all this stupidity was raging, the Indigenous Australians (separated from mainland Asia after the last glacial maximum and its resultant world-wide flooding) were going about things as they'd done for the last untold dozens of millennia, living as men, spiritually, not shitting where they slept, not ripping apart the very things they held sacred and needed for the survival of their children, not over-populating, not taking without asking. I'd place them at level eight; "Very Bright." I hesitate to place them any higher because farming culture did reach the northern part of the continent and influenced some of its original culture to some extent (so we really don't know how much remained undiluted).

Various forest-dwelling tribes, such as around the Amazon basin, score higher because of their relative peaceful nature and their ability to coexist while being semi-nomadic. I'd say level nine; "Quite Brilliant." To the west and north, the Aztec and Inkan civilizations, while not being that destructive or intrusive generally to their habitats, were excessively warlike and quite harsh on their peoples, overpopulated and not masculine, so I'd place them midway, level five: "Moderately Smart."

And the highest score goes to northern nomads---those untouched by civilization in northern Asia, but mostly---in North America. As a whole conglomerate of cultures: ten. "True Genius." The 'plains Indians' and eastern-western forest-dwellers as well as the semi-nomadic Inuit to the north. Generally, the more nomadic, the less harmful one is to one's environment and the more spiritual by definition. They all achieved relative peace with other tribes, established rudimentary trade and (a) didn't pollute or (b) cause deforestation or soil erosion or desertification or ozone depletion or nuclear waste or global warming, or (c) overpopulate or (d) enslave other cultures, assimilating them into their own. And they treated one another with respect and dignity; they were devoted to family, the tribe, and each other. They achieved a balance with their surroundings that completely befuddles and escapes the grasp of modern, civilized man and all his vast "wisdom" and "intelligence."

That is true wisdom---how to live as a group and coexist intelligently, with one's environment and neighbouring tribes. They were right-brained, too, obviously---not bent on manipulating everything in sight...they let it be and let Nature guide them, wisely. That sort of wisdom's lost to us (and called 'savagery'), replaced by men wearing dresses and their tedious blather, their symbols and religions, scientific orthodoxy, rigid and sterile concepts, materialism, power-and-thrill-seeking, needless violence, and millions upon millions of terabites of mostly irrelevant information. There is so much more to the Masculine than merely a frame of mind or some psycho-philosophical approach---this is only one dimension. And a small one.

[Now awaiting the kiddies to enter this thread with their effeminate prattle, their irrational civilio-defensiveness, tech-fellating or egotistical garbage---"but they was conkerred and stuff lol hahah---owie, i hurt my wittle tummy waughing, owie owie, mommy, hold me!!!'. Oh well, I suppose it is inevitable.]

/tangent.
User avatar
Nordicvs
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:38 pm

Postby Carl G » Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:23 pm

Nordicvs wrote:

[Now awaiting the kiddies to enter this thread with their effeminate prattle, their irrational civilio-defensiveness, tech-fellating or egotistical garbage---"but they was conkerred and stuff lol hahah---owie, i hurt my wittle tummy waughing, owie owie, mommy, hold me!!!'. Oh well, I suppose it is inevitable.]


Insults in advance. How funny after wading through your six pages of He-man frontier twaddle. Actually I didn't wade through it so much as skip across it like a rock over a stagnant pool. Some highlights:

The more they blame us for being preoccupied with penis size

You're blaming women for blaming men for being preoccupied? Ugh, how do you keep all your claiming and blaming straight?

This must be what results from untold centuries of [women] taking absolutely no responsibility for anything.

Like, for example, child rearing? Right, guys do all the work there, while the gals just play.

I'm not following you here---what value is there in civilization? It is the single most destructive force the planet has ever been subjected to---like a tediously slow-motion 100 gigaton thermonuclear detotantion, stretching across ten millennia to finish its obliteration of the natural world.


Whoops, another tiresome dig at all things not having to do with running au naturel with the wolves, in Alaska. Only thing missing is a heartful lionization of the Noble Red Man.

That's like saying North American Natives sitting on reservations, drinking Lysol and hoping for a casino some day, after being conquered by women, are "better off" somehow, "enlightened"---now with no dignity, culture, tradition, hope, spirituality, watching their once fertile, sacred hunting lands of green trees and rivers turned to smog-belching factory complexes and strip malls, cement tombs.

They used to be masculine, pure, strong, living in harmony with their environment,


Check that, I spoke too soon.

men didn't decide in the Levantine, Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Egypt, 15-10 millennia ago, to suddenly stop wearing pants, and instead put on dresses, jewels, shave and groom and perfume themselves, act and look like women, do their work for them, cater to every whim like pussy-whipped servants, abandon male culture (hunting---halting all of their art and sacred caves and male initiation, and concentrating on little titty dolls and images of twats) in favour of a completely feminine system, leaving these domesticated sad-sack husbands with nothing but alcohol and sports


Rant, rant. Such anger at women. Get it out. That's right, it must be cleasned out before the real work can begin.

In order to view any remote fragment of what is truly masculine we must go back way before the farming shit, before the spread of fertility cults that led to it, before the feminine took over---20 thousand years ago at least; that's when the Deep Masculine was still alive (in Eurasia) and doing well.


And such anger at modern life. Well, shit, go back to your tundra, running naked, fire in your eyes, your foam-flecked tongue flapping in the wind, where you're free, free to be the man you want to be.

This is sure to rub people the wrong way here, but I don't care: a sweet-smelling, smooth-skinned she-male sitting in a box thinking up cool shit is not a 'genius,' 'wise,' or anything else, not in terms of masculinity; many people here see "the masculine" as some mental or intellectual invention that abruptly popped up in written form in Greece or in Tibet---ridiculous; it's not an invention, it's not sold in stores, it's not a bunch of words on paper written by some repressed walking dildo trying to be at peace with his slavery or intellectualize it away with riddles and flowery cryptic tripe until he doesn't feel like he's actually serving females---and they believe, before this so-called wisdom, men were knuckle-dragging grunting gorillas


And free from the Internet, where all the girly-men hang out, and write their pussy nonsense, and call themselves Genius.

Such anger at the Geniuses as well. So much that it is worth stopping by the occasional Eskimo village to beg yourself online at one of the civilized homes (fuck those people for turning their backs on their heritage) and rant at the insanity of it all. Before gathering a few supplies, maybe matches, some flour, and fishooks, before heading out again, into the blindingly beautiful (and, fuckin' A, completely natural Northern Lights. Now that's a man's life. And his wife).

And any "man" who sits on his pasty ass all day with his nice clean nose in books, convincing himself he's discovered the secret of Nature (when his idea of Nature is a farm or ranch or English fucking garden; the guy's never hunted, never survived in the wild, never faced his physical, emotional, and intellectual limits, never faced his own death, never risked his life for his convinctions, never drifted or wandered along the edge of civilization in utter poverty, getting rid of every possession he's ever had as well as his ego, never caught his own food or built his own shelter, never experienced full, true, utter indepedence, never suffered pain or solitude or fasting or waiting---patience---et cetera), well, 'he' is just another woman with a dick who's rationalizing his addictions and slavery to his own ego

"Yup, and did I mention I run naked with wolves? No shoes even. Just a small pack swinging in the wind. Matches, some flour, and fishooks. Tiny little frying pan. And a mean assed knife. I repeat, no Internet most of the time. None."
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Carl G
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Postby Cory Duchesne » Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:13 pm

Nord wrote:
I'm not following you here---what value is there in civilization? It is the single most destructive force the planet has ever been subjected to---like a tediously slow-motion 100 gigaton thermonuclear detotantion, stretching across ten millennia to finish its obliteration of the natural world. Blacks lost everything once they were enslaved by Englo-Romano farming culture. That's like saying North American Natives sitting on reservations, drinking Lysol and hoping for a casino some day, after being conquered by women, are "better off" somehow, "enlightened"---now with no dignity, culture, tradition, hope, spirituality, watching their once fertile, sacred hunting lands of green trees and rivers turned to smog-belching factory complexes and strip malls, cement tombs.


I think that animals arent as destructive to the environment either, precisely because they are almost totally feminine. As masculinity begins to emerge in a pre-dominantly feminine creature, destruction and impurity happen to the degree of masculinization, at least at first. It's a painful surgery.

