You only prefer people who agree with you to explore their appreciation of the opposite sex? Your contempt for imposing “an impossible standard,” i.e. for having a particular aesthetic sense, is especially ironic given that you follow it up with your own: “This is what a real woman looks like.”
Someone’s appreciation of the opposite sex does not have to extend to every example of a person in the class of women, or in the class of men. The point of this thread is to narrow down something in particular that is admirable in women. Exploring this kind of admiration is what artists have done for thousands of years…so condemn all the poets and all the painters who have painted a particular image of a woman…condemn it all as sexism.
When Erik is in the realm of make believe he is quite at home and his mythologizing of “a real woman” is myth making with humor. Hehe
But Lev, where did you come from (and I don’t mean country) accepts/understands “a real woman” basically for who she is, her essence, the most crucial element and very few of us have time to “smell the roses”.
The eternal-feminine has to do mainly with nature, abstractions, and poetry - as opposed to women in of themselves, though they, without a doubt, are part of it.
And just because you are a virtueless gold-digger, that doesn’t mean THAT ( what you are ) is what a true woman is. I know it must be hard for you to admit that, but honesty is of the essence.
Cut the crap, Shield Maiden. You were trolling. Don’t lie; honesty is of the essence, remember?
I know that women desire security, and money provides that, but when that becomes the sole factor of what a " real man " is, it becomes base. Imagine me claiming that a real woman is one who cooks me dinner on command and swallows my cum after a blow job. You see? We are not mere animals; we have the capability to be virtuous, etc, etc.
I’m assuming that you were deriding this thread, because you perceive it to be romantic-idealist or too fantastical.
You are under the impression that it is always the man who is able to provide monetary security? I don’t think so.
Money does not provide that security singularly. Usually where money is involved, security is absent. Money, a lot of money, does curious things to people. Ugly things.
It is far more desirable to have security on a deeper level, than dollars and cents.
Your comment about it “becomes base”, I think, derives from your own thoughts about “not having money” and equating it somehow with the shame of.
Remember those statements you made about how alpha-males are economic powerhouses and that loser betas are romantic-idealists?
Money provides shelter, food, luxury, power, etc. It’s a requisite for relationships. No money = no woman. But, in my opinion, when it becomes only about money, that’s when base animality comes into play.
So, would you mind explaining your initial post on this thread about how I was mythologizing women?
You said something of that sort, on KT, I believe. It was more like " While romantics fantasize about x,y and z - the rich alpha male is getting all the women…".
It didn’t bother me; I’m just recalling what you stated and applying it to the context of this current discussion of ours.
Yes - I’m not trying to shame women for desiring men, who can provide economic security, buttttt when that becomes the only factor, then it becomes despicable. Okay, well you seem to be diverging from the old statements of yours, I vaguely remember, so let’s address what you were insinuating in your initial post on this thread, no?
From what you write, women to you are more of a muse than a reality.
For example. There is beauty and certainly eternal femininity in child birth, in bearing down, grunting, woman at her most vulnerable, oblivious to everything, intent on getting that body separate from her own.
When you are present for this, you may understand life at its “rawest” moments are perhaps the most beautiful.
