Dissidents Philosophy Forum

Internet Philosophical Community
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
AuthorMessage
Alexi
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Number of posts : 84
Location : Paris suburbs
Registration date : 2008-12-15

PostSubject: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:25 am



Simulacra and Girl-love

"The sexual difference, the concept of sexual difference which was established in the same moment, was merely a variant of the incestuous form. In that concept, man and woman were no longer anything but the mirroring [mirage] of each other. They were separated and different only the better to become the -- often indifferent -- mirrors of each other. The whole machinery was turned on its head, since the erotic attraction which formerly emanated from strangeness and otherness now shifted over to emanate from similarity and likeness.

...By the invention of a femaleness which makes woman superfluous, makes her a supplemental incarnation, woman really has disappeared -- if not physically, then at least beneath a substitute femininity.
...
...And if the real woman seems to disappear in this hysterical invention, we have to see that male desire also becomes entirely problematic, since it is now capable only of projecting itself into its image...."

Jean Baudrillard, 1995
The Perfect Crime


Men have reached the point that they are overwhelmingly turned off women. Women do not match or fit his sexual object; moreover, her and her characteristics repel him.

Man has had to evacuate woman as the home for his libidinal furniture, his pots and pans, his paraphernalia and his paraphilia; in spite of what seemed a natural fit. She won't let him or his things stay there -- she won't wear, or doesn't fit any of his things.

He is not made hopeless by his failed relationship with woman, just libidinally homeless. He abandons her in her particularity and expands the search: for something female -- and feminine -- but without the characteristics of women: their absence.

Man takes from woman's sexuality the photo-negative of woman's sexuality, the inversion of corrupted woman:

  • She sees through and back through him many times hollowly in the vacuum between man and woman -- the girl sees only him, and he her.

  • A woman can have large, beautiful breasts -- but a girl hasn't any at all.

  • Is it sexy for a woman to shave? -- with girls there is nothing to shave.

  • In every relationship, the man and woman try to control -- change predictably -- one another. With girls, she will learn and grow and change (the change of no-change). The girl is change and becoming herself, she multi-tasks: she is and has in one what it takes woman and child two to do. Little girls are economical and practical in this way: they are female, children -- and most importantly, not women.

  • "We no longer know what we want, but we know what we don't want."

    The Perfect Crime


    Has your sex-life become boring? Not exciting?

    Nothing is at stake.

    He can fuck her just as well as not -- it won't make any difference.

    Not risky? not dangerous?

    The black widow, whatever she pointed to, signified, is gone. Women are the icon of safety and security. Recently, women were stripped bare of that, and put it back on -- wearing it in men's style: as women in combat, trauma ward surgeons, body builders, shooting their abusive husbands and Andy Warhol, terrorists in The Battle for Algiers.

    These deadly roles are not his idea of her femininity. He is unsettled to see her morphing into him -- object formation for the sex-drive is essentially xenophilic; it being a man's lack.

    (It is invalid for him to be his own attribute in negation. For him, both him and her [woman] are satellites of his desire -- woman is not his moon, as object she never could be his sun, and at the same time, as subjectivity, if she were his stilt from the nothing, his "guiding star", he would have to masochistically suicide himself -- they would go out together. As another planet of his verb, their orbits are parallel, equivalent -- there is no time they can meet. More disturbingly, who is this mirror person, this shadow who follows man everywhere (it is still his sun)? It is woman. Fulfilling her stellar destiny; man made, woman is a frankenstein, from the rib of Adam.) Unhappy with any of his options: auto-eroticism, masochistic ego-suicide or making love to a frankenstein made from his own corpse, he looks elsewhere for his significant other.

    What about fourteen years in prison? Would that be significant?

    "...perfection, true to its name, is always criminal."

    The Perfect Crime


    Should he take the bait? the jail bait? It is completely in his freedom to take it one way or the other; and if he is caught -- he is caught by himself; "fisher of men." Every great passion wills its own end. It is totally appropriate that man should endow his new love object with serious consequence, because "all is permitted" sexually between him and woman, all his needs for his sexuality to be covert and hidden, and chancy and daring are void: oral sex, sodomy, inter-racial BDSM ultra-violence... and adultery is also legal.

    So a relationship with a girl must be profoundly dangerous -- everything is at stake.

  • From the serpent to woman, from Eve to Adam, from man slips the forbidden fruit to the girl -- now she looks temptingly delicious to eat.

    (Between man, woman and child, who is going to play for man the absence of woman? there are only a very few ways it can work out.)

    He exteriorizes his desire, his absence, the forbidden fruit, into the girl-child only to reincorporate them. What is the girl as absence (of woman) to his desire as and for absence (of woman)? What is the negation of negation? A double negative is a positive.

    Returning into himself he recovers himself. Having injected absence, attributed his insignificance to the girl, he plants (by not planting) his physical icon of himself into the girl's imbued otherness. He founds himself in the otherness of the other. The girl is a difference engine for him.

  • A woman to her virtue might be tight -- but not too tight. Little girls are the total negation of woman's essential sexuality: penetrability. If it is a cue, a criteria, for women's sexuality, its total negation and inversion is the sexuality of the sexy girl. While women may or may not get pregnant -- girl's sexuality is totally non-productive. A final end, the love of girls is not the tool-shop or factory that love of woman is. A woman might have a child -- a girl is a child. The subject and the object have become one in the sexy girl.

  • The girl restores Victorian chastity. If woman's sexuality in image and media is anything, it is over exposed. So the sight of the sexy-girl should be covered up, you exactly shouldn't see her everywhere, (her image that is).

  • A woman is fully sexually developed. That's not very happenin'. Wutz happening with women's sexuality is nothing -- peak sexuality. With girls, they are constantly over-flowing themselves, they are becoming, becoming women.

  • Is the love of man impossible to decrypt? static? a Voynich manuscript? a ruse?

    "Men love women; women love children; children love hamsters -- nobody loves men."

    8 1/2 Women, 1999


    There is quite a bit of competition for children's love. This is preceisly the point. It is a supply and demand market -- a superficial market saturated with the identical, distinguished only by their name. He wants something really different, that will express himself. He accessorizes, makes girl an accessory to his trying on something new. Girl-love is the decryption key to all the meaningless lines of hypertext cyphertext characters.

● ● ●

If a man can fuck a cantaloupe, the leap from woman to female children is not a great leap; it is ontologically less disturbing but socially more outrageous than the leap to woman's 2D image, and apparently, by the grammar of sexual taboo, greater also than to men. None-the-less, man is now at an outer planet, beyond blonde or brunette, beyond Yellow Fever.

"Hannibal Lecter: No! He covets. That is his nature. And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? Make an effort to answer now.
Clarice Starling: No. We just...
Hannibal Lecter: No. We begin by coveting what we see every day. Don't you feel eyes moving over your body, Clarice? And don't your eyes seek out the things you want? "

Silence of the Lambs, 1991


The man doesn't think far, we can see him in his apartment, looking for where he can put down his libido, looking for a sex object that will fit:

"Um ... the dog ... no ... the television ... um ... no -- no ... the car ... no ... a gun ... um ... no ... the dvd player ... the computer -- monitor ... no ... um ... little Jenny ... little Jenny."

Choosing options is the no-choice of closed, fatalistic possibility. Ready-made means for fashion, and ready-made means for art, what it means for man: one size fits all.

For any mirror the rules are the same, writing it out in its convoluted backwardness again is not necessary; in this line, it would be wrong to give any consideration to women -- women are exactly not the subject of this investigation; but if the message insists on being written in perspectival dialectic...