Indigenous man was mostly feminine, and thus he was less destructive, whereas the reason why Civilized man was to a significant degree more destructive and continues to be destructive, is because he is to a significant degree more masculine, rational, active. This leads him to do more exceptionally destructive and creative things.

They used to be masculine, pure, strong, living in harmony with their environment


But not because they were masculine. Animals lived in harmony in the same way too you know.

And now they're sectioned away on grids, nearly emasculated and empty like the rest of the feminized world---this is the 'value' of civilization: its ability to destroy men and Nature, civilized worms devouring the Male Soul. And blacks? They've probably suffered under it almost as much as the Semitic peoples in the Middle East had thousands of years ago.

Civilization is utterly feminine; a city is Mater's black heart, a stinking greedy void obliterating anything natural and replacing it with deserts and farms, trash heaps and stores---civilization makes the earth fit for Woman, the most unnatural being the planet has ever seen; plastic.


I think we're seeing improvement and further masculinization.

A white egg, being the symbol for pure femininity, appears pure, but during hatching, the purity starts to crack and become destroyed. As the potential within hatches, the egg seems impure, more imperfect, a feeble struggle becomes apparent.

But that is just masculinity trying to break through.

------------------------------------------------------------

As for the subject about race, and whether or not natural selection and the valuing of rationality shrunk penis size - - the branching of man into different races is too complicated of an issue for me to realistically take a position.

I would also be open minded to say that a small penis might actually reflect a certain feminization of a man's body chemistry. This might manifest in a timid, submissive, artsty, dreamy, mystical sort of male. Domestication allowed this sort of feminine man to survive. The greeks idealized a small penis in their statues, but then again, this might have been the greek 'artists' who had a reputation for being very airy-fairy, musical, and poetic.

Some have said that the reason greek art depicted the male penis as so small, was perhaps because male average penis size back then was significantly smaller, and has become bigger over time much like the average height has. Another possibility is that a large penis was believed to be "beastly" or animal.

On the other hand, Kinsey data set found that homosexual men had statistically larger penises than their heterosexual counterparts. One potential explanation given is a difference in the exposure to androgen hormones in the developing embryo

And history doesnt seem to suggest that homosexuality in men results in highly rational philosophers, but rather, homosexuals tend to be overly sensual. But I guess some of our most inspiring philosophers could have been gay for all we know.

It's a complicated issue, one that I should probably gather more information on before expressing anymore opinions.
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada

Postby Cory Duchesne » Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:31 pm

Nord wrote:We don't even have to de-code it, really; reason suffices: what's more likely...that a straight man would be concerned with his dick length in the context of other men or in the context of women? From whom would he need "approval" anyway? How many men do you know that regularly compare penis size with other men to see who the 'winner' is? How many men do you know that talk about dicks or even care about the subject in any way?



Where did you grow up? Maybe you had a fairly rational group to hang out with growing up. In my case, alot of my friends were hockey players, drinkers, who liked to party hard, smoke weed, etc.

But then I was also close with a few cousins of mine who were well educated, liked dungeons and dragons, monty python, talking scientifically, etc.

The former, the jocks, seemed very preoccupied with their penises. The later, my nerdy cousins, had no interest in talking about their penises, or even girls for that matter.

My jock friends growing up, usually the ones who were well endowed, liked to bring up the topic of penis size, at least indirectly, sometimes whipping it out when they were drunk, doing the helicopter, showing off. One time at a party where there was no girls around, there was a sort of western face off, where two guys stared each other down with each having his hand down his pants, threatening to bring out the gun. Neither man actually brough it out, and they settled it at that.

I can recall one fellow (a black guy) giving props to another guy he knew with a big penis. "Oh yeah, you should see Jim's dicky bird! that boy got himself some dick."

Another time, one of my guy friends who was in my girlfriends math class, actually asked her how big my penis was.

There was this other time, I wasnt there to witness it or partake in it, but there was a clique of guy friends in my communitity who all whipped out their penises to each other simultaneously to compare.

Another time, I remember driving with a friend who suddenly asked:

"You gotta a 'big' dicky bird?" - - I answered honestly, "well, I don't know, I don't think it's big, it's just average."

Then he said, laughing proudly and matter of factly: "I gotta big dicky bird".

Then he said to me reassuringly: "As long as it's two fingers wide, you'll be alright".

-----------------------------------------------------

I found these sorts of situations were quite reoccuring throughout juniorhigh and highschool.

The examples I gave above are just a handful among many similar experiences. My point is that many guys are preoccupied with their penises. You can blame it on women, but should men be likewise blamed for making woman so hung up about her breast size and 'booty'? It goes both ways. Femininty within man is the more significant culprit - but woman is certainly the more incorrigible gender.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada

Postby Ryan Rudolph » Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:41 pm

Commenting on the relationship between race and body tone:

Black women have big booties, large hips, and wider legs, etc because more surface area is needed on the body to release heat – meaning near the equator, people sweat more, so the adaptation is needed is ensure proper release of sweat. Now, as a result, black woman have significantly wider vaginas than white woman. And I agree that early tribal black women only choose blacks mates that were well hung so that they’d experience pleasure during intercourse. The black guys with small members were probably naturally selected out of the genepool in these early tribes, and that is why there are a higher percentage of black guys with large penises.

White men’s small penis size is related to environment as well. The white races are significantly distinguished from the blacks because as they traveled north, their bodies needed to retain heat so the white cultures actually became smaller – white woman’s bodies shrunk significantly in response to the cold weather. Less surface area equals less area to keep warm. And this is why a white woman’s vagina is significantly more restricted than a black woman’s because her entire body tone is of a different build. The white woman’s body has a relationship to the natural selection of white man’s penis size because to have a healthy sex life, an average penis size would be more appropriate for a white woman’s smaller body tone.

And the IQ difference between whites and blacks probably has something to do with the difficulty in surviving in colder climates. Near the equator, there is an abundance of food year round so black tribes didn’t need to be as clever, calculative, or plan ahead as much, and their languages didn’t need to be as complicated either, so the end result is that both the language center and the Neocortex is significantly stunted compared to the white races.

Moreover, one problem with the most recent global interest in human rights is that man has become very charitable with all races, but these kind actions could be working against natural selection. For instance: I suspect Bill Gates And Oprah’s quest to save Africa is quite counterintuitive to natural selection.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Postby Nordicvs » Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:06 am

Carl G wrote:Insults in advance.


Very good! Also called a pre-emptive attack or even pre-idiocy-sabotage. I call it a sneaky challenge to refute my facts and points.

Carl G wrote:How funny after wading through your six pages of He-man frontier twaddle. Actually I didn't wade through it so much as skip across it


I'd be utterly shocked if you did it any other way---its contents are sure to bruise the female ego ;)

Carl G wrote:like a rock over a stagnant pool. Some highlights:
You're blaming women for blaming men for being preoccupied? Ugh, how do you keep all your claiming and blaming straight?


It's extremely curious how you'd interpret that as blaming; in my experiences, women do that quite a lot. I'm stating exactly what I've perceived and deduced and cross-referenced among others over the course of my life---if you have different experiences and insights, please post them.

Carl G wrote:Like, for example, child rearing? Right, guys do all the work there, while the gals just play.


*Carl puts on his shining armour to defend the fair maidens*

1. Men by far do the bulk of the work during intercourse and by far get the least out of it---for example, pleasure or even meaning.

2. Men give women children; women create nothing on their own. (They don't "create" life.)

3. Nature divided up these tasks---women have to house the baby for nine months and then push it out, and they have all sorts of natural chemicals, pain relievers, stress reducing hormones, et cetera, to make this as easy as possible; and now, with various techniques and men inventing even more pain-killers, they hardly suffer compared to a few hundred years back, and really, need not even be conscious during the birthing process. And men? Instead of birthing, they did almost everything else, all the real work, and sacrificed their health, sanity, and very lives defending the women and children in every possible way from every possible danger---or later, every possible discomfort either might face. And still it's unbalanced---a lifetime of fulltime work for men compared to 9 months of "labour" for women...? Excuse me if I don't rush out and kiss a pregnant woman's feet, as you seem to do.

