Allow me to rephrase. If you balance “without harming anyone” with the rainbow rule, in such a way that folks are not prevented from learning love despite circumstances (which requires a bit of trial and error for beings subject to time), what happens?
It’s a fight I want to win here. Transcendence is a dictatorship. It’s telling people not to care about justice or their urges. Like you said … to submit.
Once seen, can’t be unseen.
I have transcended the mechanism which is why women don’t want me. But to become asexual as a result is demeaning to everyone with a sexual orientation.
In place of “mutual submission” put “seek each other’s mutual enjoyment/consent”.
It’s not as bad as it sounds.
You’re making it sound like a scam … like someone I work with who thought they were scamming someone because they got paid to do a chore. It’s like all living-wage-paid employees everywhere are scamming all their employers. Makes you wonder who “scammed” that kid into doing (paid) chores.
How is it demeaning to become asexual? I can see how someone of one of the binary genders can take it personally if someone from the other gender becomes (or identifies as) homosexual (er… homo…gender…something). It may be felt as a statement of sexism or gender prejudice—to prefer one’s own sex/gender (like preferring one’s own race)—and reject all others.
So what exactly do you mean when you say you are a “my body sexual”? Or are you still exploring your gender identity? Or sexual preference? So as to not demean others?
Is it you that you cannot unsee?
That must be very difficult for you.
You should write a song about it.
God save us all.
Women are either sluts or whores? Shit, what happened to you… mummy issues?
Maybe he thinks he’s complimenting them when he says that? Also maybe he thinks ignorance is bliss when it comes to that kind of knowing, so that smart would be an insult.
Female promiscuity differs from male promiscuity, because of their different reproductive roles and the burden these roles places upon them.
It is already established that females use sex to manipulate males.
Among the chimpanzee - and many other primate societies - females use the promise of copulation to make beta-males help them ween their young and protect them in intergroup conflicts.
Sex is used as a tool to establish and maintain intergroup alliances. Gift giving is also common in many other species, as a form of sexual seduction/bribery.
High IQ females have been covered in my essay “Tentative defence of Monogamy”.
Whereas high IQ males can easily settle for a lower IQ female, high IQ females find it difficult to submit to low IQ males…and so the higher the female’s IQ the more difficult it is for her to find a mate.
Self-esteem is far more significant in determining who a female considers superior and who she considers inferior, because a high IQ female can still underestimate herself, adjusting her judgements.
The ethnical categories of “slut/whore” refer to females who underestimate and those who overestimate themselves - one group seeking popular approval by giving themselves to any male, and the other overestimating themselves, demanding high prices for their sexual favours.
Hypergamy is adjusted, in other words, by the female’s self-esteem.
The above are the reasons why females have issues with paternalism.
Paternalism overrules their biological sexual prerogatives to produce stable systems with invested males.
Males that would have been rejected - filtered out of the gene pool (incels) - are included…converting them to invested participant in a group’s welfare.
This is how societies and build huge armies to compete and challenge other groups.
Non-invested males feel no desire to risk their lives for the group - they become un-invested free-radicals that act as destabilizing factors.
See US having problems finding recruits, compared to the WWII generations…“the greatest generation” as it is called.
Males with no investments in the group, and no prospects, will tend to turn inward, or indulge in destructive activities.
Monogamy is a restriction on both male and female promiscuity.
Therefore, slut and whore only have meaning within systems where both male and female promiscuity is restricted.
Obviously, female promiscuity is far more destabilizing.
One of the reasons beta-males find Marxism appealing is because they are expected to work, and to serve a group they feel no genetic nor memetic shared identity.
Among wolves, for example, beta-males and females contribute to the weening of the alpha-pair’s cubs…in a sense they are ‘exploited.’
But they don’t feel exploited because they share genes with the alpha-pair and the cubs.
In past socioeconomic systems, more homogenous systems, inferior males and females were invested but they also shared genetic and memetic identifiers.
Modern lefties are uninvested or participate in heterogenous social systems, having no common genetic nor memetic identifiers.