Woman does not feel the slightest bit slighted by man's defection per say; no more so than the slave feels unloved when the master takes off from whipping him. In the dialectical square-dance of sexual object-cathexis, man leaves woman and takes the girl as his partner. Who -- do si do -- does the woman take? She already had children as her object and man as her master. And the children, previously they were at the other end of the line from men... Eliminate the middle-man. Children are indifferent to who loves them and who they love in all this, they just want to be loved -- but woman, relieved of man, of having him above her, has become his equal, and in so doing finds herself in competition with man to love children. Any hostility that woman has lingering over from her love affair with man will fuel the fire of resentment against him again for his attempt to make her sexually obsolescent and drive her out of the business of middle-man of sex-objects.


the little world

"Fortunately, we live on the basis of a vital illusion, on the basis of an absence."

The Perfect Crime


All this is a pantomime. The protagonist is an exile. He in fact finds his Shangri-la. Through the looking-glass of his parlour play's hyper-real plot, the little people's acts conjure (sex with children is a contradiction: sex as not-sex, not-sex as sex...) a higher order: Zeus, the gods, the Chinese Office in Tibet. An antagonistic intrusion is invoked from inside the little world. We will accept no voluntary martyrs, but the resolution is a foregone conclusion.

He is not playing Oedipus. He does not kill his father and fuck his mother. He is more of a Mastro Geppetto.

If he gives to the little people the gift of being real, it thaumaturgically invokes a neurotic implosion; paradoxically, reality bursts out (in) on the unreal scene. The statues become real, and the actors, they.... Freed from the perpetuous state of being his own self and his own other, his abnegation of the mimetic dialogue is also his acute realization of the unity in opposites: sex means and is death. He is loosed from the volatile redundancy of his polyvalence as and by the double negation of himself returning into the shiboleth of his radical non-being: simply, girls.

FIN


Last edited by Alexi on Mon Feb 09, 2009 5:21 am; edited 4 times in total (Reason for editing : editing)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 540
Age : 51
Location : The Edge
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:41 am

This is a well-written piece.

Should it not be posted in the Philosophy sub-forum?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://calicantsar.blogspot.com/
Unreasonable
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:58 am

Yes, I too think that this should be moved to the Philosophy forum.

After all, this is probably the most pertinent "love of woman (feminized)" on the forum right now!
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 540
Age : 51
Location : The Edge
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:44 pm

Unreasonable wrote:
Yes, I too think that this should be moved to the Philosophy forum.

After all, this is probably the most pertinent "love of woman (feminized)" on the forum right now!
Underlying it is some anti-masculine sentiments, methinks.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://calicantsar.blogspot.com/
Unreasonable
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:07 pm

How can we have the love of woman without emasculation I wonder?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Alexi
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Number of posts : 84
Location : Paris suburbs
Registration date : 2008-12-15

PostSubject: Re: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:05 pm

Satyr wrote:
Underlying it is some anti-masculine sentiments, methinks.

Baudrillard was a Parisian chauvinist pig, self-consciously and bitterly writing his obsolescence. The thing is bound to have a bad-faith about it.

At the primary process, man cathects an object for his libido, at the secondary process, reality testing fails to find an object. Man does not go back to before id-level cathexis. He only finds a new ego object that suits the reality principal. The repair job is ad hoc; it does not disassemble the machine to the point that the flaw can be fixed; he is re-booting when he could reformat to an upgraded OS.

There are two paradoxical dialectics running simultaneously. Dialectic is all possible moves, many games have to be played out imaginatively to get ahead of the game. (There can be errors in writing dialectic.)

These two are the psychic and the physical. The whole drama could be written as a flight from dread; a flight from insignificance. Man and woman are jealous gods. Love wants to be exclusive. Is love divisible? Yes/no....

Or, this would be the other shoe to the dialectic based on dread: the physical -- the Congolese resource war for the bodies of girls, abstracted into force in garment factories, potential energy in schools; wrought iron cogs forged for the machine...

These theatrics could also be written in detail for women and children, homosexuals, trans-gender, prostitution, pornography and other paraphilias. Following the principal that no one knows who hasn't been there, perhaps someone more experienced should write those scenes and lines?


Last edited by Alexi on Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:52 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : typos)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 540
Age : 51
Location : The Edge
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:33 pm

Alexi wrote:
Satyr wrote:
Underlying it is some anti-masculine sentiments, methinks.

Baudrillard was a Parisian chauvinist pig, self-consciously and bitterly writing his obsolescence. The thing is bound to have a bad-faith about it.
Whereas your response is in "good faith" , I suppose.

What is a "chauvinist pig" and why do you perceive "bitterness" there and not fearful defensiveness in your remarks against him?

Quote :
At the primary process, man cathects an object for his libido, at the secondary process, reality testing fails to find an object. Man does not go back to before id-level cathexis. He only finds a new ego object that suits the reality principal. The repair job is ad hoc; it does not disassemble the machine to the point that the flaw can be fixed; he is re-booting when he could reformat to an upgraded OS.
I'm sure you think you know what you are saying here.

"That suits the reality principle"?!
confused
"...to an "upgraded OS."?
Written by whom? And what is considered an upgrade?

Quote :
These two are the psychic and the physical. The whole drama could be written as a flight from dread; a flight from insignificance. Man and woman are jealous gods. Love wants to be exclusive. Is love divisible? Yes/no....
Hedging your bets, here?
"Is love divisible"?

A little advice, when attempting to sound more profound than you really are these types of obfuscating displays can only be effective amongst those that are too insecure in their intelligence to see them void of any meaning.

A thinker seeks clarity and in so doing can express his positions clearly.
When someone exhibits this desperate desire to appear more complicated than they really are, I have to wonder at the motives behind it.

Perhaps a little bitterness.

Quote :
These theatrics could also be written in detail for women and children, homosexuals, trans-gender, prostitution, pornography and other paraphilias. Following the principal that no one knows who hasn't been there, perhaps someone more experienced should write those scenes and lines should write them?
How about your theatrics?

Answer the questions above, and we'll try to untangle this mess of word associated, strings, as we go along.

Why do you remind me of a certain Dunamis who buried his institutionalized mind beneath heaps of academic posturing and convoluted thesaurus whoring?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://calicantsar.blogspot.com/
Alexi
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Number of posts : 84
Location : Paris suburbs
Registration date : 2008-12-15

PostSubject: Re: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:09 am

Satyr wrote:
Alexi wrote:
Satyr wrote:
Underlying it is some anti-masculine sentiments, methinks.

Baudrillard was a Parisian chauvinist pig, self-consciously and bitterly writing his obsolescence. The thing is bound to have a bad-faith about it.
Whereas your response is in "good faith" , I suppose.

Heavens no! It's layered, thick.

Quote :
What is a "chauvinist pig" and why do you perceive "bitterness" there and not fearful defensiveness in your remarks against him?

Okay. Feminization ideology is anti-feminism. It is a dialectic, a historicism like psychoanalysis, existentialism, liberal capitalism, Americanism, Islam, Commies, structuralism, Nazis, Black Panthers -- or a better analogy here: white supremacists and seperatists.

Quote :
Quote :
At the primary process, man cathects an object ... the machine to the point that the flaw can be fixed; he is re-booting when he could reformat to an upgraded OS.
I'm sure you think you know what you are saying here.

"That suits the reality principle"?!
confused
"...to an "upgraded OS."?
Written by whom? And what is considered an upgrade?

"...a person never actualy relinquishes his origional object cathexis. ...a person is always looking for his first love in the substitute object."
________

"The ability to displace energy from one object to another is the most powerful instumentality."
________

"...the degree of resemblance between the origional and the substitute object. ... If a person is barred from discharging tension by one route, he will seek another outlet which is as much like the forbid path as it is possible for it to be."

