The Feminization of Man

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Moderator: Uccisore

The Feminization of Man

Postby Lollipop King » Sat Apr 23, 2005 3:20 am

Disclaimer:
It is obvious that any differences between males and females are subtle and a matter of degree not of substance. Even sexual organs find their corresponding parts expressed in different manners in each of the sexes; a male penis can be found in women as a clitoris, a woman's ovaries found in males as testicles and so on. Whatever differences there are between males and females they are slight when compared to the vast similarities shared by belonging to the same species.

Despite this, the alterations in character and psychology caused by hormonal and genetic phenomena that differentiate males from females are enough to become discernible even to the fiercest advocate of human equality. A male nipple may be worthless to a man but a matter of grave importance to a woman.

Those of us acquainted with Chaos Theory are aware that even slight effects can have huge consequences when projected in time and space.
Furthermore the terms female and male are not restricted to strictly gender descriptions but will be used, here, as a state of being or becoming that may be used to describe both men and women. So it will be clear that there are men with female dispositions and women with male ones even though the majority of us will express the characteristics and psychological leanings of their own gender more often than not.
[I am not only referring to homosexuality here but to a state of mind and a psychological type]

Many will accuse me of generalizing, for this is the favorite defense of those seeking to find an escape from insulting or hurtful premises they cannot contradict directly, but I will remind them that any exception to the rule only serves to prove the existence of a rule.

If it were not so then science itself would be impossible and specific studies would have to be conducted for each and every individual alive on any given time. There would have to be a science focused entirely on me, one on you and every category and label would be absurd and meaningless.

Yet general patterns and characteristics are what man uses to create knowledge and understanding. Through the general assessment of phenomena, and by keeping into consideration that they do not fully express the subtle degrees by which each diverges from the general rule and the overtly exceptional circumstances that sometimes lead to a complete non-adherence to a general law, man creates comprehension that benefit him by allowing him to construct strategies. Even exceptions to rules follow their own rules of exception and chaos and randomness may only be human prejudices caused by the incomprehensibility or complexity of the rules themselves.

But more than all this, the following critical analysis of man and woman in social contexts are based on my personal observations and deductions and will not be defended using popular beliefs, political-correctness, scientific studies, or any third-party sources even if this is also is possible.

It is clear that one can find a study defending most perspectives making the studies themselves and the way they are conducted questionable.
Those dependent on the assessment of others, to create personal beliefs, inadvertently expose their weaknesses and limitations.

In areas where direct observation is impossible a reliance on second-hand accounts is understandable, but in areas where personal experience is possible and sensual awareness is feasible a personal assessment, is often, more preferable and constructive.

Philosophy isn't a mere repetition of past hypothesis or a reassessment of previous theories; it is an exchange of critical thoughts and personal analysis. It is normal to be guided and influenced by the work of others but to completely become dependent on them and to mimic or imitate them only reveals our own quality in comparison.

What follows is my perspective, based on my personal experiences and observations, using my senses and mental faculties.
Any similarities with those of others are coincidental or the effect of influence not of plagiarism.

Any contradiction of popular scientific or other common beliefs is understandable and irrelevant.

You cannot judge the accuracy of an idea by its popularity but by the strength of its argument, the supporting evidence and the ordered reasonable manner by which it is presented.

I will expect nobody to take my word for anything or to simply agree with me; I actually expect scepticism and personal supporting or contradicting observations to prove or disprove the precision of my opinions.

This entire following text is meant to promote free-thinking and personal intellectual effort and to encourage debate and individual awareness that may promote choices and free-will.

It is normal that the subject of males and females and of sex in general, is going to raise some controversy given the central role sexuality plays in human existence and given the popular sentiments of our western, "modern" world. But my intent is to insight thought and debate, not anger and self-hate.

When and if it does result in insecurity, fear, resentment and feelings of inadequacy it is unfortunate but natural, when considering the pitiful state of the human condition and our modern world of delusion and illusion.

To dismiss me as being a sexist, a male chauvinist or one suffering from some mental or psychological ailment or sexual dysfunction is to not deal with the subject at hand but on my apparent human imperfections upon which much speculation can be dedicated. But I remind you that by using this easy strategy of slander and insult any and every human idea can be dismissed since all human ideas are the products of imperfect human minds with imperfect psychologies and imperfect senses.

The only way to fight an idea is with another idea and before one deals with the human imperfections that lead to a supposed imperfect idea, the idea itself must first be shown to be wanting.

One must also keep in mind the constantly changing moral standards and popular beliefs that may make some ideas shocking in one time and in one culture and a matter of common sense in another time and culture.

One must also keep in mind that modern or recent or future or popular does not always mean better or superior. Evolution Theory has shown us that genetic alterations often answer to changing environments and make some mutations into advantages while making others disadvantages. The label of superior or inferior is dictated by the environmental demands of a specific time and place. Nevertheless mans still searches for transcending truths and superiorities to deal with the constant flux.

It is my hope that my own attempts to uncover myths and ailing ideologies should help in this search for power and purpose in a universe where man has neither.



Prologue

The levelling of man continues.

Centuries of social engineering and "civilization" have led to a type of human being unlike our ancestor and, still to this day, socialization persists to filter out all the "unwanted" human characteristics, altering, in this way, human nature and degenerating, in my opinion, the human spirit into indistinct oblivion.

There is no conspiracy here, no invisible entity directing things from the shadows. We might even say that the process is natural and the consequence of a normal social progression that started in the tribal unit and has resulted in the emergence of a huge socioeconomic machine, with its own logic and interest, assimilating, conforming, levelling and eradicating everything in its path. We might also say that this natural process has its roots in human physical disadvantage causing psychological insecurity that makes the cooperation of individual beings a forced necessity.

But this degradation of man, besides being a typical consequence of interdependence and socialization that demands a certain sacrificing of individuality for the sake of survival, has been exacerbated by the infiltration of slavish moral systems into a human psyche that has already been demoralized and undermined by extreme scepticism and mental fatigue, in the intellectual elites, and by interbreeding between a growing intellectual subclass and a continuously diluted intellectual upper-class that finds itself incapable to resist social and religious pressures and socioeconomic prerequisites.

A fundamental characteristic of weakness, as a concept, is its willingness to sacrifice a part of itself to save its entirety. Weakness is furthermore characterized by its inconspicuousness, its ability to blend and vanish into the multitude, its non-confrontational incorporation into more powerful entities, its expandability, its commonness, its malleability, its reliability and willingness [when conscious] to conform and adapt. The "If you can't beat them join them" strategy is one most often practiced in nature and in our universe; what cannot survive on its own inevitably either perishes or winds up as a part of something bigger and stronger, by means of consumption, via having its parts absorbed, or assimilation, via having its parts conformed. It is this transcending fundamental principle that is primarily responsible for the constant state of flux and fluidity, we experience as change and time, and which characterizes our state of being and our perspective of reality.

Man, as an isolated individual being outside any group, is certainly a weak creature when compared with other beasts, making his cooperation with others of his kind a requirement and his participation within unions of need, a matter of survival. But despite mans physical weaknesses he possesses the gift of intelligence, self-awareness and abstract thought that can lead to an alteration of environmental conditions and the revolutionary redefinition of what is weak and what is strong within them.

This human "gift" that can take advantage of external resources, through the application of the imagination and the utilization of mans providential opposing thumbs, has produced the need for social units of vast scale and intricacy and has resulted in the added need for an adaptation to human environments that have replaced or surpassed the importance of natural ones. In addition to this, human psychological insecurity and physical frailty has imposed the need to armor mans feebleness with technological artifices that place a wall between man and his true spirit and distances man from himself and from nature entirely, by means of self-contained artificial systems.

This artificial wall is the source of mans current sense of separation and feeling of uneasiness that is expressed through the arts and through politics as the Demonization of technology and the machines we've created but that now we've come to serve. Machines and the machinery of modern social existence, in fact, function as our surrogate targets of hate, anxiety and fear in place of the real culprit of human enslavement: modern society, religion and culture, that engulf us in this unconscious, invisible matrix of artificiality and superficiality in order that we may serve its requirements by undermining our individuality, our personality and our uniqueness while, in true Orwellian newspeak, they claim to do the opposite. As this civilization engine grows its parts lose value by becoming expendable, disposable and reproducible and man becomes an insignificant wheel in a huge engine.

Like with all closed systems, a social system has its own methods and mechanisms by which it meets its needs and creates environments and participants that ensure its continuance and health. In doing so each system replaces or mutates past systems and refocuses and redefines their premises.

In human culture and civilization the struggle between the present and the past environmental demands upon the individual result in great psychological strain and in sometimes contradictory behaviors which is contained by the usage of intimidation tactics, such as religious dogma and the rule of law, or diverted and defused through educational institutions, the entertainment industry and political or theological ideologies.

By trying to replace or restrict the influence of past natural environmental affects upon man, by promoting human characteristics that are desirable and restricting those that are detrimental to the social or cultural group's premises, each system reshapes its parts into particular types, ideal for the given group's fitness.

We can witness this affect on human behavior by studying the specific types created by different cultures throughout history and in how each utilizes or utilized sexuality, human nature and psychology through institutions and moral codes in similar manners but with distinctly different orientations and dissimilar results. All human cultures may use familiar methods for parallel reasons but each has a noticeably different motivation leading to diverging human ideals, guided by each cultures ethical standards and value systems inherited, through time, from ancestral backgrounds, historical experiences and philosophical/ideological pasts.

In cultures where paternalistic dominance is still prevalent, such as in the Middle-East and India [And only until recently in the west], social engineering is still controlled by males that are governed by their particular cultural perspectives and it is facilitated by the supremacy of religious dogma, by existing totalitarian political systems and by the subjugation of females to the cultures demands.

In the west, where centuries of world domination and due to its contamination by Judeo-Christian ethical systems and altruistic ideologies that were the product of a slavish resentment of all things superior and because of a general decadence caused by attrition and complacency, the paternalistic system has eroded enough to make egalitarian impoverishment and spiritual degradation possible.

