Lyssa - The Sadistic Dominatrix

[Amorphos]

@MagsJ

@Amorphos

Lys

Ask yourself if you made the thoughts in your mind occur, and if you made all the decisions along the line ~ of becoming a dominatrix. Such things are usually causal [injected into ones mind].

I expect you know all this, and consider it to be your freedom and individuality to persist? As if by understanding it you have some kind of command over it? Or ‘you’ have decided that it’s who ‘you’ are. But are you driving or being driven.

This is where my exact thoughts on the matter took me to too, Amorphos, but you posted first… is one willingly coerced into such a corner because they enjoy the game, or is that who they are?

I think this explains further as to ‘who we are’ and ‘what our individuality is’…
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=188065

As usual i get no replies/answers from these Nietzschean philosophers lol, they seem quit happy to go with what they believe and ignore everything else ~ not much unlike Nazi’s [quelle surprise].

From thread linked…
“Firstly, there are causal things outside of ones conscious experience, which affect it. So ‘your expression’ is in that part not yours.
Secondly, the consciousness subjectively works with that ^^ causal objectivity and can influence and change decisions, make ideas, calibrate and compose conceptual objects etc. Hence causality becomes like a circle within you and your expression changes and evolves with life experience.
The net result is that over time we develop our individuality [based in our subjectivity], and it is >it’s< expression which should be shown [is ‘you’ in the world] such to truly ‘breath’ [causality is stifling].
…and that is constantly changing.”

_

[Lys]

Its so hot in here…

[Lys]

@Amorphos

Lys

The balancing stones suggest balance to me? One person dominating another is imbalance.

It is an imbalance if you take the level field, equilibrium, or equality as your starting point, which is not the case in reality. Dominating is an organizing which requires temporarily fixing or steadying things, which is what the piling of stones imply. The piling of breaths one upon the other, some call it the piling of fire, is building of energy, your own sun and heat-source. The architecture of the “stupa” is a piling up of fire, where every stone laid fixes order in each elemental realm till one ascends to light, a stairway to heaven. Evola;

@Evola

"If a pain, an illness, or a sense of fatigue overtakes you, fix it in a flake of snow that melts when it falls on a mass of glowing white-hot metal. If any anxiety, restlessness, desire, or mental fever attack you, turn them into the shadow of smoke that, in the fire of the mind, is dispersed in the pure, clean, blue sky. The mind is fixed through the image of a fist that holds a little defenseless animal, until it stays still, motionless, inert; or through the image of an arrow shot at its target; or that of an ever-present iron bar that always parries every blow; or a hand that systematically grabs and leads the un- stable mind, which runs away every time an involuntary association of thoughts arises, back to its proper place (at the center).
In order to free the mind, imagine the open sky, the air, or remember that “[l]ike a deep, clear, and transparent lake, this is how the wise become calm” (Dhammapada, VI, 82); or that “[a]ll desires flow into him as waters flow into the ocean, which, ever-filled, never overflows but remains unchanged” (Bhagavad Gita, II, 70); or “Like a lamp that shines unmoving in a windless place” (VI, 19). This last image can be represented through determination by imagining a flame that is still enveloped in smoke and mobile, in which a state upset by modifications that have not yet been dominated is eventually fixed.

About all this, be aware that first of all it is necessary to stop a thought or a feeling as soon as it emerges. It must be caught in midair, before it puts down roots in your soul and spreads there: you must prevent it, suffocate it while it is still in embryo. Become agile, elusive, ready to detach and extract yourself.
Second, notice how well practice leads you back to the preparation of the Caduceus: the emotional state acts like a fluid mercury £ that is fixed in the image, which is then ignified by the mental act ©; in other words, everything depends on the rapid and complete amalgamation of sentiment and image, and on the active attitude to be maintained before the image. The entire mind must be concentrated on this image, as a bundle of solar rays is gathered up in the focus of a lens." [Introduction to Magic]

[Lys]

@Amorphous

Ask yourself if you made the thoughts in your mind occur, and if you made all the decisions along the line ~ of becoming a dominatrix. Such things are usually causal [injected into ones mind].

Then ask if you want such a causal [less individual/subjective based] world forever, and if the culture has causal effect upon other areas of our cultures and in individuals.

I expect you know all this, and consider it to be your freedom and individuality to persist? As if by understanding it you have some kind of command over it? Or ‘you’ have decided that it’s who ‘you’ are. But are you driving or being driven.

Have you ever felt victimized by a female Amorphous?

This OP is a hoax, there is no truth to any of it, and that’s all I will say on that.