Calvin Hall, 1956
Freudian Psychology


It's cliché. Understanding, not not understanding Freud is the bigger problem!

It is a logical decision from self interest, maximizing the pleasure principal and the reality principal. ("The reality principal is the quality of existing." C.Hall) It is no change at all for a man who never really has satisfying sex with a woman to never really have satisfying sex with a girl. From the perspective of good-sex for him, which is only wish-fulfilment with fantasy images and his imagination (notwithstanding prostitutes), none of these mediums are much associated with being limited by reality. Complex objects tend to satisfy multiple cathexis, the whole context of the pleasure and reality is very complicated.

The specific sort of rejection a man has from and to women must set the negative perimeters of the substitute object. The pornographer could have been frightened by the interiority or the exteriority of woman? We could think that the homosexual was physically disgusted by an early sexual encounter with women, none-the-less the thing could also be something very abstract? Many steps in dialectic are so heavily over-determined, a condensation of so many different lines, they go off in all directions:

In pornography, the hyper-real sexy woman looks into the camera; hers is genuinely a blank stare. She sees nothing, no one sees her --by and for himself man exteriorizes and impregnates his not-self into the ready-made for-another of woman's double. ...

(God writes the new OS? An upgrade to woman2.0.)

Quote :
Quote :
These two are the psychic and the physical. The whole drama could be written as a flight from dread; a flight from insignificance. Man and woman are jealous gods. Love wants to be exclusive. Is love divisible? Yes/no....
Hedging your bets, here?
"Is love divisible"?

Right, it has to be followed out to the end, all sorts of contradictions, that is evolutionary dialectic, many statements will die and not make it, only the most successful memes will survive, they evolve by the volatility of dialectic.

Quote :
A little advice, when attempting to sound more profound than you really are these types of obfuscating displays can only be effective amongst those that are too insecure in their intelligence to see them void of any meaning.

A thinker seeks clarity and in so doing can express his positions clearly.
When someone exhibits this desperate desire to appear more complicated than they really are, I have to wonder at the motives behind it.

Yes, fair enough. Though, I'm playing Mad Libs with Baudrillard. I meant this to be a fun, mini- Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.

Quote :
Perhaps a little bitterness.

Man is bitter, I just played that down to try to focus on discribing his move, not criticizing it.

Quote :
Quote :
These theatrics could also be written in detail for women and children, homosexuals, trans-gender, prostitution, pornography and other paraphilias. Following the principal that no one knows who hasn't been there, perhaps someone more experienced should write those scenes and lines should write them?
How about your theatrics?

The writer has the status of a character in his hyper-real drama. Maybe On the Sublime is relivant here. Anne Frank is a writer of no special talent; but her book is very important; not because she wrote well, but because she chose an important topic (Longinus's advice). "Puffy tumors" should be avoided in writing. In a hyper-real environment one is never sure if the author is James Joyce -- or a twelve-year old.

Quote :
Answer the questions above, and we'll try to untangle this mess of word associated, strings, as we go along.

(Sokal.) Dialectic is clang-association with reason; good-luck "try[ing] to untangle this mess of word associated, strings...."

Quote :
Why do you remind me of a certain Dunamis who buried his institutionalized mind beneath heaps of academic posturing and convoluted thesaurus whoring?

I know about this guy a bit, maybe I'll look into him for inspiration -- or inflamation.


Last edited by Alexi on Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:30 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 540
Age : 51
Location : The Edge
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:28 am

Vanya wrote:


Heavens no! It's layered, thick.
A bit too thick.

Quote :
Feminization ideology is anti-feminism. It is a dialectic, a historicism like psychoanalysis, existentialism, liberal capitalism, Americanism, Islam, Commies, structuralism, Nazis, Black Panthers -- or a better analogy here: white supremacists and seperatists.
Yes.

Quote :
"...a person never actualy relinquishes his origional object cathexis. ...a person is always looking for his first love in the substitute object."
He is looking for what is absent in him.
But in the context to this sexual designation we must establish the boundaries between Eros and Agape.

I do not confuse lust for love.
Both come from the same place but they extinguish themselves differently.
________

Quote :
"The ability to displace energy from one object to another is the most powerful instumentality."
Yes.
I call it utility.
We are all users. All are made into our resources.
________
Quote :

"...the degree of resemblance between the origional and the substitute object. ... If a person is barred from discharging tension by one route, he will seek another outlet which is as much like the forbid path as it is possible for it to be."

Calvin Hall, 1956
Freudian Psychology


It's cliché. Understanding, not not understanding Freud is the bigger problem!
Repressed energy needs an outlet.
If it persists, atrophy results in a mutation.

Quote :
It is a logical decision from self interest, maximizing the pleasure principal and the reality principal. ("The reality principal is the quality of existing." C.Hall) It is no change at all for a man who never really has satisfying sex with a woman to never really have satisfying sex with a girl. From the perspective of good-sex for him, which is only wish-fulfilment with fantasy images and his imagination (notwithstanding prostitutes), none of these mediums are much associated with being limited by reality. Complex objects tend to satisfy multiple cathexis, the whole context of the pleasure and reality is very complicated.
Yes. It is made more difficult when referencing a book some may not have read.

This is engaging reality through another.
This is an inferior form of the dialectic - whoring.

Quote :
The specific sort of rejection a man has from and to women must set the negative perimeters of the substitute object.
Whereas a full acceptance would force no change at all.
Consciousness is rejection. Unconsciousness is acceptance.

Quote :
The pornographer could have been frightened by the interiority or the exteriority of woman?
Only if he had become attached to it deciding his identity for him.
The blinding effect of love. The ideal. The absolute. The absent.

Quote :
We could think that the homosexual was physically disgusted by an early sexual encounter with women, none-the-less the thing could also be something very abstract? Many steps in dialectic are so heavily over-determined, a condensation of so many different lines, they go off in all directions:

In pornography, the hyper-real sexy woman looks into the camera; hers is genuinely a blank stare. She sees nothing, no one sees her --by and for himself man exteriorizes and impregnates his not-self into the ready-made for-another of woman's double....
The act itself is a domination, a taking down of a prey, and so easily made into a source of self-evaluation.

In pornography all this is, somewhat, stripped away and the woman is made into a mindless, all accepting, body.
Her eyes are blank because her sexual power is obliterated by her surrender to the money.
She is objectified by being abstracted.

It is how the repressed release all the energy without being judged.
The distancing of the object.

Quote :
Right, it has to be followed out to the end, all sorts of contradictions, that is evolutionary dialectic, many statements will die and not make it, only the most successful memes will survive, they evolve by the volatility of dialectic.
Even a hunt is a dialectic.

Quote :
Yes, fair enough. Though, I'm playing Mad Libs with Baudrillard. I meant this to be a fun, mini- Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.
You are trying too hard.
I wonder why.

Quote :
Man is bitter, I just played that down to try to focus on discribing his move, not criticizing it.
So, the dialectic is not critical?
Quote :

The writer has the status of a character in his hyper-real drama. Maybe On the Sublime is relivant here. Anne Frank is a writer of no special talent; but her book is very important; not because she wrote well, but because she chose an important topic (Longinus's advice). "Puffy tumors" should be avoided in writing. In a hyper-real environment one is never sure if the author is James Joyce -- or a twelve-year old.
Then the focus should be on the ideas and their motives.

Quote :
I know about this guy a bit, maybe I'll look into him for inspiration -- or inflamation.
Have fun.

Incessant referencing shall commence, convoluted by specialized language meant to display knowledge but not really reveal insight or wisdom.
Reality dealt with through a medium, a middle man, an authority, whose words are adhered to and the competition is over whom mimics his mind the closest.
The call of the feminine wishing to be impregnated by a maculine seed and then gestate greatness.