Democracy is the result of weariness, caused by the constant conflict and uncertainty of previous political systems, and the natural consequence of population explosions that enabled individuals, of questionable quality, to unite and achieve political relevance through the strength of numbers; it is also the expected result of increasing demands for resources, caused by a prospering civilization, shrinking spaces and a human psychological predisposition for peace and stability.

This social circumstance, caused paradoxically by the very natural tendencies that eventually become dangerous and unwanted {survival, dominance, control, violence, selfishness, arrogance, procreation, power; all sexual male drives} unleashed upon the world by the unburdening of the human mind from matters of immediate survival through prosperity and from primitive religious myths and superstitions through intellectual enlightenment, lead to a western world dominion that exponentially increased populations and the accompanying need for resources and made it necessary to then suppress these very same instinctive drives in order to maintain stability and social harmony.

This trend towards larger and more malleable populations, existing within smaller spaces and dwindling resources, has made egalitarian, servile moralities essential and vital.

The more complacent, unaware and gullible a population is the more governable and controllable it becomes. It is therefore understandable why unsettling ideas must be quarantined and eradicated, why free thought must be restricted and why defiance and uniqueness must be controlled and punished as an example to be avoided before it becomes one to be emulated.

In our modern western world this dummying-up of the masses has resulted in populations that, despite their relative affluence, learning access and general prosperity, display the apathy, ignorance and naivete of the less fortunate in third-world countries.

The complete indoctrination of man into artificial [manmade] environments, sometimes demanding behaviors contrary to more primitive natural ones, has moreover been facilitated by the gradual diminution of man through unnatural sexual selection, re-education and the slow eradication of the, before mentioned, human characteristics that made man a natural dominator and a survivor in a threatening universe.
It is derisive that the very intellectual superiority that resulted in human dominion is also contemporary society's greatest foe, that must be controlled and even narrowed, and the very male spiritual attitude that knelt to no natural demand and accepted no holy authority is now to be atrophied and warped.

In the west socialization, population control and mind manipulation has taken a distinguishing subtle, subliminal and indirect approach, to maintain the illusion of free-will and individuality, upon which all of western culture is based, and unlike the more direct and obvious controlling practices in other cultures, it is more difficult to always perceive where and how we have been manipulated into thinking and behaving in certain ways. For many the current state of affairs, in the western world, is taken to be the epitome of human achievement, the height of human development and the worthy successor of a cultural revolution that began on the rocky Aegean shores of ancient Greece and has reached for the distant Martian plateaus in our time, but they neglect to consider the true spirit of this ancient stance towards life and only judge it from its superficial constructs and external facades. The Hellenic spiritual revolution, which we now call western civilization, was not an external one where great monuments are built in the Egyptian style or where man is judged by his external creations [Although even this is a part of it, it is not the goal] or his discipline to greater forces, the true spirit of western thought was in how it perceived the individual, mans place in the universe and in how it judged mans value and potential.

Evidence of how western ideals have been mutated and subverted through time is in how we at present perceive the world around us and from where we accept our own self-worth and meaning.

For instance, many of us in the west, influenced by marketing practices from an early age, find it obvious that certain product name-brands are associated with a particular ideal and that the acquisition of certain material products and the image constructed to go along with them, is of the utmost importance and relevance and the means by which we advertise and express our own self-worth and quality to the world.

Owning a BMW or a Mercedes or a Versace or a Rolex, is how we exhibit our social status, as capable consumers, and attract others, especially females, to our genetic potency dictated, in this case, not by natural symbolism but by a socioeconomic one, we have been sold on, and guided by an ideal, we have accepted as our highest. The quality of the products we own and consume must supposedly symbolize our personal quality, whether it is present or not.

But why these particular products of human ingenuity, no different than many others, are associated with a specific image and why, is for most of us unrecognizable and just a matter of "common sense" that is mostly undisputed. Yet here we can find evidence of how we have been manipulated into believing that mercantile quality is equal or a fair substitute for substantive quality and external objects can fill in for an inner void.

The current popularity of spirituality and the rediscovery of past spiritualism, particularly amongst urban populations where the distance between man and nature is the greatest and where the fruits of mans labour are mostly of an impersonal nature, is a symptom of this systematic, capitalistic redefinition of value and self-worth that serves the socioeconomic system by forcing a continuing striving for materialistic acquisitions, which in-turn drives modern economies, and maintains a constant state of tentative hopefulness for material wealth, that is supposed to be the ultimate answer to boredom, meaninglessness and misery, and keeps the masses working and dreaming despite the odds being stacked against them and the overall interests of the system itself to preserve the status quo of class disparity.

Most of us do not question the ideals of our chosen value system but only discipline ourselves to its premises and, in true female fashion, we become simple mirrors of the world around us.

Material wealth, that was meant to symbolize the quality of an individual by his access to resources in a natural system, has now come to symbolize, not only the physical or mental excellence that leads to abundance but the total obedience and compliance of said individual to a larger whole that is rewarded with superficial riches for his/her submission.

In a system where materialism prevails, consumerism reigns and where the preservation of already acquired status is desired, wealth is most often inherited than earned and when earned it is frequently at the price of an entire lifetimes toil making the enjoyment of the consequent privileges, once again, a matter of heritage for later generations that can never fully appreciate what they themselves have not earned and therefore do not deserve.

Here we can also find the causes for the current generational gap and the roots of this recent pampered undisciplined naiveté and unmerited over-expectation of western urban youths that has resulted in them not respecting or valuing anything, including their very selves.

This obsession with materialism, particularly in the west, has come at the expense of all other human endeavours and, serving the demands of a particular system, has resulted in a loss of human identity, spirituality and natural interconnectedness. We no longer relate to each other as thinking, feeling human beings connected with all of creation intimately but we relate to each other as consuming owners, protective maintainers of that which we own and covet and egotistical misers that take the things that they buy to be what defines them as individual human beings.

The very concept of possession, that results in affluence and privilege and through which all modern civilization is made possible, is based upon a myth, the myth of ownership. In nature there is no real ownership, not even life is truly owned by an individual but is only "leased", metaphorically speaking, and temporarily enjoyed. In the end all must be returned to the primordial soup from which new creations will spring forth and new unions will take place. Reality is a work in progress with no final destination making the very idea of ownership a ridiculous farce.

Like all man-made concepts it, ownership, suffers from the desire to usurp natural rules, for practical and psychological reasons, and so requires a remoulding of human nature.

Man is forced to redefine his place in the universe in order to overcome his physical and mental weaknesses by taking advantage of the power of numbers, and in so doing loses the intimacy and interconnectedness of existing according to his true individual spirit.

Modern man has lost his/her pride in himself and in his/her true nature and, now, substitutes the cavernous emptiness in his/her soul with matter of dubious certainty, titles and affairs of outer origin and thusly forever detaches personal value from the self. Even the personal names man associates himself with become a generic stamp shared by many that possess no intimate relation to personal becoming; Tom, Dick and Harry just non-specific labels of non-distinctness that can be easily replaced by a simple number representing a statistic; Mary, Susan and Helen names saying nothing about the individual besides her participation within a particular cultural and religious group.

[Family names although more unique and specific suffer from the same impersonality since they merely reveal an individuals cultural, religious, national heritage, never chosen but imposed, and a genetic bloodline but say little more about the actual person they supposedly label]

Modern man is more likely to find self-worth and self-importance in external sources than internal ones as he desperately seeks for a connection with his real nature and searches for evidence of his real identity. This, in my view, is due to the steady decline of man as an individual personality, which makes it obligatory to substitute personal quality with an adopted external facade of quality that can be shared by multiple individuals who inevitably begin thinking and behaving in imitation of each other. We call this pop-culture in North-America.

The methods by which man is shaped and sculpted in social environments contain natural instinctive drives and man-made imaginative institutional inventions that either take advantage of aforesaid drives or totally subvert and suppress them.

One of these human inclinations, that are blatantly manipulated, is the sexual instinct.

The fundamental human compulsion is to mate and to procreate. This biological standard of personal success is still in man, despite his self-asserted evolution beyond primitiveness, the major source of acquiring his self-meaning. It is also the means by which the natural system, the original system of human emergence, has controlled and shaped our behaviors in the past and still maintains a dominant grip on our psyche in the present.

Because of this, sexuality is the major motivating factor behind all human actions and creations. We may say that mankind is obsessed with sex and procreation because mankind is constantly preoccupied by his own mortality, making life merely a constant struggle against death.

Sex is the central focus of all individual thought, whether we know it or not, and it plays an important part in how man is guided and molded, not only by nature, but by culture and civilization that now uses and mutates it to its advantage.

In this game of sexuality, played by mortal beings, the basic participants of male and female archetypes [Keeping in mind that there might be other gender types in our universe] are elemental and worth analyzing further, for it is through this interrelation and dance of sexuality that man comes to be and his quality and nature is determined.


Female Archetype
To say that women are the weaker sex is to not do justice to their entire natural role and it ignores the true power women possess within social groups where, like all individual weakness, it procures strength through numbers and finds safety in groups.

In fact a woman's place within a social group is a privileged one, as we will see further on, and it has been mans intervention and imposition of authoritarian, paternalistic sociopolitical systems that has stripped women of the full extent of their power, as expressed through female sexual choice and the feminine unobtrusive mirroring of cultural norms, by subjugating them to cultural and religious dogmas that inhibit natural mechanisms and corrupts human instincts.

Left to her natural devises, a woman plays the part of genetic "gatekeeper" and social "filter" that propagates the ideals and values of a group and weeds out unwanted physical, mental, social, cultural, religious or psychological traits.

In natural environments a woman's sexual choices are guided by natural motivations, in social/economic/cultural/religious environments a woman's sexual choice is further complicated by other considerations that battle with the preexisting natural ones for domination.

Through a woman's choice, and how this choice is focused and determined by natural inclinations and social upbringings, a woman acts as an instrument of selectivity that dictates the future of mankind and his destiny.

This ‘gatekeeper, filter role is made possible by the female's two basic characteristics:
Social Dependence
A woman is nothing outside a group. Her entire self-worth and value is derived through her participation and her position within a group; her entire self-worth is derived by how desirable and appealing she becomes to the opposite sex and, as a consequence, in how she becomes a willing and capable social and cultural tool. She finds purpose in how effectively she can be used as an instrument and a means to an end.