But I do have to say some other things. Domination need not be with the intent of wanting to own, control, possess, or dominate the other. A dominatrix can be totally self-absorbed engaged in power over oneself, once attained can even make her a submissive who doesnt feel oppressed, repressed, suppressed, depressed being dominated by a worthy other. “Power eludes desire for power, like a woman shunning the lustful embrace of an impotent lover.” [Ev.]
And vice-versa, its the self-conquering ones who can afford to let someone ‘conquer’ them; and a (wo)man can feel this and there’s nothing humiliating about it. Nietzsche put it better;

“Privileges. - He who really possesses himself, that is to say he who has definitively conquered himself, henceforth regards it as his own privilege to punish himself, to pardon himself, to take pity on himself: he does not need to concede this to anyone else, but he can freely relinquish it to another, to a friend for example - but he knows that he therewith confers a right and that one can confer rights only out of the possession of power.” [Daybreak, 437]

Self-discipline can give off a powerful vibe, that some voluntarily offer themselves to want to be used/abused/dominated by you. No victimization here or power trips need be involved here.

@Satyr

[size=110]A culture nurtures/represses natural human drives… it sublimates them, but it does not create them.

This is true of all types of manipulation, or training, or whatever you want to call it when behavior is directed.
For example, marketing does not create need in the individual, it directs it or manipulates an already existing need, connecting a product, a symbol, a color a fashion style, with this need.
A con-artist, or a hypnotist or seducer, does not magically alter the others thinking, he exploits what is already present in the other - the individual wants to be convinced, to be hypnotized, seduced, and this “artist” establishes trust, or makes the other comfortable enough to allow what is there to come forth.

Therefore, gender is not a construct out of nowhere and nothing for feminists or MRAs to cry about objectfication and this and that.
It is a sexual proclivity, nurtured over centuries of natural selection (evolution), resulting in a specialized behavior, and in physical/mental attributes that facilitate this role.
What meme is to gene, noumenon to phenomenon, gender is to sexual roles.
Culture simply connects these predispositions with symbols: words, clothing, forms, colors, styles, rituals, and so on.

The extremely below average female’s dilemma

—To find a man…

The below average female’s dilemma

—To find a man, any man, and/or a substitute, through which she compensates without giving away too much.

The average female’s dilemma

—To find a male who can be seduced by her sexuality, having power over him with that promise, but not to the point where he will be seduced by any female’s sexuality.

The above average female’s dilemma

—To find a man to feel equal, and or inferior to, so as to feel feminine, and also one that will not take advantage of this rare position.

The extremely above average female’s dilemma

—To find a man…[/size]

I have nothing to do with those feminists who can relate to men only after contracting them to a harmless puppy or contract-ing them like a conditional business of terms and equality.
The fear of “objectification”, “hurt”, “degradation”, and such feminist moral crap and their victim culture doesn’t interest me; its nauseating. The language of “universal compassion” and “moral obligation to all” and such debased notions of fragmented-(wo)men is not my cup of tea.

Love is the by-product of the Discriminate rigour of life You Demand for Yourself, whatever else life may demand of you. And if you count there’s nothing more precious than self-knowledge, and participating with the other to let them see that in you however this manifests and vice-versa beyond pain/pleasure, it is a priceless affair. I affirm as a whole or I do not. Lyssanthropy is just being bitch-crazy about somebody… That is of course, only my subjective taste.

Nothing worse than the demented idiocy of Xt. and secular humanism and all the pitiful anaemia it calls love and good-will and compassion making midgets of humans. I abhor and detest such violence in the name of love with every cell of my body.

There are two parts to this.

Part I - the Woman.

As the woman’s is the selecting role, one who relativizes things by seeing good in everything and then concluding all have a goodness, betrays the whole of mankind.

@Satyr

[size=110]“A whore, when she gives her love away for the price of a doughnut, will also justify herself to herself, by pretending she is a humanitarian, spreading joy to the men who remain loveless.
Since all 'deserve” it, love has become a whore’s love. You must give it away to all, if they pay the price. Love, like friendship, loyalty, bloodlines, has ceased to matter; it has lost all value. the only things that matter now are production and consuming…hedonism being a practice ensuring that production and consuming continue undisputed.
Loyalty.

Our allegiances are not as undiscriminating as a whore’s affections, nor is our friendship as frivolous and shallow as a little child’s tastes.
When we offer our camaraderie, we do so with care and after a long period of contemplation, observation and trials. The other must prove himself/herself to be authentic, according to our standards as these have been shaped by our awareness.
The foundation of our sympathies and of our fidelity is that of trust – nothing exceeds this in significance, particularly not the primal energies of lust or what is commonly called “love” in this age of naïve romanticism and superficial materialism; an animalism surrendering to instinct and immediate gratification every chance it gets and then pretending it is in a state of grace.
This precious and delicate trust we offer sparingly, expecting no more and no less in return.

