1
   

Sexual Tensions

 
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 07:39 am
Re: Sexual Tensions
Oh boy...where do I begin.....

Satyr wrote:

In our times, the emancipation of women and the reacquisition of their sexual authority have resulted in the disintegration of that most paternalistic institution of the nuclear or extended families and have caused the breakdown of the monogamous mythology.


Perhaps I misunderstand you but....Why? Because now men are pissed because women have started doing what men have been doing for years? Yup. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Infidelity rates for men and women are almost dead even these days. You can't blame women for doing something men have been doing forever.

Satyr wrote:

This has produced, as it has been these institutions that have maintained the opposite effect, a majority of non-participating and desperate males and females with no positive male role models.


I don't understand how this has anything to do with females being sexually open.

Satyr wrote:

Females will either react against this trend, wanting to return to the safety of their past submissiveness or will become more male and independent in their behaviors, making males obsolete or guided into more traditionally feminine demeanors.


Males will never be obsolete. We need your sperm.

Satyr wrote:

This gradual male obsolescence will be achieved through the castration of male physical advantages by civil society and through the degradation of male protective and provider roles by technological and law and order mechanisms,

The replacement of maleness by the state and by institutions such as religion has already resulted in a more feminine male character.
All law abiding and religious males are instinctively submitting to the male dominance of an abstract other, creating a culture of submissive, disciplined followers.


What? This is the most ridiculous thing I think I have ever heard. It sounds more like whining than reason. Masculine and feminine are standards set by society. There is no right or wrong way to be masculine or feminine, just the standard set by the culture you live in.

Satyr wrote:

Women reign supreme over matters of instinct but lag behind over matters of reason.
This becomes more obvious in how they infect any discussion with the bug of psychological evaluation and concern themselves with subjects of emotion.


Not always true. You are perpetuating the "female role" that we've been fighting for years now. In some circumstances, yes, women are more prone to emotion rather than reason. However, there are plenty of women out there who are very reason/fact/analysis driven.

Satyr wrote:

A woman will always turn the discussion towards the source of her deepest intuitive comprehension and influence, that of emotions and psychology; sex being but an aspect of both, in human beings.


Always? I doubt it. I know a fair number of women on this site who argue/discuss without emotion as their basis and do a very good job of it.


Satyr wrote:

>Many men go to great lengths to prove their genetic worth to and to garner sexual favors from, women.

No surprise then that most women have such a low opinion of most men, for in their need to become desirable, men often sacrifice pride, honor, dignity and sometimes risk life and limb in the process.
This sort of exuberant desire and risk-taking may appear to be charming and attractive to the instinct, but to reason it appears foolish and garish.


You are definitely taking a baseline stance on this....primal and biological stupid man..... However, if men are acting "foolish and garish" to reason, why would women have a low opinion of this? They don't reason, after all, when it comes to sex and relationships, right? You've contradicted yourself here.

Satyr wrote:

A woman holds a much lower opinion of her self, than any man can, because she knows the subject intimately, and so any form of desire, directed towards her, is taken as either hypocritical or overstated, making the males indulging in this type of behavior silly frauds or weaklings for having ever placed her on fictitious pedestals, she herself, feels undeserving of.

Her conclusion can only be that any male worshiping her, in such ways, is either a hypocrite or an inferior.


Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. I have never felt this way, ever. Any time a man has treated me like a goddess, I've never thought to myself, boy I sure don't deserve this.


Satyr wrote:

In time, if the attentions and behaviors persist, a woman may begin to believe her own worth, as it is displayed in the desire of men, and she will demand a higher fee for her affections.


What? No. I hate to break it to you but getting a womans "affections" in the beginning is much harder than in the middle or the end. The difference is that both parties have upped the stakes further in the relationship and more is expected out of BOTH parties. That is what happens in a serious relationship.

Satyr wrote:

This self-worth and power will be based on her sexual desirability and she will occupy herself towards acquiring as much of it as possible.


So the "hot" chicks will be whores and the "ugly" chicks will just sit around and do what?

Satyr wrote:

> The most desirable and strong females will, undoubtedly, be surrounded by a multitude of doting, hangers-on, all vying for her affections and awaiting her acquiescence.