As such her power is achieved in how well she understands, manipulates, is assimilated, conforms and reflects the morals, values and virtues of the group she participates in and in how close to a physical aesthetic ideal she reaches that exposes her fertility and genetic history.

A woman, in essence, has no real individuality but plays any part she deems is attractive and necessary to achieve her goal of belonging and reproducing.

It is noteworthy that in marital unions it is mostly the woman that is asked to change families, adopt a new clan and the name that goes along with it or is forced to change her religious and cultural life and rarely is it the man that is expected to do so unless he has been sufficiently emasculated and deprived of his unique identity and personality.

Unlike a man, a woman does not fully carry the tag of her genetic history but can be traded and swapped between different clans or tribes or cultures like a valuable commodity; a practice she submits to, willingly and easily due to her temperament.

A man, reversely, is forever associated with his original national, racial, tribal or cultural identity and is forever a representative of his creed since he can only function as a reproducer of his own kind.

A female is a social chameleon that mirrors the colors of her surroundings and blends into the background with little or no distinctive quality. In fact, her success is determined by how thoroughly she takes on the characteristics of the ideal female role of her immediate environment and in how successfully she reproduces the ideals and ideas of her group.

In this willingness to accept unquestioningly and completely any dominant power and finding in her "belonging" her highest achievement, women become the tools of indoctrination and genetic engineering.

Sexual Selection
A woman possesses the most valuable and desirable part of an ephemeral human existence; she produces and controls the human ovum which ensures and directs the propagation of the species and decides its destiny.

Where men can produce billions of sperm in a lifetime and impregnate thousands of women, women produce, in comparison, a scant amount of eggs and can only gestate a minimal amount of offspring in the course of a lifetime.

Through her sexual selectivity she ensures the continuance of specific traits and characteristics while it condemns others to eventual extinction. In her mind a woman believes she is making a logical, free-willed choice based on well thought out reasons and/or personal tastes, when she chooses a mate; in fact she is merely following her genetic drive, her instinctive motivations and her cultures prejudiced virtues.

It is this female ovum that males fight to control and to inseminate and through this control to ensure their own continuance. This is one of the fundamental principles of evolutionary mechanics.

It is therefore a woman's aesthetic appeal that reveals her physical health, her fertility and her mental faculties to bear and raise capable, fit offspring. It is this physical appeal that men find irresistible and makes their devotion and sacrifices towards women possible, it is also through this physical appeal and the ends to which men will go to acquire access to a healthy ovum, that women achieve their highest power through and the means by which they manage to control men of often higher metal and physical strength than themselves.

These two female powers, if left unhindered by male intervention elevate women to a privileged position of social strength as a valuable asset.
The female propensity to willingly and completely adopt the value systems she finds herself in and in her overall control over who she will be impregnated by makes her a custodian of social conformity and a tool of genetic manipulation.

But a woman's choice isn't as easy as it first may appear. If she isn't a part of a culture where her choice is taken away or restricted by male dominance, she is further troubled by two forces battling over her attentions:

1}Intellectually, and if sufficiently indoctrinated within a cultural framework, she is pulled to the socially acceptable and upwardly mobile male who, like her, has adopted and completely conformed to the social/cultural/religious norm and by doing this has ensured his social success giving him access to resources restricted to the lawful and socially disciplined.

These resources are essential for women that are forced to live through a long gestation period, making them more helpless than they would normally be, and a following infant maturation process that takes decades and capital to be considered a success.

2}Physically and instinctually she is still bound to her genetic predispositions and still instinctually attracted to the archetypical male ideal, who through his natural inclinations may appear violent, vulgar, arrogant, proud, confrontational, and unyielding when judged according to our modern standards but valuable within smaller groups where individual traits become more decisive, when compared to the more effeminate, docile, socially indoctrinated, tolerant and passive modern male, that is most valued within larger populations where individual traits and talents are less decisive.

In many species the male has been completely eradicated from the social group and only plays a provisional role of inseminator; then being destroyed to preserve the more controllable, submissive, female, maternal, socially stable environment [Ants, bees, termites, wasps etc.].

Interesting also that where female dominance reigns, such as in the before mentioned species, an absence of individual personality and instinctive mindlessness is the prevailing characteristic.

The previously mentioned two female sexual considerations are what play a part in the misunderstanding and incomprehensibility of women to the average male that cannot reconcile what women say and what they often do in contradiction to what they say. It is the cause of this supposed female
"mystique" caused also by a general male indifference, as to the inner workings of a female mind that gives women an advantage considering their insatiable appetite for the inner workings of a males mind.

A woman's superiority can be found in how she establishes and maintains relationships and in her practical application of knowledge and experiences.

It isn't, so much, that women are smarter than men when it comes to psychology and social relationships but that they devote more of their brainpower and time to these concerns. It is for this reason that females develop faster and acquire better communication skills early on. The quickness by which she reaches child-bearing maturity makes her relevant and her skill in linguistic expression and understanding allows her to evaluate the underlying social mechanics and her methods of adapting to them which establishes her position and social value.

But the total devotion of a female mind to the immediately perceptible and practical gives them an added advantage in social matters. A woman is subconsciously adept in understanding body language and in interpreting psychological states through the perception of external details and subliminal messages. They call this: "woman's intuition".

She is always a step ahead of males in picking up and interpreting the minutiae of physical information, freely given off by all of us, that are needed by her to read personalities, qualities and interpersonal relationships and power struggles. Her total commitment to appearances also makes her superficial and completely uninterested or unaware of abstract concepts or underlying realities.

Male Archetype
A man's role within a social group is a more precarious one.
He is both expendable and an intrinsic part of the health of the whole; he can be a definer of what it means to be human or be a mere failed attempt at it; he can be the determiner of greatness or a symbol of degradation; he can be a leader and guider of a group or relegated to a peripheral role; he can be the goal or the error.

The demands upon the male intellect, because of the aforementioned, are greater than in females; he must be flexible and stringent, disciplined and free-willed, strong and compassionate, proud and humble in a balance dictated by the form of the group he wishes to become a successful, respected leader of and the environment he is forced to exist within.

A mans mind is divided between the necessary perception of appearances and the need to find advantage by evaluating and perceiving the non-perceptible, through the abstract.

If a woman is the buyer of genetic potential then a man is inevitably the seller and as such possesses the creativity, imagination, mental flexibility and abstract thinking of one that must consistently prove his value to the whole in order to ensure his relevance and importance.

But these necessary characteristics of a successful male are also the source of his natural domination and the eventual control over the forces of nature that resulted in the restriction of female sexual power and made women servants to male reason.

For males women are only a means to an end and hold no interest to them beyond this, a fact many women use to their advantage, if they recognize it as such.

A mans natural inclination is to inseminate as many females as he possibly can and then guide them and his offspring with his strength and power into copies of himself; modern day practices of man as caretaker and homemaker is the direct result of mans feminization where he has submitted to authorities more powerful than himself and accepted a certain mode of behavior that is expected from him while contradictory to his inclinations.

The male type is governed by his need to control, to possess, and to be independent and self-reliant; he is a natural sceptic and adversary of all that binds him, restricts him or attempts to dominate him. It is this unyielding, courageous male attitude that has lead to human dominion over nature and to mankind's unquestionable success and has opened up frontiers for human exploitation. Ironically it is also this success that has made maleness expendable and unwanted within growing social systems where a more disciplinable, humble, demure, malleable type is more desirable.

Where there is uncertainty and fear, males become intrinsic, where there is safety and predictability males become detrimental to harmony and uniformity. Where there are un-chartered frontiers and unconquered worlds, men become vital, where there is un-inquisitiveness and limitations imposed upon human action and thought, men become dangerous and obtrusive.

Unlike women, men are not just born into value and importance by just being a member of their gender but must earn any respect and privilege or perish in the effort. It is this that drives men to higher and higher levels of mental and physical perfection and has stretched human existence to such an extent that it now threatens to separate him from his roots and through this stretching has thinned out his spirit.

It is this creativity that is harnessed by modern societies by making all men investors in them by allowing them to procreate. An accomplishment achieved, by the way, by the subjugation of women.

Man himself is responsible for the condition of his species, since women will go along with any moral or spiritual decision that dominates the minds of men, and because of this he becomes the creator of his own demise.
Is the male archetype a primitive expression of the human condition destined to become extinct or marginalized? That remains to be seen, but one thing is for certain, where maleness is extinguished so is the spark of individuality, creativity, personality and un-harnessed potentiality.


Sexual Attraction
The game of sexual attraction is an intricate dance of flirtation and insinuation that hides a deeper practical motivation.
Steven W. Gangstad PhD said on the matter
"Flirting is a negotiation process that takes place after there has been initial attraction."

For women the game of sexual attraction has additional complications and considerations; for her the implications and consequences of a sexual relationship will have far reaching results for her and her progeny that makes her decision making a more complicated one.

Her natural instinctive inclinations, as I’ve already stated, attract her to the archetypical male. The physical and mental strength that will be inherited, through her, by her offspring, makes these natural attributes precious and irresistible to her. But the further consideration of being impregnated by a male with access to material resources, that will make her long gestation comfortable and the following years of infant rearing successful, is essential to a female's choice.

In natural environments the physical and mental prowess of a male went hand-in-hand with his resourcefulness and his access to the essentials whereas in our modern world this is rarely the case.

In a modern social environment access to resources and material wealth is mostly accessible to males of a conforming predisposition that have been assimilated within the cultural frameworks and adopted the ideals and values of their environment. This female predisposition has enabled most males to pay the precious price [time and effort] of social ascension to reach goals given to them by external sources without question or hesitation and has facilitated their assimilation and subjugation to a stronger entity [that of society] as women do. This is more evident in crucial position of social status such as political posts or positions through which information and therefore indoctrination is disseminated, such as the media. Here we can see the promotion of individuals that more closely mirror the ideology of the governing elite or the morality and value systems of the power centers acquiring quick access to positions of power and influence and rewarded with affluence and privilege as a consequence, whereas those diverging from the status quo or exhibiting any free-thought are conspicuously left behind, eradicated or ignored.