Towards those whom we have deemed unworthy of its confidence and intimacy we owe nothing…and nothing is what they shall receive from us – nothing except for our own duplicity, scorn, and exploitation, if not total indifference.
We feel no sympathy towards those not of our kind, and none of our actions in regards to them will fill us with remorse or with shame, for they are now merely one more resource and/or one more obstacle in the environment we coexist within.
We aee beholden only to our own kin, our bloodline, those that made us possible and offered us the rare opportunity to experience existence, and only to our brothers in spirit, our creed, those that contribute to our development, our peace of mind, our simple worldly pleasures, and our constant drive to exceed ourselves, despite ourselves.
The latter I consider the most precious of all, as they are a relationship founded on our reasoning, rather than on an inheritance which we must accept and endure.

We choose our friends, according to our tastes, as they choose us…and in this choice a greater, more lucid, bond is forged.
Being of our species, in a biological (genetic) sense does not offer anyone automatic admittance into the group we consider our kind.
Our identifications are more exacting and they force us to go beyond the genetic and into what has been referred to as memetic, as we aee far more self-aware than an animal and therefore far more selective. Our tastes exceed our genetic sensuality and go beyond the immediate.

Our self-respect prevents us from lowering ourselves to a level where a rudimentary similarity constitutes a reason to identify ourself with an unsophisticated brute and an intellectual midget - the mind, the attitude, the spirit of Becoming, exhibited daily and consistently, matters far more to us, than anything else; grace, humility in the face of the unknown, arrogance in the face of the known, self-control and self-knowledge, determination, patience, clarity and an agreement upon the basic tenants of an aristocratic disposition, are far more important in our eyes.

We can haggle over the details only when the value of the product has already been established in a general manner.
The position that mass participation is valuable is another way of claiming that quantity is better than quality.

At some point a man has to say:
'I would rather not eat than swallow this shit"
“I would rather die than lose my dignity”
“I would rather be alone than associate with rabble or with whores”
“I would rather not talk rather than speak about inanities or respond to infantile banter”

Less is more…and, in fact, more can be an indication of less.
We see it in our society of superfluous choices and abundance and hypothetical mass participation.
The very presence of riches and luxuries only accentuates our impoverishment and decay." [/size]

@Satyr

[size=110]"Gossip is the Nihilist’s trade, and so any theory about a person, or a group, is a way of equating different forms of grooming under the same heading.
Eating McDonald’s and eating Filet Mignon is equated under the heading ‘eating’.
The shared need is focused upon, the quality of divergence is ignored.
The slightest hint is reason enough for equalization to occur, for the modern, mediocre, Nihilist.
A scientist studying a herd of water buffalo and commenting on their social interactions is the same as an old-maid commenting on her neighbor’s sexual activities.
Lowest common denominator: they both speak of another and concern themselves with what others are doing.
But a nihilist separates man from nature. A different standard is expected when dealing with the human species because here uniformity is the desirable.
PARITY.

Lowest common denominator eliminates the factor of motive.
His obsessions are shameful ergo all obsession is an insult.
Emotion is the all-leveling grounding of the mediocre Nihilist.
He confuses his own for the intent.
Projected identity, an unburdening by unloading a weight and placing it on the other.
PARITY.

In his mind there is no superior or inferior, no degree, no acceptable hierarchy, mainly because the truth is one and ignorance, the absence of certainty, creates uniformity.

How does it manifest in real time?

Easy…
To the superior position impose a more exacting, stringent, unforgiving of the slightest lack, standard.
To the inferior position impose a less exacting, more forgiving of the greatest lapses in common sense, standard.

You lower the superior by using absolute standards, and more stringent rules of conduct, and you raise the inferior by, again, using the absence of absolute knowledge, of absolute certainty, to exaggerate its plausibility.

A retard can be living in a sea of filth, some of it his own, but he’ll be disgusted by a fly.

Another parity creating tactic.
A weakling may exhibit an obsession, an addiction, but it is the other’s momentary indulgence in the same that will be used to excuse himself.
For example…
A weakling may be an alcoholic, or a drug user, totally given over to chemical escapism and self-numbing, but it is when he sees another sipping on a glass of wine, or having one cigarette that he feels comforted the most.

It is the absence of an absolute where, for the nihilist, equalization is established.

For the alcoholic, only absolute abstinence would make him feel weak before a drug.
For the ignoramus, coward, only absolute certainty can persuade him, if the other offers no comforting ideas which feed into his emotional addiction.

The slightest uncertainty, ignorance, lack of completion, and the weakling and coward, the everyday, modern nihilist, finds a reason enough, to produce parity.
This is the either/or paradigm, where the balance is tilted by pure emotion.

