Dissidents Philosophy Forum

Internet Philosophical Community
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Human Sexuality III

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Unreasonable
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 728
Age : 34
Location : Purgatory
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Human Sexuality III   Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:31 pm



Argument: Human Sexuality is the "First Cause" of all human interaction, and is therefore the carnal & primary nature.

Affirmations:
    1) The culturally-popular concept of [sex] is "actually-identical-procreation".
    2) Human Sexuality is innately/inherently ethical & moral.
    3) Incest is a biological-imperative resisted by Moral Authority.
    4) All human sex acts are actually rape incidents.


Theory & Definition: (proof for #1)

What is sex? The concept of [sex] as-we-know-it is a strictly-human enterprise. In other words, what we know of sex is only through our own personal experiences of sex. If a person has not experienced any first-hand sexual encounters, then such a person has no authority to address the topic of 'sex' as a discourse, under any context/circumstance. In other words, if you-yourself have not had 'sex' (whatever the concept may imply), then you have no right to speak on behalf of others when conversing about sex-in-general. Personally-speaking, I have had sex, many times in fact. I have had sex with only one female in my life over the course of a ~6 year relationship. Therefore, what I know of sex will mainly come from my experiences with her, as well as what I know of other people through observations of general issues from culture-to-culture and society-to-society. I am strictly the product of a Western Culture in a free-falling moral decline. In Amerika, right here & now, Hedonism is a socio-biological force that is under-and-overwhelming everything. Sex taints everything we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell, in some way, and in some form.

Human Sexuality is the most pervasive, and perverse, thing of all time, because without 'sex' nobody would be [alive] today. Every form of mass, whether living or non-living, is designed for the purpose of 'sex'. What this means to say is that all things reproduce through procreation. Earth reproduces. Water reproduces. Air reproduces. Fire reproduces. Animals reproduce. Fish reproduce. Birds reproduce. And human beings reproduce. All of these things reproduce strictly-in-order to exist as noumena, because if they did not, then they would not exist nor "come-to-be" (become) in any shape-or-form. How do these things reproduce? The elements reproduce through natural events: lava flows create new rocks, rain clouds create new streams, forest flora create new breath, and lightning storms create new fires. On the other hand, animals seem to leave the so-called "natural cycle", because animals self-replicate and "evolve". The only true or actual difference between 'biological' (living) organisms and 'natural' (non-living) organisms is found in the [self] of a being.

Practically-speaking, it makes sense to say that a rock does not have sex. But conceptually-speaking, this is wrong/invalid. A rock does-in-fact have sex from the point-of-view where sex is measured by its reproductive capacity. The problem though, is that human beings do not see a 'rock' as a 'self'. In other words, the human consciousness does not look at rocks and judge that they are 'identities' in-and-of-themselves. Whether rocks actually-are selves will not be answered in this discussion, because what is more important here & now is Human Sexuality. We can safely-assume that human animals have 'selves', because of how we understand consciousness (as human beings) both individually and collectively-speaking. I am a 'self'; I am me-myself in fact. I know who I am. My name is Adam and this is my [identity]. It is a label, a word, that defines me. If I ever successfully-reproduce by copulating with a woman (which I have: pregnancy), ending with the procreation of my 'identity' (which I have not: abortion), then I will have "actually-identically-procreated" a human being that exists as I do, in some form of existence. This is only culturally-relevant as I exist within my own culture: i.e. Amerikan non-Culture.

Therefore: 1) The culturally-popular concept of [sex] is "actually-identical-procreation".


Human Sexuality & Morality: (proof for #2 and #3)

The human Sex Act is naturally-ethical & moral. By engaging in sex, in any form, you have essentially-defined the personal ethics and moral character that you will live with for the rest of your life. a) And a child's virginity is the most important thing for Human Society (aka "Sociality"). How a child/adolescent "loses" their virginity is pivotal in how they will personally-conceptualize 'sex' for the rest of their lives. In Amerikan non-Culture, hedonisitic promiscuity is heavily-reinforced for 'attractive' males & females. The unspoken rule is: if you are attractive/beautiful, then you are both entitled and obligated to have sex with as many people as possible. This implies that such men are 'studs' while such women are 'sluts'. The reasoning behind this logic is almost-entirely [jealousy] & [spite]. Naturally-ugly people (regarding "looks") do not want to be reminded of their position inside culture. This schism creates a very clear divide between people who seem to argue for-or-against sex one-way-or-another. Often times, opponents of promiscuous or casual sex will be "ugly" themselves, and then there is a clearly-implied link between the reason-why they discourage others from having sex. That is: ugly people don't want beautiful people to hog all the fun. Thus, the arguments for-or-against sex is mostly-created and designated to stop sexual-promiscuity by the (beauty)-haves and have-nots. <- a simple matter of jealousy & spite.

But aside from the more superficial arguments that we will push off to the side here & now, there are more fundamental reasons-why other people should or should-not have sex. These reasons are entirely-circumstantial and contextual. Because of the conceptual-connections formed by sex acts, when a human animal loses his/her virginity, the far-reaching implications & consequences of the sex act becomes absolutely-paramount to *ALL* ethical & moral judgments that a particular person can make. In other words, if a young girl (we will assume she is 16-years-old) loses her virginity to a Pedophile (we will assume that he is 31-years-old), then most people would agree that this is a generally-bad thing insofar as people will decry this move as both "wrong" and "immoral". The same situation applies inversely & conversely to a young boy (we will assume that he is 16-years-old) loses his virginity to masturbation through Pornography. Most people would then also agree that this is a generally-bad thing insofar as people will decry this move as both "wrong" and "immoral". While the reasoning behind these more judgments & implications are too far-reaching to be fully-discussed here, the important thing to remember is that b) how a child loses his/her virginity is the [essence] of Human Sexuality in general.

Human Sexuality was created a long, long time ago when the Human Animal existed in more primitive forms. We used to hunt, eat, sleep, and lie together as a 'tribal' unit or 'family'. There would live a band of a few elders, several adult males, several adult females, and several children. The elders existed for the purpose of passing on [wisdom]. And this 'wisdom' was namely Morality-in-general. These elders lived to pass on knowledge & information from the young-to-old. Old men could be shaman and witchdoctors, or a 'grandfather'. Old women could be sages and oracles, or a 'grandmother'. The purpose of these entities of wisdom was to directly-instill morality into children in order to keep the tribe surviving. If the information was incorrect, or led to error, then the whole tribe could (and often did) collapse and die due to such failures. In other words, if incest was not strictly-controlled by the Moral Authorities, then the Human Animals would regress backward into their more animal states, raping and killing one another for their own [selfish] desires. A brother would kill a brother when a woman walks between them. c) The only thing to keep these carnal & primary sexual forces in check were the elders, the spiritual leaders and guides, the Moral Authorities, otherwise known as the First Philosophers.