Furthermore, the demands of social progression exact such a high price on the individual male as to make any dedication to physical and mental development, impossible or rare. Men and women are so stressed and occupied with daily concerns of economic survival, consumerism and economic ascension that the ‘self’, the only thing that truly matters, is neglected.

In modern social environments where physicality and intellectual power is not as relevant to survival and where, inversely, it is a female psychology and easy indoctrination that enables success, the sexual choice demanded from women is made even more difficult.

Her femaleness is still fascinated by maleness and all the attributes that go along with it but from a practical point of view, she must take into consideration her mates social status, wealth and conventionality as to ensure the well-being of her future offspring.

A further aspect of the sexual attraction game that sheds some light on how female choice is made and what romantic love is many times based on, is, what I call, the bad-boy factor.

The Bad-Boy Factor
It is well known that confidence is a very attractive attribute, especially for males, but few really comprehend why this is so.
The founding principle of confidence is indifference to specific particulars and a poise derived by the certainty that eventual success is attainable in the general.

For example, when attempting to find a job confidence is derived by the self-assurance that a job will be found eventually despite any particular, specific failures, whereas non-confidence is based on the desperation of being dependant on the acquisition of a single, particular job position which becomes exaggerated in significance. This confidence, in turn, gets translated to physical composure, mental focus and efficiency of movement which desperation, through panic and anxiety, lacks.

That confidence rests on a foundation of indifference may be a difficult concept to accept, especially in matters of sexual intimacy where love, compassion, trust, respect and dependence are considered to be the romantic ideal, but nevertheless I believe evidence abounds as to its veracity. The bad-boy factor is a case in point.

It is evident, to all that understand the characteristics of the bad-boy, that the brash, swaggering and often abusive confidence, that makes them irresistible to females, is rooted in a general indifference caused by an overabundance of sexual options. For certain men, that can have their pick of women, the specific individual woman becomes irrelevant, making them confident and arrogant enough to display their true male character and individual personality with little regard as to the consequences.

Confidence and independence also expresses an abundance of choice caused by access to superfluous resources that makes a specific supply of marginal importance.

For females, that are genetically predisposed to seek out resources and genetic health, this aspect of maleness becomes attractive because it also reveals a males marketability and desirability. When a male has multiple sexual options then he must be an asset worth considering, when he has limited choices then his obsession with a particular female, far from remaining flattering, becomes unattractive and even repulsive.

This will also explain the phenomenon of adultery where males that are married or attached somehow become more attractive to females just because they are taken by other females and it sheds some light into the phenomenon where women remain in often abusive relationships.

It is ironic that women find men attractive that are relatively indifferent to them specifically and find men unappealing that are infatuated with them specifically [The "nice guy" they want to remain friends with].

It is also noteworthy, that in a more general application of the indifference rule, that we become more successful in the things we do not really need, desire or obsess over and less so in the things we badly yearn for. Life itself, when the matter of death is overcome and a general indifference to mortality is achieved, becomes more enjoyable and rewarding but when we frantically deny death and find clever ways to ensure immortality through religion, we display the desperation and anxious strain that restricts life and limits our existence.

To not care does not mean to not value but it does mean to be independent from. This independence displays itself in confidence, pride, self-reliance and contentment that others will perceive intuitively, and wishing to share in it, will be inevitably attracted to.

Epilogue

Given, the before mentioned gender archetypes, it is relatively clear that the "perfect" type for social participation is the feminine one. The female, with her instinctual need to belong and to maintain cohesion and harmony, with her complete reliance on external reflections for self-realization and her willing and total adaptation to shared ideals and ideas, makes her the ideal type for large social environments such as found in modern civilizations and nation-states.

The male, on the other hand, with his independent, uncompromising individuality, rebelliousness, imaginative creativity and prideful psychology makes him more ideal for smaller social groups where individual personality and distinctiveness plays a more important role in group survival.

It is therefore not surprising that distinctly female traits are idolized and the human mind is inseminated with the female ideal in our present day world of mounting populations and diminishing resources.

Where peace and stability are of the utmost importance, being female or feminine is an obvious advantage.

But beyond this social influence and cultural prejudiced leanings, women as sexually selective powers become the guarantors that the socially acceptable human characteristics that are rewarded with privileged positions of social status, will also be rewarded by their reproduction in future generations by selecting males that exhibit the right mixture of female and male predispositions, even if instinctively and physically they are still more attracted to the more "primitive" male archetype.

The gradual extinction of the male started in the human species when human physical weakness forced man to evolve social sensitivities in order to improve survival odds. It was later speeded up through genetic degradation which resulted in fatigue and a psychological ineptness to accept nature, and her cruel ways, as the order of things, leading to a general disillusionment with life and existence, as expressed through nihilistic religions in the east and in philosophical nihilism in the west.

Socrates was the first, well known, victim of this trend and the culminating focal point of Hellenic degradation. The final blow was struck when the western body, weakened by centuries of decadence and comfort [due to unforeseen success] was eventually infected with the moral/ethical systems of a people condemned, by history and chance, to be outcasts and the slaves of more powerful civilizations. The attraction to this slavish moral system to the unfortunate growing masses of the underprivileged, multiplying consistently due to mans survival superiority, domination over nature and past spiritual nobility, is understandable. Along with it came egalitarianism, complacency and uniformity caused by the numerical superiority of the weak and the intellectual and spiritual fatigue of the strong caused, in turn, by the unceasing struggle and the stifling effects of exaggerated intellectual scepticism.

In more recent times, in the west, with the emancipation of women, the role of maleness and manhood has been further diminished. We see signs of a western hermaphroditization in the changing aesthetic male ideal physical form as promoted by popular culture. The slim build and the adolescent, almost girlish, look, the hairless torso all reveal the feminization of manhood; the emergence of homosexuality, once a source of social stigmatization, as a viable life choice alternative, a cute, amusing quirk of nature awaiting its own emancipation also reveals the feminization of man and the drift to his eventual extinction. In nature any display of homosexuality is one of dominance and not of affection or sexual attraction. Many have taken this natural display of authority as evidence for the "normalcy" of homoeroticism.

We must remember that nature is efficient and nothing exists without a purpose, or else it atrophies and disappears like the human appendix or a muscle that is never used. It is then perplexing why homosexuality would exist in nature, since it has no purpose and the act of sexual interaction, existing to facilitate propagation, would be practiced between members of the same gender.

In truth homosexuality is a distinctly human mutation and an extreme result of human male degradation.

Female emancipation that resulted in the flattening of gender differences is now followed by a drive towards homosexual emancipation, where male/female distinction will be further eroded making gender roles and gender divisions of no relevance.

Mankind is on the road to a hermaphroditic existence where procreation will be conducted in test-tubes and sex will become a matter of entertainment with little spiritual or procreative significance.
The levelling of man continues.
Last edited by Lollipop King on Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lecter, Hannibal wrote:Now you're being rude, and I hate rude people.
User avatar
Lollipop King
Feminized
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Sugar Factory

Postby Colinsign » Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:00 pm

In the essays you say homosexuality has "emerged"! homosexuality has been catalotgued in every culture pretty much since time began!
The man that cannot visualize a horse galloping on a tomato is an idiot~Andre Breton~

Many a clever boy is flogged into a dunce and many an original composition corrected into mediocrity- Sir Walter Scott

Who has the courage to go into the dark places where there is nothing but feeling? - Thomas A. Clark

I'm a hyper-survivalist: when I walk past a Cemetery I hold my breath - Gamer

the difference between a madman and a professional is that a pro does as well as he can within what he has set out to do and a madman does exceptionally well at what he can't help doing. - Charles Bukowski

For everything that is hidden will eventually be brought into the open and every secret should be brought to the light anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand - Mark 4:22-23

Image
User avatar
Colinsign
Irrationalist
 
Posts: 1770
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:21 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby Colinsign » Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:02 pm

Furthermore, do you think this levelling of man is - good/bad?

If homosexuality is a mutation - does that necessarily make is "unncessary" -
is mutation synomymous with EVIL?

Could homosexual and the levelling of man not be part of the process - of a more intimate race, not necessarily sexually, but subjectively, interpersonally?
The man that cannot visualize a horse galloping on a tomato is an idiot~Andre Breton~

Many a clever boy is flogged into a dunce and many an original composition corrected into mediocrity- Sir Walter Scott

Who has the courage to go into the dark places where there is nothing but feeling? - Thomas A. Clark

I'm a hyper-survivalist: when I walk past a Cemetery I hold my breath - Gamer

the difference between a madman and a professional is that a pro does as well as he can within what he has set out to do and a madman does exceptionally well at what he can't help doing. - Charles Bukowski

For everything that is hidden will eventually be brought into the open and every secret should be brought to the light anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand - Mark 4:22-23

Image
User avatar
Colinsign
Irrationalist
 
Posts: 1770
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:21 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby zenofeller » Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:38 pm

i won't read all that, but i'll chip in that i do tend to despise most males i know for their utter lack of balls/guts. so who knows, he might be even right
zenofeller
Banned
 
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:43 pm

Postby detrop » Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:37 am

In the essays you say homosexuality has "emerged"! homosexuality has been catalotgued in every culture pretty much since time began!


Back in those days homosexuality was an aesthetic practice and it evolved from the indignation of women as mentally and physically inferior to men. They are, mind you, but this indignation was of a psychological import rather than its appropriate physical import. Men flattered themselves by devoting their sexual activities to one another, keeping women for reproduction only. Sex, for them, was divided into the aesthetic, as an artistic and hedonistic expression, and as a means to reproduce. The women did not deserve the pleasure of sex for its own sake, and sex as a pleasure was exercised between men. This, I believe, is a decent explaination for the few cases of homosexuality.

Today, a new kind of homosexuality has emerged, being the result of role displacement. "Gender" is no longer a physical designation, it has become a psychological 'mentality' resulting from consumerism and a lack of physical stature due to increased technological advancements.

A 'man' is no longer determined by his rivalry to the 'woman' because a woman can do, today, what a man can do. A larger percentage of masculinity was maintained not only by the evident physcial gender differences, but also by the tasks which only the man could perform. Another percentage of masculinity was lost by the disintegration of physical prowess and cunning. Men, today, are on average weak, over-weight, cowardly, and gullible. This is in part a result of consumerism; life has become easier and role distinctions are no longer identifiable or even necessary.