Once emoting has been turned into a higher form of reasoning, the sensation having evolved into the emotion, can be turned into the goal, the state of grace, the coming Utopia, the ideal.
One feels the truth, and since the mind is a tool evolved to deal with necessity, the need to avoid need/suffering, to nip it before it increases to an unbearable point, is the seductive part.
Reason be damned!!!
The rational argument is the pessimistic one, if it does not feed into the lust/love pooling of energies, from where all draw sustenance.
The one who will not share his energies is the selfish one, the hating one, the one who is ill.

From a more selective practice of lusting/loving we come to the present state of nihilistic dis-ease, where uniformity requires the non-discriminating donation of one’s self to the community, the communal feeding table.
One must love all, and fuck anything; otherwise he can be accused of egotistically withholding his own aggregate energies from the community banquet.

Illness and health are also inverted, along with the concept of identity.
When one feeds on an animal or plant, one destroys its identity, cuts it apart, grinds it into a uniform pulp and digests it.
The individual must be digested and assimilated into this SuperOrganic ordering." [/size]

Part II - the Man.

When the selecting standard is compromised by the female role, the impact carries over in and through the Man.

@Satyr

[size=110]"In Nihilistic structures the male is a nothing; another female beneath the only One male.

He is second even to the female because unlike her he cannot be this alpha male’s means, except as a fertile womb for the shared memes.

The absence of blood lines, of cultural and genetic homogeneity has made the search for the shared lowest-common-denominator a concern among lost, emasculated males with no sense of self, no blood connections and no self-knowledge.

With no father figure to respect and look up to, and prepare to replace, they seek the absolute authority outside self, in the before and the after.

With no solid father figure to connect the boy to his past/nature, and give his existence meaning, stability, direction, the boy turns to mother, wanting to be the father of himself.

In the absence of a mother he becomes woman himself, a stray womb looking for fertilization; to be someone’s means to an end, displaying the cynicism of the stringently critical, looking for perfection to deal with their emasculation and need to be mind-fucked until complete, absolute, fullness.

Some emasculated males find their alpha in an idea(l) and surrender to its authority completely…the ones who do not, or cannot, roam from idea(l) to idea(l) seeing the fallibility in all so as to not bend over to them: some dive into being mind-whores, others resist, wanting to save themselves for the perfect one.

The last, being not fully matures males, and not fully awake females, settle for the cynical path of 'freedom" from all; lost in space/time.

This lostness is what they call “liberty”.

They laugh at everything and everything.

Their artistry is found in the thumb on nose." [/size]

@Satyr

[size=110]"Females become part of the Institution’s noetic harem.
The biological male is only there to do the deed the abstraction cannot, and then help or step aside.

Feminism destroyed family because of this.
Feminism is the confirmation of the marriage between female and institution.

With the elimination of the male, there is no continuity of blood…no genes leading to memes.
Now it’s memes producing genes, by mixing them up.

Markets love new product, original packaging, if the inside is uniform, predictable.

Shakespearean prose reduced to aping Ebonics, selling itself to brain dead white boys, who despise themselves and seek validation in the shiny superficiality of stuff and fucking common whores, with no desirable outcome - pleasure for the sake of pleasure, like manimals; money for the sake of money, like misers.

Why?
No fathers worth value.
European males made to feel ashamed of being what they are, of dominating as they had.
Stupid white women assimilated in this culture of no culture, raising boys to be pussy-whipped faggots, that will then seek out the male archetype in Africans, or in abstractions.

In the moment because they are blind to anything but me-me, and a shallow temporal-horizon.

Intellectual culling is prohibited. Nobody is permitted to be hurt.
We are only wasting time, having fun, fornicating with no foreseeable outcome and even less of a repercussion - we are one-night-stand mind-fuckers…so blow my mind.

At some point this infection that forces all minds to bow down before mediocrity, using skepticism as the all-leveling dynamite, will have to stop making concessions.
We already see the pollutants amassing.
The ‘stupid’ is already at the gates, trying to present itself as worth wasting time on.

We’ve allowed simpletons to believe that their simplicity can stand next to sophistication, as if it deserved respect.
After so many years it now demands respect, no matter how idiotic it sounds.

And if it cannot muster the intellectual clarity to offer something to claim as being equal to all others, it will seek to pull everything down to its level of desperate depravity.
It’s all or nothing - either/or - for the typical moron of western decadence.

