Ecmandu - you totally reject nature. Nature selects. The genders select from each other what appears to have the best chance of creating strong offspring. Nobody decided this, it is the mechanism that turned out to defeat all others.
Sexocracy is a proposal to compromise this mechanism in humans top down, from a position of might, by compulsive motive, coercion and seduction, i.e. government. It may work only because a large enough portion of people may indeed be both fit and willing to fuck people that are desperate for it in case of an evolution-connected trigger of increased status. It is well thought out which is why no one has made a working technical argument against it.
That really is the ignored truth of it.
Bollox. Women are just as idiotic as men. At least men have the potential to be rational every now and then. The only time a women ever does anything rational is when she is dwelling in the masculine. Anything else is just luck.
Natural selection breeds violent idiot chimpanzees. Women choose abusive violent idiot chimpanzees. They become leaders and rape the very nature and planet that created them. And we are supposed to sit back and pretend that such men are more fit to reproduce and carry on their genes because of their violent ability to rape the planet? Sexual stratification and female mating choices is contributing to the speciesâ and Earthâs down fall, itâs backwards evolution. Ecmandu isnât some village idiot, sexual stratification is real thing, but itâs not the only problem. Also his method of altering it through âtv brainwashingâ has less of a chance than hell freezing over.
I disproved that nonsense in the first video of my signature by giving optimal game theory. You and James are just pussy whipped, defending the female denial system to fit in socially.
Watch both these videos and get back to meâŚ
The defenders to the socally determinative causes of homosexuality point to a similar argument, that natural processes have little to do with sexual preferences. Neutral positions point to political motivations. Therefore the social political spectrum weighs heavily on the genetic trait acquisition, bringing back the old argument about trait acquisition as a genetic response to environmental changes
Until this can be definitely cleared , there can not be an answer. Is uncertain. Game theory is more applicable to politically motivated social theory however geneticists can alwalways point to irreducibility before defining terms can be utilized one way or another.
Homosexuality doesnât cause homicide or suicide (the bullying of them can though), as I said in another thread, I donât care about sexual orientations that donât cause homicide or suicide, when something causes homicide suicide or environmental degradation, such as female sexual choice, I no longer consider it a sexual orientation, but a straight forward issue of morality⌠I donât agree that only picking assholes for sex is a sexual orientation.
Re: Ecmandu
The war of the sexes is an ancient subject, and it has puzzled most men. I donât now if it has ever puzzled a woman.
Reality itself is both pussywhipped and, well I am at loss for proper words, but imagine a reversed-sex situation of similar affect.
Sexes have power over each other and they exploit this.
Currently, it is commonly agreed upon by men on forums, the western world is arranged so as to give full play to what the ancient religions all protected mankind from; the self-lust of woman, and its incontrollable power over men once it is released.
To deal with this, men now resort to clubs for feeling emasculated and violated in their natural rights. In other words, men are becoming self-proclaimed minorities, even as other men still hold the highest places of power. This means only that the world is more deceptive than it once was, not that gender roles have really reversed. It is only that money has become more of a factor and principle (that typically masculine idea) less. Women universally crave security, money is actual, tangible security, this has been understood is, for example, reason why in astrology, the way people used to set up psychological profiles, the materialistic, brooding and conservative sign Taurus is ruled by Venus, whereas the impulsive, courageous and spendthrift Aries is ruled by Mars. It is not that this correctly reflects the nature of the people attributed these profiles (astrology is relevant but quite a bit less simple than this) but that people have always understood the masculine and the feminine to pertain to power and wealth respectively. Power needs to strike constantly as offense is the only defense for a man; wealth needs to conserve itself as defense is the best offense for a woman. Women now play defense while using offensive weaponry to increase their territory. Evolution has for the longest time been in the favor of women, and the explicit rule of men is the symptom of the quiet rule of women. Only women arenât quiet anymore; this is why the balance is disturbed. Power relations have been obscured; woman after all are, when it comes to power, almost always two-faced without being aware of it; their instincts tell them what their emotions do not have the quality to express; they need a man to do what they sense necessary, but they can not directly point the man to his task. This is why a man, if he performs any task whatsoever with confidence, even when he fails and goes on pretending it didnât happen, will sway a woman a thousand times sooner than someone who openly questions his own motives. It is this unwavering foolish confidence that allows a woman woman to get a man to do things for her; there is an interplay of the womanâs values and the manâs capacity. Ideally the mans values amount to the woman including her values; âhe will do anything for herâ - but this requires that a woman is outwardly submissive, that she plays it coy, that she pretends she isnât putting up her man to all sorts of shit; she can not explicitly command the man to do anything and expect him to do it courageously; the war is âmulti-layeredâ so to speak.
Re: James â This multilayering is also my point versus Rational Metaphysics; The affecting of one subject onto another is a matter not always of direct exchange of potential, but as frequently if not far more so, the translation of one quality âxâ exerted by a certain standard A, upon another standard B which might then become quality âyâ - ; and this âalchemyâ produces indirect results through mechanisms that can not be âread in reverseâ like action = - reaction can. This is why we need the notion of a âtranslating mechanismâ, by which the relation of which the force, power or affectance is an expression, is both allowed and more importantly delimited. In this delimitation rests the power of the notion self-valuing.
In this instance, Ec, the facts speak otherwise. The incidence of suicide among homosexuals is far greater then those in the hetero population. And it is not merely a fact that has been corroborated by the vastly larger HIV infected cross count population, the other aspects equally take their toll.
I had this debate with Uccisore and he lost the debate. Iâm too lazy to pull up the links right now but will later.
researchgate.net/profile/Jac ⌠4e0fdf.pdf
The attempt rates are higher, not the completion rates. Uccisore was so embarassed that he lost this debate that he moved it to rant so nobody could see it.