The difference between the homosexuality of the Greeks, for example, and the homosexuality of the modern world, is that the role of the female, through her power of sexual domination, has turned the tables. Today, rather than the woman being reduced to an 'object for reproduction only,' the man has been reduced to an object of subordination for the female. The female, by aquiring the new inferior male, allows sex to happen rather than submitting to the males original dictation and ruling of sexual activities. This has happened simply because men are degenerating into weaklings while women are becoming more capable of performing tasks which, at one time, only the man could do.

The woman sets up a competative element between man and man. The men who do not succeed in impressing the women become gay, normally partners to other inferior men. The men who win the female become the slave to the womans dominance. As Zappa once put it: "men will do anything to get some pussy...and that's why the woman always had control over the man."

The other side of this coin is here. There is also a competative field between women. Those ugly women who cannot attract a male victim become homosexual as well. The game plays in both directions.

Observe the mannerisms of the gay man and woman. Generally speaking, each of them mimics the opposite sex; the lesbians 'act' masculine, the gay men 'act' feminine. This is the displacement of the original roles, lost in the mix of consumerism and technology, and sexes become "played" rather than exhibited.

do you think this levelling of man is - good/bad?


As Satyr mentioned, it is inevitable. I would say it is bad. Eventually the human race will self-destruct because of over-population, disease, Capitalism and its exhausting the resources of the planet. Meanwhile, genders will become obsolete as reproduction will be orchestrated by technology and biological reproduction will no longer be necessary. I can even imagine that the human genome will become 'sexless' and males and females will unify into one impotent gender. Sex might once again become an entertainment and not a necessity. That is, if we still have our sexual organs.

If homosexuality is a mutation - does that necessarily make is "unncessary" -
is mutation synomymous with EVIL?


Evolution occurs through mutations, but mutations are, ironically, advancements in growth. Only if homosexuality is genetic, which I don't think it is, could it be considered a 'bad' mutation because it would threaten the imperative dynamic of reproduction for the species.

There is no need to make the evaluation "evil" here. In fact, "evil" has its origins in religion and is not a moral value in itself. There is no such thing as 'evil,' better yet, its etymological origins are irrelevent to the appropriate ethical evaluations necessary to identify 'good' and 'bad' conditions.

Could homosexual and the levelling of man not be part of the process - of a more intimate race, not necessarily sexually, but subjectively, interpersonally?


Explain further, Colinsign. I'm not sure what you are intending here.
detrop
"ist" wannabe
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:08 pm

Postby Dr.Satanical » Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:52 am

Evolution occurs through mutations, but mutations are, ironically, advancements in growth. Only if homosexuality is genetic, which I don't think it is, could it be considered a 'bad' mutation because it would threaten the imperative dynamic of reproduction for the species.

The crux of your argument....
Shame it is ridiculous.
Your 'bad mutation' would never be passed on, homosexuals do not reproduce. If homosexuality is genetic the so called 'bad' gene would never have the chance to replicate.
Eventually the 'bad gene' would be eradicated.
This line of logic is what lead me to the opinion that homosexuallity is not genetic.

but seriously, detrop..have you ever examined the source of your hatred for homos?
Or are you worried about what you might find? ;)

Test Everything. Believe Nothing.

There is no meaning but what you make.

Sodomy And Lust.
User avatar
Dr.Satanical
Social Darwinist
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:28 am
Location: The great Canadian southwest.

Postby detrop » Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:06 am

The crux of your argument....
Shame it is ridiculous.


Pay attention, Damien. Your rebuttle is a redundancy.

A 'bad' mutation is one that stops the process. I made that clear.

Am I gay? Certainly not. However I love my brothers unlike I will never love a woman. Perhaps it is you who finds it hard to embrace a brother or pat his ass during a football game.

You look cute in that cheesy dragon shirt you got from Wal-Mart, though. If I were gay, I'd do 'ya.
detrop
"ist" wannabe
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:08 pm

Postby Lollipop King » Sat Jul 23, 2005 4:17 am

Wow, I see this subject has been reawakened, somewhat.

Colinsign
Furthermore, do you think this levelling of man is - good/bad?
It all depends on if you are judging it from an individual or a species perspective and on what your ideals are.

There is no “good/bad”, only preferences based on personal tastes, character, experiences and ideals.

If homosexuality is a mutation - does that necessarily make is "unncessary" -
is mutation synomymous with EVIL?
Where exactly did I use the term “evil” in relation to homosexuality?

I would say that bestiality isn’t inherently “evil” either, but if the right cultural alterations occur, it might become a norm or acceptable or even a virtue.

Killing another human being isn’t “evil” or “good", from a natural perspective, as well, yet it is considered a sin and even disgusting and disturbing in today’s western Judeo-Christian world.
The sinful label of murder and of theft and of many other social no-no’s serves a systemic function and is nothing more than a rule that has been raised up to the level of an ethical code.

I would say that homosexuality from an evolutionary, natural point of view is unproductive, superfluous and a genetic dead-end.
It is only sustainable as a viable alternative in a world of technological methods and where sex is becoming redundant and used for entertainment or where it is merely a dying psychological remnant of a bygone age and which hasn’t been evolved out of our genetic makeup yet.

As a consequence sexuality has become blurred and interchangeable. Sex has ceased to have a mystical character - or even a serious one - and has now been slowly degraded down to mechanics and whimsical entertainment.

Could homosexual and the levelling of man not be part of the process - of a more intimate race, not necessarily sexually, but subjectively, interpersonally?
It all depends on what you mean by “intimate” or if this is even possible between distinct entities with conscious minds burdened with an added self-consciousness.

An ant colony is primarily female and one can say their un-individualistic, undiscriminating, harmonious union is a sort of homosexual unity.

We can say that the cells in our body coexist in complete harmonious union and that this is possible through the total annihilation of difference and through the elimination of individual choice; is that the type of future you envisage for humanity?
Lecter, Hannibal wrote:Now you're being rude, and I hate rude people.
User avatar
Lollipop King
Feminized
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Sugar Factory

Postby km2_33 » Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:31 am

Satyr wrote:I would say that homosexuality from an evolutionary, natural point of view is unproductive, superfluous and a genetic dead-end.

1. Homosexuality does not need to be (re-)productive because homosexuals are part of the larger human reproductive mechanism
(Some other sections of human society that don't reproduce are: single people, ill people, infertile people, No Kids Couples, handicapped people, etc.)


The non reproductive sections benefit from the reproduction of others while adding different benefits to the 'breeders' in exchange.

Evolution often works like a free market economy where people input their strengths (abilities) and withdraw their needs (weaknesses). In systems like this, nobody does everything; mutation and specialisation is the evolutionary key. Everything is based on practical exchanges.



2 I don’t know what you mean by 'homosexuality from an evolutionary, natural point of view…. is ….superfluous’?
Do you mean from an evolutionary, natural point of view homosexuality is unnecessary? i.e. not needed? If so, your vision is amazingly narrow.


Evolution is a very complex system and with modern humans, it's even more complex.

For instance, imagine our world without some of the gay people below:
Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Alexander the Great, Oscar Wilde, William Burrows, Michel Foucault, Marcel Proust, Tchaikaovsky, Andy Warhol, John Maynard Keynes, Nureyev. Plato, Alan Turing (first computer machine/WWII code breaker) Wittgenstein and many, many more.

These people can not be called ‘superfluous.’ Many of them are the very founders of key areas we call ‘civilization’ like culture, philosophy, economics and science. If homosexuality ceased to exist, so too will the original insights the homosexual mind is capable of producing.

The most important part of human evolution is NOT the ability to reproduce -- bacteria can reproduce (and look where it is). The most important component of human evolution is the human mind. Whether the human mind is gay, straight, black, white or belongs to an infertile, unmarried old lesbian makes no difference. The meme is as important as the gene.

What homosexuals have added to the development of the human species is far from 'superfluous'.
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face.... It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” G W Bush

Why do they hate us? It's the injustice, stupid

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

"If justice and righteousness perish, human life would no longer have any value in the world" - Immanuel Kant - Science of Right.
User avatar
km2_33
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2019
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:45 pm
Location: Sydney OZ

Postby Lollipop King » Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:13 pm

km2_33
1. Homosexuality does not need to be (re-)productive because homosexuals are part of the larger human reproductive mechanism
(Some other sections of human society that don't reproduce are: single people, ill people, infertile people, No Kids Couples, handicapped people, etc.)

Firstly, describe how homosexuality facilitates reproduction.

Secondly, ‘singlehood’ is a cultural construct and not a natural state.
Being single is only possible in relation to a cultural norm which has made marriage an artificial norm.

Thirdly, the ill and the handicapped within which we can correctly include homosexuality or any divergence or mutation that goes against health, are superfluous from a natural perspective.
The fact that they are tolerated in our present society is due to multiple reasons, many of which I’ve mentioned in my original essay, but here are some of them again:

1- Superfluity, excess and luxury are only possible in environments of abundance. Within such environments toleration is possible because it doesn’t threaten immediate survival and so the unproductive and the unessential are produced through wealth. Decadence is the final stage of such abundance.
2- Technology is making sex, and as a by-product gender, superfluous. Copulation is, presently, not the only method of reproduction and if we can imagine a near future where cloning and artificial insemination progress, the act itself will be relegated to a primitive remnant of a bygone age. Also with the advent of contraceptives the act of sex has ceased to have much significance. As a consequence sex has lost its weightiness and severity. It is now practiced as a physical release and a psychological need, which also serves as a social bonding mechanism. Eventually these functions will diminish in time as well. Sex is now a means for entertainment and its past mystical character, as a way of producing life nonetheless, and its spiritual qualities are devalued. This is how alternative sexual practices and life-styles are gaining acceptance and ‘normality’. In a world where sex does not necessarily lead to life and where it has become a pastime, a hedonistic tool or a preference and in a world where other methods can be used to reproduce sex and sexuality ceases to mean anything. Male/female labels diminish as relevant and especially the concept of maleness becomes obsolete.
3- The present system itself is dependant upon resources, and human beings are another resource. The maintenance and growth of a system, particularly when it exceeds a certain natural limit as ours has, demands a reinterpretation or a breaking of the original natural rules that made it possible, in the first place. As such the system creates its own ideals and its own rules, which are promoted and enforced through mechanisms which include religious and institutional authority. Law and order, and morality are two ways by which the individuals, or the parts of the whole, become indoctrinated within a framework of acceptable and unacceptable behaviours. Because of this systemic requirement, particularly in the west, for growth and stability based on access to resources, imitation and conformity are raised as virtues, while still maintaining the illusions of individuality which have not yet been cleansed out of our species psychological makeup, consumerism is promoted as an emblem of contentment and extreme thoughtless risk taking is presented as an ideal to be strived for, ethics play the part of keeping harmony, law punishes all that threatens the stability of the whole and punishes all expressions of disregard for cultural norms, life, and the hypothetical respect for human life especially, becomes a sacred concept to be protected by the systems institutions and by religious dogma and in the process diminishing the value of life itself.