Reality pushed into a secondary role, a simulation if Baudrillard is your chosen one, to which all art - language itself, must sample until nothing remains of the original except as a background drum beat from a primal past, as Britney repeats the same old crap and the hyper-masculine Negro Raps, extinguishing the fire in his loins by pretending he's powerful, while playing the master's jester and saying nothing at all but a rhyme.

Philosophy made into an institution, only accessible through it. Denied to the laymen, like science has, because he is to be made to feel embarrassed for not talking the "right" language and not referencing the "correct" idols.
His world is only accessible through others. He cannot even comment on it without going through others.
His opinions judged by how well they achieve this prostitution.

The next step, religious fervour.
The institution taking the place of the dogma. The individual mind totally dependant upon it for its ideas and judgements.
The uniformity nearing completion.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://calicantsar.blogspot.com/
creasy
Active Idealist
Active Idealist


Number of posts : 75
Registration date : 2008-12-16

PostSubject: Re: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Tue Dec 16, 2008 1:44 pm

Alexi wrote:
Men have reached the point that they are overwhelmingly turned off women. Women do not match or fit his sexual object; moreover, her and her characteristics repel him.
Is this true?
Quote :

So a relationship with a girl must be profoundly dangerous -- everything is at stake.
That might be the buzz for some, but I would guess most are avoiding their fears when they go after much younger females. Especially if they have intellecttualized it and are approaching a category.


Quote :
● A woman might be tight -- but not too tight. Little girls are the total negation of woman's essential sexuality: penetrability. If it is a cue, a criteria, for women's sexuality, its total negation and inversion is the sexuality of the sexy girl. While women may or may not get pregnant -- girl's sexuality is totally non-productive. A final end, the love of girls is not the tool-shop or factory that love of woman is. A woman might have a child -- a girl is a child. The subject and the object have become one in the sexy girl.
Tight means the mirror makes him seem big. Another avoidance. And being older he can always deny her expertise in evaluating him, on any level. At least for a while, these things have a way of evening out unless the guy is solipsistic and or abusive.

Quote :
● A woman is fully sexually developed. That's not very happenin'. Wutz happening with women's sexuality is nothing -- peak sexuality. With girls, they are constantly over-flowing themselves, they are becoming, becoming women.
Notice the assumption that the sexuality is an object rather than an interaction. 'Look at her, she is finished, post peak' whatever. Very visual, very separated.
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: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:05 pm

Will somebody pray tell me what the difference is between: 1) Man's love for Woman, and 2) Man's love for Girls?

Alexi, you should pay attention to this...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Alexi
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Number of posts : 84
Location : Paris suburbs
Registration date : 2008-12-15

PostSubject: Re: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Wed Dec 17, 2008 7:30 am

Satyr wrote:
Vanya wrote:

Heavens no! It's layered, thick.
A bit too thick.
Racists and bigots and the sad part is that we hide it under thick layers of fake ... atmosphere with optically thick layers of trace gases ... stability of hard coatings composed of nanometer-thick layers ... Polyimide deposition of thick layers ... in thick layers and DQW systems strong uniform magnetic field.

Satyr wrote:
Yes. It is made more difficult when referencing a book some may not have read.
This is engaging reality through another.
This is an inferior form of the dialectic - whoring.
Satyr wrote:
Incessant referencing shall commence, convoluted by specialized language meant to display knowledge but not really reveal insight or wisdom.
Reality dealt with through a medium, a middle man, an authority, whose words are adhered to and the competition is over whom mimics his mind the closest.
Quotes are the exact right way to reply to this sort of thing.

Satyr wrote:
Philosophy made into an institution, only accessible through it. Denied to the laymen, like science has, because he is to be made to feel embarrassed for not talking the "right" language and not referencing the "correct" idols.
His world is only accessible through others. He cannot even comment on it without going through others.
His opinions judged by how well they achieve this prostitution.
yo! keepin' it real with street philosophy!

Satyr wrote:
Quote :
"The ability to displace energy from one object to another is the most powerful instumentality."
Yes.
I call it utility.
We are all users. All are made into our resources.
Yes/no. My first relation to the other is indifference. Far from a confrontation and fight to the death, we don't notice one another. Non-intervention.

Satyr wrote:
Consciousness is rejection.
Yes/no. The will is first freely flowing. Encomberance comes after; "rejection" is not the default at start up.

Satyr wrote:
Quote :
Man is bitter, I just played that down to try to focus on discribing his move, not criticizing it.
So, the dialectic is not critical?
Too critical.
_______________________

creasy wrote:
Is this true?
"Fortunately, none of this is true."

Jean Baudrillard, 1995
The Perfect Crime


creasy wrote:
That might be the buzz for some, but I would guess most are avoiding their fears when they go after much younger females. Especially if they have intellecttualized it and are approaching a category.
-some enjoy fear more than security in their sex

-avoidance

-kill two birds with one stone

-the object is over determined


creasy wrote:
Tight means the mirror makes him seem big. Another avoidance. And being older he can always deny her expertise in evaluating him, on any level. ...
-hyper-reality in that, I thought of fun-house mirrors, but the "big" part escaped me, I'll steal that

-no no no, not avoidance, it is more like illusion, wish fufillment, "trompe-l'œil"

-the girl sees him as he presents himself and as he wants to be seen, good point

creasy wrote:
Notice the assumption that the sexuality is an object rather than an interaction. 'Look at her, she is finished, post peak' whatever.

Funny you say this, I was thinking about this last night: line (of thought), train (of thought); the collisions at every intersection of dialectical lines are only the return-routes, paradoxes are not crashes. It is one of the ways the dialectic moves, the slipperiness of S, V, and O slots; the subject becomes object, the verb becomes subject...

The dog ate the cat.

Cattish eating dogged.

It's schizophrenic, I think Breuer actually called dementia praecox "meaningful thinking."

creasy wrote:
Very visual, very separated.
-compartmentalization
_______________________

Unreasonable wrote:
Alexi, you should pay attention to this...
Incest?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 540
Age : 51
Location : The Edge
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:39 am

Alexi wrote:
Satyr wrote:
Vanya wrote:

Heavens no! It's layered, thick.
A bit too thick.
Racists and bigots and the sad part is that we hide it under thick layers of fake ... atmosphere with optically thick layers of trace gases ... stability of hard coatings composed of nanometer-thick layers ... Polyimide deposition of thick layers ... in thick layers and DQW systems strong uniform magnetic field.
Have I been hiding anything?

What is thicker, still, is that some hide their own racism behind humanitarian bullshit and their ego behind altruistic naiveté.

Then they accuse those that are upfront about it of being "bitter".

Sorry, I can't blind my self to the world, to be like you.

The world speaks of multiplicity, diversity, competition between unequal organisms, struggle, need/suffering.

Cowards speak of escaping into the uniform obliviousness of the unconscious, better, world, where suffering ends, remarkably without life ending, and all is made into one so as to escape the responsibilities and the costs.

Quote :
Quotes are the exact right way to reply to this sort of thing.
And you are good at speaking using another's words.

Quote :
yo! keepin' it real with street philosophy!
If by this you mean pragmatic philosophy, instead of yuor escape into abstraction with no reference to reality, then I'm fine where I am.

You can practise obfuscating your way into pretend intelligence.

Try quoting the Buddha.
When your mind is empty, anyone will do.

Quote :
Yes/no. My first relation to the other is indifference. Far from a confrontation and fight to the death, we don't notice one another. Non-intervention.
what is denial again?
Avoid what you feel you cannot confront.