We’ll offer allowance to the retard, and demand the impossible from the one that makes us feel bad.
We’ll, demand, first of all, that he bow before out tribunal of mediocrity, where by popular vote the cowardly simpletons of the world will decide who will be heard and when and where…and how.
Style matters." [/size]

Point of this being, more and more lost males with no fathers, no guidance exacerbate the victim culture and engage in these power fantasies to feel some sense of self, control. Something to think about.

[Lys]

Did someone say the word Pressure?

I love nut-cracking. esp. between my teeth.

I insist on being judged, compared, ranked, evaluated, I’m very uninhibited, but, its no good when all I have are sleazy but very rear pics. of me, I am not sure if pony on my right, and loony on my left would be all game… what can I do? It has to be a CONTEST! and nothing less will do for me.

Even if Pony may get all spontaneous and not neigh nay, and Loony Janey would just jump out of her jump suits and make a splash for any attention, that’s not the real problem really. The real problem is a diabullos like Luke being a judge and jury.

Someone who brackets females nurtured by intelligence on par with a word like rare to describe any chic from a navy family as f----worthy is just luke warm. He’s already phunked himself.

I wonder if Luke Travolta thinks all girls are bought with flattery… perhaps. Not I.

@Satyr

[size=110]"Techniques/technologies facilitate imitation, regurgitation, parroting. They offer a recipe book, a methodology, with which anyone can pretend to be anything, at any time.

Why are females entering fields where males dominated before?
Because all that is required to use a technique/technology is an average mind.
Precedent, recycling genius, relying on established steps…is what turns a mediocre mind into a mediocre specialist.
No creativity required - no thinking outside the box."[/size]

Any female can triumph in such intelligence. I do not equate grasping power whether it be of Satyr, or N. or any other author I’ve been largely quoting with “intellgence”; riding on another’s work does not give me a high. Such titles mean nothing to me.

I really feel for the pressure put on Luke now… he either has to prove himself worthy of judging anything, when words like rare have become so abused, or, he pushes away the sneer beneath his veneer and pretends he was only testing me all along.

His actions will expose him to me either way.

I hope he doesn’t feel too vulnerable and break into a song… [pun intended of course]

@Travolta gone right

To all the so-so ladies at ILP. This is perfectly okay and does not for a moment make you any more lesser (nod to Lys’s grammar mistake yesterday) in my eyes.

Chipmunks are either too busy with their nuts, or they are nuts! to know anything of mygrammar…

And what’s my grammar compared to someone so clueless about what he’s saying and what he’s feeling… On the one hand, Luke will claim not to be a Marxist, and on the other, he stated he could not possibly think of bringing a child into this goddamn world, till a utopia was achieved. What a git. Know Thyself luv.

Its because this world is so filthy, so degenerate, so poor and mindless and empty and narrow and crooked and vile and disgusting and full of maggots, I would all the more Want to bring a child in the midst of this garbage. An artist who has pride would Want to start from scratch, from the desert and wasteland before him, would Want to fashion his own from whatever material than be given a ready made world he/she had no part of directly.
Its a pleasure and an honour to be born and live at this time of twilight, chipMonk

[Lys]

@Zoot Allures

She won’t post a pic because… she’s Han.

Han Solo?

Who would have thought. Yeah, I guess I can see it. She’s a philosophical mercenary and smuggler, does business under the table beyond the jurisdiction of the federation of planets, has the fastest spaceship, and a wookie for a partner and co pilot.

No, no, the other one. Hydroxyl Ammonium Nitrate - rocket propellant. Its a colourless salt with a sexy intact structure with a huge stamina and can take you to strange sirius places…

[Lys]

@phoneutria

It is a very straightforward decision for lyssa to not post a picture. Even if she was the hottest woman alive, she is still hotter in your minds.

But that’s not why she won’t post a pic. She won’t post a pic because… she’s Han.

Aren’t you, haney?

If a good pony wanted to take the pressure she felt on my behalf, she would do that by extremely subtle and inconspicuous destraction.

Nah… there was def. malaise here in this irresistible intervention.

[Lys]

@iambiguous

Sigh…

There are so many reasons that one might admire a woman:

• her intelligence
• her personality
• her social skills
• her employment accomplishments
• her athletic prowess
• her sense of humor
• her emotional depth
• her success as a parent
• etc

But you know you are in the la la land of the “typical male” when all of that seems to pale next her “beauty”. Or, sure, her tits and her ass.

Of course, that also seems to be an obsession with some women too. Especially the “hot” ones.

Some fall for the soul, and some for the spirit. And rarely, some have both in the right degree.

Broadly then, there’s only a battle between Lara Fabian and Lita Ford, just to keep the LF thing… woman with soul, or with spirit?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAWQxIq-9-Q[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqQ0R7OXYVY[/youtube]

Tell me about the moral obligation of choosing between such conflicting moral goods? Please, Rambo.