Evolution often works like a free market economy where people input their strengths (abilities) and withdraw their needs (weaknesses). In systems like this, nobody does everything; mutation and specialisation is the evolutionary key. Everything is based on practical exchanges.
In other words evolution diminishes the individual and promotes larger, higher unities.

The act of offering “strengths” and withdrawing “weaknesses” is the act of ‘plugging into the system’ and becoming indiscernible from it and totally dependant on it.

For instance, imagine our world without some of the gay people below:
Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Alexander the Great, Oscar Wilde, William Burrows, Michel Foucault, Marcel Proust, Tchaikaovsky, Andy Warhol, John Maynard Keynes, Nureyev. Plato, Alan Turing (first computer machine/WWII code breaker) Wittgenstein and many, many more.
I won’t speak for all of them but Wittgenstein I’m not sure was homosexual. He was more asexual.
Michel Foucault, as well, had a low opinion of sex in general so we cannot say his thinking is a derivative of his sexuality but despite it.
But anyways.

As for Alexander the Great!!!! and Plato!!! You fail to take into account the cultural settings within which these two figures lived in.
One can say that homosexual practices were popular within the Aristocracy of later day ancient Greece and this because of multiple reasons and especially as a sign of decline and decadence.
Are we then to say that all Greeks were homosexual or all upper-class Greeks were so?

It was customary for a teacher to teach all aspects of life to a student, back then, and this included sex. Also they did not have our Judeo-Christian sexual hang-ups about intercourse.
This, however, does not denote a preference or a homosexual inclination.
Homosexuality denotes a preference and an exclusive attraction for members of ones own sex as sexual partners.
This cannot be said to be the case for Plato or Alexander.

We can say that these ancient Hellenes were more ephivophiles [love of youth and adolescence] than homosexuals.

But that’s not the point.
We aren’t talking about these individuals here from a sexual perspective.
When we speak about homosexuality we are focusing our attentions on individuals from a sexual perspective and so we infer what productive elements are derived from this particular characteristic.
When we speak of an individual who is creative and talented we are talking about those aspects of him/her and we are not concerned as to what they prefer to fuck.

It can be said that heterosexuality is productive since it leads to an outcome.
Where does homosexuality lead to?

Sex, in nature, exists for a specific, simple reason: Reproduction.
It only has added functions because of social reasons which divert the original intent.

From a genetic perspective homosexuals are a dead end, even if they might be helpful or productive as thinkers or artists or workers or whatever.
So homosexuality per se is superfluous and is only tolerated because of the before mentioned reasons and because the individual within society, if he is not disruptive or overly free-thinking, offers other productive qualities which are more essential to the group or culture.

The fact that homosexuality coincides with the general trend towards a more docile, passive, unchallenging male makes it all the more tolerable to the present system and to the culture, since it serves the ‘Feminization’ process or perhaps it is a symptom of it.

If homosexuality ceased to exist, so too will the original insights the homosexual mind is capable of producing.
You mean, like yours, right?

The most important part of human evolution is NOT the ability to reproduce -- bacteria can reproduce (and look where it is). The most important component of human evolution is the human mind. Whether the human mind is gay, straight, black, white or belongs to an infertile, unmarried old lesbian makes no difference. The meme is as important as the gene.
I agree.
Lecter, Hannibal wrote:Now you're being rude, and I hate rude people.
User avatar
Lollipop King
Feminized
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Sugar Factory

Postby GateControlTheory » Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:32 pm

The woman sets up a competative element between man and man. The men who do not succeed in impressing the women become gay, normally partners to other inferior men.


While I agree with the first sentence (there is much research, and many fine arguments that employ the idea of evolution to support this) doesn't it seem more likely, in practice, that if a male cannot impress female X he will simply settle for female Y (who herself is simply settling for him, as she lacks the means or traits to garner attention from more 'impressive' males).

Also, as far as the aesthetic appeal of homosexual intercourse, couldn't it also be argued that in the ancient world the practice of an older male adopting a younger male as a lover was done not for reasons of aesthetics (solely) but also contained with it a relationship underpinned by political power? In other words, by agreeing to homosexual intercourse, a younger male was not just gaining an older lover, but also a mentor and a provider of future political power? Is that not what Plato has Socrates basically argue, from which we derive the idea of Platonic love, being intimate friendship free from intercourse?
Kids, don't try this at home.

"You guys just sit here thinking you're so smart, but you merely take a long time to say essentially nothing."

-Ade
User avatar
GateControlTheory
Level 31 Philosopher
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 3:17 am

Postby detrop » Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:14 pm

GCT,

not for reasons of aesthetics (solely) but also contained with it a relationship underpinned by political power?


I think Satyr's comment here explains:

Homosexuality denotes a preference and an exclusive attraction for members of ones own sex as sexual partners.


I wouldn't doubt that sex as a means to something else has been around since the dawn of civilization. But sex for its own sake, that's how I think one can identify a true heterosexual. A real, and dare I say 'normal,' sexual attraction affects us physically. In other words, its pretty realistic to say that a man who gets an erection in the presence of a hot woman, and not in the presence of another man, is a safe heterosexual, or at least bi-sexual. But getting an erection in the presence of the same gender wouldn't happen unless that person was conditioned psychologically through a period of time.

What should be under scrutiny here is a question of physiology. How does the homosexual's hormone regulation differ from a heterosexual's? Is there an identifiable physical characteristic, or is the erection triggered in the homosexual a psychological and intentional event?

I think that unless there is a "gay" gene it will remain a mystery.

Another interesting way to look at it is like this. Ask a heterosexual man why he just doesn't masturbate if sexual pleasure is only physical. Its much easier, right? Well then there shouldn't be a sex drive in a male who has the opportunity to masturbate. He wouldn't still seek out women, unless he wanted to mate of provide a service. Sex for its own sake is in question here. So then there must be a psychological urge to have sex and not just a physcial response to a sexual stimulus...like a hot woman. If a man didn't want to mate, didn't want to provide a service, and could masturbate, the logistics say that he would.

So some degree of the bio-psycho-sex-drive can be conditioned externally and therefore sexuality is not a completely genetic product. Men have been raised to "be attracted to women," while also having 'normal' horomone levels.

Its hard to tell. There's a big grey area here. Maybe that's the essential question that modern neurology and psychology is trying to determine.

But yeah, I wouldn't doubt that sex was used as a political means at all. Giving pleasure has always been a service I suppose.

[edited recently "..man who gets.."]
Last edited by detrop on Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
detrop
"ist" wannabe
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:08 pm

Postby detrop » Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:41 pm

While I agree with the first sentence (there is much research, and many fine arguments that employ the idea of evolution to support this) doesn't it seem more likely, in practice, that if a male cannot impress female X he will simply settle for female Y (who herself is simply settling for him, as she lacks the means or traits to garner attention from more 'impressive' males).


Good point, GCT. Didn't John Nash handle that one? Governing dynamics and game theory, perhaps. I don't know the details but I have an understanding of the gist. What I believe is that although there will be as much mating, just as your point indicates, as unattractive or more 'feminine' men will, well, settle for less, where is the quality in that? Are not more and more men becoming mundane and mediocre? Are not more women losing their grace and beauty?

The balance maintained, or the governing dynamics, work out averages that prevent any sudden major change, such as the human species becoming extinct through a rise in homosexuality. But this moderation is only that, a moderation, and the type begins to decline because to compensate for the loss of heterosexual relationships, men become either gay or decadent, being attracted to, and attracting, mediocre women.

So if we look at this wholistically we might be able to say that homosexuality is indeed 'normal,' given the fact that it could either be a genetic defect, psychological condition, or natural reflex of the species during some kind of quality control or self-extinction process.

Let me say this in a conclusion. I'm not saying that the general case of homosexuality is any evidence that men only turn gay because they feel inferior to women, or that because women have become more masculine. But, like I said in Colinsigns Cock-Dude thread, there are many individual cases that involve that very logic. One needs merely to work from the other direction; if men were more masculine on average, there would be less cases of homosexuality in general. How about that?

And another thing. There shouldn't be any mediocre women. Women are the most important counter-part to men. When one loses its quality so does the other, and the whole things begins to look like a Jerry Springer show.
detrop
"ist" wannabe
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:08 pm

Postby Lollipop King » Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:27 pm

There is also an interesting side matter to which I’ve alluded to and which, I think, relates directly to the subject matter.

This harmonization of mankind, I would say this homogenization and domestication of mankind, is structured around specific cultural ideals and moral frameworks.
Ideals, beliefs and morals that we take for granted and we unquestioningly consider reasonable and true, while forgetting their arbitrary and often delusional nature, and which result in particular modes of thinking, and as a consequence, of acting.

One such belief is the one concerning the inherit dignity of labour, for one. It is mostly used as a means of ensuring a disciplined slave/wage class in a culture which pretends to defend freedom.
We now misconstrue labour for creativity, and productivity for meaning when most jobs in our western world are devoid of any creative element and are only bureaucratic positions of control and efficiency and the only meaningful thing about production is that it enables the continuation of individual consciousness and it ensures some level of physical and mental health and social viability.

