Fixed,
My response to you got deleted, so ill have to rephrase it the best i can given the time i have. Mastery is just a goal, an ideal, but it has to begin with understanding, with seeing things as they are. Weanesses and limitations should be seen as what they are and not redefined or incorporated into the idea of manhood, as is commonly done today. A man may get what he wants, sure, but does he understand the want, and how it make him vulnerable to other? Because if he doesnt, someone else surely will. When his limitations and weaknesses are excused, or pardoned, he’s stuck at adolescent stage, thinking he’s achieved manhood. There is no growth. He may be a master at something, but still be a slave to self which he does not even own, and he does not own it because he does not see it, and he does not see it because he has not been challenged, only redefined to accomodate his limitations. A man doesnt even know who he is, he’s dissuaded from knowing himself.
Ill have to come back to this at another time, which will give me time to reflect more on this topic.
The author Salman Rushdie once said that younger writers measure themselves against other writers, whereas mature writers just write whatever it is they write.
Manhood is like that. Younger men care about what it is to be a man, what people think, whether they measure up etc. Older men just do whatever it is they do.
A real man can wear a pink leotard and dance in the ballet, because real men don’t worry about what a real man is, they just do whatever it is they do.
According to Jung there is no such animal in the human psyche as 100% male or 100% female. The psyche is comprised of animus and anima in varying degress. Thus a man can be maternal when the need arrives. The problem with Jungian anaysis comes when one adheres strictly to the stereotypes of what men and women “should” be like.
duplicate post
To me being a man means identifying with the “creator in man”: see my Dionysa thread.
To be a man, you must not care what anybody thinks about you. You must live your life in spite of other people’s positive or negative appraisals. This basically means a necessary sort of independence, a type of being and existence not found in women.
Actually, you don’t fail. You succeed, in unnecessarily reminding everybody, on nearly a daily or weekly basis, your “successful” sexual relationships with losers, drug abusers, degenerates, sluts, hookers, and who know what type of dirty women you stick your dick in. Bragging about “getting it” from the bottom of the barrel, scum, is not something to brag about, to me. I don’t give a shit, and I think most people here do not admire you in anyway.
Quality before quantity. You don’t seem to get it. But “good job” and attaboy, for screwing so many loose sluts. To each his own.
Your persona on this forum reflects otherwise. You may not appear “submissive” in your daily life, but here, things are a little different. How do you stand apart from the average poster on this forum? What ideas do you have that are in any way “different” or resistant against the status quo and bottom line? Are you different than everybody else? To me, no, you don’t stand apart. And worse, you don’t want to, maybe even, you never had the inclination to become an individual, from the beginning.
You’re appealing to the wrong person. Females and women I meet who are “interested in philosophy”, are some of the last people I’d ever want to have a philosophical conversation or discourse with.
It’s a lie, like a woman “posing” with nerdy glasses, even though there’s nothing wrong with her vision, just because she wants to “fit in” to a sub cultural niche. She wants to have the “smart look”, nothing more. Women are this superficial, and I find this much worse than pathetic, but, contemptuous.
As if looking a certain way means that you are a certain state of being. In fact, I’m curious as to what you would ever call a “smart” woman, except, one accredited with as many or more institutional credentials than you. But, as most know this fact here, a piece of paper telling you you’re smart doesn’t make you smart. In fact, it probably means you’re stupid. Because a smart person doesn’t need the piece of paper telling him or her, convincing yourself of your own intelligence.
True intelligence is something much, much different than that.
I agree about the philosophy degree. It just means a woman is a specific type of groupie. But that goes for a man with a philosophy degree as well. He’s usually a useless bitch. I spit on philosophy degrees, they usually belong to people who couldn’t create a philosophical situation in their mind if their life depended on it.
The only thing in which I mean you are submissive, Smears, is in that you apparently care about whether people think you’re manly or not, and think that quanta of women you fuck has any impact on that. But it makes you seem less manly. I noticed one of the pictures you posted, with the snowmobile actually had a really sweet looking girl on your side. That told me a very different story than your accounts of how you make bitches tear up by stabbing them with your phallus.