[Lys]

Wellllllll, I would love to aurgasm all day, but given how the studs here are no good, innovating only in ways to reintro Xt. AGAIN ad ad. inf. nausea, I can’t place my hope in any of you lot.

No heroes for this Ariadne… how abandoned she is…

Somebody has to get sirius and save the world and its going to be me. Work beckons. I need more psychotic fans.

[iambiguous]

@Lys

@iambiguous

Sigh…

There are so many reasons that one might admire a woman:

• her intelligence
• her personality
• her social skills
• her employment accomplishments
• her athletic prowess
• her sense of humor
• her emotional depth
• her success as a parent
• etc

But you know you are in the la la land of the “typical male” when all of that seems to pale next her “beauty”. Or, sure, her tits and her ass.

Of course, that also seems to be an obsession with some women too. Especially the “hot” ones.

Some fall for the soul, and some for the spirit. And rarely, some have both in the right degree.

Broadly then, there’s only a battle between Lara Fabian and Lita Ford, just to keep the LF thing… woman with soul, or with spirit?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAWQxIq-9-Q[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqQ0R7OXYVY[/youtube]

Tell me about the moral obligation of choosing between such conflicting moral goods? Please, Rambo.

Note to others:

I think I missed the relationship/relevance between my point above and her point here. Would any of you care to explain that less…obliquely?

Or is she actually trying to suggest that there is an objective rendition of this too. We either react to men and women as she does [rationally, virtuously, nobly] or we get sent to the dungeon.

Well, if ILP had one, of course.

Generally, few folks view this issue as a pressing moral conflict. It is more in the manner in which culturally and historically we are indoctrinated to embrace a particular set of gender roles/ideals. But how is this not also clearly skewed in a virtual infinite number of ways by our own [potentially] vast and varied personal experiences?

How is this not profoundly and problematically embedded in dasein?

Is she or is she not saying that if you do not view women [inside and out] as she does you are a sheep? Is she or is she not suggesting that there is in fact a Right way and a Wrong way to encompass gender roles?

You know, “philosophically”.

Indeed, perhaps she should link us to something that Satyr conveyed regarding this. That way there could be no doubt at all as to how we are all expected to think about this. If only in order to escape the huffing and the puffing.

After all, doesn’t she generally concede everything to him? She may well be the equivalent of Dagney Taggert over at KT, but there can be no doubt at all as to who John Galt is. And how is KT not the internet equivalent of the la la land that was “Galt’s Gulch”?

[phoneutria]

You know, dear, that I am only interested in a contest between you and me, in which the judges are… you and me

If a good pony wanted to take the pressure she felt on my behalf, she would do that by extremely subtle and inconspicuous destraction.

No, no distraction. Not for you. You like it tense.
Strum a Bm for me.

And no malaise from my part, only care-a-malaise… to paraphrase
The only question is how to best bring out the sweetness in you. Searing, or slow roast…
How tender are those meats, dear?
I reckon, tense.

Slow roast it is.

tc, wild rose… heaps and heaps of toys, etc

[Orbie]

@iambiguous

@Lys

@iambiguous

Sigh…

There are so many reasons that one might admire a
woman:

• her intelligence

• her personality

• her social skills

• her employment accomplishments

• her athletic prowess

• her sense of humor

• her emotional depth

• her success as a parent

• etc

But you know you are in the la la land of the “typical
male” when all of that seems to pale next her
“beauty”. Or, sure, her tits and her ass.

Of course, that also seems to be an obsession with
some women too. Especially the “hot” ones.

---

You could /should write an instruction manual about the loss of soul as a philosophical compendium. Every non believer should develop their own set of defenses against it.

Some fall for the soul, and some for the spirit. And rarely, some have both in the right degree.

Broadly then, there’s only a battle between Lara Fabian and Lita Ford, just to keep the LF thing… woman with soul, or with spirit?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAWQxIq-9-Q[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqQ0R7OXYVY[/youtube]

Tell me about the moral obligation of choosing between such conflicting moral goods? Please, Rambo.

Note to others:

I think I missed the relationship/relevance between my point above and her point here. Would any of you care to explain that less…obliquely?

Or is she actually trying to suggest that there is an objective rendition of this too. We either react to men and women as she does [rationally, virtuously, nobly] or we get sent to the dungeon.

Well, if ILP had one, of course.

Generally, few folks view this issue as a pressing moral conflict. It is more in the manner in which culturally and historically we are indoctrinated to embrace a particular set of gender roles/ideals. But how is this not also clearly skewed in a virtual infinite number of ways by our own [potentially] vast and varied personal experiences?

How is this not profoundly and problematically embedded in dasein?