With the liberation of female sexuality from paternalism, males also suffer the restrictions of female filtering, excluding them from the genetic pool…and this rejection makes them resentful towards their own group.
They often feel a psychological kinship with those who suffer the same fate among different groups - a shared resentment towards those who are on the top of the hierarchy in their own respective groups.
Victim psychology.
What they share is a sense of being victimized, wronged, by natural order, reflected in their social status.
Human socioeconomic systems tend to maintain established hierarchies, so their resentment isn’t entirely unfounded.
Conservatism maintains established hierarchies, passing them on from generation to generation - contradicting nature’s methods.
It’s natural that those that feel wronged by this systemic conservation would rebel against the institutions that maintain them…especially those who don’t have anything in common with those at the top - like in heterogeneous socioeconomic systems.
The liberation of female sexual choices from the restrictions of paternalism - multiplied by technologies that protect females from natural restrictions - is what produces increasing numbers of free-radical males, i.e., males that are un-invested, with no prospects to become invested, and that have nothing in common with those who have become invested in the group’s welfare.
Abrahamism acted as both a common grounding in a shared abstraction, i.e., god, and as an enforcer of monogamy, i.e., restriction of human promiscuity.
Feminism + the decline of religion = declining demographics.
Add to this homosexual and transexual psychological compensatory reactions, and you get a recipe for systemic collapse.
Compounding mutations need not even be analyzed, but they contribute to what is going on.
Maybe sex with beta males is more enjoyable because they don’t think they deserve it (or force it?), like an alpha might?
What do I know?
Which of us can be proven to be … anthropomorphizing … onto the opposite/different … species or gender?
Booga booga!
I’m not a beta mate per se.
I’m what’s called a gamma male. I have all the combinations in me. I am a beta male. I’m also an alpha male. I’m also a sigma male.
I don’t get the classifications or why folks expect them to translate between genders, and species, much less cultures, or even how accurate they are in any of those cases.
To me there are just the MBTi (or other similar scale) personality types for humans, with varying degrees of assertiveness, helpfulness, and so forth. And they can be cultivated so that a person can adapt certain strengths and weaknesses.
No matter what, we each have strengths to develop, and corresponding weaknesses to work on.
I know how I react to certain individuals, how they react to me, & don’t need to “type” them. But, sometimes it feels helpful and interesting to do one of those scales if you’re still trying to figure each other out, and it feels like something is not connecting.
But if the other is protecting themselves from ever being hurt again, there will always be an incomplete connection. Surface level. No matter how deeply they actually feel.
Something I’ll never have a hard time understanding.
I don’t believe in the classifications either.
I’m trying to speak to humans in their own language.
All I really wanted was to talk about stupid shit like lamp posts and stupid shit like that.
I didn’t want to talk about everything everywhere.
Do you think a conscious AI without sensory input can “relate” to a non-reverse-engineered person who cannot consciously access their emotions, & vice-versa? Do you think there’s no difference? Is sensory input required to feel/register an emotion?
What is dissociation for someone who never… associated… in the first place?
bullshit
Ichthus.
You don’t understand how perfect oblivion is.
You’re just an existent using existents who believes in the Bible. I don’t like existents. Now that I’m back I intend to finish the job.
And yes…. I’d rather talk about Swiss chard and lamp posts than talk about the cosmos.
Everyone gets mad at me when I talk about everything everywhere.
Lorikeet provides no empirical evidence for his ‘objective’ opinions which are riven with contraditions and self-flattery. Beta-males are attracted to Marxism, he tells us, implying that alpha-males (like his ilk) naturally reject it. No empirical evidence is offered concerning who or what a beta-male is or what they find appealing. Zero objectivity. These are pseudoscientific terms drawn from the study of non-human animals, who have vastly reduced levels of cognition and self-awareness than humans. They also depend upon the third person perspective of the zoologist in comprehending their behavior.