Freud was right/correct: human animals want to fuck each other, but this sexual urge & desire is repressed by Moral strength and reasoning. All children are born incestuous. All people continue to be incestuous throughout their entire lives, even if they always-appear contrary to the rule. The fact that incest occurs, at all, tells us directly that there is a 'beast' that "lives within" everybody. In other words, d) actions speak much, much louder than words. And I know for a fact that you people reading this absolutely-hate being reminded of this, because you know, deep-down inside yourselves, that I am right, and you are wrong. Where I am right is my self-exposure, my willingness to expose myself. And your own reluctance to do so exposes to me, and all others, that you are wrong. This means specifically-this: e) all males want to fuck all females (active sense), and, all females want to become fucked-by all males (passive sense). The more these possibilities open up for a particular male or female, the more [power] they are assumed to have. Furthermore, I know that this is a hard pill for people to swallow, because most people suffice themselves to live within their dream-worlds full of pleasurable and "happy" things. But the truth of things is not so nice. The truth is the fact that we are still animals, individually and collectively-speaking.

In Amerikan non-Culture, the old religious dogmas of Puritan-Judeo-Christianity is fading quickly. As more-and-more Christians become dispelled by the power of [reason], and join the Atheistic-Humanist-Secularists in a wallowing despair that plagues the common masses with a deep sense of depression, Western Culture & Society as a whole falls to its knees searching for a New Moral Authority: a New World Order. This "NWO" is a new spiritual-religious system that will become formed, accepted, and brought into the masses at large. In other words, people are desperate and crying out for a new drug, a new [ideal], since the Old Ways can no longer suffice them. f) Because the human animal cannot control its own sexual forces & functions on a social level, Big Brother must do it for them. This generalization not only applies to Human Sexuality, but almost all other areas of life as well, because of how ingrained and far-reaching the direct & indirect-affects of Hedonism may travel. In the end, the human animal does what is in its best interests to do. Men are driven to engage in sex. Women are driven to receive the engagement of sex. The human animal is driven by its ultimate purpose: fuck, procreate, reproduce, children, children, and children everywhere!

Because the average human mind is so simplistic, brought up by poor individuo-natural-genes and perhaps even poorer socio-nurtural-memes, the 'stupid' people are breeding at an exponential rate. These people are 'stupid' insofar as they have no reason to be anyway-otherwise. The masses were made not to think in fact. And most people are only-common, barely-average. Chances are that you may be only-common; it is not my judgment to make. It is yours. However, I am quite certain that I-myself have escaped from the Institutional mode of thinking after an extreme amount of self-sacrifice and isolation from the publik. g) Due to bad breeding, the notion of "bad blood" is created. This is a metaphorical representation of the "bad blood" that exists more-and-more between people in our Contemporary Western Society (aka "Contemporality"). What causes "bad blood" except Moral Decadence? -> a renouncement against the moral foundations, traditions, and institutions that existed prior/before us, and also brought us *ALL* of our former successes. To remove this past, to ignore it, slander it, spit on it, and desecrate its name, is also to desecrate ourselves. (...hallowed be thy name?)

Now that we come straight to Morality, I will present to you a prior argument of mine beheld by the Richard Dawkins Philosophy Forum. In this argument, I argued against Atheistic-Humanist-Secularists that incest was "wrong", because it is a factually & morally-reprehensible phenomenon of human behavior (through our sexual nature as animalistic 'beasts'). The Christian viewpoint should already be widely-known: Christianity-in-general strongly-advocates against incest (except where all members are considered "Christian" by name, in order to replicate the Ideal of Christianity: God). There is no doubt there. However, the Humanists strongly-accept incest, because they will never argue against it. It is strongly-accepted, because the natural force of Human Sexuality will eventually-overtake their arguments (as I shall present shortly). h) So by natural reasoning, Atheistic-Humanist-Secularism actively-supports incest (i.e. by default). If they do argue against it --in any form whatsoever!-- and if they are Westerners, then they will be exposing a purely-Christian Moral Authority. Their hypocrisy as Atheists will then become fully-exposed. The reason for this is because i) the Euro-Judeo-Christian Culture is the one that predominates almost all of Western Thought, and especially, Morals.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Unreasonable
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 728
Age : 34
Location : Purgatory
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:32 pm

My argument is here. I was eventually-banned for attempting to reason with these hypocrites.

realunoriginal wrote:
You're correct Mr Doom.

In today's Western society, the fall of Christian morality is causing quite a few things to happen regarding the topic of incest. First of all, when morals go out the window, then incest becomes more & more probable. These atheists here who preach otherwise (that there's not a connection between atheism and moral decadence) are just hypocrites and likely posing as Secular-Christian-Humanists. "God doesn't exist, but you still shouldn't engage incest. Why? I don't know; I'm an 'Atheist'. Everything is relative I guess. I'm good at not knowing anything and pretending like I do." Morality is directly involved in the matter of incest, because what prevents it from happening is mainly 1) moral indoctrination and 2) physical factors based on sexual abundance, like you already mentioned with the contrary.

Today in America where hedonism runs rampant, it becomes "ok" to have sex with family members, because as long as nobody is getting pregnant (birth control), then it doesn't "hurt" anybody. Not less than 100 or 200 years ago, families effectively prearranged marriages. On a general scale, young men & women did not have to worry so much about sexual anxiety. Nowadays, considering the after-effects of feminism, men & women are engaged in a free-for-all in order to obtain mates permanently or temporarily. Sex is much less "easy" today, because the system is pressuring itself for higher selection. Along with the disconnect between individuals and the family unit, people feel as though they can trust others less-and-less. This makes incest particularly enticing to individuals who are repressed from having sex in their youth, as displayed by the story in the OP. Now, you may tell a high school boy to fuck anything he sees in high school, but you know what will probably happen as a result of this ... pregnancy. Therefore, I believe, that sexual repression gets stored up and becomes forcefully dispersed in the home.
It is clear to me that the affects of incestuous relationships are either factually-incorrect or morally-incorrect, but not both! Although prolonged incestuous procreations vastly-increase the risk of 'deformation', 'retardation', and general 'mutations' of the biological bodies & systems in question, there is no scientific evidence to indicate that such acts are morally "wrong" or "reprehensible". All that science can tell us is that an incestuous family tree greatly-increases deformities in birthing cycles of the youth. In other words, the young eventually-become retarded, but not all of them. Rather, this retardation grows into a numerical majority over time (without the factor of mortally-violent competition/hunting rituals and mating rites). And this is extremely-important to note! -- because j) the 'retardation' classification is a strictly-social judgment! In other words, the boy or girl is only deemed 'retarded', because he/she serves no greater utility to the society comparatively-speaking. For an example: if you were a warring society like Sparta, then you would simply throw out the retarded babies like a trash bag, because they are useless to the Sociality. Christianity eventually-overtook this Moral Principle; it is what I call the "Valuation of Life" principle. This ideology won in the end, which is the only reason that Amerika keeps retarded people alive today. And I do not mean any of this cruelly-speaking; I mean it factually-speaking. The only thing that prevents incest is morality-in-general, namely-Christian Morality in the West (as it applies to Amerikan charlatans).