Is she or is she not saying that if you do not view women [inside and out] as she does you are a sheep? Is she or is she not suggesting that there is in fact a Right way and a Wrong way to encompass gender roles?

You know, “philosophically”.

Indeed, perhaps she should link us to something that Satyr conveyed regarding this. That way there could be no doubt at all as to how we are all expected to think about this. If only in order to escape the huffing and the puffing.

After all, doesn’t she generally concede everything to him? She may well be the equivalent of Dagney Taggert over at KT, but there can be no doubt at all as to who John Galt is. And how is KT not the internet equivalent of the la la land that was “Galt’s Gulch”?

[Orbie]

That was not meant for You, LYS

[Amorphos]

Lys

Btw i am not condemning what you do. For me it is a battle we all have with causality, and blame is absurd and pointless.

It is an imbalance if you take the level field, equilibrium, or equality as your starting point, which is not the case in reality.

A pair of scales balance in the middle naturally, as did those stones. Secondly, you assume that there is something about you or others which makes them better, or otherwise an unequal party. If you take a look at any of the things you think makes you superior, you will find they are causal and not caused by your subjective consciousness [if anything even is ~ should be our starting point with causality imho]. Everything including your birth is purely situational, unless you believe there is some God which made you? Or perhaps you were there before your birth and you caused your existence!?

Dominating is an organizing which requires temporarily fixing or steadying things, which is what the piling of stones imply. The piling of breaths one upon the other, some call it the piling of fire, is building of energy, your own sun and heat-source. The architecture of the “stupa” is a piling up of fire, where every stone laid fixes order in each elemental realm till one ascends to light, a stairway to heaven.

Or, dominating is an organizing which requires temporarily unbalancing and breaking things. It, like any other duality takes you and them up to a perceived hight, then drops them down to an emotional low. The overall effect is cumulative and the ‘victims’ polarity ~ the highs and lows, widens to the maximum. Once this is arrived at the net result of the cumulative nature is an unbearable anxiety often leading to suicide [irrespective of the means to a given duality].
i don’t know how it feels for you? I assume you gain strength and the cumulative effect is a perceived strength? One which the victims aspire to or worship even?

Have you ever felt victimized by a female Amorphos?

Usually it is me who’s the asshole. …but yea i suppose. Fantasy wise i prefer to be the one doing the tying up, its so damn hard to get females to stop fucking around otherwise lol.

This OP is a hoax, there is no truth to any of it, and that’s all I will say on that.

Sure. The philosophy is the same anyhow. …and this is the internet so i take everything in that vein [disbelief].

_

[perpetualburn]

@iambiguous

Sigh…

There are so many reasons that one might admire a woman:

• her intelligence
• her personality
• her social skills
• her employment accomplishments
• her athletic prowess
• her sense of humor
• her emotional depth
• her success as a parent
• etc

But you know you are in the la la land of the “typical male” when all of that seems to pale next her “beauty”. Or, sure, her tits and her ass.

Of course, that also seems to be an obsession with some women too. Especially the “hot” ones.

Love is often being so blind at how woman sees herself that you start to believe the act she puts on for you benefit (or more likely, for her own benefit(maybe someone more “worthy” is watching))

[iambiguous]

@perpetualburn

Love is often being so blind at how woman sees herself that you start to believe the act she puts on for you benefit (or more likely, for her own benefit(maybe someone more “worthy” is watching))

Maybe, but the point is that this is not necessarily applicable to all women such that it transcends all of the many different ways in which individual women [born and raised in different historical, cultural and experiential contexts] might see themselves and other women. Or how individual men might see themselves in turn given all of the many, many different combinations of variables that any particular individual [male or female] might be shaped and molded from.

Then, for the philosopher, the point is this: Given this…given the sheer number of contrasting/countervailing existential contexts in which we might come to acquire value judgments pertaining to gender roles…is there a way to pin down the most rational point of view?

Yes, say the objectivists. Then they procede to tell you why you should think like they do if you wish to become “one of us”. KT is just a more preposterous rendition of this.

[Zoot_Allures]

ooooookay. Moving right along.

@lys

But I do have to say some other things. Domination need not be with the intent of wanting to own, control, possess, or dominate the other. A dominatrix can be totally self-absorbed engaged in power over oneself, once attained can even make her a submissive who doesnt feel oppressed, repressed, suppressed, depressed being dominated by a worthy other. “Power eludes desire for power, like a woman shunning the lustful embrace of an impotent lover.” [Ev.]

And vice-versa, its the self-conquering ones who can afford to let someone ‘conquer’ them; and a (wo)man can feel this and there’s nothing humiliating about it.