The flight/fight mechanism at work.

Tell me how Baudrillard is a sexist, implying how well-adjusted, normal and average you are, and then cut him down with a declaration that he is so, unlike you, because he, unlike you, is bitter.
Then use convoluted verbiage to mask it all behind the pretence of independent thinknig and deeper meanings.
Institutionalized.

How pathetic.

Satyr wrote:
Consciousness is rejection.
Yes/no. The will is first freely flowing. Encomberance comes after; "rejection" is not the default at start up.


Quote :
Too critical.
Shall we have the dialectic hug itself?

Dear friend, rejection is multiplicity. It is a moving away from uniformity.
A desire to return to it is a desire to not exist not to be conscious of existing, because you can never stop the process.

Do you hate life that much?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://calicantsar.blogspot.com/
Unreasonable
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

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

PostSubject: Re: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:12 pm

Alexi wrote:
Unreasonable wrote:
Alexi, you should pay attention to this...
Incest?
No, I meant that you should pay attention to the observation: as if anybody can sufficiently/reasonably explain the difference between loving women and girls...

You probably won't find a good argument for it that isn't loaded with feminine emotion. It rests on the denial of beauty & age, with their affects on a woman's body and mind. Perhaps the worst thing you can do to a woman is remind her that she is old, ugly, and always has been brainless. She will have no way to retort except spite.


I would love to see somebody contend this (other than me).
Back to top Go down
View user profile
creasy
Active Idealist
Active Idealist


Number of posts : 75
Registration date : 2008-12-16

PostSubject: Re: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:22 pm

The difference between loving women and girls....

This would be the difference between loving someone your own age or someone younger or older, romantically and sexually, I am assuming.

If you call yourself a man and would find it strange to call yourself a boy and you are attracted to girls and not women there is probably a problem. You are drawn to people who will probably defer to you in ways that have very little to do with who you are. You probably do not feel powerful enough to deal with a woman who has similar amounts of experience.

To me there is avoidance in this. You can create, by being with a much younger person, feeling of control and adequacy that you might not be able to create but would have to work toward with someone your own age. You also always have the 'I know better' card to pull on the younger girl when she doesn't pre-emptively deny the validity of her own opinions in the face of yours.

Men often use women as mirrors to hide from the ugliness they feel in themselves. To have a young attractive face in front of you can make you think you are young and innocent and beautiful. All fine and dandy. But if you can't feel these things with a face in front of you that is the same age
it is the same thing as a boss
or mobster
or politician
who surrounds himself (or herself) with ass kissers and yea sayers.

For some reason you need a mirror that lies.
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: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:37 pm

creasy wrote:
The difference between loving women and girls....

This would be the difference between loving someone your own age or someone younger or older, romantically and sexually, I am assuming.
Sure, why not, let's assume this.


creasy wrote:
If you call yourself a man and would find it strange to call yourself a boy and you are attracted to girls and not women there is probably a problem.
Assumption #1 - You are taking a Social (supraorganism) point-of-view, which I claim to be feminine.

I posit that the Individual male would see no inherent "problem" to his sexual compulsions, outside of sexual deviance, crime, and punishment.


creasy wrote:
You are drawn to people who will probably defer to you in ways that have very little to do with who you are.
Assumption #2 - You are assuming that power relationships cannot be skewed from Younger-to-Older.

Sometimes young girls are more powerful than their male-counterparts (in terms of emotional power & security).


creasy wrote:
You probably do not feel powerful enough to deal with a woman who has similar amounts of experience.
Assumption #3 - You are assuming that "experience" is a positive influence in choosing a mate.

Between males & females, this may not necessarily be the case for one or the other.

Personally, I would rather marry & fuck a virgin than a woman who has been around the block. -- for many reasons.

And it should be commonly known that almost no women are virgins past their teenage years. -- for few reasons.


creasy wrote:
To me there is avoidance in this. You can create, by being with a much younger person, feeling of control and adequacy that you might not be able to create but would have to work toward with someone your own age. You also always have the 'I know better' card to pull on the younger girl when she doesn't pre-emptively deny the validity of her own opinions in the face of yours.
Or, the situation may recede to a biological imperative & context...

Why are virgins, in terms of progeny, valued over sluts & whores? Why is youth, in terms of beauty, valued over age?


creasy wrote:
Men often use women as mirrors to hide from the ugliness they feel in themselves.
I disagree. I say it's the opposite: Women use Men in order to hide from the ugliness they contain inside themselves.

Furthermore, I say that ugliness is not being able to think like a man. (at all)

And everybody may feel free to disagree with me vehemently; it is to be expected.


creasy wrote:
To have a young attractive face in front of you can make you think you are young and innocent and beautiful. All fine and dandy. But if you can't feel these things with a face in front of you that is the same age
it is the same thing as a boss
or mobster
or politician
who surrounds himself (or herself) with ass kissers and yea sayers.

For some reason you need a mirror that lies.
That seems like a generalization to me that does not apply to the points I am intending to make here. Thus, let me rephrase:

Why, when picking a female mate to procreate and engage in marriage with, is a male inclined to choose a "girl" over a "woman"???
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: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:42 pm

Also, "creasy", your #2 and #3 assumptions contradict themselves.

Why would a girl look to the older male for 'power' (#2) when he may not necessarily even have it (#3)? That doesn't even make sense.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
creasy
Active Idealist
Active Idealist


Number of posts : 75
Registration date : 2008-12-16

PostSubject: Re: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:53 pm

Unreasonable wrote:
I posit that the Individual male would see no inherent "problem" to his sexual compulsions, outside of sexual deviance, crime, and punishment.
Some of them certainly would not and do not see a problem there.
Quote :

Assumption #2 - You are assuming that power relationships cannot be skewed from Younger-to-Older.
I am talking about the attraction, what draws the man there and not to women his own age. Sure, it doesn't work, often, and sure many men end up being dumped by these girls or controlled. But in his attraction for the younger rather than those his own age I think there is the avoidance I mentioned.

Quote :
Sometimes young girls are more powerful than their male-counterparts (in terms of emotional power & security).
Agree, but ibid.

Quote :
Assumption #3 - You are assuming that "experience" is a positive influence in choosing a mate.
I'm noticing that he is avoiding it, our hypothetical male. I notice he is choosing someone who has less experience and has a pattern in doing this and is less attracted to people who can meet him on more equal terms.

Quote :
Personally, I would rather marry & fuck a virgin than a woman who has been around the block. -- for many reasons.
Not me. I would rather have sex with someone who can give me pleasure, knows what she likes and is open to other things. I mean if you are a virgin, I can understand the urge to be with someone who is also inexperienced, but if you are experienced - something that does make the sex better - I can't see any reason to want the other person to be inexperienced except for secondary gains that seem like avoidance to me.

Hell, if I'm a good tennis player I don't want to play against someone playing their first time.

I don't want to go hiking or talk about ____________ with someone with little or know ability or knowledge.

If I really care about the person, well, of course. But in the abstract, choosing a partner for pretty much any activity, I want someone who can meet me as an equal. Who will challenge me and teach me, etc.

Quote :
Why are virgins, in terms of progeny, valued over sluts & whores?
Why did people own slaves? I mean we've had some bad habits. Let's get over them.

Quote :
I disagree. I say it's the opposite: Women use Men in order to hide from the ugliness they contain inside themselves.
Sure, that happens too, but it's less based on the visual.


Quote :
Furthermore, I say that ugliness is not being able to think like a man. (at all)
I find it odd then that you think virgins girls are more attractive.