(My grandmother, one of the few women I respect, had 11 children and worked fulltime for the first half of her adult life, and understood sacrifice; here's a female who genuinely deserves respect for her part. Sure, while my grandfather was ducking Nazi shells in Normandy and watching death and destruction every day while fighting for his life, and having to kill, she was safely working in an airplane factory in England, but still, it's more than I've seen women do, go through, or put up with without complaining, lately.)

4. Pregnant women are treated very much like royalty; working men are treated like dogs. (Except when something goes wrong, breaks down, or the power goes off, or a hurricane strikes---then all the house-bound fem-nabobs appreciate real men; then they suddenly like male muscle, courage and sacrifice, innovation, improvisation, adaptation and effort...for about a week, then they're back to being invisible sterotypes: "knuckle-draggers.")

Carl G wrote:Whoops, another tiresome dig at all things not having to do with running au naturel with the wolves, in Alaska. Only thing missing is a heartful lionization of the Noble Red Man.


Is this your way of rationally denying or logically refuting what I wrote?

Carl G wrote:Rant, rant. Such anger at women. Get it out. That's right, it must be cleasned out before the real work can begin.


Your projecting your own wounded female pride here---I had no anger in my tone. Perhaps some lingering sadness regarding the state of men today compared to far better eras---like when I see a three-legged dog, struggling about...makes me wonder what happened to it.

Same thing when I see a Native man begging for change in my city---whereas you'd spit in his eye and call him a fucking savage, I feel compassion and understand his previous, natural, masculine way of life on this continent. I've actually gotten into what we've done to these people. I actually give a furry shit---that's my agenda, if I actually have one. What's yours?

Carl G wrote:And such anger at modern life. Well, shit, go back to your tundra, running naked, fire in your eyes, your foam-flecked tongue flapping in the wind, where you're free, free to be the man you want to be.


I already am. The "anger at modern life" is correct; it's rational hatred for a raptorial culture---farming/ranching culture.

Again, curious how you perceive me and instead of really commenting on the subject, you chose the personal approach---almost as if you thought this was some attack on you. Obviously, you must have great pride in civilization and all it has...accomplished.

If I'm in error, anywhere at all, don't let me stop you from debating it intelligently :)

Carl G wrote:And free from the Internet, where all the girly-men hang out, and write their pussy nonsense, and call themselves Genius.


Wow! Did you ever take all this personally. Your fingers must have been trembling uncontrollably as you read all that, striving dilligently to remain calm enough to reply with something resembling coherence---I bet you typed out many things that were too hostile and you had to delete and rethink it, struggling to stay in Genuis character. Come now! Be honest ;)

Carl G wrote:Such anger at the Geniuses as well.


Love the capital "G" there, indicating grand significance, like God. No, your ego is just fine....

Carl G wrote:So much that it is worth stopping by the occasional Eskimo village to beg yourself online at one of the civilized homes (fuck those people for turning their backs on their heritage) and rant at the insanity of it all. Before gathering a few supplies, maybe matches, some flour, and fishooks, before heading out again, into the blindingly beautiful (and, fuckin' A, completely natural Northern Lights. Now that's a man's life. And his wife).


Seems I hit a nerve...

Carl G wrote:"Yup, and did I mention I run naked with wolves? No shoes even. Just a small pack swinging in the wind. Matches, some flour, and fishooks. Tiny little frying pan. And a mean assed knife. I repeat, no Internet most of the time. None."


Heh.

Cory Duchesne wrote:I think that animals arent as destructive to the environment either, precisely because they are almost totally feminine.


I do love bizarro-world reasoning---I've got one: George "Dubya" Bush is a great orator.

And, no, just like you, I can't back up this particular bullshit with any facts or even sound mental functioning.

Cory Duchesne wrote:As masculinity begins to emerge in a pre-dominantly feminine creature, destruction and impurity happen to the degree of masculinization, at least at first. It's a painful surgery.


How many species have you studied to arrive at this baffling position? What exactly do you know of the natural world anyway? How much time have you spent in Nature? Or does a degree in biology or something similar provide the appropriate credentials for passing off your makeshift reasoning as "wisdom?"

This is what happens when men do not know what "Man" is, for so very long; they find something positive---a beacon of hope in their empty lives as female drones---something that keeps their basic ego and attachment to the feminine---civilization---in tact, something that men appear to have at a higher degree than women, and then call it "masculine" and regain some extent of their lost pride in their sense of maleness or manhood...

Cory Duchesne wrote:Indigenous man was mostly feminine, and thus he was less destructive, whereas the reason why Civilized man was to a significant degree more destructive and continues to be destructive, is because he is to a significant degree more masculine, rational, active. This leads him to do more exceptionally destructive and creative things.


1. How exactly is your invented "feminine" deal here less destructive? Do you mean directly or indirectly? Or both? Any evidence for this?

2. This is the stupidest thing I have read in quite a while---I really got to give you credit; had a good laugh. Allow me to attempt to edify you regarding both feminine and masculine, total opposites at extreme, in no real order or categories...

2a. "The feminine..."

2a-i. Its symbol has eternally been a hole or circle---a void or abyss. (The symbol for feminine defines its very nature; its female sexual organs and reproductive process do as well.) It's a taker; it lures, it draws in and sucks inward, being filled and nurturing. It grows the seeds. Its character is to collect (gather), settle, contract, stay still (or be pursued until the time is auspicious to 'be caught'). It wants to be penetrated, violated, to "take in," to be gotten inside of...

2a-ii. Sedentary. The feminine attack-defense might be manifested as a snare or trap (vaginal); "fly-paper." It strives for shelter, for protection, to be served. Cowardly. Seeks permanence, continuity. Subconsciously seeks acceptance---captivity. Extravagent. Loves crowds, hates solitude. Fearful in Nature, like a fish out of water. Impatient.

2a-iii. The Chinese correctly envisioned this as "Yin (dark, passive force)." It is indirect. Hidden. Shallow. Soft. Liberal. Primary tendency in basic human dichotomy is "Yes." Conformity. Allow. It's self-centered---it accepts sacrifices, for its own good. Irresponsible---passes blame easily and refuses to "own up to shit."

2a-iv. Inside. Follow. Copy, destroy---indirectly, often through the masculine. Collective, unity---"a massive group." (One large female egg cell.) Cooperative yet argumentative with others. Psychological and empirical. "What's easiest to do is best." More. Hoarding behaviour; greedy. Yielding. Importance of wants; desires.

2a-v. Attraction (like a proton). Prefers to be "at rest." Dominates through cunning and persuasion. Deceptive (masks and guile) in overall personality. Fosters stability yet conventionality. Hesitates, over-anaylzes. Prone to worry about problems; asking for help is no big deal, accepting help is sensible. Keen on convincing others to adapt to itself and altering situations to better suit itself.

2a-vi. Its strength mentally resides in the left hemisphere of the brain---originally: manipulates intensely ("control freak"); plant-object-'thing'-oriented ("diamonds are a girl's best friend"---tends to not work well in teams, better at specialization in overall social group); rationalizational, logicizational, organizational, "clean and tidy;" very verbal, spoken-language-heavy communication; skill and talent, concerned more with details, and literal things, et cetera. Sequential. Linear. Many shallow emotions. Practical yet prone to over-complication. Better with letters, numbers, words. Better with the obvious. "Sees things as they appear." Multi-tasking---"compulsive." Concerned with names, categories. Follows guidelines, formats, maps; follows regulations. Talks relationships. More focused overall awareness and narrow self-awareness (*** what's called "semi-consciousness" or else, and I disagree here, "unconsciousness").

2a-vii. Its human manifestation, originally within females, in terms of culture, has been gathering; essentially, it's a herbivore. In terms of belief systems: religious, material---worship of objects and things; static laws. Morality. Hence "Mother Earth." Hence a goddess, a humanization and feminization of something else, not the thing itself; idol. Matter.

2b. "The masculine..."

2b-i. Its symbol has eternally been a protrusion or arrow---a tapered point or triangle. (The symbol for masculine defines its very nature; its male sexual organs and reproductive process do as well.) It's a giver; it provides, it extends outward and penetrates, filling and nurishing. It deposits the seeds. Its character is to stalk (hunt), explore, expand, wander (and pursue: to keep moving and to 'catch'). It wants to penetrate, violate, to "insert," get inside of...