I will quickly-sum things up to make my final point. k) Tribal society dictated Human Sexuality with the invention of Moral Laws, rule, and order, by the late & elderly Moral Authorities. At the top of such hierarchical pyramids were the First Philosophers, who essentially-created literally-everything as we have come to know and see them today. I hypothesize that the first 'invention' to control Human Sexuality was [clothing]. By keeping the human genitalia out-of-sight, out-of-mind, clan/tribal elders could then establish rules regarding who gets to sleep with whom and why and under what conditions. The concept of 'marriage' is as old as time-itself under this context. Man is married to Woman when both of them must lie together to engage in a well-established symbiosis. These relationships formed & evolved over great stretches of adaption through time, and through trial-and-error by fire (metaphorically-speaking). The Absolute Power, or Absolute Moral Authority commanded by the First Philosophers established a complete dominion over the tribe/society/clan/culture that he was birthed to. This dominion is split into the 'male' and 'female' domains, or [genders]. Incest was its first target, because of how much damage can be done through incestuous sex acts (i.e. the eventual retardation of children). However, this 'damage' is not really a damage at all without the "Valuation of Life" principle in-effect today. Otherwise, an incestuous society could theoretically-freely-practice infanticide without the sustained cost of societal harms (as we know them contemporarily-speaking).

Therefore using points a & b: 2) Human Sexuality is innately/inherently ethical & moral.

Therefore using points c <> k: 3) Incest is a biological-imperative resisted by Moral Authority.


The Sex Act is Rape: (proof for #4)

This final argument is actually a rather easy one to make and prove. What is "rape"? The concept of [rape] is a strictly-social phenomenon that is produced by the overpopulation of societies and generally-extreme mismanagement & poor implementation of Moral Laws by failed Moral Authorities. Let me first speak commonly though, in order to clarify my position. What Amerikans see as "rape" is often not 'rape' at all. This popular cultural distinction of sex-as-sex and sex-as-rape is a relatively-new one in Human History, because, not long ago, women were not seen as Subjects by men. They were perceived as Objects: "property". And I will go on to personally-argue that they should still be regarded this way in today's World. Regardless of that, "consent" is what people commonly-deem to be the difference between sex-as-sex and sex-as-rape. However, whose "consent" is required for sex today except the female's consent? There is no way around it; it is the woman who gives the answer. But what answer is this exactly? A woman either says clearly-"NO!" to a sex act, or, she says *ANYTHING* else, which then implies that the sex act is not 'rape' by definition. But in order to analyze this concept of [consent] further, we must investigate what occurs in the minds of women to either decide "NO!", or anything else, which implies "yes".

x) The female human animal, Woman, does not think; she merely-feels.

Because women get all their thoughts, ideas, words, motivations, causes, and reasons from men, the First Philosophers, any male human animal may trace such reasoning (concerning any speech pattern or communication whatsoever) back to their source, to view with their own eyes, that *ALL* women do not 'think' for themselves. They merely-feel. And this [feeling] is what I call the Essence of Superficiality. It is the culmination around a singular idea/ideal (memetically-created and inquired by First Philosophy) that was eventually made-real or "actualized" over time. In other words, the female human mind is genetically-programmed to function purely-within the confines of Sociality, never extending beyond the boundaries created by men. Literally-speaking, this means that within the Early Tribes of Mankind, the female human animals did not cross the borders of their villages, because it was too dangerous & detrimental for the clans that a woman be killed by predators outside in "The Wild". Women were relegated to the confines of the house, or Sociality, because the dangers needed to be "cleared from the forest jungles" so-to-speak. Only after this was finished were women released from their cages. Over the span of millenniums, the collective-we has now spread out across the face of the planet, Earth, and globalization is completed when females are allowed to walk anywhere & everywhere at all times (of the night). The only thing stopping this finalization of the process is Human Sexual-Social Deviancy. The 'rapists' and 'pedophiles' must be removed from Sociality, incarcerated and/or castrated.

The reason that women do not 'think' is because they have not evolved a male-logos and I predict that they never will. As we can see from my prior reasoning, it was never that "men held us back!" as Feminists posit, which is clearly & blatantly-false. What held women back was their own nature, their own small & weak body frames. They were made for birthing & raising children, so that was their domain all along. Now that the entire globe is being domesticated through the Feminization of Man, womankind now has the audacity to posit such lines of reasoning (that mankind ever "held them back"), which hugely-disrespects the very Essence of Man that brought Human Civilization up from the mud (that we have paved over with cement and no longer walk on). From this mode of thought, it is clear now as the light of day that the entire previous history of woman existed under the pretense of Man holding her hand as she walked into danger. Since she was never engaged in a relationship with true [fear] & [death], she never gained a proper-abstract relationship with such occurrences of experiential life, relatively-speaking (to men). Thus, what woman knows or "thinks" of such things is far-far-far-removed from the source. This explains the fundamental and contemporary differences between Man & Woman as well: women generally-make bad drivers, bad investors, bad warriors, etc. Feminism-itself was born-upon a poorly-planned lie, extrapolated for the purpose of Liberal Hedonism and sexual choice.

But I digress; let me come back to the true point-at-hand. Because women are unthinking, and men must think for them, and further make choices for them, this fact of life comes back to Human Sexuality. How can a female make a "choice" regarding sex outside of her superficial-feelings toward a particular man??? I assert that she simply-cannot make this so-called "choice". In other words, the "choice"-itself is a delusion formed by Western Sociality. The reason for this widespread delusion is duplicitous and has many heads to it. Perhaps I shall only cut off the largest head here & now. This delusion of sexual "choice" given to women is a purely-Feminist ideology. And in this sense, all women are Feminists. It is in their very nature to associate with 'femininity' in this explicit way. If they do not, then they actually have no power at all, individually or socially-speaking, but they do. Their social power is contained in their ability to direct & redirect the forces of male-sexuality. In other words, if a woman merely feels bad about a man, then what she can do is call the police on him to bring him down, castrate, incarcerate, or kill him. The tool of womankind is the feminized man. It is the man that pays no allegiance to other men, has no loyalty to himself as-a-man, and is sufficiently-wooed by a woo-man. This is the literary-link between the sexes.