Presenting the women you’re with as lowly dependent creatures is, as insightfoul says, making you look lowly and depraved. I think you just have the idea about image wrong, or a philosophy board isn’t the place to brag in this way.
As for your ‘war stories’ - how you make your way up from poverty, I think all that’s actually very manly. Not that it makes you into a philosopher, but that is not the point. It would make you into a leader when times call for it. Not a leader of philosophers, but of soldiers and robbers, it’s clear you can get work done.
To my mind, the most manly of men is able to set goals, values, for a great and diverse group of people. I said that a real man is one who can assemble an army around him - an even realer man is able to assemble a kingdom around him. For that you need both an army and a philosophy - i.e. a ‘heart of a nation’. But this is straying a bit far from the OP’s context.
I definitely agree with the idea that man is creator, that true manliness shows in a mans capacity to create, which also implies the will to destroy what is standing in the way.
When did I say I bang lowly, depraved women?
Insight, I don’t think that employed, educated members of society count as bottom of the barrell. I believe that you are a hater.
No, no, you know I am a hater. Because I am a hater. We agree.
But that doesn’t mean I’m wrong about what “A Man” is or is not.
Thank you for ignoring the substantive part of my post, and for replying without addressing my point. I appreciate that.
And why does it matter whether you bang a homeless wretched hag compared to the queen of england???
Who cares??? Why do you believe the quality of a woman you have sex with has anything to do with the quality of a man?
You’ve missed the whole point of this thread. Pandora created this thread, specifically, with this intent in mind. Why do men, such as yourself, judge themselves, and other men, by the quality of “their” woman?
Because as you may not realize yet, this is judging men through women, not judging men as men. That’s what pandora originally meant. She means, how do you judge a man “alone”, as an individual? You cannot do this through women. Otherwise you destroy the point of the thread.
I was responding to your claim that I have sex with women who are “bottom of the barrel”. I mean, you brought it up. So you tell me why it’s relevant…
Also, you seem to have a case of the only’s. There can be more than one reason for something ya know. Just please, try and think about that.
Where did I say that you said that? You just give the impression of mutual depravity by bragging how much you’re above them and manipulating them. I’d rather not have sex at all than have to scheme and manipulate in the process of it. See that makes you unfit for philosophy - you’re too comfortable with dishonesty.
You’re a sucker for status. It’s a bitchy thing to say, but this betrays lower class roots. It betrays a wish to dominate something with respect to which one feels underprivileged.
I think all people have some underprivileged part, and most people probably more than you. But your self-exhibition gives opportunity to see how to have all that most men seem to want to have does not convey privilege, not if it’s presented without reverence. Maybe you have all this shit because you’re indifferent. It’s a kind of Zorba the Buddhism, that being happy in the ditch after an accident - it all sounds manly to me. But there’s an aspect about masculinity that is about admiring without wanting to overcome. To a man with instinctive reverence for what he is, the idea of something at least as high as he is like a miracle welcomed with open arms.
The threat is rather in the absence of nobility. And from what you told me about your city, this would be the real threat for you in particular. I praise you for aspiring to nobility, but if you are interested in becoming a nobleman (which I think is, or at least should be your aim) then you need an ideal, something above yourself, a goal you have created by sublimating your excess masculinity.
This is better than getting bored by excess access to womens private fantasies, not despite, but because that is a gift that not many men have. But I have to stop writing because I get the spooky feeling of channeling a black baptist pastor.
It wasn’t relevant, I brought it up for another reason. I have ulterior motives here.
You really think you had to tell us that?
Yes, it bears repeating, you need to hear it a few times.
FIxed, it was insight who said I banged lowly depraved women. He’s a hater.
I do get accused, all the time, of “not giving a fuck about anything”, by a good number of people who know me well. You might be onto something with your indifference idea.
Thank you
Smears, i edited in more philosophy about your tellings.
I am aware I don’t see the full picture. It’s only because I’m interested that I bother.
I believe Insightfoul has a grasp on philosophical masculinity, but a very tenuous and young one. His is the same problem: an absence of reverence. An absence of an object of reverence - ‘real men’ create Gods so they can revere them. Gods are images of mans most supreme moments eternalized.