2b-ii. Nomadic. The masculine attack-defense might be manifested as an arrow or bullet (phallic); "fly-swatter." It strives to shelter, to protect, to serve. Brave. Seeks changefulness, variation. Subconsciously seeks independence---freedom. Minimalist. Hates crowds, loves solitude. Confident in Nature, totally at home there. Patient.

2b-iii. The Chinese correctly envisioned this as "Yang (bright, active force)." It is direct. In the open. Deep. Hard. Conservative. Primary tendency in basic human dichotomy is "No." Resistance. Deny. It's selfless---it sacrifices itself for others, for a greater good.

2b-iv. Outside. Lead. Create, build---directly. Individuality, tribalism---"many small groups." (Several small sperm cells.) Competitive yet wants to get along with others. Physical and metaphysical. "What's most difficult, most challenging is best." Less. Travel light; give away. Tenacious. Importance of needs; necessity.

2b-v. Repulsion (like an electron). Prefers to be "in motion." Dominates through brute force. Truthful (honest and clear) in overall personality. Fosters fragmentation yet originality. Takes action immediately. Prone to solve problems; asking for help is demeaning, accepting help is insulting. Keen on adapting to others and situations. Responsible---accepts fault easily, and strives to find solutions rather than attach fault to others.

2b-vi. Its strength mentally resides in the right hemisphere of the brain---originally: "leaves things be;" animal-people-'living being'-oriented ("dog is man's best friend"---tends to work well in teams, not prone to specialization---better to improvise and overcome obstacles in anything, not be limited in ability); "dreamer," instinctual, conceptual and perceptual (spatially as well), disorganized, "dirty and messy;" very non-verbal, body-language-heavy communication; intuition and creativity, concerned more with 'the big-picture,' universality, and abstract things, et cetera. Random. 3-D. Few deep feelings. Goofy yet prone to simplicity. Better with images, symbols, patterns. Better with the subtle. "Reads between the lines." Singular determination---"obsessive." Concerned with functions, meaning. Trail-blazes, goes by feel, sense; rebels against rules and regulations. Does relationships. Great self-awareness and vast overall awareness (*** what's often called "full consciousness").

2b-vii. Its human manifestation, originally within males, in terms of culture, has been hunting; essentially, it's a carnivore. In terms of belief systems: non-religious, spiritual---deep respect for essence, the intangible, and the fluidity of life (or "Life Force"); organic philosophies. Ethics. Hence "Father Sky." Hence a shaman, a medium between the material and the spiritual realms. Energy.

(These are almost always exact opposites, in extreme, of course, and no human is all one or all the other; there's nothing inherently "good" or "bad" in any of all this, except the collective human imbalance of one in regards to the other. Nature split it so originally for balance---hence half our teeth are for grinding cereals and half for shredding flesh.)

(*** ---I'm still undecided on the point of consciousness----dual consciousness theory puts all this in new light and a different perspective: each hemisphere has its own consciousness or levels of consciousness (LOC); also, there's scarsely been any female example of staggering consciousness (myths of Hypatia notwithstanding) to determine whether or not the feminine itself is barely conscious, or if it's merely a matter of "consciousness atrophy" in the great bulk of females, meaning that under the right circumstances every woman, if she'd "use her brain, all of it," has the potential for "higher" LOC as some men have. I'm uncertain and need to study this further sometime.)

2c. The microcosm of Civilization itself is the home. It's the eternal feminine environment set into permenance and set in over-drive---"more" gone insane, Mater unrestricted. The home became small community, then village, then town, then city, then city-state, then state, then "republic or empire," and finally, like today, a global collective human "home." Approaching 7 billion.

2d. The microcosm of Nature itself is a garden, farm, and now a backyard, a fenced-in square of what passes for Nature now---where domesticated dogs are kept and where domesticated 'men' putter about. There's a reason why, even now, 7 out of 10 women when asked say they’d choose to stay home instead of going out to work, even though they have every opportunity and staggering encouragement to do so. Why has "house-work" been traditionally "women’s work?" Why is an average man more comfortable doing yardwork than washing dishes? Because long ago, women were safe and secure in more simple shelters, while men remained outdoors–--free to do "their thing," hunting, exploring, while women did "their thing" inside, and for periods near it outside, gathering, gardening. Is not the social and educational world still their thing? Is not the world of politics and security still our thing? I think politics is a massive 'outside;' and I think society is a massive 'inside.' But it's all mutated into something twisted and hideous.

3. So, again, explain to me how, in this flip-flopped assbackwards "logic" of yours, a small, lean wolf pack in aggressive pursuit of prey is "feminine" and a great herd of fuzzy, cute herbivores is "masculine...."

Cory Duchesne wrote:I think we're seeing improvement and further masculinization.

A white egg, being the symbol for pure femininity, appears pure, but during hatching, the purity starts to crack and become destroyed. As the potential within hatches, the egg seems impure, more imperfect, a feeble struggle becomes apparent.

But that is just masculinity trying to break through.


Hmm. I think we did see that---from a Eurasain point of view, the biggest human "rivival" of the masculine was during the Frontier days, mid-1500s to late 1800s, when men (wearing pants again, finally) wandered about North America. Again, like in your example, the masculine broke free of its egg, its cage, its prison (of Eurasian civilization) and suddenly had room to move again, for a while.

We got a blast from the past when we landed here. We started roaming about on horses---some of us even lived with the indigenous populations and rediscovered themselves as men. We got right-brained again for a while---there's a reason so many long for this simplier time, and as usual they all missed the point of why it was so great (because it was still wild, natural, untamed and not domesticated). Think Clint Eastwood's character in contemporary cinema is still THE most popular masculine figure next to John Wayne because he just carried a gun? Nope. Because he was the "fastest draw in the West?" Not at all.

1. He's tough. Just overall, fucking tough. Kickass. Adaptable and resiliant. Look at how many times he's gotten shit-kicked---he recovers and comes back stronger.

2. He's no invention---he's no Superman (an alien wearing tights and serving female values). He's a mortal man, a composite of male characters that actually existed in that time. He doesn't even have a name. But he's believeable. He's possible. Just a guy. A new male archtype. Many men today could be very much like him.

3. He's a drifter---a nomad. Never settles down, never gets married. He wanders about, looking for whatever he needs---adventure, cash, settling scores at times, a stake, a bath, a drink, ammo. He answers to absolutely no one.

(The 'man on his horse' nomad later became of course the 'man on his bike' nomad, into the 1950s and such. Bikers, man. Beatniks, drifters, and later hippies. All hated by the establishment, the way kings hate gypsies, the way Sumer hated the Amorites, the way farmers have always loathed nomads (the Bible is wrought with this theme); the way any feminine civilized society hates people who won't get with their stagnant farming and god-or-goddess program.)

4. Speaks few words. But his words are carefully chosen, concise and factual, meaningful, and usually witty or smartass; he takes no shit from anyone---especially from women. He gets respect through his actions, results, not his words or promises or intentions.

5. He's honourable, does what's right---even if he's playing a scoundrel like in the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, he's still a man of his word. When he's bad, he's still right. Right. It's because he plays by his own rules, which are instinctual---his conscience is his ethics. He goes by feel, not by regulation or scripture or herd rules.

6. He's sharp---nothing slips past the perception behind those squinty eyes. He's no scholar, but there's little he can't figure out if he really wants to. He's no sucker; he's been around. And he's wise; he thinks as much as he needs to (and has no large ego---insults don't phase him, neither does flattery or praise, or shame).

I could go on, but it's elementary; his character has become a new archtype of a Real Man.

Aside from hippies, in their own weird way (smoking majiuana is a deep distortion of the left brain and immersion in the right hemisphere), in the 1960s, we've seen nothing lately.

Cory Duchesne wrote:
As for the subject about race, and whether or not natural selection and the valuing of rationality shrunk penis size - - the branching of man into different races is too complicated of an issue for me to realistically take a position.


Yes, it is complex...not to mention politically incorrect---one hundred thousand years back, anatomically-correct homo sapiens, as they left Africa, divided into three primary subspecies (or "races"), Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid, and they mingled almost exclusively around the Middle-East (here's where most of the main races branched off from these inter-breedings; none are "pure" any longer, no such thing). Different environments dictated different adaptations over the centuries, and in places where civilization never appeared (that became a new environment to which to adapt---the feminine and not Nature), very little change resulted (which is wise: change, evolution, is only needed when, well, it's needed; necessary---it's why ants have only gotten slightly smaller in overall size over the last 400 million years: they are nearly perfect and don't need to change much).