You make men out to all be sex begging desperate pigs. Sure, some are but not all. At least in my experience.


Satyr wrote:

The main strategic characteristic of males that cannot take power on merit or that cannot become genetically desirable to females by either physical or mental aptitude, is found in their utilization of alternate methods of being chosen as sexual partners, through groveling or making themselves indispensable parts of her well-being or by remaining disciplined and loyal followers of her whims.


So the ugly, stupid guy has to be rich and doting and he can get the "hot chick" in bed? Is that what you are saying?

Satyr wrote:

> Even the most disciplined and powerful man will usually allow a woman to gain a temporary upper-hand, if this will eventually lead to a sexual encounter.


So all men are lead around by their penises? I know this is a running, long standing joke but is it really true? Not all men will debase themselves for a piece of ass.

Satyr wrote:

Men see it as a small price to pay, in the short-run, for the promise of hedonistic ecstasy and procreative possibility, in the long-run.

By doing so, a woman's sense of self-importance and her perception of dominance, in relation to men and only men, are maintained and enhanced.

But they are all based on a false and narrow interpretation of events.


They are not based on false and narrow interpretation of events. How can you say that? First you maintain that women have low self esteem. Then you maintain that men are groveling, spineless sex mongers who will do anything to get a piece. Then you maintain that it is all a facade and that these men still have the upper hand. What?

Satyr wrote:

Even the most strong-willed and independent woman will find value through the type of man she can attract, as many men similarly judge their self-worth and maleness by the aesthetic quality and the quantity of their sexual options.


Oy. Every person finds value when they find someone who appreciates them and loves them. Not just women. Not just from men. Not just with sex.

Satyr wrote:

Her physical fragility and procreative importance makes it essential that all physical straightforward confrontations are to be avoided and her control and dominance within a group should be enforced and expressed through more subversive means and through alliances.

It is therefore natural for most women to be attracted by grand ideologies and spiritual dogmas.



!!! Have you seen some of the women who body build? I would hardly call them frail.....And not to mention the women who physically go after their mates when they are mad. Where do you live?

Satyr wrote:

Passive-aggressive and psychologically manipulative methods become popular where more direct methods are prohibited or carry a high price.
This is why in modern environments males also are inclined to become more feminine in their exhibitions and actions, making men players in games they are not naturally adept in.


I know more passive aggressive mailes then females. Maybe this is just my personal experience but it proves your theory wrong.

Satyr wrote:

> Female offensive and defensive strategies spring forth from the source of her greatest power over men: sex.

Her every criticism and accusation, as well as her flattery and praise wears the subtle charge of sexual innuendo.
For if man judges his manhood through the symbols of his sexual performance, his procreative achievements and/or his genital endowments, then here also lies the soft spot of his manliness and his pride.


Not all women use sex as a weapon.


Satyr wrote:

If she is scorned, her vengeance will aim at cutting away a man's sexual value to other females thusly punishing him for his indiscretions by denying him access to the realm of her only control: sex and procreation.


I have never, ever ever with held sex because I was pissed. I don't know who you're dating but you might want to find someone else.

Satyr wrote:

> In her evaluations of men, women make the correct assumption that most men are scum and of inferior stock.

Thousands of years of civilization have made sure of that.


I don't believe that. At all.

Satyr wrote:

She also wishes to expose her true nature and her vulnerability to only the most worthy of such a forfeiting of personal pride.


Doesn't everyone? Why would you want to act your entire life? And why would you extend your true self to someone you didn't trust? Duh.

Satyr wrote:

>The only power women have over men and the only advantage they possess, because of it, is that of reproductive promise.

Women instinctively know that sex is the only answer to mortality and that the only way towards genetic survival passes through her legs.

Access, therefore, to this genetic road towards oblique immortality, must be earned, the right words must be spoken, and the right price must be paid.


Boy, you've got it pegged. Women are just manipulative baby makers.

Satyr wrote:

There is always a fee for her affections, making casual anonymous sex an aberration of our time, where only females that feel no self-love and possess little self-respect can indulge in it.


Considering I've had casual sex before, you are telling me I have no self respect because I did it. Hm. Interesting.