Quote :

That seems like a generalization to me that does not apply to the points I am intending to make here. Thus, let me rephrase:

Why, when picking a female mate to procreate and engage in marriage with, is a male inclined to choose a "girl" over a "woman"???
That is changing. I think more and more men are realizing they want equals. But why have men had this habit? Undealt with fear, overuse of the visual, the need for control, the way sex and love have been chronically split....off the top of my head.
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: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Wed Dec 17, 2008 7:57 pm

creasy wrote:
Some of them certainly would not and do not see a problem there.
Okay, this then begs the question: why girls over women?


creasy wrote:
I am talking about the attraction, what draws the man there and not to women his own age. Sure, it doesn't work, often, and sure many men end up being dumped by these girls or controlled. But in his attraction for the younger rather than those his own age I think there is the avoidance I mentioned.
This begs the question further: why girls over women?

You could contextualize the situation either way: he is attracted to girls; he is avoiding women his own age...


creasy wrote:
Quote :
Sometimes young girls are more powerful than their male-counterparts (in terms of emotional power & security).
Agree, but ibid.
What do you mean, "ibid"? I've never heard of that before.


creasy wrote:
I'm noticing that he is avoiding it, our hypothetical male. I notice he is choosing someone who has less experience and has a pattern in doing this and is less attracted to people who can meet him on more equal terms.
Like I said, he is "avoiding" it also inasmuch as he is "attracted" to the younger female, half-half.

You are wrong about the "equal terms" part; he is after the younger girl because he values her higher than the woman.

He considers himself "equal" to the girl, not the woman. The woman considers herself "greater" than the man and the girl, but is she???

That's what I want to know. Convince me of it.


creasy wrote:
Quote :
Personally, I would rather marry & fuck a virgin than a woman who has been around the block. -- for many reasons.
Not me. I would rather have sex with someone who can give me pleasure, knows what she likes and is open to other things. I mean if you are a virgin, I can understand the urge to be with someone who is also inexperienced, but if you are experienced - something that does make the sex better - I can't see any reason to want the other person to be inexperienced except for secondary gains that seem like avoidance to me.

Hell, if I'm a good tennis player I don't want to play against someone playing their first time.

I don't want to go hiking or talk about ____________ with someone with little or know ability or knowledge.

If I really care about the person, well, of course. But in the abstract, choosing a partner for pretty much any activity, I want someone who can meet me as an equal. Who will challenge me and teach me, etc.
This depends on if you want to "play" with your wife or become her "teach-her". One implies a nearly-equal relationship while the other is rather lob-sided.

Also, with the benefits of no sexually-transmitted diseases, I can nearly guarantee that my (virgin) wife will have no chance of infecting me with a disease or our children. If I plan to marry strictly to procreate children, then I do not see why a slut/whore/concubine/"experienced" woman would be a feasible choice over a virgin girl. Do you see something that I'm missing?

You give me the analogy of playing tennis ... I don't want to play tennis with my wife. I'd rather fuck her so that she bears my children. Other than that, I can play "tennis" with a mistress I keep on the side. Forgive me if I don't see what you're trying to argue here; will you not try again?


creasy wrote:
Why did people own slaves? I mean we've had some bad habits. Let's get over them.
Do you consider virginity a "bad habit"?

That's odd, because I (naturally) consider sexual hedonism a "bad habit". I've always felt repulsed by it in fact, since I was a child.

And my (biological) parents have been married for my whole life. -- coincidence?


creasy wrote:
Quote :
I disagree. I say it's the opposite: Women use Men in order to hide from the ugliness they contain inside themselves.
Sure, that happens too, but it's less based on the visual.
I see that the visual context is paramount to the difference...

Therefore, I don't know what you're necessarily referring to. You'll have to explain...


creasy wrote:
Quote :
Furthermore, I say that ugliness is not being able to think like a man. (at all)
I find it odd then that you think virgins girls are more attractive.
It is odd.

Where do you believe/see/feel/think the divergence of our "preferences" come from? I'd like to hear it in detail.


creasy wrote:
Quote :
That seems like a generalization to me that does not apply to the points I am intending to make here. Thus, let me rephrase:

Why, when picking a female mate to procreate and engage in marriage with, is a male inclined to choose a "girl" over a "woman"???
That is changing. I think more and more men are realizing they want equals. But why have men had this habit? Undealt with fear, overuse of the visual, the need for control, the way sex and love have been chronically split....off the top of my head.
I agree!

I have a different hypothesis though, one that I take from another: here.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
creasy
Active Idealist
Active Idealist


Number of posts : 75
Registration date : 2008-12-16

PostSubject: Re: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:42 pm

Unreasonable wrote:
Okay, this then begs the question: why girls over women?
Well, we are generalizing....I think in general when men go young they are avoiding dealing with themselves in the ways I mentioned above. In this situation we do not simply have an attraction, we have a rejection of same age partners, or a not-choosing of them.

Quote :
You could contextualize the situation either way: he is attracted to girls; he is avoiding women his own age...
No, not really. I certainly can find much younger females attractive, but I have no pattern of getting involved with them. Overall they are much less attractive to me than women close to my age. Once we have a pattern of no being as attracted to females the same age there is an avoidance.

Quote :
What do you mean, "ibid"? I've never heard of that before.
It is sort of a joke, though I've seen it used quite a bit. Ibid is used with footnotes. It means the same book as the last footnote is being cited. In dicussion forums it means 'same as what I just said before.'

Quote :
Like I said, he is "avoiding" it also inasmuch as he is "attracted" to the younger female, half-half.
I like that attracted is in quotes, it seems quasi to me for the reasons I have mentioned above. Look, some guy finds himself attracted and gets involved with a much younger female, well it could just be a good fit. But if someone keeps going young, they are avoiding something. They are rejecting people as old as themselves.

Quote :
You are wrong about the "equal terms" part; he is after the younger girl because he values her higher than the woman.
because of secondary gains. cause he can't hack it with someone who can call him on his shit. cause he can't face his own ugliness or aging or lack of inspiration. because power imbalances are less threatending then actually trying to work things out with an equal. Etc.

Quote :
He considers himself "equal" to the girl, not the woman. The woman considers herself "greater" than the man and the girl, but is she???
I don't think these men actually feel the girls are their equals. Often they feel simply superior. Sometimes they feel inferior superior and they can shuttle around in that imbalance and never find a rest.

Quote :
That's what I want to know. Convince me of it.
The reasons we have our beliefs around these things tend to run very deep. I am very skeptical that some words on the screen are going to change your mind. You've read what I have to say and you will continue to have interactions with women and girls. Either what I have written will resonate with your experiences or help you see certain patterns that were unconscious before or barely conscious

or they won't.

Quote :
This depends on if you want to "play" with your wife or become her "teach-her". One implies a nearly-equal relationship while the other is rather lob-sided.
Again, secondary gains. Getting off on a power or skill that everyone should have at a certain age. A getting off on an imbalance instead of on the relationship.

Quote :
Also, with the benefits of no sexually-transmitted diseases, I can nearly guarantee that my (virgin) wife will have no chance of infecting me with a disease or our children. If I plan to marry strictly to procreate children, then I do not see why a slut/whore/concubine/"experienced" woman would be a feasible choice over a virgin girl. Do you see something that I'm missing?
Well, one thing you are missing is most marriagable women - if you are in the West somewhere who are neither whores nor virgins. You seem to have the virgin whore dichotomy very rigidly scratched in your cranium. You can test for diseases, which, obviously your bride to be should demand of you since you could just as likely pass diseases on to her. Why should the woman accept a whoreman?

Quote :
You give me the analogy of playing tennis ... I don't want to play tennis with my wife. I'd rather fuck her so that she bears my children. Other than that, I can play "tennis" with a mistress I keep on the side. Forgive me if I don't see what you're trying to argue here; will you not try again?
Virgin/whore split. You need to women. Expensive, often. Generally one has to lie. So energy expenditure. Generally the wife knows on some level. Pain for her.