Cory Duchesne wrote:
I would also be open minded to say that a small penis might actually reflect a certain feminization of a man's body chemistry. This might manifest in a timid, submissive, artsty, dreamy, mystical sort of male. Domestication allowed this sort of feminine man to survive. The greeks idealized a small penis in their statues, but then again, this might have been the greek 'artists' who had a reputation for being very airy-fairy, musical, and poetic.

Some have said that the reason greek art depicted the male penis as so small, was perhaps because male average penis size back then was significantly smaller, and has become bigger over time much like the average height has. Another possibility is that a large penis was believed to be "beastly" or animal.


I dunno, man, maybe, but when you think about---ancient Greece, no heat....Yeah, those guys posing were sitting around naked and probably got shrivelled somewhat---it's highly problematic deeming average penis size in this context. Fully erect is the best way to go about it, but I haven't seen any old statue with one of those.

You might be correct, though.

Cory Duchesne wrote:
On the other hand, Kinsey data set found that homosexual men had statistically larger penises than their heterosexual counterparts. One potential explanation given is a difference in the exposure to androgen hormones in the developing embryo


Huh. Interesting---wasn't aware of that.

Cory Duchesne wrote:
And history doesnt seem to suggest that homosexuality in men results in highly rational philosophers, but rather, homosexuals tend to be overly sensual. But I guess some of our most inspiring philosophers could have been gay for all we know.

(*) It's a complicated issue, one that I should probably gather more information on before expressing anymore opinions.


It just doesn't seem likely that deep-thinking, sacrificing (foregoing "fun and sun and lol" and trivia for serious introspection and worldly contemplation), non-hedonistic, stoic, or "minimalist" philosophers (which covers the vast majority of them) would be gay---who are by defintion effeminate or feminine, (shiny) object-oriented ("Stuff!"), material ("Shopping!"), flighty, impatient, giggly, greedy (the feminist "me-me"---I know, very fucking punny), extravagent, excessive, wasteful, et cetera---everything we've come to witness from Woman.

(*) Same here. "The Cultural Evolution of the Penis" was never at the top of my list of "Subjects I Dig." It never even made the list.

Cory Duchesne wrote:
Where did you grow up?


Alberta, Canada.

Cory Duchesne wrote: Maybe you had a fairly rational group to hang out with growing up. In my case, alot of my friends were hockey players, drinkers, who liked to party hard, smoke weed, etc.


Not so much---my friends were that way too. I played hockey for years, and have gone through all that "male foolishness," too. And parties.

Cory Duchesne wrote:
But then I was also close with a few cousins of mine who were well educated, liked dungeons and dragons, monty python, talking scientifically, etc.

The former, the jocks, seemed very preoccupied with their penises. The later, my nerdy cousins, had no interest in talking about their penises, or even girls for that matter.


Well, my more 'manly' friends were most interested in fucking girls---validating their masculinity that way---but I only recall one conversation that we had about cock size, and each of them knew their size (I checked mine after out of curiosity, but haven't done it since; don't care if it's the same or not). We were about 14 or 15 here.

My closest friends, for a while, were into the same stuff I was---building forts out in the bush, duck-hunting with pellet guns, general outdoorsy things; until they got into high school, then it was money, stealing cars, and sex.

Perhaps there is a phase young men, teens, go through where puberty starts and "novel things" start happening---this is where dick size becomes a temporary personal interest, I expect. Understandable, too.

Most men appear to grow out of that. I'm tempted to say: "School days don't count."

Cory Duchesne wrote:
My jock friends growing up, usually the ones who were well endowed, liked to bring up the topic of penis size, at least indirectly, sometimes whipping it out when they were drunk, doing the helicopter, showing off. One time at a party where there was no girls around, there was a sort of western face off, where two guys stared each other down with each having his hand down his pants, threatening to bring out the gun. Neither man actually brough it out, and they settled it at that.

I can recall one fellow (a black guy) giving props to another guy he knew with a big penis. "Oh yeah, you should see Jim's dicky bird! that boy got himself some dick."

(**)Another time, one of my guy friends who was in my girlfriends math class, actually asked her how big my penis was.


A lot of these sound like they happened under the influence of alcohol---it was with me and my friends as well; we were all drunk when we verbally compared dick proportions that time.

(**) We had a guy at school who checked out dudes' members in the shower after gym class and then reported to a bunch of girls in his "Domestic Education" class (poetically, his last name was "Ghirly"---maybe it was his revenge for the "girly" jokes at his expense).

Cory Duchesne wrote: There was this other time, I wasnt there to witness it or partake in it, but there was a clique of guy friends in my communitity who all whipped out their penises to each other simultaneously to compare.

Another time, I remember driving with a friend who suddenly asked:

"You gotta a 'big' dicky bird?" - - I answered honestly, "well, I don't know, I don't think it's big, it's just average."

Then he said, laughing proudly and matter of factly: "I gotta big dicky bird".

Then he said to me reassuringly: "As long as it's two fingers wide, you'll be alright".


Okay, so, in your experiences, there does seem to be some of this stuff---way more than in my experiences---in youth. I still can't see why a grown straight man would care what another dude's cock looks like, or his own, in any context except how it relates to females and potential sex.

In short, it's not male approval we would seek ultimately (what I thought was obvious)...

Cory Duchesne wrote:I found these sorts of situations were quite reoccuring throughout juniorhigh and highschool.

The examples I gave above are just a handful among many similar experiences. My point is that many guys are preoccupied with their penises. You can blame it on women, but should men be likewise blamed for making woman so hung up about her breast size and 'booty'? It goes both ways. Femininty within man is the more significant culprit - but woman is certainly the more incorrigible gender.


See, there you go again---"blame it on women." What's with you? I'm not blaming anyone. I am strongly opposed to blaming people; it's pointless and childish and I'd sooner break one of my fingers than do that---rather, I look at their behaviour, actions, and deem it accordingly. I said, "women care more," because they do. If a man has a sexual relationship with a woman, and is alone with her for the first time, starting to get undressed, he's not fucking worried about what his friends are thinking; for crissakes, man, if he is concerned, on whatever level at whatever degree, he's concerned about what she thinks. How the fuck is that "blaming" anyone?

How much experience with women have you had? Been in the 'dating scene' for years, have you? Clubs, one-night-stands? Aware of all the subtle ways they go about finding out what a potential mate or lover's shaft dimensions are? Have you even had sex yet?

Here's one I've heard at least a dozen times, in some fashion:

"My last boyfriend's penis was so small!"

Another version:

"Blah blah this guy: and I'll never go out with a guy with a one-inch penis again!"

It's usually an 'out-of-the-blue comment' (after they've steered the conversation into this area), followed by "embarrassed" giggling or an apology, designed to place the male in a tight spot and lessen their responsibility for what they just brought up---the first few times this was aimed at me, I responded favourably, the way they wanted, something like: "Well, ma'am, you needn't worry about that with me: I'm such-n-such above average, yadda yadda." Immediately followed by their inevitable "Okay, well, penis size doesn't matter! lol!" Right: and that's why they brought it up....

Aside from crotch-gazing (or more quick glances than most aren't even aware of), looking, peeking (I had a cousin and two female friends at school who did this to me, and my first girlfriend admitted that she sat in her friend's place, in the third-floor apartment directly across from my building, and spied on me with binoculars, watching me change a few times), they have all sorts of ways, and they're overwhelmingly indirect---not wanting to let on that it does indeed matter to them. Of course it matters. A lot. I don't have a problem with it "mattering," seems perfectly reasonable for a woman who wants the most pleasure from sex to want a size (or, more accurately: a shape) she prefers, that fits her. So what? Why would I care?

I just dislike the deviousness, the deceit, the indirectness of their actions---if they wanna know, they ought to come out and ask, admit it. Rather than maintaining their sublime pretense of "not caring," or worse, passing the buck and saying "Men are obsessed with penis size!" Passing "blame." That's when I call bullshit. It seems they'll do nearly anything to maintain their pretense of innocence ("saint" as opposed to "sinner"---or "slut") and construct of immaculate character.