The relationship of self-worth and work is so intimate, in our capitalist civilization, that we often judge others and ourselves by the jobs we do or the careers we pursue. Our profession becomes integrated into our overall persona and we are associated with it to such a degree that it often becomes a substitute for our name.

This ‘dignity of labour’ coupled with the association of consuming with happiness and consumer choice with liberty are the driving forces behind capitalism and the foundations of our western Democratic ideals.


Another such cultural belief is that which pronounces the inherit dignity of human life, as a whole.

This is how Nietzsche, who spoke so eloquently about such matters, put it:
“It should be noted that Alexandrian culture needs a slave-class in order to exist in the long term; as it views existence optimistically, however, it denies the necessity of such a class and is therefore heading towards horrifying extinction when the effects of its fine words of seduction and pacification, such as ‘human dignity’ and ‘the dignity of labour’, are exhausted” – Birth of Tragedy {18}


This sanctification of human life and of life in general, might appear to raise the value of the living and to promote respect for all living things, at first.
In fact it has the reverse effect, if one considers its long-term effects.

In environments where life hangs on a precarious balance and where death and misery are ubiquitous, respect for life, especially for ones own, is more prominent.
Within dangerous and uncertain circumstances one gains an appreciation for existence, not only of ones own but for ones companion and ally but also for ones adversary or prey or enemy.

In more primitive cultures where food, for example, was scarce, the act of taking nourishment included a thanksgiving to the unknown forces that made it possible and a deep respect for the very beast that died for our own survival.
If I’m not mistaken, Native Americans preyed to and honoured the spirit in the animal they killed and ate, as a way of acknowledging their own participation in the chain of life.

Today, when food is in such abundance that we must force ourselves to not eat it, disrespect for our privilege has replaced acknowledgment and the mystical in nourishment has been replaced by a ‘taking for granted’.

This same respect and spirituality has been expressed in other ways as well.
In past times of warfare and battle, it was not rare for a warrior to pay homage, not only to his fallen comrades but to his enemies also.

There was a reciprocal connection between victor and vanquished and honour and dignity were offered to both as an acknowledgment for their efforts, and pains and spirits.

Today, in this world of human rights and undiscriminating Christian compassion and love, the very concepts of dignity and of honour have been diminished and the ideas of love and compassion have been degraded due to their universal application.

What is the value of a thing that is offered to someone or something based entirely on a characteristic it is not wholly responsible for or offered without discrimination and selection?

Through the practice of offering a presumed dignity to all life, no matter the circumstances, and to all humans, no matter their character, we have, in actuality, taken away the essence of what this means.

There is nothing inherently dignified or noble about life or about labour.
What makes them so is how they are applied and used by each individual entity.
Lecter, Hannibal wrote:Now you're being rude, and I hate rude people.
User avatar
Lollipop King
Feminized
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Sugar Factory

Hapiness

Postby sdwilson2002 » Thu Jul 28, 2005 4:40 am

It sounds like you believe that hapiness, for guys, can be found when we act more closely to our classic/'primitive' nature. I know you said that you weren't interested in personal questions, but I like your theory, and I would like to know how you apply your philosohpy to your life on a practial level. How much do you as a person give in, relative to your perception of guys, to pressure to conform against your nature, and do you think that is related to your hapiness?


Is there any person that is well known or famous that you feel is making headway in promoting and changing society to be more supportive of what you think men's nature is? JacK Nicholson, Mick Jagger, perhaps?

Do you try to change society in order for it be more supportive of the nature of man?

Do you think it is possible for a society ever to support man's nature, or are society and man's nature so opposed to one another that they cannot exist together? If you could live in any society, which would it be?
User avatar
sdwilson2002
Thinker
 
Posts: 881
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 4:06 am
Location: Roseville, MN

Postby Lollipop King » Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:55 pm

sdwilson2002
It sounds like you believe that hapiness, for guys, can be found when we act more closely to our classic/'primitive' nature.
Guys and girls.

It’s just that the current circumstances are closer to female nature and female nature is mostly contented in adapting to whatever circumstances it finds itself in. It is less antagonistic.

Being social, in general, requires a feminine dispositions.
The larger the social group, the more feminine the disposition.

Female psychology, which males also possess by the way, is more interested in harmony and cooperation and fitting in, which coincides with group cohesion and social interests.
This, and their sexual power, is what makes them ‘genetic filtering systems’, as I’ve explained in the original text.

How much do you as a person give in, relative to your perception of guys, to pressure to conform against your nature, and do you think that is related to your hapiness?
Like everyone else I am confronted with the daily choice of “giving in” or facing the social consequences.
This every day choice is directly related to my contentment and my sense of well being. In other words, I have very little of it.

My mind tells me what is the reasonable choice but my soul screams out for a relief from that choice, for an alternative, for confrontation and resistance.

When someone threatens me, for example, or pisses me off, I desperately want to unleash my fury upon him, knowing what pleasure this will give me, my every molecule screams out for it. Yet, my mind considers the implications, the social consequences and I begrudgingly repress my instincts.
This is the root for many anxieties and mental disorders. This repression can build up over time and express itself in other ways.

The choice is between allowing one drive to be expressed and risking all future expressions of many other drives or between a genuine self and well-being. .
The system is set up in such a way so as to result in a reasonable decision, which forces adaptation or quarantine or extinction.
We are dependant on society and so we are bound to social rules.

We live in a distinctly “reasoned” culture. A culture defined by its optimism concerning rationality, an “Alexandrian/Socratic” world Nietzsche called it.
Weber called capitalism and the industrial revolution, the “rationalization” of society.

Within it efficiency and productivity become paramount and all spirituality, and artistry are diminished. The mystical is defamed and instinct slandered.

Bureaucratic facelessness is the end result. A system governed by the indifference of numerical values, where everything, even individuality, is given a number.

Reason is cold and soulless and, as we are now discovering, unable to fully offer explanations for the universe and existence. It, and its product science, now reverts to artistry to describe quantum phenomena. Superstring theory is a highly artistic interpretation of things beyond our capacity to fully comprehend.

Is there any person that is well known or famous that you feel is making headway in promoting and changing society to be more supportive of what you think men's nature is? JacK Nicholson, Mick Jagger, perhaps?
Famous people are caricatures and creations of image making machines and not real people.

Since, I don’t know either Nicholson or Jagger personally and only know of them and their pop personas, I cannot comment on their real nature.

All the ones that have not had the self-control or the mind to make that reasoned choice, I mentioned before, are either incarcerated or dead.
Kaczynski comes to mind, but he had the audacity to believe he could change things and the idealism to care.

The maleness I describe thrives in frontiers.
There are none left, which are accessible yet. So, this maleness, hibernates in us all.

Do you think it is possible for a society ever to support man's nature, or are society and man's nature so opposed to one another that they cannot exist together?
Man’s nature is the product of a more challenging, austere and dangerous environment. Man has also evolved to participate in and feel more psychologically attached to smaller social groups, than the present ones.

Evolution works at a snails pace, so we can say that human nature is being slowly affected by current environments and that ‘feminization’ is this adaptation of the individual to more affluent, safer, easier circumstances. The term ‘feminization’ can be replaced with the term ‘domestication’, if you wish.

The discontentment many feel, the sense of not belonging and of alienation is often the consequence of this slow alteration, as the repression of the parts in us which are considered unwanted from a cultural perspective, burdens us with the constant necessity of keeping ourselves under the control of reason and only express instinct in small bursts [pressure releases] or within particular areas and under special circumstances.
In this slow change of psychology, environmental circumstances as they are culturally [in other words rationally] defined, impose themselves upon us.

For those with more docile, passive personalities, the adaptation to the change is less painful.

If you could live in any society, which would it be?
Pre-Socratic Hellas because they found that balance between reason and instinct [Dionysian/Apollinian] and they enjoyed the sense of tragedy/comedy this invokes or amongst the natives of North America before the white man came because they exemplify a man living within nature, with both awe and respect, or amongst the Norse because of their mythical prowess.
Lecter, Hannibal wrote:Now you're being rude, and I hate rude people.
User avatar
Lollipop King
Feminized
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Sugar Factory

Postby Noos » Thu Jul 28, 2005 6:25 pm

Perhaps what you are really addressing here is a male frustration that women do not have to be "mirrors" any longer?

"Women have served all these centuries as looking-glasses possessing the magic and delicious power of reflecting the figure of man at twice its natural size." --V. Woolf


For one, your argument builds upon the past which was completely controlled by patriarchy, where women were property, and they had no choice about their lives; they had to be mirrors. Man MADE woman be his personal looking-glass. Now the mirror is smashed and men must truly define themselves, with no advantage of feeling immediately superior to half the population. Thus, what your argument really points out is the male NEED to feel dominant by thinking of women as weaker, less intelligent, more conformist, and controlled.

"For if she begins to tell the truth, the figure in the looking-glass shrinks; his fitness for life is diminished. How is he to go on giving judgment, civilising natives, making laws, writing books, dressing up and speechifying at banquets, unless he can see himself at breakfast and at dinner at least twice the size he really is?" --V. Woolf
Noos
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 8:50 am

Postby Lollipop King » Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:37 am

As long as sex is used to procreate, women will be genetic filters who define the future by buying into ideals.

As long as there is no frontier to require male characteristics and technology makes individual traits, such as intelligence, physical strength or whatever obsolete, then gender will be irrelevant and the feminine, more docile sex will become dominant and preferable.

Males, females are becoming indistinguishable from one another and are converging into asexuality, not because they are the same or because they have ever been so, but because technology and culture has made any differences irrelevant and obsolete.
Lecter, Hannibal wrote:Now you're being rude, and I hate rude people.
User avatar
Lollipop King
Feminized
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Sugar Factory

Postby detrop » Sat Aug 06, 2005 8:40 pm

The slim build and the adolescent, almost girlish, look, the hairless torso all reveal the feminization of manhood; the emergence of homosexuality, once a source of social stigmatization, as a viable life choice alternative, a cute, amusing quirk of nature awaiting its own emancipation also reveals the feminization of man and the drift to his eventual extinction.


