The purpose of all life

A man sexual signaling has until recently been considered even a postive thing. A woman sexual signaling - and I mean, suggesting that sex now would be a good idea - has been likely to be considered a whore, family destroyer and more. I don’t think any of this is simple, but I disagree with what seems like a simple take on your side.

It’s a sociological universal. There are no subtleties when it comes the the punishment for sexual signaling between the sexes.

Male sexual signaling being seen as a positive thing, relative to women has never been seen as positive.

If a woman flashed you in the 1950’s and a man did.

The man would be the one in jail. Not the woman.

Well, perhaps we should define sexual signaling, because to me this is ridiculous. A woman who went around flirting with married men in the 50s would face severe social ostracism and rape. A flirtatious man, doing this in front of the boyfriends and husbands, if done bluntly, would get in fights and worse. But if he did it when alone with the women, not much would happen. The women would be putting their futures on the line. And this is nothing compared to what happens now in the Middle east. Mens sexual signaling, even grabbing a woman simply walking alone and assaulting her, would be considered the womans fault or seen as inevitable. A woman flirting in Iran is heading for death. Boys in high school in the us flirting with girls are seen as doing what they are supposed to. Girls can flirt, but they better be careful to not seeming to suggest sex in the near future or they still face serious problems. The whole metoo thing definitely has upped the ante for men’s risks, but in general it is still seen as the norm that men can and even should be on the make and women should not be on the make, even in the US.

In thinking that you’re addressing the topic, you are actually avoiding it:

Which sex is the most uncomfortable with sexual signaling from the other sex?

If a guy whips his dick out in a train station in iran, who’s more afraid, the men or the women?

The women of course!

What if a woman strips down naked in an Iranian train station? Are the men SCARED!!

No!! Hell no!!

Their culture though states that women who signal sexually are asking for sex.

The west has the same culture in a much subtler way.
It’s still the definition of rape, just like it is in Iran.

Hell, this board even has a male flasher in prison as we speak!!

Edited above post

I hope I didn’t offend you Karpel.

It truly is the point, and I may have veered from it myself, which had you posting away from the topic of this discussion:

Men are less affected by sexual signaling from women in terms of AVERSION, than women are from men.

This has long been considered, and still is considered a universal in the social sciences.

The primary reason, and this is also considered a universal in the social sciences: sex dimorphism.

The universal is without dispute in the very broad category labeled “social science”:

Evolutionary psychologists
Cultural anthropologists
Sex researchers

All three of those fields not only consider this a fact beyond reproach, there have been numerous studies which support it.

There are depth to these studies as well.

For example: women find a stoic type expression sexier in men than smiling. Smiling can be considered the slightest sexual signaling. Men are most attracted to smiling. What this means is that even in minutae, women are more averse to sexual signaling .

Even if someone accepted all this as the honest truth, it still doesn’t mean that everyone is a rapist. When someone says, “rapist”, this isn’t what they mean. You’re trying to change the definition of a rapist to suit this weird thing you’ve concocted and in the process you’re defying common sense.

I mean, by your own logic, you’re violating my consent right now and therefore you’re a rapist.

I’m not violating your sexual consent. You’re the one violating sexual consent.

Besides, I’ve many times stated on these boards that when there are mutually exclusive consents, such as someone always wanting sunny weather and someone always wanting rain and snow, that the solution is not who is correct, the solution in an instance like this is that we live in a consent violating reality at the meta level. Our squabbles are not proof that someone is right or wrong on a particular level, it’s that reality itself is wrong.

The problem, which I explained earlier in this thread, is that men and women are trying to use big people terms, like a child playing with Barbie and thinking she’s a real princess - men and women constantly refer to their realationships as consensual when they can be proven as fact that they are nothing even close to consensual … the illusion is made that much more convincing that they have adult bodies.

They have no clue what real consent is, they just pretend to be grown ups

Lol the purpose of life is not to eradicate consent which is a very human concept in society. The purpose is to experience, which one can experience aspects of life regardless of other humans. The idea of Consent, no, due to its very nature of needing a human to give or not give in the first place.

The meaning of life would make no logical sense to revolve around humanity, that’s naive.

Your personal experience can be made into what you want your life to be. The best reason for it being experience as the meaning to life is that every individual or living thing gets to make a conscious choice to the best of their ability on what they want their own life to be.

So you get to choose, but your idea of eradicating consent is not my own personal meaning. I assume you mean it in a sexual context and I don’t care if a woman rejects me because life isn’t based on sex, instinct and continuing the species is, but we have a lot of time to worry about breeding. If life were about breeding we would be identical to cells, pass away after breeding. I imagine.

Tell the universe and yourself “I want my consent violated against my consent forever and ever”

Get back to me on that one.

Personally, since you laughed at me about it, I think you should experience a drop of the hell life can do you to, just to wipe that smirk off your face forever

This has been rehashed over and over since the 18th century where against Hobbs, Rousseau argued for the Noble Savage, who instinctively would not violate anyone’s consent.

Hobbes turned out right, but life is not about consent violation but about the will to power. The individual will to become a person.

Civilisation itself is at stake, and whether it is mass Democracy or techno Oligarchy, the traps are set, and the problem is, how to avoid them.

That democracy can not rule for itself speaks for it’s self.

Hell doesn’t exist and if it does its from my own creating it and projecting it from my own mind your hell would never match mine, sorry to burst your bubble.

I don’t worry about consent because nature is trial and error, the only consent one has to deal with is through humans, which life does not revolve around us.

Consent violated about what? Because if you violate my personal consent I’ll violate your face with my fist or take it to authorities. People shouldn’t violate others consent and I’m not saying it shouldn’t be focused on but it is not the entire meaning of life. It could be the meaning to your life, but it isn’t my meaning.

I have to agree with you and hobbes, the will is the only thing any conscious individual truly has, most sacrifice theirs and are unknowingly enslaved by societies systems.

Although it is not a free will, it is still a will regardless, we choose to the best and extent of our abilities or awareness.

Keeping your will Imo is knowingly shaping yourself and knowing your environment has effects on your person as well.

Having no will or sacrificing it is to be shaped by your surroundings, purely.

Artimus,

Hell is defined as the place that you don’t want to be, the circumstance you don’t want; otherwise the word would be meaningless.

I’ve been to hell. I can tell you for 100% sure that it exists.

You can take that for what you will.

I’ll tell you a secret about hell. Not even a hair on ones body needs to be touched to be in incomprehensible hell.

I’ll tell you something about will to power:

Nobody wants it to violate their consent.

No one wants it but that isn’t the meaning to life. Experience is. Have to take both good and bad.

Hell is subjective. My hell could be rainbows and ponies and yours could be fire and Devils

Ecmandu, you are being pulled in too many directions.

Focus on “your” hypothesis. The purpose of all life.

I still don’t think you’ve thought it quite through.

So everyone is a rapist, and anyone who doesn’t agree is just a child pretending to be a grown up. And you’re not redefining consent or rape, it’s just that no one else has a clue what real consent is? Am I following you here?