A couple of chicks have had the decency to be honest about this with me, and came right out and said it mattered, then asked for my size (I, of course, didn't ask how big and deep her pussy was, though---this "size does/doesn't matter" crap is completely one-sided, PC-ruled, precisely like the lyrics to that silly Prince song: "I tell her the joke about the woman who asked her lover: 'Why is your organ so small?'----He replied, 'I didn't know I was playin' in a cathedral'----Vicki didn't laugh at all").

Anyway, that honesty was greatly appreciated.

(Edited a lot for clarifications, and typos, and a failed attempt at brevity. And again for proper quoting---my apologies, Cory.)
User avatar
Nordicvs
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:38 pm

Postby Cory Duchesne » Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:08 pm

Nord wrote:I look at their behaviour, actions, and deem it accordingly. I said, "women care more," because they do.


Well of course they care, but do they care about penis size any more than a man cares about the breasts, ass, tightness of a woman's body?

If a man has a sexual relationship with a woman, and is alone with her for the first time, starting to get undressed, he's not fucking worried about what his friends are thinking.


No, but it is not uncommon for a man, getting undressed in front of his friends, to be concerned about what his friends think of his penis size. I had a friend who was already well hung to begin with, but before standing up to get in the shower(after hockey) he would more than subtly jerk himself off to get the blood flowing, to make it seem bigger. Eventually he was made fun of for doing this. And then of course there were a few guys who refused to shower naked publically, out of an anxiety of being naked in front of other guys. This was of course because they felt they have an inadquate penis and didn't want their fellow man to see them as inadequate, or perhaps they want to avoid being made fun of. I seen a documentary last year called: Private Dicks: men exposed. The premise was men of all sizes talking about their penis, their relationship to it, etc. Of course, the guy with the smallest penis was traumatized by memories of being made fun of in the boys shower. ("Dude, you're in the wrong locker room" (snickering) type of comments. But he also claimed that the first woman he had a sexual experience with laughed when she seen his penis, and got up and left. So yeah, it goes both ways. But he claimed to be a happy middled aged fellow who was long married to a wife who claimed to be sexually satisfied. But I bet she wasn't exactly a sex pot, and probably had some exceptional deficiency herself.

You see, it's pretty obvious that unvoluptuous people lacking exceptional sexual characteristics, get paired up with likewise people. That's why in porn we see muscley guys with big dicks in girls who have big breasts, toned skin, and nice asses. And in the non-porn world, we see that physically above average guys get above average girls, we see average with average, and we see below average guys with below average girls.

Here's another one that was interesting:

Breasts - A documentary

But guys who are hung up about being naked in front of other guys? I maintain this is indeed womanliness. Men are generally much more relaxed when naked in change/shower room. Everyone is walking around naked, relaxing in the sauna. Whereas women amongst each other in the change room? As far as I know, they hide from each other to a much greater degree. Woman are much more hung up about their bodies and for the most part avoid being naked in front of other women.

But I think this difference has much to do with man being much more direct and vocal about his preference for sexual features in a woman. She shapes herself according to how man prefers her to be - and thus she becomes a self conscious wreck. It's no ones fault, but man shapes woman, whereas woman conquers by allowing herself to be exploited, and subtely selecting based on whatever best secures her survival, which is often not penis size, but his career, power, talent, etc.

His penis is often just a luxery and not the primary concern, even though it is still a concern. So with woman, the general tendency has been to value career and power as much as penis size, and this is because she submits to him to survive. Whereas with men, because he relies more on himself to survive, the general tendency has been to value seuxal features primarily.

But times are changing. As woman becomes more liberated to be more direct and independent, man has become ovewhelmed, more womanly and more concened with body enchancement and penis enlargement than ever - He doesnt know what to do with himself.

Nord wrote:How much experience with women have you had? Been in the 'dating scene' for years, have you? Clubs, one-night-stands? Aware of all the subtle ways they go about finding out what a potential mate or lover's shaft dimensions are? Have you even had sex yet? How much experience with women have you had? Been in the 'dating scene' for years, have you? Clubs, one-night-stands? Aware of all the subtle ways they go about finding out what a potential mate or lover's shaft dimensions are? Have you even had sex yet?[/


Well yeah, I know approx. how big my penis is because one time in highschool my first girlfriend, while jerking me off, suddenly got the bright idea to go and grab a ruler, and excitedly she measured me. She didnt seem exuberant that I came in at 15cm - - as I think she was a bit of a narcisist who always needed to have the best of everything rather than average. She was very spoiled. I think that, when it comes to a girls concern with penis size these days, especially with a girl who has the goods to get almost anyman she wants, there's alot of status anxiety more than anything - - especially in the narcisitic, individualistic, *I'm more special* feminine age we live in. Woman want to be proud that they are above average, special, and since they identify with the achievements and characterisitcs of their partner, they have status anxiety about his characteristics. An average size penis should give more than enough pleasure, but unfortunatley for women it's often about being and having the best.

Men are often similar, for instance, that's why, during those years with my first girlfriend, because of my insatiable desire to think of myself as a great seducer and conquerer of females, (in other words, because of my insecurity - which she in some ways contributed to) I cheated on her a few times while drunk with friends to bolster my self esteem. There's a great deal of egotistical glory in already having a nice looking girl to begin with, but then cheating on her with a better looking girl (who is attracted to you often due to the fact that she knows you are with a girl she thinks is pretty). But one of my jealous friends ratted on me, and I got caught, I caused alot of pain. Lots of drama. What a terrible time that was.

But I've had lots of sex since, and sure, woman shows a concern with penis size for sure, but she also seems more concerned with his talents, abilities, and power. Whereas man primarily values woman for her sexual characterstics and beauty, and usually not much else. The result is that woman have been bred and conditioned in a way that leaves them unable to be naked in front of each other - they don't know how to value themselves as anything but sexual images - and since they don't match up to the media ideals, they hide from eachother in shame and jealousy. Men on the other hand, generally don't have as much of a problem with being naked in front of eachother - however, these days, in our feminzed culture, I think men are more womanly than ever and have a higher tendency of hiding themselves, and succombing to eating disorders, etc.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada

Postby Carl G » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:27 am

Nordicvs wrote:

CG: You're blaming women for blaming men for being preoccupied? Ugh, how do you keep all your claiming and blaming straight?

Nord: It's extremely curious how you'd interpret that as blaming; in my experiences, women do that quite a lot. I'm stating exactly what I've perceived and deduced and cross-referenced among others over the course of my life---if you have different experiences and insights, please post them.
All right.

Your original comment on the subject:

"The more they blame us for being preoccupied with penis size, the more we can de-code that into meaning that they're extremely preoccupied with it."

I have never noticed or heard of women talking or acting like penis size was of any particular importance. The types of women I have associated with are more interested in how funny, how sensitive (mindful of them, ability to listen), and how financially stable a man is. Whereas I hear a lot of men concerned with their appendage, including you.

CG: Like, for example, child rearing? Right, guys do all the work there, while the gals just play.

Nord: *Carl puts on his shining armour to defend the fair maidens*


No, to defend Truth.

1. Men by far do the bulk of the work during intercourse and by far get the least out of it---for example, pleasure or even meaning.

Right, the work during intercourse. So selfless of them. Give me a break.

2. Men give women children; women create nothing on their own. (They don't "create" life.)

Neither men nor women create on their own, Mr Strawman.

3. Nature divided up these tasks---women have to house the baby for nine months and then push it out, and they have all sorts of natural chemicals, pain relievers, stress reducing hormones, et cetera, to make this as easy as possible; and now, with various techniques and men inventing even more pain-killers, they hardly suffer compared to a few hundred years back, and really, need not even be conscious during the birthing process.

Right, all they do is "house" the baby for nine months. The euphemism is hilarious. You should work for the government. And benefit from male-invented pharmaceuticals during childbirth. I see you trying to diminish women's role in a long process in which they are central. Pretty twisted.

And men? Instead of birthing, they did almost everything else, all the real work, and sacrificed their health, sanity, and very lives defending the women and children in every possible way from every possible danger---

Right, women just house the baby while men do the real work. Like I say, you have a pretty twisted view. For instance, most women work right up to the birth, and then begin again soon after. Also, many women give up vices like smoking during birth, while often their hubbies keep puffing away.

or later, every possible discomfort either might face. And still it's unbalanced---a lifetime of fulltime work for men compared to 9 months of "labour" for women...? Excuse me if I don't rush out and kiss a pregnant woman's feet, as you seem to do.