Self-discipline can give off a powerful vibe, that some voluntarily offer themselves to want to be used/abused/dominated by you. No victimization here or power trips need be involved here.

That’s all very insightful but the fact remains; it is not real conquering or dominating, and when you use this as an example of the luxury of the self-conqueror… that privilege and right only the self conqueror has, to be strong enough to lose, etc., you are not giving a genuine example of what would be a real case of allowing oneself to be conquered, thereby depreciating the concept and its value.

You cheat the idea, more especially its importance, by equivocating it with a couple fruitcakes involved in a silly game of sadomasochism.

It is a fictional play to enact the theme of being dominated, but by being a play, it is conducted.

Sexual domination (if that’s what this is about) is not real conquering… not a real instance of a strong person letting himself be exploited in the terms you talk about.

Only because Paul and Friedrich agreed to the picture were you given that whip, Ms. Salome. Don’t kid yourself.

You know, now I’m wondering how often you do this; how often you think you are giving accurate articulation of one of Nietzsche’s concepts. When you go on those quote-spree binges I don’t (can’t) pay attention to the post anymore.

[phoneutria]

Toots a l’heues, consider the following:

• physical domination
• psychological domination
• domination over oneself

Physical domination, which I reckon is a subject that occupy a good portion of a man’s mind, is something relatively easy to obtain by means of a little deception. Naturally, a woman coming at a man for a fist fight is likely to end up at a hospital, but you can’t overstate the power of a cold heart… and a catlle prod and some skill at knots and one of them red flyer wagons, the psycho lady’s best friend.

Psychological power though, is a lot more difficult to obtain. It does not simply require a skill at reading a person, it also implies an acquired skill of how much pressure to apply, and where, and when.

More difficult even it is the power over yourself, which is a skill to be developed over the course of a lifetime. It requires ridding yourself of all self-deception and looking at yourself bare, and giving yourself punishment for what you do not like until you like everything that you see… which is never.

Either that, of being a good enough of a liar to believe in your own lies

So, complementary as they might be, are you talking about the same thing as lys is?

[Orbie]

@Zoot Allures

ooooookay. Moving right along.

@lys

But I do have to say some other things. Domination need not be with the intent of wanting
to own, control, possess, or dominate the other. A dominatrix can be totally self-absorbed engaged in power over oneself, once attained can even make her
a submissive who doesnt feel oppressed, repressed,
suppressed, depressed being dominated by a worthy other. “Power eludes desire for power, like a woman shunning the lustful embrace of an impotent lover.”
[Ev.]

And vice-versa, its the self-conquering ones who can
afford to let someone ‘conquer’ them; and a (wo)man
can feel this and there’s nothing humiliating about it.

Self-discipline can give off a powerful vibe, that some
voluntarily offer themselves to want to be

used/abused/dominated by you. No victimization here or power trips need be involved here.

That’s all very insightful but the fact remains; it is not
real conquering or dominating, and when you use
this as an example of the luxury of the self-conqueror… that privilege and right only the self conqueror has, to be strong enough to lose, etc., you
are not giving a genuine example of what would be a
real case of allowing oneself to be conquered, thereby depreciating the concept and its value.

You cheat the idea, more especially its importance,
by equivocating it with a couple fruitcakes involved in
a silly game of sadomasochism.

It is a fictional play to enact the theme of being
dominated, but by being a play, it is conducted.

Sexual domination (if that’s what this is about) is not
real conquering… not a real instance of a strong
person letting himself be exploited in the terms you talk about.

Only because Paul and Friedrich agreed to the picture
were you given that whip, Ms. Salome. Don’t kid
yourself.

You know, now I’m wondering how often you do this;
how often you think you are giving accurate
articulation of one of Nietzsche’s concepts. When you go on those quote-spree binges I don’t (can’t) pay attention to the post anymore.

This is precisely right: Power not only eludes the desire for power, and has to be strong enough to loose, but it requires it! that is the key to the
Existential leap, the confidence of being able to withstand the feeling of flying over enormous depths of chasms. At this point, there must not be heeded any consideration for self valuing, the valle eyes must be for the other, the needy one, the one who needs domination.

but this domination is only virtual, it relies on the others’ unwitting paricipation, a participation mystique.

The mistique must be absolutely binding, in a sort of catch, where there isno room for error, or deviation.

only those to whom such can avail ones self to, can it work. The price is immesurable, the payoff is non existent, to a toil unending.

tHis is the cost of a vindication to a unremitting nihilism, and the leap is worthless without it.

[phoneutria]

The sexual context does make it a cloudy example. Not only because women are for most of the times physically inferior, which is to say that male physical control is a given, but also because men for most of the times will go along with anything so long as they are getting laid, which is to say that female psychological control is a given.