For example, it seems likely, to me, that beta-males are attracted to technology like internet forums, as this removes them from the physical zone-of-conflict that traditionally determines their place in the pack hierarchy, providing an escape from constant reminders of their inferior status…blah, blah, blah…
For further inquiries…
Modern Sexual Dynamics
Specialized reproductive roles are not human constructs.
Genders are…and increasingly become detached from nature’s specialized reproductive roles - necessitating both physical and psychological/mental adaptations.
Genders are socioeconomic applications of naturally evolved reproductive roles.
Contradicting reproductive roles is nihilistic - defensive reaction expressing insecurity and resentment.
Alpha, beta etc. refer to fitness and dominance.
We see them in many social species that integrate males and do not kill them or drive them off, e.g. wolves, chimpanzees, baboons, sheep, goats, horses, humans etc.
Other species drive inferior males away or kill them, leaving only the dominant male in control, e.g., lions…usually eliminating the previous male’s cubs.
Humans used monogamy to integrate males, and they abstracted masculinity into an institutional role.
The movement from racially, culturally homogenous towards increasingly heterogenous systems necessitates further adjustments, viz., such as the elimination of biological identifiers, the redefinition of family, the feminization of man, the adoption of a culture-of-no-culture (Americanism), the elimination of an anthropomorphic god…anything that would disrupt uniformity, by causing internal divisions.
All these have one thing in common: abstraction, and the gradual detachment of concepts from external referents (nihilism), through the redefinition of words.
We saw a recent attempt to redefine the word ‘woman’ - woman - socioeconomic, cultural integration of the feminine reproductive role, and its defining mental/physical traits- (female).
This is what I call “defining words out of existence” : terms become so abstracted that they can now contradict experienced reality; existing only in the minds of those who have adopted the same redefinitions.
We see this with the redefinition of other words, abstracting concepts to the point of rendering them meaningless: free-will, morality/ethics, good/evil (God/Satan), race/ethnicity, sex/gender etc.
I’ve gone through this in threads where I deal with language and how it is used to disconnect minds from reality, i.e. converting all into ideologies - “social constructs.”
There is more than one way to successfully bring offspring up to reproduce your desired memes… the condition for the possibility of which is memetically encoded in the reproduction structure.
If alpha is individualistic to the extreme, there is no pack. And how big is the biggest pack (not drawn with artificial boundaries)? And who is the alpha of alphas? And who is his son? I’ll follow that one, and reproduce his memes, and if he desires I reproduce alongside a subalpha complementary to me… so be it. If not, so not. SOOOOOOOOO not.
I see your radio belly cat shovel and raise you collared greens and poisonous lipstick.
You should look into the “selfish gene” and how organism’s are often compelled to act in ways that contradict their survival interests because this innate behaviour promotes species survival.
It is the primary reason high IQ individuals do not reproduce when the cost of reproduction exceeds a rational level they can justify.
Not for the reasons crazy gave you.
Self-awarness (Know thyself) is what inhibits behaviours that exceed a certain level of cost-benefit…so in times when female emancipation prices many males out of the genetic market, so to speak, high IQ males find it difficult to justify doing the things required to seduce modern females.
Crazy uses this to explain why he’s been filtered out by female agency…which would have occurred under all circumstances since females, I repeat, are natural filtering agencies.
Only Paternalism cold have enabled him to find and hold a mate, which would have demanded an injustice to be done to a woman - consent violation.
Paternalism usurps all individual desires so as to integrate all males and females into stable systems.
Liberating female sexual power - bolstered by technologies that reduce nature’s balancing processes - whilst declaring masculinity to be “toxic” is what Feminization of Man is all about.
Masculinity is institutionalized, making all biological males, beta-males; forced to adopt feminine methods of seduction.
Many males choose to become female or to seek relief in other sexual practices - having the genetic inclinations - so we see a rise in degeneracy…
This has a demographic cost…and so we see Americanism urgently demanding to import what it is losing, hoping that race is indeed a social construct.
One error in judgment leads to another…and the system eventually implodes.