Your anger and prejudice is showing here with your inaccurate broad brush strokes painting over the reality of the situation.

You didn't even address the point about child-rearing. Your original comment was:

This must be what results from untold centuries of [women] taking absolutely no responsibility for anything.

To which I said, what about child rearing. In my experience women do take responsibility there. To which you launched into another diatribe defending men.

CG: Rant, rant. Such anger at women. Get it out. That's right, it must be cleasned out before the real work can begin.

Your projecting your own wounded female pride here---I had no anger in my tone.

I disagree. I think you taking the time to type a multi-page rant indicates anger.

Perhaps some lingering sadness regarding the state of men today compared to far better eras---like when I see a three-legged dog, struggling about...makes me wonder what happened to it.

Same thing when I see a Native man begging for change in my city---whereas you'd spit in his eye and call him a fucking savage,


How do you know I would spit in his eye and call him a fucking savage? This is further indication of your broad brush propensity, swinging it around, drunk on your anger.

I feel compassion and understand his previous, natural, masculine way of life on this continent. I've actually gotten into what we've done to these people. I actually give a furry shit---that's my agenda, if I actually have one. What's yours?

Your agenda is to give a shit? Congratulations.

Mine? To point out your illogic and bombast.

CG: And free from the Internet, where all the girly-men hang out, and write their pussy nonsense, and call themselves Genius.

Nord: Wow! Did you ever take all this personally. Your fingers must have been trembling uncontrollably as you read all that, striving dilligently to remain calm enough to reply with something resembling coherence---I bet you typed out many things that were too hostile and you had to delete and rethink it, struggling to stay in Genuis character. Come now! Be honest ;)

All right, it seems you do have a sense of humor. Perhaps you will settle down someday and make someone a decent husband, after all.

CG: So much that it is worth stopping by the occasional Eskimo village to beg yourself online at one of the civilized homes (fuck those people for turning their backs on their heritage) and rant at the insanity of it all. Before gathering a few supplies, maybe matches, some flour, and fishooks, before heading out again, into the blindingly beautiful (and, fuckin' A, completely natural Northern Lights. Now that's a man's life. And his wife).

Nord: Seems I hit a nerve...

No, I'm afraid not. And FYI, I've done the Simple Life thing, and it's fine to do. It's just not everything. It's not necessary for everyone to live that way.
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Carl G
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Postby Shardrol » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:57 am

Carl G wrote:I have never noticed or heard of women talking or acting like penis size was of any particular importance.

I have. It's mostly young brash 'Sex & the City' type women, who have taken on the traditional crassness associated with men similarly to the way 'metrosexual' men have taken on the traditional vanity & preoccupation with appearance associated with women.
.
User avatar
Shardrol
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:08 pm
Location: New York, USA

Postby Nordicvs » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:29 am

Cory Duchesne wrote:Well of course they care, but do they care about penis size any more than a man cares about the breasts, ass, tightness of a woman's body?


Dunno, I'd guess about the same.

Cory Duchesne wrote:No, but it is not uncommon for a man, getting undressed in front of his friends, to be concerned about what his friends think of his penis size. I had a friend who was already well hung to begin with, but before standing up to get in the shower(after hockey) he would more than subtly jerk himself off to get the blood flowing, to make it seem bigger. Eventually he was made fun of for doing this. And then of course there were a few guys who refused to shower naked publically, out of an anxiety of being naked in front of other guys.


So, now you're "blaming" this on men? Or are you looking into, if this is true (and I'm still not convinced it is), why this might be? Where'd they get this from? Obviously, the insecure males in your scenario are so from male joking and such---but why are those males behaving that way? Where---or who---did they get that from? In my experiences, everything has a cause...

Cory Duchesne wrote:This was of course because they felt they have an inadquate penis and didn't want their fellow man to see them as inadequate, or perhaps they want to avoid being made fun of. I seen a documentary last year called: Private Dicks: men exposed. The premise was men of all sizes talking about their penis, their relationship to it, etc. Of course, the guy with the smallest penis was traumatized by memories of being made fun of in the boys shower. ("Dude, you're in the wrong locker room" (snickering) type of comments. But he also claimed that the first woman he had a sexual experience with laughed when she seen his penis, and got up and left. So yeah, it goes both ways. But he claimed to be a happy middled aged fellow who was long married to a wife who claimed to be sexually satisfied. But I bet she wasn't exactly a sex pot, and probably had some exceptional deficiency herself.


Okay.

Cory Duchesne wrote:You see, it's pretty obvious that unvoluptuous people lacking exceptional sexual characteristics, get paired up with likewise people. That's why in porn we see muscley guys with big dicks in girls who have big breasts, toned skin, and nice asses. And in the non-porn world, we see that physically above average guys get above average girls, we see average with average, and we see below average guys with below average girls.


True enough.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Here's another one that was interesting:

Breasts - A documentary


Most of the participants in the survey are much more positive about their bosoms, whether discussing the pleasures of breast feeding or the power it enables them to wield over the opposite sex. As one of the strippers describes it, the moment guys see breasts, they forget everything else. "All men drool. I know the moment the top comes off, I’m in control."


Heh. Like we needed it spelled out. Anyway, interesting. I doubt they have one with guys talking about their ballsacks, or...?

Cory Duchesne wrote:But guys who are hung up about being naked in front of other guys? I maintain this is indeed womanliness. Men are generally much more relaxed when naked in change/shower room. Everyone is walking around naked, relaxing in the sauna. Whereas women amongst each other in the change room? As far as I know, they hide from each other to a much greater degree. Woman are much more hung up about their bodies and for the most part avoid being naked in front of other women.


I really don't know how naked chicks behave with each other, and frankly, we'd need an honest female in here to give some insight on this (unless you have immense 'peeping-tom' experience and have a good, broad range of expereinces with crowds of nude women, who don't know you're there, from which to form even a semi-educated opinion...?)

Otherwise, with insecure/self-conscious males, it's probably a confidence thing; maybe femininity as well. One with no negative previous experiences should not be as insecure about his sexuality, one would think. The way little kids run around naked without a care in the world means that someone teaches them later that some of their parts are wickedly obscene...who teaches our kids this?

Males test and tease each other for all sorts of reasons, beginning at young ages (dividing the 'men from the boys,' traditionally, which becomes most common in dangerous team-work-based male realms, for good reason---trust, for one thing), and this dick thing might be just another extension of that. Men only respect other men who can take a good deal of shit, as well (without behaving "womanly" and crying or running off screaming and tattling). It might be a factor, quite plausible, but it doesn't necessarily equal "penile obsession."

Cory Duchesne wrote:But I think this difference has much to do with man being much more direct and vocal about his preference for sexual features in a woman. She shapes herself according to how man prefers her to be - and thus she becomes a self conscious wreck. It's no ones fault, but man shapes woman, whereas woman conquers by allowing herself to be exploited, and subtely selecting based on whatever best secures her survival, which is often not penis size, but his career, power, talent, etc.

His penis is often just a luxery and not the primary concern, even though it is still a concern. So with woman, the general tendency has been to value career and power as much as penis size, and this is because she submits to him to survive. Whereas with men, because he relies more on himself to survive, the general tendency has been to value seuxal features primarily.


Well, his penis is just another object to her, a possession. (Often they give it a name or ask what the guy calls it, if anything, and start calling it that.) That's why they want to cut it off if they figure he's cheating or for any other reason, really---to complete the act of possessing, to "have it" or own it finally, or to prevent the alleged lover from getting it; it's literally hers to do with as she pleases. (At any time, without his consent, she can dig in there and grab it.) Castration is on their minds a lot for, I think, this reason. Historically, women have always been (since fertility cults, that is) hacking and slicing away at man's cock.

How many men want to ram a knife up their lover's twat and horribly gore them, de-sex them, rendering them incapable of ever having sex again if they find out she cheated? Never even heard such a thing. Men don't objectify female body parts the way women do with men. I'm not saying we're all saints; men do some nasty things as well, but nothing so brutal and cruel---before they'd simply shoot her or something, along with the guy or just the guy who was with her or allegedly with her. (Some Native tribes would cut a little line on the nose of a squaw who cheats---far more humane than de-sexing, if you ask me---so that all can see what a slut she is. Not a bad system, anyway. Beats blowing her head off and going to prison.)