As such, the "rapist" is not actually a "rapist" at all. He is just a man. What makes this man different than other men is that z) he does not lie to himself about what he wants and who he is, nor will he lie to anyone else! A feminized man will lie, because they are invested into the system, in other words, their Sociality (i.e. ideals and women). The culmination of these ideals consist of Western Morality in general. If a particular man does not buy into them, does not sign the "Social Contract", then he will never get laid in his entire life. He will become a social deviant, an outcast to society, because the words he speaks is the Absolute Truth whereas he has no reason whatsoever to lie. Thus, we can conclude that the only [lies] that truly-exist are the ones we tell ourselves in order so that we may get laid. Women do not know this. So everything I say is safe to you if you are a man. Women cannot know what I am saying by-definition! They will never understand "The Lie" or "The Game" for whatever it is. They are sexual objects, because they can be no other way. And although this fact of life may be a sad one to realize when you are brought up, like me, to believe in the delusions of an age-old Romanticism, there is still some hope left. Mankind has the final say in the matter...

Therefore using points x & z: 4) All human sex acts are actually rape incidents.


Conclusion:

The final thoughts that we can take away from these 'facts' as I present them are numerous. But I would like to leave on a positive note. The implications of the words I speak are far-reaching, and they have many, many consequences. However, what you should know is that Man is now once-again the "Head of the Household" so-to-speak. The Feminist ideology is a weak one. It will soon be dead, because women have no say against the words I speak. If you are willing, then any poster on this website can go back through everything I have ever said here and try to draw me out into a contradiction. I never made one. I have listened to every argument that both men & women posited against me on these matters to no avail for them. I have listened; I remain unconvinced, except for Satyr. Satyr convinced me, using his Reason that the Feminzation of Man occurs. And now, I present to you the words that I have already-stated. If they do not convince you, then so be it. They are not for you anyway; they are for me. -> to convince me of things that I already take to be true. All these words merely-do in the end is help me, and possibly-you, to function in our Sociality as we know it. And Nature is a cruel mistress. She is superficial and eventually-uncaring in the end.

Therefore, I say, and this is my "opinion" on these matters, that the only True Love possible is through God.

(...which is not to say that I believe in God one-way-or-another)

(I believe in myself instead)


You may here & now agree with or argue against me at your leisure. Keep in mind that if you wish to persuade me of a point, then you must become more reasonable than I am, reason being a quality of my person that I spend every waking-second of my life devoted to. All I do is think, overactively-since I was born. By all means, attempt to convince me where you are right, and I am wrong, about anything-at-all. I am always listening, despite the insultations of others made against me throughout this forum.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Unreasonable
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 728
Age : 34
Location : Purgatory
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:42 pm

Apparently, the Truth comes with a high price to pay...

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Ivan
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Number of posts : 96
Registration date : 2009-01-07

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:07 pm

I know Human Sexuality (I?), but where is II? If I just read III will I be okay?

As for becoming "more reasonable", that is just out of the question. Reason is perfect, it doesn't connect to reality, that's the problem.

My question is a meta-question. Is "women" being used in a metaphorical way or not? If it is, fine, it is poverty of language, language is still S&M so it is excusable. Otherwise, no, women are wills, just like men and other animals.


Last edited by Ivan on Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:14 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Unreasonable
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 728
Age : 34
Location : Purgatory
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:13 am

Ivan wrote:
I know Human Sexuality (I?), but where is II? If I just read III will I be okay?
Yeah, just read III. The II version got deleted/censored from ILP and I never had the chance to copy it. I didn't expect the ban.


Ivan wrote:
As for becoming "more reasonable", that is just out of the question. Reason is perfect, it doesn't connect to reality, that's the problem.
I actually-agree with that, "more reasonable" seems like I was stretching for something. I will reread that and see what I meant to say.


Ivan wrote:
And what's with you and Mr. Doom on Dawkins?
I don't know; that was a long while ago. I had some pent up hostility toward Atheists that I wanted to address.

Whenever I come across Atheism, I get a deep feeling that they are promoting incest toward me, and the deeper I dig, the worse it gets.


Ivan wrote:
And I'm starting to like Faust, that is the new avant garde, loving him. (You'll catch more flies with honey...)
Faust is just exercising his newly-found moderation powers. He has a long time to go before he gets it, I think. I don't believe that he was prepared for me. The other moderators at ILP already-know how to deal with me well-enough. When they say jump, I say "how how?"


Ivan wrote:
My question is a meta-question. Is "women" being used in a metaphorical way or not?
That is the question my friend!!! I don't know!

That seems to be the first division of Human Nature.

If I could answer it anymore than I try to, then I might be famous.


Ivan wrote:
If it is, fine, it is poverty of language, language is still S&M so it is excusable. Otherwise, no, women are wills, just like men and other animals.
No, you see! -> even if 'women' are wills, then they must still contend with language!!!

That is precisely the problem here! I am glad somebody finally gets a semblance of what I am talking about!

Even *IF* women are wills, then how can you qualify/quantify the statement!?!?!?

You must then look more deeply into the 'feminine' and 'masculine' genders by necessity! (and Satyr has already done this for us)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Ivan
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Number of posts : 96
Registration date : 2009-01-07

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:09 am

NB: make the screen-cap above more narrower.

Adam wrote:
I will reread that and see what I meant to say.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'

'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
...

-Lewis Carroll
Through The Looking Glass


It is also I think important that you always phrase the challenge "no man can defeat my reason." Because a woman can, right? But not with reason per say.

Quote :
That is the question my friend!!! I don't know!

That seems to be the first division of Human Nature.
I'd lean towards women not being the final evil in the world and go with a more broad word like dukkha. Or a more exact one like a point or line in Euclid.

Quote :
Ivan wrote:
If it is, fine, it is poverty of language, language is still S&M so it is excusable. Otherwise, no, women are wills, just like men and other animals.


No, you see! -> even if 'women' are wills, then they must still contend with language!!!

That is precisely the problem here! I am glad somebody finally gets a semblance of what I am talking about!

Even *IF* women are wills, then how can you qualify/quantify the statement!?!?!?

You must then look more deeply into the 'feminine' and 'masculine' genders by necessity! (and Satyr has already done this for us)
I'm an optimist. I have faith and try to believe that language can be free.

Quote :
!?!?!?
The thing gets messy because it becomes like a sentence trying to write itself, or that sort of a convoluted metaphor.

Quote :
You must then look more deeply into the 'feminine' and 'masculine' genders...
You can not escape a pit by excavation.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Unreasonable
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 728
Age : 34
Location : Purgatory
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:05 am

Alexi? wrote:
NB: make the screen-cap above more narrower.

Adam wrote:
I will reread that and see what I meant to say.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'

'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
...

-Lewis Carroll
Through The Looking Glass
Very Happy


Alexi? wrote:
It is also I think important that you always phrase the challenge "no man can defeat my reason." Because a woman can, right? But not with reason per say.
yes ... yes! ... YES!!!

The feminine force is a kind of "non"-force. Their passivity is powerful. It is not so much about what they do, but what they *DO NOT DO*.


Alexi? wrote:
Quote :
That is the question my friend!!! I don't know!