Three things valued by women in a man initially;
Courage, Wealth, and Wit.
Three things valued in the long run;
Home (including children), Pride and Service to the community, which is a large shareholder in womanâs instincts.
Thatâs not true. I have more courage and wit than anyone else on this earth. Wealth I donât have more than anyone on this earth in the sense you mean it, so youâre just calling them prostitutes. Some women like to be homeless, but generally all people want a home, are you going to the prostitution argument again? Pride? Well actually women are more attracted to the facial expression of pride than smiling⌠there was a study done by the canadians which showed thousands of pictures to thousands of people⌠and they discovered that men are most attracted to smiling, and women are most attracted to the proud/brooding look. Smiling of course has the least aggression. Service to the community? Are you kidding me? The greatest service they could do for the community is have sex with more people, which they donât do. Men donât sexually stratify and women do. Fixed Cross, to be honest, youâre being a douchebag, and I can understand why women have sex with you⌠you havenât woken up yet.
well Ucci may get embarrassed, but he is not me. At the level of awareness I am talking about, the difference between attempt and success in completion is at a minimum. It can be likened to a war vetâs guilt at coming home, while his buddy was killed. The gay who attempts suicide is at a low level, where psychological (affective) and actual (effective) differences are at a non appreciable minimum. A guy serving off a life sentence in prison, may wis he opted for the deat penalty.
but I see Your point and am in complete agreement with You, from a shared vantage point.
You donât understand suicide very much⌠women have an attempt ratio 3-4 times higher than males, but males have a completion ratio 4-5 times higher than females. This makes sense, since homosexual brain physiology has been shown to be more female than male.
You can argue it both ways, I admit, and it reinforces only the tedious connection between effect and affect, assumtions as to homosexuals having brains more akin to females does not progress the argument that brain structure tends to differentiate a suicidal attemptâs outcome. Even if it could definitely be established to be a fact. But sine I brought up the analogy, the burden is mine.
And again, the only argument which can be made, is that at the level of existential crisis, seexocracy takes a back seat. People in existential crisis, are not overly concerned about sex, and if there are concerns, then the are minimized to the extent that the differences are minimized. Sex between males in prison is not considered homosexual, only as favors given, the same between men on front line. A different law rules in existentially critical environments, and new terminology is invented. The same goes for regular marriages. The talk of the war between the sexes, but when it comes to the survival and betterment of offspring, differences for the most part are at least attempted to be minimized.
Okay, well that destroys my argumentâŚ
What kind of courageous stuff have you pulled in front of women?
And what makes you so sure of your superior wit? Do you control inspired conversations with ease, do you get people to laugh a lot?
I can confirm that. But what is your argument?
It is apparently not up to you to set the terms of the service. What matters to many women of a bit advancing age or at least experience, is a sense of wholeness, which comes with home, pride and being appreciated by the community. Honor, belonging, etc- these are existential securities for women.
Please dude try to recognize that women are physically the weaker sex (not talking about endurance), which is to mean that they absolutely need such securities, that they have evolved so as to absolutely prioritize them.
But really, I am having a lot of trouble believing that you honestly would expect women to share themselves with men that offer neither pleasure nor security, simply out of pity. I would certainly not want to have a serious relationship with a woman that gives herself away for charity. Prostitution is sad enough practice for the girl in question, but what you propose, which is basically that they indiscriminately offer their bodies around for free without regard for their own values, would amount to pure dread.
When an entity disregards its own values, even subtly but let alone by just offering its goods up to someone that offers nothing in return, it is surprising how quickly it comes apart.
Like all things difficult, if we are to get past the whining and trying to fit the universe around our needs stage, we can try to see challenges as a good thing. Porn devastated the neurons and if youâre not getting laid and you see those images every night feverishly for hours you will lose your mind slowly. You start to feel the injustice of missing out. But itâs an illusion. Porn doesnât mirror reality or depict females in a real way. Anyone who has actual sex can confirm this. But the situation sort of forces men to grow. Pursue your interests with passion. Have courage and be kind. Thatâs it. Really. The rest is commentary. If you do this with courage and brilliance you will find so much more than mere sex, but youâll find sex, too. And if you stop beating off to porn you might find that your brain and body will respond by creating micro-adjustments in your personality and bearing that attract more women â the response to lack of ejaculation. You have to make the DHT work for you, not walk around feeling like you have a harum because you wank all day to a variety of women. Kings lose the ability to get girls. You have become a pale king.
Add that the OP probably does attract women more than one would think. He probably self-sabotages. He probably conveys a sense of not caring or isnât willing to jump through hoops. Or maybe he finds himself de-incentivized by real flesh, real pacing, real life, compared to the efficient power of porn. This all sounds like a demand that porn and real life merge. Itâs actually a beautiful thing. the guts to turn a perceived beauitful reality into something real is what true genius is all about. So the impulse of the OP is actually indicative of his latent power beauty and genius, he probably has so much that if well directed heâd put us all to shame. I have faith heâll get here on his own eventually. Heâs smart.
Add that the OP probably does attract women more than one would think. He probably self-sabotages. He probably conveys a sense of not caring or isnât willing to jump through hoops. Or maybe he finds himself de-incentivized by real flesh, real pacing, real life, compared to the efficient power of porn. This all sounds like a demand that porn and real life merge. Itâs actually a beautiful thing. the guts to turn a perceived beauitful reality into something real is what true genius is all about. So the impulse of the OP is actually indicative of his latent power beauty and genius, he probably has so much that if well directed heâd put us all to shame. I have faith heâll get here on his own eventually. Heâs smart. And sorry if Iâm veering off into ad hominem and not addressing the philosophical question. I tend to treat any Phaneronic games as philosophy. The lines between phenomenology and self help are so blurred if you see clearly.