Cory Duchesne wrote:But times are changing. As woman becomes more liberated to be more direct and independent, man has become ovewhelmed, more womanly and more concened with body enchancement and penis enlargement than ever - He doesnt know what to do with himself.


Liberated? From what? I don't follow you...

I think it's adanced male adaptation we're seeing, and this is one sexual manifestation---for the last three decades, men have been working geometrically harder to adapt to women's "needs," because she's collectively convinced him that he's too this or too that, and then changes her mind the next year. And on goes the shining armour each time...and penis expanders. Man is more preoccupied with pleasing woman and doing whatever she wants than anything else in his life, it's more important than life itself.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Well yeah, I know approx. how big my penis is because one time in highschool my first girlfriend, while jerking me off, suddenly got the bright idea to go and grab a ruler, and excitedly she measured me. She didnt seem exuberant that I came in at 15cm - - as I think she was a bit of a narcisist who always needed to have the best of everything rather than average. She was very spoiled. I think that, when it comes to a girls concern with penis size these days, especially with a girl who has the goods to get almost anyman she wants, there's alot of status anxiety more than anything - - especially in the narcisitic, individualistic, *I'm more special* feminine age we live in. Woman want to be proud that they are above average, special, and since they identify with the achievements and characterisitcs of their partner, they have status anxiety about his characteristics. An average size penis should give more than enough pleasure, but unfortunatley for women it's often about being and having the best.


That mostly makes sense, though it's really the shape that matters more to them---and many don't even realize this: a five-inch penis (average) with the right curve or girth can give more pleasure than a straight seven-incher. G-spot and such.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Men are often similar, for instance, that's why, during those years with my first girlfriend, because of my insatiable desire to think of myself as a great seducer and conquerer of females, (in other words, because of my insecurity - which she in some ways contributed to) I cheated on her a few times while drunk with friends to bolster my self esteem. There's a great deal of egotistical glory in already having a nice looking girl to begin with, but then cheating on her with a better looking girl (who is attracted to you often due to the fact that she knows you are with a girl she thinks is pretty). But one of my jealous friends ratted on me, and I got caught, I caused alot of pain. Lots of drama. What a terrible time that was.


That sucks. I did, too; technically, it wasn't actually cheating because she left, but she saw it that way and so did my conscience, and so she got together with the one I slept with and both of them combined to really do a number on me. That was an education.

Cory Duchesne wrote:But I've had lots of sex since, and sure, woman shows a concern with penis size for sure, but she also seems more concerned with his talents, abilities, and power. Whereas man primarily values woman for her sexual characterstics and beauty, and usually not much else. The result is that woman have been bred and conditioned in a way that leaves them unable to be naked in front of each other - they don't know how to value themselves as anything but sexual images - and since they don't match up to the media ideals, they hide from eachother in shame and jealousy. Men on the other hand, generally don't have as much of a problem with being naked in front of eachother - however, these days, in our feminzed culture, I think men are more womanly than ever and have a higher tendency of hiding themselves, and succombing to eating disorders, etc.


Can't argue that. The one anorexic male I knew was a short guy, a jockey, who developed that obsessing about his weight for riding; I think a lot of male athletes have some degree of size-shape-mass-or-weight obsession, but they really, really hide it and don't want the attention that most women with it seem to crave. Probably not a good thing either way.
Last edited by Nordicvs on Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nordicvs
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:38 pm

Postby Nordicvs » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:39 am

Carl G wrote:Nordicvs wrote:

CG: You're blaming women for blaming men for being preoccupied? Ugh, how do you keep all your claiming and blaming straight?

Nord: It's extremely curious how you'd interpret that as blaming; in my experiences, women do that quite a lot. I'm stating exactly what I've perceived and deduced and cross-referenced among others over the course of my life---if you have different experiences and insights, please post them.
All right.

Your original comment on the subject:

"The more they blame us for being preoccupied with penis size, the more we can de-code that into meaning that they're extremely preoccupied with it."

I have never noticed or heard of women talking or acting like penis size was of any particular importance. The types of women I have associated with are more interested in how funny, how sensitive (mindful of them, ability to listen), and how financially stable a man is. Whereas I hear a lot of men concerned with their appendage, including you.

CG: Like, for example, child rearing? Right, guys do all the work there, while the gals just play.

Nord: *Carl puts on his shining armour to defend the fair maidens*


No, to defend Truth.

1. Men by far do the bulk of the work during intercourse and by far get the least out of it---for example, pleasure or even meaning.

Right, the work during intercourse. So selfless of them. Give me a break.

2. Men give women children; women create nothing on their own. (They don't "create" life.)

Neither men nor women create on their own, Mr Strawman.

3. Nature divided up these tasks---women have to house the baby for nine months and then push it out, and they have all sorts of natural chemicals, pain relievers, stress reducing hormones, et cetera, to make this as easy as possible; and now, with various techniques and men inventing even more pain-killers, they hardly suffer compared to a few hundred years back, and really, need not even be conscious during the birthing process.

Right, all they do is "house" the baby for nine months. The euphemism is hilarious. You should work for the government. And benefit from male-invented pharmaceuticals during childbirth. I see you trying to diminish women's role in a long process in which they are central. Pretty twisted.

And men? Instead of birthing, they did almost everything else, all the real work, and sacrificed their health, sanity, and very lives defending the women and children in every possible way from every possible danger---

Right, women just house the baby while men do the real work. Like I say, you have a pretty twisted view. For instance, most women work right up to the birth, and then begin again soon after. Also, many women give up vices like smoking during birth, while often their hubbies keep puffing away.

or later, every possible discomfort either might face. And still it's unbalanced---a lifetime of fulltime work for men compared to 9 months of "labour" for women...? Excuse me if I don't rush out and kiss a pregnant woman's feet, as you seem to do.

Your anger and prejudice is showing here with your inaccurate broad brush strokes painting over the reality of the situation.

You didn't even address the point about child-rearing. Your original comment was:

This must be what results from untold centuries of [women] taking absolutely no responsibility for anything.

To which I said, what about child rearing. In my experience women do take responsibility there. To which you launched into another diatribe defending men.

CG: Rant, rant. Such anger at women. Get it out. That's right, it must be cleasned out before the real work can begin.

Your projecting your own wounded female pride here---I had no anger in my tone.

I disagree. I think you taking the time to type a multi-page rant indicates anger.

Perhaps some lingering sadness regarding the state of men today compared to far better eras---like when I see a three-legged dog, struggling about...makes me wonder what happened to it.

Same thing when I see a Native man begging for change in my city---whereas you'd spit in his eye and call him a fucking savage,


How do you know I would spit in his eye and call him a fucking savage? This is further indication of your broad brush propensity, swinging it around, drunk on your anger.

I feel compassion and understand his previous, natural, masculine way of life on this continent. I've actually gotten into what we've done to these people. I actually give a furry shit---that's my agenda, if I actually have one. What's yours?

Your agenda is to give a shit? Congratulations.

Mine? To point out your illogic and bombast.

CG: And free from the Internet, where all the girly-men hang out, and write their pussy nonsense, and call themselves Genius.

Nord: Wow! Did you ever take all this personally. Your fingers must have been trembling uncontrollably as you read all that, striving dilligently to remain calm enough to reply with something resembling coherence---I bet you typed out many things that were too hostile and you had to delete and rethink it, struggling to stay in Genuis character. Come now! Be honest ;)

All right, it seems you do have a sense of humor. Perhaps you will settle down someday and make someone a decent husband, after all.

CG: So much that it is worth stopping by the occasional Eskimo village to beg yourself online at one of the civilized homes (fuck those people for turning their backs on their heritage) and rant at the insanity of it all. Before gathering a few supplies, maybe matches, some flour, and fishooks, before heading out again, into the blindingly beautiful (and, fuckin' A, completely natural Northern Lights. Now that's a man's life. And his wife).

Nord: Seems I hit a nerve...

No, I'm afraid not. And FYI, I've done the Simple Life thing, and it's fine to do. It's just not everything. It's not necessary for everyone to live that way.


tl;dr
User avatar
Nordicvs
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:38 pm

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:51 am

What does "tl;dr" mean?
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Help Desk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

cron