That seems to be the first division of Human Nature.
I'd lean towards women not being the final evil in the world and go with a more broad word like dukkha. Or a more exact one like a point or line in Euclid.
No... The Spirit of Man is the only "evil" in the world. He is the creator of life & death: First Cause.


Alexi? wrote:
I'm an optimist. I have faith and try to believe that language can be free.
What is language ensnared by???


Alexi? wrote:
Quote :
!?!?!?
The thing gets mssy because it becomes like a sentence trying to write itself, or that sort of a convoluted metaphor.
That "convoluted metaphor" is life-itself.


Alexi? wrote:
Quote :
You must then look more deeply into the 'feminine' and 'masculine' genders...
You can not escape a pit by excavation.
How can we escape Life? I dig deeper, like a madman.

Climbing the walls seems futile to me. I can be said to exercise the same futility. So be it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Ivan
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Number of posts : 96
Registration date : 2009-01-07

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:07 pm

Unreasonable wrote:
Alexi wrote:
It is also I think important that you always phrase the challenge "no man can defeat my reason." Because a woman can, right? But not with reason per say.
yes ... yes! ... YES!!!

The feminine force is a kind of "non"-force. Their passivity is powerful. It is not so much about what they do, but what they *DO NOT DO*.
Quote :
Alexi wrote:
Quote :
That is the question my friend!!! I don't know!

That seems to be the first division of Human Nature.
I'd lean towards women not being the final evil in the world and go with a more broad word like dukkha. Or a more exact one like a point or line in Euclid.
No... The Spirit of Man is the only "evil" in the world. He is the creator of life & death: First Cause.
These are patently dialectical terms. 'First move' has a gender meaning and a metaphysical meaning, (to give one of very many examples),

or,

This is my thesis at the moment: if I want to build a philosophy I have to use the words I have to build with (or just wag my finger like Cratylus); if I write it in terms of lordship-and bondage I might be tempted to use the word 'nigger' which would put some people off, but maybe it can't be helped -- or does it poison the whole thing?

The metaphor I am more fond of is the people of the north and the people of the south. The Northerners always have a lack, because their climate can not sustain much of a life. They are few and hungry. The Southerners live in a land of bounty and richness, they are numerous -- their freaks are treated as an additional benefit above sustenance which is always sure in the lush green south, an aberration is a burden and hindrance in the north. The Northerner invented money, status, slavery and war to live off of the South people. But this doesn't say anything really about Japanese and Chinese versus Cambodians and Indians; or about Arabs and Black Africans, or Aryans and Dravidians, or Europeans and the whole tropical belt. It is a dialectic of lack; it has many forms (Lacan's being a little similar to Feminization).

"...the tendency for Indian thinkers to see special significance in finding identities between the cosmic order and the familiar objects of the everyday world. ...through a process of mystical identifications, the cow becomes the whole visible universe."

The Hindu Tradition, 1966
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Serge
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Number of posts : 99
Registration date : 2009-01-21

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:08 am

To: Adam, re: Human Sexuality III

Quote :
Affirmations:
    1) The culturally-popular concept of [sex] is "actually-identical-procreation".
    2) Human Sexuality is innately/inherently ethical & moral.
    3) Incest is a biological-imperative resisted by Moral Authority.
    4) All human sex acts are actually rape incidents.
Can I rape myself?

Quote :
...if you-yourself have not had 'sex' ... then you have no right to speak on behalf of others when conversing about sex-in-general.
This method tends to universalize experience which is individual or peculiar to a sub-group.

Quote :
I have had sex with only one female in my life over the course of a ~6 year relationship.
Maybe I am not the one to give advice here, or maybe I am; I've lost just about everything so many times that if something didn't disappear....

Quote :
all things reproduce through procreation
...
A rock does-in-fact have sex....
A confusion here is the difficulty of staying to either plain or philosophical speaking. In myth, Hermes is the go between. Going between is philosophizing.

Nature will spew out anything. From anything. Difference is only human. Nature doesn't care. Or, nature can only produce like -- from its perspective.

It makes a big difference if we use a dualism or a trinity. The philosophy of small numbers and simple shapes: five, six and eight will produce different metaphors.

Which came first, sex or death?

Quote :
Thus, the arguments for-or-against sex is mostly-created and designated to stop sexual-promiscuity by the (beauty)-haves and have-nots. <- a simple matter of jealousy & spite.
Resource control and status control.

How valuable a resource is beauty? We go to the ends of the Earth looking for coal -- but there are beauties in any trailer park, shanty-town or mountain tribe village.

Quote :
Freud was right/correct: human animals want to fuck each other, but this sexual urge & desire is repressed by Moral strength and reasoning. All children are born incestuous. All people continue to be incestuous throughout their entire lives....
It would be nice if only a harem-world of nubile females, and oneself, existed.

Quote :
I know that this is a hard pill for people to swallow, because most people suffice themselves to live within their dream-worlds full of pleasurable and "happy" things.
Can you wake from the dream of your sexuality? Would you want to? Is sex only good? Or is it dukka like everything else is supposed to be?

Quote :
The masses were made not to think in fact.
No. Not to think in deed.

Quote :
Therefore, I believe, that sexual repression gets stored up and becomes forcefully dispersed in the home.
Do we agree or not? I think it is okay for you to fuck your mom, dad and siblings: non-intervention.

Quote :
A woman either says clearly-"NO!" to a sex act, or, she says *ANYTHING* else, which then implies that the sex act is not 'rape' by definition. But in order to analyze this concept of [consent] further, we must investigate what occurs in the minds of women to either decide "NO!", or anything else, which implies "yes".
"She" plays black. So she can only draw or lose, if white (who goes first) plays a perfect game.

But playing (b)lack is not gender specific. She can only get *YES* if she plays first. When someone is attacked by an animal, it would be natural to go for a draw. *ANYTHING* I would think means "no", not "yes", but to say so would incite violence. "Yes" is the only yes.

Quote :
How can a female make a "choice" regarding sex outside of her superficial-feelings toward a particular man???
...
As such, the "rapist" is not actually a "rapist" at all.
"She" makes the choice in order of loyalty (to the gang bosses).

Quote :
...Man is now once-again the "Head of the Household" so-to-speak. The Feminist ideology is a weak one.
Burn down the house!
_________________________________________________
Quote :
...all males want to fuck all females....

...

...'sex' (whatever the concept may imply)....
You are too quick to dismiss defining sex. How much of a table, sheep, or man can you add or take-away and it continues to be sex?

As de Sade did, throw in a chicken. We still have sex, right?

It's a grudging acceptance. If there were any other option, most males would jump at it; and do: dolls, robots, pornography, melons.

Sex is a fetish ritual, it may, be done with objects-in-the-world, which may, have consciousness behind them.

Is sex special and overcomes solipsism? Some say.

Does sex need a consciousness behind it?

Won't a robot do? A whole world of robots. Virtual reality.

That a sex object might have an interiority and a future are very disturbing. This is why the most disturbed prefer mannequins and killing their partners.