I am between tears and rage at this wonderful revelation, Satyr. I was just watching 'Mad TV,' my favorite show, and as you know they have a guest band play a song between the skits. This band was called the "Stokes," if I remember correctly, but you should have seen these skinny little fuckers.

They had the whole "my life is miserable and I'm suffering because nobody understands me so I'll sing a depressing song to express my sentiments, which will be sold as a product to miserable people everywhere who don't know the difference between finger-nails across a chalk-board and an actual piece of music." They exhibited the the new modern retro/goth/beat-nik style, you know, the sports jacket over the t-shirt, the tight jeans with holes in the knees, the messed up 'bed-hair,' the 'druggy' look, etc., etc., and they played some of the worst shit I have ever heard.

The song was composed of a couple chords, and of course it was in the predictable and mundane 4/4 time signature. It was absolute trash. In addition, the band members were 'posturing' with their instruments, the drummer had this look of intense concentration on his face, you know, the "if I make this look more complicated than it really is, people will think the song is better."

Now get this. The audience was actually grooving to the music, but it wasn't sincere. It was the "oh, this must be the part where we are supposed to support the band by swaying back and forth to the beat" deal.

What do I see here? I see the spirit of the age. I see the signs of decline in this 'art.' These guys weren't 'men' or 'women,' they were some kind of empty automaton product, some kind of robot created to make fat men rich in the music industry.

Anyway, I thought I might share this with you. You have a very profound and sublime knowledge of things to come, Satyr, and I see it perfectly, especially on TV. The commercials, talk shows, sit-coms, all of it, geared to hypnotize a world of mindless consumers.

You and I might just be the last men standing on Earth, my friend. And its funny to think that the larger percentage of ILP are these people who I describe and they think to themselves "no way, detrop isn't talking about me, just because I wear body-spray, have accessories all over my car, and listen to 'hip-hop' doesn't make me a disaster."

I speak too soon. These people are not ready for their destiny.
detrop
"ist" wannabe
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:08 pm

Postby Colinsign » Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:57 pm

God - you're such a cynical guy!! I dare sya this band "Strokes" are generic pish, mediocre showmanship and marketed for cliched depressive youths...but really your tone of self-righteousness, self-elevation....is a cliche tantmount to the pish you are so cynical of....

Ignore what I am saying - most thing's are never meant.
The man that cannot visualize a horse galloping on a tomato is an idiot~Andre Breton~

Many a clever boy is flogged into a dunce and many an original composition corrected into mediocrity- Sir Walter Scott

Who has the courage to go into the dark places where there is nothing but feeling? - Thomas A. Clark

I'm a hyper-survivalist: when I walk past a Cemetery I hold my breath - Gamer

the difference between a madman and a professional is that a pro does as well as he can within what he has set out to do and a madman does exceptionally well at what he can't help doing. - Charles Bukowski

For everything that is hidden will eventually be brought into the open and every secret should be brought to the light anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand - Mark 4:22-23

Image
User avatar
Colinsign
Irrationalist
 
Posts: 1770
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:21 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby detrop » Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:35 pm

Colinsign?! Where the hell have you been?

I've missed you girlfriend...uh, I mean 'buddy.'

but really your tone of self-righteousness, self-elevation


I know, isn't it great? I have no time for these lesser mortals and I shan't stop for anyone.

Now are you with me or against me? If you are against me....

RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN.
detrop
"ist" wannabe
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:08 pm

Postby Lollipop King » Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:10 am

détrop

I am between tears and rage at this wonderful revelation, Satyr. I was just watching 'Mad TV,' my favorite show, and as you know they have a guest band play a song between the skits. This band was called the "Stokes," if I remember correctly, but you should have seen these skinny little fuckers.

They had the whole "my life is miserable and I'm suffering because nobody understands me so I'll sing a depressing song to express my sentiments, which will be sold as a product to miserable people everywhere who don't know the difference between finger-nails across a chalk-board and an actual piece of music." They exhibited the the new modern retro/goth/beat-nik style, you know, the sports jacket over the t-shirt, the tight jeans with holes in the knees, the messed up 'bed-hair,' the 'druggy' look, etc., etc., and they played some of the worst shit I have ever heard.

The song was composed of a couple chords, and of course it was in the predictable and mundane 4/4 time signature. It was absolute trash. In addition, the band members were 'posturing' with their instruments, the drummer had this look of intense concentration on his face, you know, the "if I make this look more complicated than it really is, people will think the song is better."
But pretentiousness seems to be part of the human condition and what makes civilization work.

I mean how many people do you know or have heard about claiming to prefer Belvedere’s Vodka over Smirnoff?
I actually saw a 20/20 special on it.

They taste tested a few “specialists” and connoisseurs of Vodka who swear on a particular expensive brand of alcohol.
None of the…NONE of them…could discern between the different brands even if they had a cost difference of 50%-100%.
Remarkably most considered their ‘preferred’ brand inferior to the other ones in a blind taste test and when one considered that few drank their Vodka ‘neat’ and without some fruit additive the results became more remarkable.

Then they had, so called, artists commenting on works of at, some of which were created by elephants and three-year-olds.
Most artists and art critics thought the splattering of children were abstract art worthy of museum space.
Then when they were told the truth most laughed it away or tried to insinuate that the children were “gifted” is some way.
One actually admitted that most of modern art depends on pretentious rich people wanting to display their worth and culture with works they neither comprehend nor can ever appreciate.

This got me thinking about name-brands and marketing and the pretentiousness they feed on. A pretentiousness prevalent in the music industry, as you mentioned.

Most can’t tell crap from crepes and yet they display a pretentious refinement of taste and discrimination which is supposed to display their sensitive palates and culture or their refined tastes and uniqueness. So they pay a few extra bucks to play the part, when they can’s really tell and they buy those Gucci sunglasses and that luxurious car and those name brand Blue-Jeans or that expensive bottled water, thinking this will raise their esteem and worth and how they appear to others, all the while making absolute idiots of themselves to anyone with an eye for such stupidity.

Can we not say the same for careers and diplomas?

The thing I’ve discovered is that most things thrive of pretentiousness and appear to be more or less than what they really are.
There’s an image associated with certain acquisitions and behaviors and this image is built on bullshit and cultural prejudices and facades.

Our “civilization” depends on weak-minded imbeciles wanting to pretend they are more than they are or that they are capable of more than they rally are.

You can see evidence of this, on this very forum.

You see detrop most of today’s civilization is based on bullshit and morons wanting to show themselves to be more than morons.
What they do is buy expensive, overpriced stuff, objects things which is supposed to represent they value, by its sheer overpricing and the image associated with it.

We get old-farts driving sport scars and twits with university diplomas pretending the image, associated with the job or label or marketing, is actually who and what they are.

Now that is the funniest thing of all.
Lecter, Hannibal wrote:Now you're being rude, and I hate rude people.
User avatar
Lollipop King
Feminized
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Sugar Factory

Postby Colinsign » Mon Aug 08, 2005 5:23 pm

Hey bueatiful! I've been reading and writing and intoxicating, for the past few weeks! I really should reply to the orignal post I placed upon here a few weeks ago...maybe I will...

I thought you acted so righteous because you felt inadquate, one of those net people who have terrible social skills and huge intellectual capabilities: which is actually the equivalent to being an IDIOT.

But, my darling, everything that is real is rational! :wink:

I am neither for nor against you - I am, perhaps, beside you.
The man that cannot visualize a horse galloping on a tomato is an idiot~Andre Breton~

Many a clever boy is flogged into a dunce and many an original composition corrected into mediocrity- Sir Walter Scott

Who has the courage to go into the dark places where there is nothing but feeling? - Thomas A. Clark

I'm a hyper-survivalist: when I walk past a Cemetery I hold my breath - Gamer

the difference between a madman and a professional is that a pro does as well as he can within what he has set out to do and a madman does exceptionally well at what he can't help doing. - Charles Bukowski

For everything that is hidden will eventually be brought into the open and every secret should be brought to the light anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand - Mark 4:22-23

Image
User avatar
Colinsign
Irrationalist
 
Posts: 1770
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:21 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby detrop » Mon Aug 08, 2005 5:36 pm

I thought you acted so righteous because you felt inadquate, one of those net people who have terrible social skills and huge intellectual capabilities: which is actually the equivalent to being an IDIOT.


I am alone.

I.

I have no friends, my family hates me, I can't, or won't, keep a job, and I haven't been laid in months.

But I refuse to turn gay, so keep your hands off of me, toots.

The intellectual capabilities which I am stricken with, in this sesquipedal life, marks the torpidity of my spirit. The Gods have cursed me with too much knowledge, Colinsign, and for this the world calls me a monster.

everything that is real is rational!


Well, so says Hegel. But I'm a Kierkegaardian, and Hegel's words are lemonade twaddle. Marx took anything decent and relevent out of it, so stick with him.
detrop
"ist" wannabe
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:08 pm

Postby Colinsign » Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:54 pm

Actually - I took the phrase - "Everything that is real is rational" - from Italo Calvino, who in turn, may have lent from Hegel! I an no reader of Hegel any man who's name rythmes with bagel is suspisous to me, for purely irrational reasons.

Re-your post on the "poor taste of tasters" analogy of a dead culture eating dead cultures. I too I am symptom of such a time - though I vary on one level perhaps - that I know my limitations - that i am The Idiot. I do not want to be naked and famous.

If had was a view I.Q. higher I reckon I would kill myself...thank God I am stupid enough to stay alive!

:wink: :wink:
The man that cannot visualize a horse galloping on a tomato is an idiot~Andre Breton~

Many a clever boy is flogged into a dunce and many an original composition corrected into mediocrity- Sir Walter Scott

Who has the courage to go into the dark places where there is nothing but feeling? - Thomas A. Clark

I'm a hyper-survivalist: when I walk past a Cemetery I hold my breath - Gamer

the difference between a madman and a professional is that a pro does as well as he can within what he has set out to do and a madman does exceptionally well at what he can't help doing. - Charles Bukowski

For everything that is hidden will eventually be brought into the open and every secret should be brought to the light anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand - Mark 4:22-23

Image
User avatar
Colinsign
Irrationalist
 
Posts: 1770
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:21 pm
Location: Glasgow

Next

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users