Satyr wrote:

>Most women are naturally adept at emotional and physical apocryptography.

They effortlessly decipher motivations and attitudes in search of advantage.
Their social effectiveness and value depends on it.


I love that. Just keep on perpetuating that myth.

Satyr wrote:

Women are also superior to most men in verbal communication.
The multiplicity of nonverbal and verbal communications and sensual details are rarely lost to women.


This I agree with. Women are better with words.

Satyr wrote:

Their ability to participate and make themselves relevant and influential within a group is determined by their ability to read unintentional messages and to express messages with an appropriate degree of deniability so as to escape possible error and accountability, when needed.


This I don't agree with.


Satyr wrote:

>In our modern times where violence is denied expression, unless it is promoted by the state, male effectiveness is diminished and females gain the upper hand.


So, if men could beat their wives, this whole thing would just blow over and men could have the upper hand again? Nice outlook.

Satyr wrote:

It is evident that in the world of ambiguity and theory where skepticism reigns supreme, no absolute conclusions can be reached and no final dominator accepted.

Ideas can be twisted, meanings warped and purpose lost in a cloud of rhetoric.


Finally, we agree whole heartedly on something. WHich is funny, considering you just spend a ton of time trying to slide every women and every man into little tiny slots of character.


Maybe I've got you all wrong and you were just regurgitating this information but either way, this is the problem with our country when it comes to women. We are always put into nice little categories. I hate that. I am an individual and I hate to have to be something in order to be a woman. I can't imagine that any self respecting man would fall for this garbage either, considering it makes him a sex mongering pig.

Either way, this is an interesting topic and while some times, some of it is true, to generalize all people into these categories is just ridiculous.
0 Replies
 
Satyr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 07:47 am
spendius
Quote:
What a pity.My hopes are dashed.You are but an average threader who might just be suffering from abandonment rage.
Quote:
I didn't say that a "hormone inebriated mind" couldn't consider these matter.I said it couldn't make any sense out of them.You can see plenty of evidence of that in any pub where young men so happily stick their tender necks into the first noose to be dangled.
Ah...semantics.

I'm the guy at the end of the bar, watching and smiling.
It takes me a few drinks before the noose becomes a joke though, and I dance the dance just for the fun of it.

Quote:
Schopenhauer,if you insist,had the vixens well taped and I got the impression you had but,sadly,it would seem you are a tender little lamb being led to the altar of sacrifice by a short,stubby halter.
Baaaaaaaaaaaa. Very Happy

I'm getting the feeling someone wants to cut my "short, stubby halter".
Are you Little Red Riding Hood?

Thing about Schopenhauer is, he didn't live a very enviable life, even with his "vixens" taped.

Quote:
Some of the mutton I know will be mowing the lawn and decorating the little nest this weekend in a similar manner that the ridiculous male bird of paradise does when the urge hits him like a ton of bricks.And he being so handsome and all and her a right plain drab.It is as if we never evolved.
What a turn around.
Isn't humanity wodnerful?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 07:49 am
Bella:-

We can't be expected to read that lot.Haven't you seen the latest research on attention spans?

An unfaithful woman is pissing into the home.An unfaithful man is pissing out.Argue with that.And keep it short and snappy.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 07:52 am
spendius wrote:
Bella:-

We can't be expected to read that lot.Haven't you seen the latest research on attention spans?

An unfaithful woman is pissing into the home.An unfaithful man is pissing out.Argue with that.And keep it short and snappy.


Everyone read the original post. So why wouldn't they read a response to the original post? Or are you saying that no one read the orignal post?

Either way, yes, I know about attention spans but adults have this way of holding focus on the things they want to hold focus on. If you don't want to read my response, by all means, skip it. I don't mind.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 08:22 am
Yeah-I know Bella.But it is a bit long you must admit and some of us are busy.There tax to pay and fun to have and other threads.
I hope you don't claim that some of your responses to Satyr are new to us.I used to read the letters page in women's mags,just to keep abreast of cutting edge thinking,and they did have a marked tendency to be forking over the same ground in the same way.I gave it up.On the ovarian trolley as Henry Miller put it.