If there is a status and a resource dimension, which there is, the status dimension of sex needs to assume a belief outside solipsism: the other's recognition is needed to make its status. 'I'll save you for later.'

If I really love my robots, regardless of what's inside (and they really are robots -- so I'm not a sadistic prince), do I also need to kill all existing men? Can ugly females, or men, or animals be allowed to survive?


PS: I'll type up my fantasy shortly, you may be surprised (or not) how exact it connects to your article.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Rhinoboy
Potential Contributor
Potential Contributor
avatar

Number of posts : 43
Registration date : 2009-01-11

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:29 am

Unreasonable wrote:

4) All human sex acts are actually rape incidents.[/list]

You say rape, I say surprise sex Razz
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Unreasonable
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 728
Age : 34
Location : Purgatory
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:12 pm

Serge wrote:
Can I rape myself?
Yes, anybody can rape their-self through degradation.


Serge wrote:
Quote :
...if you-yourself have not had 'sex' ... then you have no right to speak on behalf of others when conversing about sex-in-general.
This method tends to universalize experience which is individual or peculiar to a sub-group.
That is precisely-the-point. Human Sexuality predicates only the concepts of 'virginity', 'beauty', and 'innocence'.


Serge wrote:
Maybe I am not the one to give advice here, or maybe I am; I've lost just about everything so many times that if something didn't disappear....
I have lost things; I have almost lost myself even. Losing yourself is the worst thing.

You can never get that back: 'innocence'. This can make any gender into a whore.


Serge wrote:
A confusion here is the difficulty of staying to either plain or philosophical speaking. In myth, Hermes is the go between. Going between is philosophizing.

Nature will spew out anything. From anything. Difference is only human. Nature doesn't care. Or, nature can only produce like -- from its perspective.

It makes a big difference if we use a dualism or a trinity. The philosophy of small numbers and simple shapes: five, six and eight will produce different metaphors.

Which came first, sex or death?
From non-existence sprang Life & Death, [ex nihilo]. Sex was the first marriage, its first two children: Order & Chaos.


Serge wrote:
Resource control and status control.

How valuable a resource is beauty? We go to the ends of the Earth looking for coal -- but there are beauties in any trailer park, shanty-town or mountain tribe village.
That is true, but it is the result of poor breeding and resource management that we overlook the gems at our feet.


Serge wrote:
It would be nice if only a harem-world of nubile females, and oneself, existed.
Aristocles has created this Futurism already. I imagine that within the next millennium, there will be free access to women by all non-"criminalized" men. The megacity-states will dominate our planet and if you do not follow the rules of Sociality obediently, then you will be outcast, re-assimilated, or worse. A Utopia is coming whether Individuality pleases it or not. Nature loves hedonism. God does not.

That is why He cast Adam out of Eden. Eve can return; Adam cannot. The Fate of [Man]-kind is different.


Serge wrote:
Can you wake from the dream of your sexuality? Would you want to? Is sex only good? Or is it dukka like everything else is supposed to be?
Sex could possibly be the only "real" Good that ever existed...

But that is a bold-statement on my part; it is my intuition at work.


Serge wrote:
Quote :
The masses were made not to think in fact.
No. Not to think in deed.
That is absolutely-correct: Indeed is in fact. Perhaps you disagree?


Serge wrote:
Do we agree or not? I think it is okay for you to fuck your mom, dad and siblings: non-intervention.
I honestly do not know. It is something I have thought a great deal about. Christianity prevented incest for a specific reason, and I haven't figured it out yet. I am inclined to say "no" though, because of insinuations that I cannot name. I mean, moral decadence is moral decadence. Athetistic-Secularist-Transhumanism will probably fight for a liberal view to incestuous relationships within this century (via birth control). However, I think they will lose this fight in the centuries to follow it. I cannot say though: I see the odds as 51% {favoring Post-Christian spiritualism: Sexual Piety} and 49% {favoring Transhumanism: Sexual Decadence & Incest}.

You have to realize "Serge?" that to either advocate for-or-against incest is going to be the most powerful argument waged in the history of the *WHOLE HUMAN RACE*. Just think of how profound that is! And as for me, I lean against it by a fraction. I can still change my mind and be swayed the other way though. But, I would not bet one way or the other of course. Reason compels that the human animal must take control of his sexuality. It is a dangerous thing. It can be used to strengthen or weaken the Family Unit. And this is very, very, very dangerous. Think of it like this: God's Sex. In other words: It can destroy *EVERYTHING*.



Serge wrote:
"She" plays black. So she can only draw or lose, if white (who goes first) plays a perfect game.
Yes!!!

This is the "game"-analogy of life. Action (white) v Reaction (black).


Serge wrote:
But playing (b)lack is not gender specific. She can only get *YES* if she plays first. When someone is attacked by an animal, it would be natural to go for a draw. *ANYTHING* I would think means "no", not "yes", but to say so would incite violence. "Yes" is the only yes.
Well, how can you say "yes" when you were forced into the game to begin with?

Women do not play chess well (in comparison to the history of Man); remember that. Women do not know how to make the First Move.

Men have played the sport since the beginning of time; it is unlikely that the best Woman will beat Kasparov at his own game.

Anything is possible though; The Feminization of Man can produce such results. Then scapegoating will begin again.


Serge wrote:
Quote :
How can a female make a "choice" regarding sex outside of her superficial-feelings toward a particular man???
...
As such, the "rapist" is not actually a "rapist" at all.
"She" makes the choice in order of loyalty (to the gang bosses).
That is correct.

She whores herself to the Ideal that men choose and predetermine for her.

The spirit of Woman is forever infantile. She has no true Freedom in this sense, except to choose a new master.


Serge wrote:
Quote :
...Man is now once-again the "Head of the Household" so-to-speak. The Feminist ideology is a weak one.
Burn down the house!
_________________________________________________
Easier said than done, my friend...

Be prepared to undo 5000+ years of history if you want to make a truly-devastating blow to Civilization.


Serge wrote:
Quote :
...all males want to fuck all females....

...

...'sex' (whatever the concept may imply)....
You are too quick to dismiss defining sex. How much of a table, sheep, or man can you add or take-away and it continues to be sex?

As de Sade did, throw in a chicken. We still have sex, right?
You are correct.


Serge wrote:
It's a grudging acceptance. If there were any other option, most males would jump at it; and do: dolls, robots, pornography, melons.

Sex is a fetish ritual, it may, be done with objects-in-the-world, which may, have consciousness behind them.

Is sex special and overcomes solipsism? Some say.

Does sex need a consciousness behind it?

Won't a robot do? A whole world of robots. Virtual reality.
People are already robots; they are house cats and domesticated dogs. Feed them and you can control their behaviors.


Serge wrote:
That a sex object might have an interiority and a future are very disturbing. This is why the most disturbed prefer mannequins and killing their partners.