You have decided you cannot get everything from one woman. If you let your wife also have a lover or lovers on the side well that at least is fair. But this judgment that no woman can both play and be the right mother for your children is sad and not true as a generalization.



Quote :
That's odd, because I (naturally) consider sexual hedonism a "bad habit". I've always felt repulsed by it in fact, since I was a child.
So you won't have the mistress on the side, then? So you will not play?

Quote :
And my (biological) parents have been married for my whole life. -- coincidence?
Why don't you show them what you said about having a wife to fuck so she can have your kids and a mistress on the side and see what they think about your ideas.

We can take this up again at a later date. Perhaps you can post after you have your next relationship and see how your experiences fit or don't fit our theories.

I think we are about to go in circles.
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: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:53 pm

creasy wrote:
Well, we are generalizing....I think in general when men go young they are avoiding dealing with themselves in the ways I mentioned above. In this situation we do not simply have an attraction, we have a rejection of same age partners, or a not-choosing of them.
Yes, we are generalizing. I am aware of that. I don't see why you feel the need to mention it, honestly.

I disagree with your reasoning: you are assuming avoidance. I am not necessarily claiming this; you are. Therefore, what I say to you is that the adult man may not be avoiding women at all when it comes to Sexuality. In fact, he may only be making a more natural, primal choice. -- namely he prays on the 'weak', the 'feminine', the 'beautiful'. After all, here in the West, we consider small, skinny, and fragile girls to be Sexy. It practically defines what is "Sexy".

I do not see it as an "avoidance" of other women, merely a push in a different direction...


creasy wrote:
Quote :
You could contextualize the situation either way: he is attracted to girls; he is avoiding women his own age...
No, not really. I certainly can find much younger females attractive, but I have no pattern of getting involved with them. Overall they are much less attractive to me than women close to my age. Once we have a pattern of *not* being as attracted to females the same age there is an avoidance.
If I recall correctly, then you are the one who has been bringing up this notion of "avoidance". -- well stated. What is there to avoid regarding girls versus women? Can it be taboo ... pedophilia?

You say that you have "no pattern of getting involved with them". That's completely fine with me. I don't mind/care. However, you also have stated, paraphrased: you enjoy to see a woman as your 'equal', which I guess means that you see her as close to your own age. But, you are the one who brings about "same age" as if this is what separates girl from "woman". I never did this; you did. You made the assumption. What if I say that a 16-year-old girl may be more mature & intelligent than another "woman" who is 50+ years old?

What I consider a 12-year-old my "equal", then what does that mean (hypothetically)?


creasy wrote:
Quote :
What do you mean, "ibid"? I've never heard of that before.
It is sort of a joke, though I've seen it used quite a bit. Ibid is used with footnotes. It means the same book as the last footnote is being cited. In dicussion forums it means 'same as what I just said before.'
Good to know; thanks for telling me.


creasy wrote:
I like that attracted is in quotes, it seems quasi to me for the reasons I have mentioned above. Look, some guy finds himself attracted and gets involved with a much younger female, well it could just be a good fit. But if someone keeps going young, they are avoiding something. They are rejecting people as old as themselves.
Let me posit/restate my question to you again (since I don't think it's coming across the way I am intending):

If a man is intending to marry in order to procreate with a woman/girl, in order to conceive children, then why should he not pick a "(young, virgin) girl" over a "(mature, non-virgin) woman"?

To me, the question seems rather self-evident. Personally, I would pick the younger, because there is no risk for disease, the woman has not been tainted by another man, and I guess she may be more inclined not to stray from marriage of her own volition. As opposed to the contrary, where are the benefits that an older woman gives this Cause? An older woman will probably have multiple partners (which I define as 'sloven', or slutty/whorish), perhaps erroneously believe that she is "smarter" than the male (through Feminist indoctrination), and will be more difficult to depend on as a wife concerning Traditional values (cooking for me, cleaning for me, etc.). In fact, the only advantage I can see a mature woman having over the young girl is a load of cash to which may raise her child/children that she bears from me...

I mean; I really don't know about all this. Why not just tell me what you think instead of pretending like you have no opinion/authority?


creasy wrote:
because of secondary gains. cause he can't hack it with someone who can call him on his shit. cause he can't face his own ugliness or aging or lack of inspiration. because power imbalances are less threatending then actually trying to work things out with an equal. Etc.
I don't know what you mean by "secondary gains".

And I disagree with the rest...

I do not believe that a man would pick a younger female to mate with because "he can't hack it with someone who can call him on his shit", "face his own ugliness or aging or lack of inspiration", "power imbalances are less threatening then actually trying to work things out with an equal". None of that makes sense to me.

In fact, I contend this: he pursues her, because she is his equal! If the defining Purpose of sex is to procreate, then I don't see why he would pursue an old hag versus a young woman, qualitatively-speaking. That just doesn't make sense to me. I'm asking for your help here to clarify all this to me.

I implore you to make me see things clearly!


creasy wrote:
I don't think these men actually feel the girls are their equals. Often they feel simply superior. Sometimes they feel inferior superior and they can shuttle around in that imbalance and never find a rest.
That may be true, granted. However, what about the circumstances where they consider young girls their 'equal'?


creasy wrote:
The reasons we have our beliefs around these things tend to run very deep. I am very skeptical that some words on the screen are going to change your mind. You've read what I have to say and you will continue to have interactions with women and girls. Either what I have written will resonate with your experiences or help you see certain patterns that were unconscious before or barely conscious

or they won't.
You are wrong to assume otherwise; the words will change my mind. I am listening right now...

Convince me. I will remember what you are saying and apply it to my life. I know I will.


creasy wrote:
Again, secondary gains. Getting off on a power or skill that everyone should have at a certain age. A getting off on an imbalance instead of on the relationship.
I disagree with this reasoning.

I'm 25-years-old and when I look at people, everybody, including my own parents, they remind me of children or babies regarding their intellects.

It is actually very haunting. Therefore, I should not assume that a woman is my better no matter her age. The reasoning is thus defeated.


creasy wrote:
Well, one thing you are missing is most marriagable women - if you are in the West somewhere who are neither whores nor virgins. You seem to have the virgin whore dichotomy very rigidly scratched in your cranium. You can test for diseases, which, obviously your bride to be should demand of you since you could just as likely pass diseases on to her. Why should the woman accept a whoreman?
I disagree about the West. Girls/women here seem to be only virgins/whores to me; perhaps that's just my biased outlook on life... (oh well)

And I do not contend that a woman should accept a "whoreman". I never did and I never would. My personal convictions are that men & women should be married virgins if they are to be legally considered to successfully reproduce/procreate. If they fall outside of this paradigm, then I believe the State should sterilize them for life. (And I would be willing to include myself into this picture as a male to be sterilized if the laws were put into place, since I have already made the mistake in life of losing my virginity before marriage.)


creasy wrote:
Virgin/whore split. You need to women. Expensive, often. Generally one has to lie. So energy expenditure. Generally the wife knows on some level. Pain for her.

You have decided you cannot get everything from one woman. If you let your wife also have a lover or lovers on the side well that at least is fair. But this judgment that no woman can both play and be the right mother for your children is sad and not true as a generalization.
I disagree when I consider the whole of Western Morality, which contains a great deal of truths that go unsaid in Amerika.

Much of religion actually has a lot of usefulness to it when people remove the slandering of it. Wives are meant for bearing children. Whores/sluts are meant for hedonistic pleasure, aka "sex" or "fucking".


creasy wrote:
So you won't have the mistress on the side, then? So you will not play?
I may not. I am merely stating that it is my natural compulsion to want to play.