I thought Satyr might be a contributor to VIZ and had toned it all down for bourgeois tastes on these threads.

What happened to the response on unfaithful husbands/wive$.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 08:26 am
spendius wrote:
Yeah-I know Bella.But it is a bit long you must admit and some of us are busy.There tax to pay and fun to have and other threads.

Shocked Crap....gotta get my federal taxes out.....

spendius wrote:

I hope you don't claim that some of your responses to Satyr are new to us.


Where did I say that? I specifically stated he is perpetuating the images, meaning they were there long before I got to them.

spendius wrote:

What happened to the response on unfaithful husbands/wive$.


I will have to look back for that.....sorry. Not that you were going to read it anyway.... :wink:
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 08:27 am
I didn't comment on the entire post.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 08:36 am
Bella:-

I was too.Going to read it I mean.I always pay strict attention to any responses to my own enquiries.I'm a well brought up English gentleman.

Nobody could properly respond to Satyr's original post.It would take years to do and off your life at the same time.

Duty calls.Maybe see you tomorrow.Take it easy with the meds.And you Satyrical.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 08:38 am
spendius wrote:


Nobody could properly respond to Satyr's original post.It would take years to do and off your life at the same time.


Laughing
I know...I know...
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 08:42 am
Gotta go.

Take care.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 08:46 am
In that Satyr's treatise has generated a string of responses over several pages here, I'd say, apart from any judgement of merit pertainin' to his treatise and its thesis, his goal has been met; he wanted a discussion, and there is one.
0 Replies
 
watchmakers guidedog
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2005 08:10 pm
Satyr wrote:


Is that all that this was? I had hoped it was going to go further. Maybe discuss a little further what needs to be done or where we go on from that point. If that's all this was then I can live with the dissapointment, I'd just hoped that there was something further to this discussion. Mea culpes.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 07:42 am
Satyr:-

You suspect me of trying a psychological gelding do you?
Well-we could do with a little of that.Have you not noticed how the eager ones ruin it for the rest of us.
A tendency to celibacy would make the cunning ones pause for thought.They sure do run rings around those who chase them too hard.Playing hard to get is all very well but it gets difficult to sustain in the face of a degree of insouciance and if we
banded together and ridiculed the rate-busters we may well get our cake and eat it at prices which would leave something over for other things such as beer and fags and gambling.
Celibacy is not to be sneered at.I know that the cunning ones will do that.They would wouldn't they.
When a man sneers at it it is obvious he is under tutelage.Women respect resistance and whatever they may say they are contemptuous of clingers and "yes-my-loves".Of course,as you pointed out somewhere,one has to make oneself attractive to them to pull it off.You could have then clawing at your trouser legs if you are good enough and that can't be bad now can it?
Just look at the plight of the "rushers" after a year or two.It's pitiful.I know dozens who can't even smoke in the house that they have slaved to pay for.But they can breathe the fumes out of tins of paint and skin their knuckles on their Black and Decker Workmates.Ask anybody who works in Casualty what type of sadness regularly appears at their receptions on a fine weekend.Quite a few lifeless or on stretchers and quite a lot broken and bleeding.And they are all skint.
Think about it mate.Chavs are not as daft as they look.
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 08:05 am
could it be that the 'fault' lies within the constraints of the 'official social contract' that we are all fed from birth, and expected to uphold, in spite of copious quantities of convincing evidence to the contrary.

[how can we live, buy the appropriate quantity of overpriced goods for the micro management of our personal sexual prowess, perform with the virtuosity of an upscale 'professional' and still respect ourselves, or the opposite sex (in the morning) at the same time?]
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 08:06 am
[maybe we should try working this whole 'thing' out together!]
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 08:10 am
Let's just all get drunk and screw.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 08:14 am
BoGoWo:-

I'm up for that.

What have you got in mind.

If you're not as bored as I am it probably won't work so good.You do need to find the official social contract mind numbing.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 08:16 am
Bella:-

Right on.That's the ticket.

Ever read Opus Pistorum?
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 08:20 am
No, should I?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2005 08:25 am
Bella:-

I don't know.I just wondered after reading your wise post.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Sexual Tensions
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 01:46:03