If there is a status and a resource dimension, which there is, the status dimension of sex needs to assume a belief outside solipsism: the other's recognition is needed to make its status. 'I'll save you for later.'

If I really love my robots, regardless of what's inside (and they really are robots -- so I'm not a sadistic prince), do I also need to kill all existing men? Can ugly females, or men, or animals be allowed to survive?
To answer your last question, of course they can be allowed to survive. Everything that lives and breathes on our planet, right here & now, does so for specific reasons. They are meant to survive insofar as they fulfill their predetermined purposes. If they cannot do so, then they have no purpose nor reason to live. They will become Nihilistic and commit suicide if the pressure is too high, or start wars. That is always effective.

What you describe in this section is the lacking that God feels. If God is Man (which he literally-is), then what would he do with an infinite series of sex slave-objects and no subjects at all? He would go crazy. He would kill all the women. He would kill Nature-herself, due to his self-deprecating Nihilism. This is the Spirit of Man. If there are no other subjects present, then he becomes absolutely-destructive through violence and his passions. He wants subjects to admire. He wants objects to fuck. The problem is: what is a "subject"?

And the answer is: individual-men are subjects. Brotherly-love, fraternal-love, is therefore higher than man's love for not only any particular woman, but of *ALL* women. And this comes as surprising to me, myself, because I was brought up to believe in the traditions of Catholicism destroyed-by Atheism. I am an Amerikan; I have no culture to call my own. But yet, I still see, quite clearly, that fraternal love is the highest form of love possible. It is the ideal: God's love for his Eldest Son. However, there is no "real-world" occurrence of this that you can pinpoint, which makes it then non-existent, an ideal. It is an "absent absolute", which is a fairly-stupid term, but a useful one. Therefore, fraternal love is paradoxical. It doesn't exist, but we think it does.

The reasoning behind this is creation and realization of Superficiality: The Spirit of Woman.

Women/girls/children do not "think", by the very definition of the word. They were not made to. They were not made to expand beyond themselves. It is only men that do so, following the image of "God", or the ideal of fraternal love. Because without fraternal love, then there are no subjects, as I have stated. And when fraternal love is lost, as it has been in the West, then there is no reason for Christianity, Sacredness, or Loyalty of any kind. Man turns on himself. He kills himself, because he kills his brother, and all brothers, only to realize that once he has all the women and Nature for himself, that he really has nothing at all except himself and his own Nihilism. Once this becomes realized, then God kills Nature (all women).

I hope that my metaphors do not confuse you away from my intended point: men are active; women are reactive.



Serge wrote:
PS: I'll type up my fantasy shortly, you may be surprised (or not) how exact it connects to your article.
I will look forward to it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Rhinoboy
Potential Contributor
Potential Contributor
avatar

Number of posts : 43
Registration date : 2009-01-11

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:27 pm

Unreasonable wrote:
Rhinoboy wrote:
You say rape, I say surprise sex Razz
It's a "surprise" to the foolish minds perhaps.

Once women start "thinking", then you are going to have some problems... Neutral

I sincerely hope you realise that was a jest Suspect
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Serge
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Number of posts : 99
Registration date : 2009-01-21

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:08 am

Unreasonable wrote:
Serge wrote:
Can I rape myself?
Yes, anybody can rape their-self through degradation.
God is the first rapist. Rape is impossible.

Quote :
Losing yourself is the worst thing.
Buddha says it's the best.

Quote :
You can never get that back: 'innocence'.

Rebirth?


Quote :
From 1non-existence sprang 2Life & 3Death, 4[ex nihilo]. 5Sex was the 6first marriage, its first7 two 8children: 9Order & 10Chaos.
That's a lot of metaphor!


Quote :
Serge wrote:
Resource control and status control.

How valuable a resource is beauty? We go to the ends of the Earth looking for coal -- but there are beauties in any trailer park, shanty-town or mountain tribe village.
That is true, but it is the result of poor breeding and resource management that we overlook the gems at our feet.
Or the gem of beauty is not so highly valued when without setting,




Quote :
Aristocles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocles_of_Messene

What's he about?

Quote :
The megacity-states will dominate our planet and if you do not follow the rules of Sociality obediently, then you will be outcast, re-assimilated, or worse.
Right.

Quote :
That is why He cast Adam out of Eden. Eve can return; Adam cannot. The Fate of Man]-kind is different.
The sin of Adam was his impetuosity. He had to have something (in the world). Christ re-paid the sin of Adam: he gave his life away because not it, or anything is worth a thing.

Serge wrote:
Sex could possibly be the only "real" Good that ever existed...
Dukkha.

Quote :
Serge wrote:
Quote :
The masses were made not to think in fact.
No. Not to think in deed.
That is absolutely-correct: Indeed is in fact. Perhaps you disagree?
In deed, but not indeed.

Quote :
Serge wrote:
But playing (b)lack is not gender specific. She can only get *YES* if she plays first. When someone is attacked by an animal, it would be natural to go for a draw. *ANYTHING* I would think means "no", not "yes", but to say so would incite violence. "Yes" is the only yes.
Well, how can you say "yes" when you were forced into the game to begin with?

Women do not play chess well (in comparison to the history of Man); remember that. Women do not know how to make the First Move.

Men have played the sport since the beginning of time; it is unlikely that the best Woman will beat Kasparov at his own game.

Anything is possible though; The Feminization of Man can produce such results. Then scapegoating will begin again.
I don't know that an artificial-insemination fem-dome would crystalize as the end of history.

There is a paradox about this and learning to swim. How can you learn swim in the water without drowning, if you can't already swim? You have to be thrown in?

Quote :
Quote :
Serge wrote:
That a sex object might have an interiority and a future are very disturbing. This is why the most disturbed prefer mannequins and killing their partners.

If there is a status and a resource dimension, which there is, the status dimension of sex needs to assume a belief outside solipsism: the other's recognition is needed to make its status. 'I'll save you for later.'

If I really love my robots, regardless of what's inside (and they really are robots -- so I'm not a sadistic prince), do I also need to kill all existing men? Can ugly females, or men, or animals be allowed to survive?
To answer your last question, of course they can be allowed to survive. Everything that lives and breathes on our planet, right here & now, does so for specific reasons. They are meant to survive insofar as they fulfill their predetermined purposes. If they cannot do so, then they have no purpose nor reason to live. They will become Nihilistic and commit suicide if the pressure is too high, or start wars. That is always effective.

This is where I want to interject with my fantasy, as it bears on some of these points, see below....


Last edited by Serge on Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:40 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
MagnetMan
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Number of posts : 235
Registration date : 2008-12-19

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:51 pm

Incest is America's darkest taboo.
I would hazard that several million cases are locked in the closet
Millions of children dare not acknowledge their parents
Woe betide any who tries to open the door
It is inevitable that one day they will all come spilling out.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Unreasonable
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 728
Age : 34
Location : Purgatory
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:15 pm

Serge,

As I was writing my response to your post, I carelessly-clicked 'back' on my browser and lost it...