I want to fuck every girl/woman/thing on this planet; it doesn't mean I will. Sacrifices must be made if you plan to procreate.

If you don't procreate, then how can Society/Culture possibly contain your desires to do whatever you want?

You would have no Reason to live. You'd probably become a terrorist.


creasy wrote:
Why don't you show them what you said about having a wife to fuck so she can have your kids and a mistress on the side and see what they think about your ideas.
I already know what they think about it; they are repulsed by it. -- just like all people are repulsed to hear the Truth of Things.

I am not apologizing for the truth. And, just to remind you, just because I want something to be true doesn't mean it will become true.

You would be ignoring the context to which I value certain things over others, namely, fidelity over infidelity ... if we are talking about me here, personally.

(which I don't really care to do except to make points, by the way)


creasy wrote:
We can take this up again at a later date. Perhaps you can post after you have your next relationship and see how your experiences fit or don't fit our theories.

I think we are about to go in circles.
Come now; don't run away!

This just started to get interesting!

Sad

Laughing
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Alexi
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Number of posts : 84
Location : Paris suburbs
Registration date : 2008-12-15

PostSubject: Re: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 am

Satyr wrote:
Alexi wrote:
Satyr wrote:
Vanya wrote:

Heavens no! It's layered, thick.
A bit too thick.
Racists and bigots and the sad part is that we hide it under thick layers of fake ... atmosphere with optically thick layers of trace gases ... stability of hard coatings composed of nanometer-thick layers ... Polyimide deposition of thick layers ... in thick layers and DQW systems strong uniform magnetic field.
Have I been hiding anything?

What is thicker, still, is that some hide their own racism behind humanitarian bullshit and their ego behind altruistic naiveté.

Then they accuse those that are upfront about it of being "bitter".

Sorry, I can't blind my self to the world, to be like you.

The world speaks of multiplicity, diversity, competition between unequal organisms, struggle, need/suffering.

Cowards speak of escaping into the uniform obliviousness of the unconscious, better, world, where suffering ends, remarkably without life ending, and all is made into one so as to escape the responsibilities and the costs.
That's better.

"An interesting example of a reaction formation is one displayed by men who are afraid of any sign of softness, which they equate with femininity, in their make-up. They try to cover-up their feminine tendencies by being especially hard and masculine. As a result they become caricatures of masculinity...."

Calvin Hall, 1956
Freudian Psychology


Calvin is one dry writer, yet he sneaks in those puns; he never misses a chance to point out when man "erects" a defense, or "penetrates" his ego.

The Racists and bigots... is merely the first five lines on Google where "thick layers" appears. The artist's intent always shows through even in his lorem ipsum.

Satyr wrote:
Try quoting the Buddha.
It works out the same. En français, в русском, 한국어에서...
_________________

creasy wrote:
Hell, if I'm a good tennis player I don't want to play against someone playing their first time.
That's fine if sex is a ready-made for you; but original sex is always for the first time, always between the inexperienced.

Unreasonable wrote:
You are wrong about the "equal terms" part; he is after the younger girl because he values her higher than the woman.

He considers himself "equal" to the girl, not the woman. The woman considers herself "greater" than the man and the girl, but is she???
creasy, he already has someone equal to himself: himself.

creasy wrote:
Once we have a pattern of no being as attracted to females the same age there is an avoidance.
Why avoid females not your age? What is the dread about them for you? What is the origin of this compartmentalized fetish for you?

creasy wrote:
whore
Don't use that word, or I'll have to explain to you why.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 540
Age : 51
Location : The Edge
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Thu Dec 18, 2008 6:20 am

Alexi wrote:

That's better.

"An interesting example of a reaction formation is one displayed by men who are afraid of any sign of softness, which they equate with femininity, in their make-up. They try to cover-up their feminine tendencies by being especially hard and masculine. As a result they become caricatures of masculinity...."

Calvin Hall, 1956
Freudian Psychology
Then the same can be said of the reverse action.
Those defending softness wish to shelter it from being taken advantage of or express it as a way of finding help, support, advice, commonality.

Quote :
Calvin is one dry writer, yet he sneaks in those puns; he never misses a chance to point out when man "erects" a defense, or "penetrates" his ego.
This is particularly interesting when one considers that feminine traits are promoted as a social ideal and so any display of masculinity, even if it is not exaggerated and hyper-masculinity, has to be shamed or embarrassed into softness so as to respect this feminine from being taken advantage of.

This repression, sometimes unconscious, as in the example where all masculinity is made into a caricature if it does not adhere to the feminine ideals, is a way of censoring, controlling suppressing.
This, in turn, has the exaggerated, reactive effect, of hyper-masculine displays which are caricatures and so reinforce the repression by making it look ridiculous.

Softness must be promoted because it is more malleable and so useful to the system. Less resistance more harmony.

And so feminized, emasculated males can either go the direction of hyper-masculine displays or they can fall back on ridiculing what has been pressured out of their consciousness - the emasculate man, feeling ashamed by the comparison must belittle, laugh at and further shame, so as to mask his own, the masculine ideals.

Good job!!!


Quote :
The Racists and bigots... is merely the first five lines on Google where "thick layers" appears. The artist's intent always shows through even in his lorem ipsum.
And this is a good example of what I am saying.

Here the association of racist with bigot achieves this desire to shame it into silence.

We can say that there's the racist that just hates the other for being different and is a bigot in that he cannot tolerate the different and then we can include into this the racist that simply points out that there are racial differences, that are more than skin deep or that there is no difference between mental and physical diversities, but is tolerant of differences and does not advocate, in any way violence or the mistreatment of anyone.

This too is a censoring mechanism that is similar to opinions being labelled as conspiracy theories so as to dismiss them by shaming them with their inclusion amongst such things as Big Foot sightings and U.F.O. abductions.

lol!
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://calicantsar.blogspot.com/
Alexi
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Number of posts : 84
Location : Paris suburbs
Registration date : 2008-12-15

PostSubject: Re: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Thu Dec 18, 2008 6:56 am

Satyr wrote:
... lol!

Let me think about all that.

This is what I was meaning to say to you and creasy; when, say, a bear and a tiger meet in the woods, they do not immediately attack one another. On the contrary, they back away and make themselves scarce. This is why a city is walls. Compartmentalization is avoidance and denial of conflict. The lion and the lamb lay down together.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 540
Age : 51
Location : The Edge
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   Thu Dec 18, 2008 8:02 am

Alexi wrote:
Satyr wrote:
... lol!

Let me think about all that.

This is what I was meaning to say to you and creasy; when, say, a bear and a tiger meet in the woods, they do not immediately attack one another. On the contrary, they back away and make themselves scarce. This is why a city is walls. Compartmentalization is avoidance and denial of conflict. The lion and the lamb lay down together.
Wrong.
The lion and tiger avoid each other so as to not get hurt; to avoid testing themselves against what they are not sure they can defeat and also what they cannot eat.

They come across a lamb, it's dinner time!!!

Now are you as sheep or a tiger, because I am a wolf and we come in packs?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://calicantsar.blogspot.com/
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world   

Back to top Go down
 
Simulacra and Girl-love, the little world
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 5Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Girl from Myanmar (Burma) has 12 Fingers + 14 toes... a brand new Guinness World Record!
» Hadeeth 40 : The World is the Means and the Sowing-Field for Attaining the Hereafter
» Swami vivekanantha, in World parliament of Religion , America chicaco , 1893
» HOW MUCH DO YOU LOVE ME?
» Abdul Sattar Edhi - A world popular Social Worker

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