I will sum up a response:

The sexual fantasy you express is similar to one I have had when I was in middle school. This is the fundamental cause of Human Misery: violent competition amongst males. Males do not naturally-suffice themselves to 'share' goods or women. As long as this lasts as a part of Human Civilization, there will live and thrive the gods of War & Strife. Every individual man on the planet seeks to have a dominion over ALL females to himself. This is his natural drive; it makes him into a Man-by-definition.

And this is why the Spirit of Man is both dying, and must die, if Peace is truly-desired on Earth.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
MagnetMan
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Number of posts : 235
Registration date : 2008-12-19

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:23 am

Unreasonable wrote:
. Every individual man on the planet seeks to have a dominion over ALL females to himself. This is his natural drive; it makes him into a Man-by-definition.

And this is why the Spirit of Man is both dying, and must die, if Peace is truly-desired on Earth.

The collective consciousness is still immature. It is an a teenage of romance. In our adult stage in an Age yet to come, every male and female will find their soul mate. Competion for mates will end. God will be born with each union.

MagnetMan wrote:
Incest is America's darkest taboo.

Quote :
Correction: Incest is EARTH's darkest taboo.


EARTH thrives on incest. 3 billion specie all originate from one cell.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Serge
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Number of posts : 99
Registration date : 2009-01-21

PostSubject: How would sexuality expand in a vacuum?   Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:41 am



How would sexuality expand in a vacuum?

Without any form to take, sexuality could never be cathected down from pure energy. So the women in the fantasy would have to be taken off the street, from magazines, or art. Then these forms can be built on.

Every day ten new members of the family arrive. (The mechanics of this are not important, perhaps from a subterranean nursery?) Each of my daughter-wives on arrival is nine. Everyday the ten women who will turn thirty leave, pregnant. (This ought to be changed to 7 and 27?)

Ten per day, twenty-one years from age nine through twenty-nine, three-hundred-sixty-five days to a year: 10 x 21 X 365 = 76,650.

These women represent all the nationalities and variety imaginable. Ancient Greek, primitive, minority-tribes, Scandinavian, freckled, ten-meter long hair, braces, midgets, early bloomers, piebald, albino, vampire teeth, and so on and so on.

There are no men besides myself in the fantasy. Importantly, on this deserted island world, there are also no animals; no artistic representations of women, and no representations of animals in furniture or decor either.

The rules of the fantasy have some connections to Art theory. The absence of other men and animals, and their image in art, and for that matter, art altogether brings to mind the prohibitions in Islamic Art against representing Muhammad's face, and animals. Another connection is between the meaning of "human sexuality" and the meaning of Art as shewn in the the theories of Art. Art is memetic: copying nature, reproduction -- Sex is memetic: copying nature, reproduction. Art is expression -- Sex is expression. Art for arts sake -- Sex... Have a look at a list of Theories of Art, and compare it to theories of "human sexuality, here, for example.


Spoiler:
 
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Serge
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Number of posts : 99
Registration date : 2009-01-21

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:57 am

I think that stature has to be taken into consideration. And in general, more physical facts. You are being too reason heavy, obviously.

I had an interesting sexual encounter with a midget the other day. She was of correct proportion, but small, small hands, small hands, small... everything. I think this is very interesting fact, it is a fetish too, vore and all that.

Sensualism is often overlooked, a dualistic model tends to make reason and emotion poles, but in a trinity, there is intellect, passion -- and also sense. Andre Gide addressed this to a degree in The Immoralist or Fruits of the Earth as did Dostoïevsky in The Brothers Karamazov in the chapter... The Sensualists.

The softness of skin is not addressed at all. Or the smell of hair. Or the smallness of feet. The color of eyes and tissues...

_______________

What constitutes a sufficient lure?

Spoiler:
 


Last edited by Serge on Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
MagnetMan
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Number of posts : 235
Registration date : 2008-12-19

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:30 am

Celibate monks have sex.

Here is a lucid dream.

I enter the door on the opposite side of the hall. As I go in the door closes behind me.

The room looks just like a standard hotel room. Queen size bed. Table. T.V. Dresser. There is another door in the room that I know is the bathroom. Suddenly the door opens. A beautiful brown haired woman walks out. Completely naked. She is the very image of beauty. Ivory skin, full red lips, full voluptuous body. She walks toward me, then turns and faces me. Standing between me and the bed. The door is directly behind me.

She puts her hands on my shoulders, and slowly moves toward me. Pressing her body against mine. I can feel its warmth as she moves her lips to mine. She starts to kiss me. I feel her tongue start to probe my mouth. My mouth becomes full suddenly. I can feel what I thought was her tongue, is actually a bunch of tentacle type things. The tentacles start to go down my throat, up my nasal passage. She starts to fill my entire being with these tentacles. Strangely I have no fear, no panic. It's bliss.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Serge
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Number of posts : 99
Registration date : 2009-01-21

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:39 am

MagnetMan wrote:
A beautiful brown haired woman...
A brunette?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
MagnetMan
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Number of posts : 235
Registration date : 2008-12-19

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:09 pm

The wizard who was bold enough to share that dream with everyone
was not that explicit
She could have been a redhead
and I say this with all confidence
in your discrection
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Serge
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Number of posts : 99
Registration date : 2009-01-21

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:16 am

MagnetMan wrote:
She could have been a redhead
Is this poem testimony or metaphor? What if I said, I don't believe you had such a dream?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
MagnetMan
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Number of posts : 235
Registration date : 2008-12-19

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:02 pm

Is this poem testimony or metaphor?

Pure testimony
he never mentioned her pubic hair though
the red hair is conjecture
a possiblity
as i said
he was not THAT explicit

What if I said, I don't believe you had such a dream?

You would be right
it was not mine

do you honestly believe
a kiss like that
could have been hatched out of a vacuum? Shocked
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Serge
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Number of posts : 99
Registration date : 2009-01-21

PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   Sun Feb 08, 2009 7:45 am

You would be right
it was not mine


Whose is it?


do you honestly believe
a kiss like that
could have been hatched out of a vacuum?


What sexuality would a brain in a vat have? Who can say?

I don't see any articles on Google for feral sexuality. Someone would have made a note of it; where is it? It's like surfing for teratological hotties, what's the search term, "Down's Syndrome Babe"?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Human Sexuality III   

Back to top Go down
 
Human Sexuality III
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» False Prophet, or Human Error?
» Do non human symbols speak sometimes in a dream?
» THE STORY OF THE STUDY OF THE HUMAN HAND
» The Storytelling Animal - How Stories Make Us Human by Jonathan Gottschall
» Japan Mulls Raising Part-Human Part-Animal Chimera's

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Dissidents Philosophy Forum :: Philosophy-
Jump to: