About Love

There are different kinds of love.

Obviously I came up with this after reading Sex and Character (Otto Weininger).


One is Eros, that is pure animalistic lust – it is connected with physical hunger, from an evolutionary psychology point of view. Both men and women have this. The masculine part of a person wants to touch, be aggressive while the feminine part wants to be touched, be passive.

Another one is Agape, that is something which usually does not develop between a man and a woman, at least not often in our day and age. It is a form of love which can only occur between the masculine, the rational parts, of two people, it’s a long term development based on proven trust and it’s a creation of reason. A trust which isn’t given without trial because that would be unreasonable and fall into another category.

That next category is what most men call love, besides the eros one ; ) . It’s that romantic fuzzy feeling. The one where the man sees the woman without make-up doing unattractive things and still gets that fuzzy reaction.
This kind of feeling is not possible without the masculine part of a person’s psyche. That is why this feeling/state of mind is predominantly experienced by men. It doesn’t mean that a woman, who has less masculinity inside her can’t experience it, but it’s a much more rare occurence. It’s like – Those things which we are most of the time, we are not all the time – Of course I’m not saying you fall in love and stay in love all the time, those ‘love’ experiences occur over time, the frequency, intensity and duration varying.
That fuzzy feeling is a kind of projection – the other person becomes a vessel for all the good things we want to attribute/fill into them. The metaphor with the vessel is not too far off because it’s usually men who fill the woman/vessel of their dreams – of their dreams says it again. It’s not real in the objective sense.
Not all men are looking for the same kind of experiences – This drive to want to look for the good parts of one-self in the other probably isn’t helping with material gains or physical pleasure full-FILLment but it is what it is and trying to cut parts of one-self out isn’t a solution all want to pursue. There is always a price to be paid but it’s always a different one. Don’t get me wrong though. I’m not saying a man should be a fool in love – Trying to become aware of what is happening first, then decide what you want to do about it.

Another notion of love is the receiving kind of love. The I want to be loved for who I am, someone needs to love me, the static vessel, the being, the passive not the active, not the becoming, not the masculine spirit. That kind of love is a desire originating from the feminine part of a person. Men who want their feminine part of their psychology to be loved will find a hard time, at least with women, haha. Females are usually not the providers of the fuzzy, fill your vessel kind of love. Mothers do that for their children though - motherly love. Today this is probably on the decline. In general, female emancipation is more about the emancipation of the harlot and not the mother aspect of women.

Maybe the mother aspect of a woman requires a certain masculine element inside herself to come about. Hm.
...

To want to love (active) and to want to be loved (passive).

....

The ancient greeks had three categories for love, from what I know: Eros, Philia and Agape.

I might add 432hz music, this one unfortunately isn't, but it fits here perfectly:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Rmb
Spring lyrics

the spring is my love,
there is a spring rezzling in the trees,
felt my heart was delighted, rebirth of all kind,
sceneries which fulfill my soul,
it will tranquilly last forever in my mind

the wind, the birds, the love, the air,
the breeze, the June, the spring in me
the wind, the birds, the love, the air,
the breeze, the June, the love in me

the spring is my love ...

Sounds like Weininger worked with a very black and white model, just like Nietzsches Apollonian/Dionysian.

Spengler's distinction has the apollonian as a carpe diem local beingness and the faustian as explorer of time and space and the magian as essence.

This in my opinion offers a much wider perspective than Nietzsche (that Weininger probably is based on).

This black and white difference of Nietzsche bores me.

It also doesn't lead anywhere. There is no dynamic in it. You can try to merge them, then you get some kind of grey.

I don't know much about the things you wrote. I may gonna read about it some time.

One plus One equals One - Don't read the words I just wrote.

Respect doesn't sound exciting and can appear to some to be boring. In my opinion, I would have to take a step backwards from love and begin from the word "respect" before even embarking on "love", between a man and a woman. Respect cannot be ignored. Both men and women can show respect for each other, without being in love. What love means to women, respect means to men. So I say, primarily, for a woman, respecting a man is more important than loving that man and for men, can they truly love a woman without first respecting her?


If a woman fails to both earn and show respect, mutual love will not develop deeply. For example, what we have today, appears to be loveable relationships riddled with social and domestic turmoil. Women need to stop looking for what a woman wants and supply to men what they more importantly expect more of. Forget focusing so much on love and elevate respect as the more important aspect, which is "unconditional" respect. From this mutual respect will grow and increase the sharing of love. I cannot imagine it any other way. Besides, it is exciting to be in awe of your man.

And what binds a man's hand in making a female respect him?

Why does she laugh at him, and is quickly disillusioned by the "reality" of him?

What is respect?
A form and a degree, of fear/anxiety.
Exactly what sheltering prevents.

Modern women have no fear. the costs, the risks, of child bearing and rearing and of participation in a group, are diminished.
They have the pill, they have laws, the state, they have social norms, to protect them from themselves.
Men are no longer required because the institution is the alpha-male.

They do not need to be careful, to take care, with their sexual practices and choices, because they have the pill, or abortion or welfare. The costs are reduced; the risks are reduced....care is reduced because there is little fear.

Males, in the Modern era, are surrogate females...or they are trained to be so.
Lesbianism is the ideal relationship....even in heterosexual unions.
The biological male is supposed to be like a female, in all ways, except for also exuding this primal masculine energy....this butchness with no substance.
The need for this is a remnant of natural selection.

Because human social structures change faster than biologies can keep-up with, we have this grey area in between shifting paradigms.
This is where the confusion sets in.
We have individuals still governed by primal, natural, drives, but also infected by current social ideals.
The body is a manifestation of the past - it is past experience, encoded in genes.
The mind is a collector of data from the immediate environment - an collector of mimetic codes.
The two come into conflict when the mimetic codes describe a world, an ideal, in opposition to the natural, the genetic, one. They are out-of-tune with the past.

Females, having little capacity to understand, surrender themselves to both, resulting in this confusion we then call "feminine mystique: the infinite complexities, for the modern male, of the simplistic female psyche.
The common ground between this gene/meme conflict, in our age, is feminization. A desire to redefine sexual roles, or to dismiss them altogether, offering in their place this amalgamation of homosexual parity.

For the more effete biological male, being a homosexual represents this harmony between the conflicting genetic and mimetic codes.
For the female, with masculine tendencies, lesbian relating is ideally suited for her modern lifestyle requirements.
Those more attuned with their biological sexuality will be pressured to surrender or to make way for homosexuality - not only the lifestyle, but the attitude will be imitated, as it is provided for them via cultural mediums.
They will receive subliminal messages as to how a "healthy," modern male and female are supposed to think like and act like and be like.

Sounds awesome.... sigh.
Yes, I know, it is what it is and I see it happening.

Sometimes it is depressing.
Sometimes it is a battle and defeat is certain
Sometimes there is a spark of hope
Sometimes my spirit is cunning and cruel
Sometimes it's an amusing tragedy

Cheer up, start thinking on your own. Build on 19th century models, but learn about 20th century models as well. Spengler and Heidegger foremost. Heidegger, to learn how to think for yourself.

Yes master, I'll get right on it. If I read many many books and construct my theories on many many influences then I can better hide my lack of creativity.

But hey, you cheered me up.

What he is saying, in code, is to be more Modern...forget the past, for it is inferior...adapt to, a and give into, the current.

19th century is code for "the past"...and what is the past?
The sum of all nurturing....and Order.
He implores you to give-into disordering, entropy....surrender to chaos.
Go with the flow.
His desire to eradicate categories rooted in nature, is a Modernistic attempt to break the dams and let the waters, of change, flow freely.

He is feminine.

Hubbard is his cult leader....some moron preaching alien empires and psychobabble cleansing of some spirit.
He is at the forefront of Modernity...he's abandoned the cult of Judeo-Christianity and turned to a more sci-fi, Transhuman variant...

I sense a bit of a desire to proselytize.
Scientologist?

He's a bit hostile towards me, which actually lifted my spirit. He cheered me up, heh. I'd prefer it in a more open manner though.

He implores me... hehe. I don't know what he's doing but he's taking the wrong approach with me.

Laconian, you definitely should not appeal to my intellectual vanity - that's pretty much in vain. Some other ways would work much better with me, I suspect. Some thing(s) about me you can't stand. Are you aware of that? Aware of what it is? You are probably too polite to tell me.

Hubbard...oh boy


*away*

Satyr wrote:

What he is saying, in code, is to be more Modern...forget the past, for it is inferior...adapt to, a and give into, the current.

The past is completely visible in the here and now. No need to look back, IF you can see.
The ancient greeks (apollonian worldview according to Spengler) didn't look back into their past either. They lived by the maxime: Carpe diem. But you are well entangled in faustian thinking.
Which can lead to real masculinity (above the 2-dimensional apollonian kind), once one overcomes the lure of Nietzschean resentment.

Quote :

He is at the forefront of Modernity...

And where are you?

Anfang wrote:

Some thing(s) about me you can't stand. Are you aware of that? Aware of what it is? You are probably too polite to tell me.

I think from that youtube channel you posted above, that you are a MRA/MGTOW follower. Satyr is your father figure.

Laconian wrote:

Satyr wrote:

What he is saying, in code, is to be more Modern...forget the past, for it is inferior...adapt to, a and give into, the current.

The past is completely visible in the here and now. No need to look back, IF you can see.
The ancient greeks (apollonian worldview according to Spengler) didn't look back into their past either. They lived by the maxime: Carpe diem. But you are well entangled in faustian thinking.
Which can lead to real masculinity (above the 2-dimensional apollonian kind), once one overcomes the lure of Nietzschean resentment.

Yes, fully Modern you are.
Like an animal, not aware of its own nature...in your case, as with the case of Moderns, you deny, or resent your animal nature, making yourself all the more entangled by it.

Laconian wrote:

And where are you?

I'm the guy with a smirk...on the urban streets you walk on.

What is fascinating about you, is how you've attached yourself to Hubbard's shriveling,dead, testicles, accusing others of being attached to mine.
You're like that effete douche-bag, Tom Cruise.
You've replaced one Nihilistic world-view with an even more current one.
This you call "progress."

Satyr wrote:

What is fascinating about you, is how you've attached yourself to Hubbard's shriveling,dead, testicles, accusing others of being attached to mine.

I am not accusing anyone. A little challenge that's all.

I understand...and was the "challenge," such that it was, not expecting a response?
I think this is your way of getting attention.

By the way, Heidegger and Spengler are both in the same schools of organic thinking Nietzsche belonged to. Nietzsche, was not the inventor...not the final word on it...but he was the first Modern critique of Modernity.
A connection to a more authentic Hellenism.

Heidegger, in one of his books I am reading on Parmenides, offers a n interesting possibility.
According to him Hellenism lost its Hellenic spirit when the Romans took over and translated the Hellenes in Roman ways.They also named them Greeks.
He uses the conception of "truth," as it has been passed into the English, through the Latin veritas, and compares it to the Hellenic word: αληθεια loosely translated as "the unconcealed."
He says that veritas is imperial...a dictate from above, a barrier, to protect, to guard against,, to shelter,a concealing...and actually means the opposite of what the Hellenes meant by alithea..forgetting, UN-concealing.
Perhaps we can use the Romans as the beginning of Civilization, based on the Hellenic culture...and so a harbinger of its decline.

Satyr wrote:

I think this is your way of getting attention.

I am a German for God's sake!

Quote :

By the way, Heidegger and Spengler are both in the same schools of organic thinking Nietzsche belonged to. Nietzsche, was not the inventor...not the final word on it...but he was the first Modern critique of Modernity.
A connection to a more authentic Hellenism.

I know you can get stuck with Nietzsche though. He has this lure. His big ego.

Quote :

Heidegger, in one of his books I am reading on Parmenides, offers a n interesting possibility.
According to him Hellenism lost its Hellenic spirit when the Romans took over and translated the Hellenes in Roman ways.They also named them Greeks.
He uses the conception of "truth," as it has been passed into the English, through the Latin veritas, and compares it to the Hellenic word: αληθεια loosely translated as "the unconcealed."
He says that veritas is imperial...a dictate from above, a barrier, to protect, to guard against,, to shelter,a concealing...and actually means the opposite of what the Hellenes meant by alithea..forgetting, UN-concealing.
Perhaps we can use the Romans as the beginning of Civilization, based on the Hellenic culture...and so a harbinger of its decline.

Then you are on the right track. Sloterdijk had a chapter on this "Alithea - Die Lunte der Wahrheit". (my translation: The fuse of truth). I remember him describing a clearing (a glade). Like in a forrest. On this clearing all is revealed. It's a nice picture.

What does "Alithea" have to do with "forgetting"? (Un-conceiling, that I understood!)

I must read this text also.

Veritas is indeed a reason for conflict (as in: I hold the one and only truth and everyone has to obey and accept my particular dogmas..). Alithea is something else.

Laconian wrote:

Satyr wrote:

I think this is your way of getting attention.

I am a German for God's sake!

What does this mean?
Race only indicates potential. In your case, as you admit, you are not a pure blood.

Laconian wrote:

I know you can get stuck with Nietzsche though. He has this lure. His big ego.

Any author, who thinks he has something worth reading, has an ego.
How many times have you seen me quote Nietzsche?
You quote him more than I.

I don't know what Nietzschean means. The only, admitted one I've met was Sauwelios...and he was totally his bitch.
He was an anti-Nietzsche, Nieatzchean, in the same way Christians are a Church dedicated to the one against Churches.
Was not Sauwelios making an idol of the idol-breaker? Does not Christianity come to us through the pharisees, Jesus rejected?
Jews, preaching to those who do not know better about being humble and egoless, and deferring.
What are the Jews? Priestly.
The Will>Reason>Passion.
What do they teach?
Passion>Will>Reason.

What did Heisman call it?
The Jewish Paradox.
Teaching surrender to those you wish to surrender to you; teaching non-discrimination to those you discriminate against; teaching uniformity, by those who profess to be the "chosen ones".

What is the priest?
The mouthpiece of power; the voice of the God-King.
The earthly representative of the One who is in the beyond, and cannot be challenged.
The ego projected outside the individual...sheltering him form the repercussions of his own actions.

If I see the world another has seen am I his? If I discover an oasis in the desert and find others are there...have I followed them, and am I their follower?

Laconian wrote:

What does "Alithea" have to do with "forgetting"? (Un-conceiling, that I understood!)

Lithe was the river of forgetfulness crossed by the ones who died.
It also means oblivion, in Greek, as in to be oblivious.
Ilithios ηλιθιος means imbecile.

Α-λιθεια...the negating alpha, of forgetfulness.
That which negates covering, concealment, forgetting.

Laconian wrote:

Veritas is indeed a reason for conflict (as in: I hold the one and only truth and everyone has to obey and accept my particular dogmas..). Alithea is something else.

According to Heidegger, the modern usage of the term truth, comes form the Romans, and it is an inversion of the way the Hellenes used it.

Satyr wrote:

Race only indicates potential.

I am 7/8th German. But I am not talking race here. I am talking memes. The first four names, you list on your "my teachers"-list were Germans: Heidegger, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Spengler. Is that accidental?

Quote :

You quote him more than I.

I give you credit for not quoting him so often. But in my magian perception I also see his essence in you and others as well. And that's not always advantageous.

Quote :

I don't know what Nietzschean means. The only, admitted, one I've met was Sauwelios...and he was totally his bitch.

Lyssa admitted to be a Nietzschean.

Quote :

If I see the world another has seen am I his? If I discover an oasis in the desert and find others are there...have I followed them, and am I their follower?

I know that in my early 20's, when I read N., I became very "religious" about him. I see the same thing happening here. He attracts mostly young men, who wish to boost their "masculinity" through him. It works! It just isn't very community building. It's always this: "I have the veritas and you are a little girl" or something like that. I see Nietzsche's influence in that. It may be just american or hypermasculine.

I found Heidegger's Parmenides lecture in english on archivedotorg

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And what binds a man's hand in making a female respect him

And what binds a man's hand.......I am not familiar with this. So my answer is based on the last part of the sentence.

Respect of a man depends on how the female values what the man is and does.

Trust of a man depends on how she values herself as deserving of him.

Why does she laugh at him, and is quickly disillusioned by the reality" of him?"

With the onset of middle age there awakens in a man a more insistent longing for unity and undividedness. He becomes conscious of the fact that he is seeking completion, seeking the contentedness and undividedness that have always been lacking.

This man and woman's needs are too diverse and eventually he will build an impenetrable wall around him.

What is respect?

Put simply, unconditional respect recognizes the validity of and shows regard for masculine characteristics that are highly regarded by men. It means treat a man like a man.

Is respect a form and a degree, of fear/anxiety.

No, this is control.

Exactly what sheltering prevents.

Yes.

Respect creates trust, admiration and a willingness to submit.

reasonvemotion wrote:

And what binds a man's hand in making a female respect him

And what binds a man's hand.......I am not familiar with this. So my answer is based on the last part of the sentence.

Respect of a man depends on how the female values what the man is and does.

Trust of a man depends on how she values herself as deserving of him.

No, respect is based on what the man can do, and by doing it take something away from her.
Respect is about fear...about preventing a loss.

What woman respects a man who cannot put her in her place, or cannot do without because he protects her from other men?
What woman respects a man when she has the system doing this for her, and he must bow before it?

reasonvemotion wrote:

Why does she laugh at him, and is quickly disillusioned by the "reality" of him?

With the onset of middle age there awakens in a man a more insistent longing for unity and undividedness. He becomes conscious of the fact that he is seeking completion, seeking the contentedness and undividedness that have always been lacking.

This man and woman's needs are too diverse and eventually he will build an impenetrable wall around him.

Tell me about walls.
Can there be windows and doors without walls?
Can there be intimacy without walls?

A man grows old and gathers his belonging, wanting to preserve them against poachers and thieves and destructive adolescent, turds, who shit everywhere and respect nobody because no hand has slapped them.

reasonvemotion wrote:

What is respect?

Put simply, unconditional respect recognizes the validity of and shows regard for masculine characteristics that are highly regarded by men. It means treat a man like a man.

No, you are missing the motive.
You are romantic. It figures.
Respect is about preventing a loss for the self.
I respect the one who has the power to take away, or to withhold, something I value.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Is respect a form and a degree, of fear/anxiety.

No, this is control.

Yes, and so is the Will...and life.
What is your skin, woman?
A barrier, a still imperfect, wall....keeping away the unwanted....trying to control what is within its perimeter.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Exactly what sheltering prevents.

Yes.

Respect creates trust, admiration and a willingness to submit.

For a female psyche, yes.
Willingness to submit is about security.
Wanting to preserve the man's dedication and protectiveness...so as to be fully female.










[/quote]

Satyr
No, respect is based on what the man can do, and by doing it takes something away from her.

RE
To take away causes fear in the "victim", because that is what she becomes.
Now I understand why you are saying respect is fear.
A man has the ability to do all you say, but whether he has to resort to that, hinges entirely on the woman who chose him.

Satyr
Respect is about fear........about preventing a loss.

What woman respects a man who cannot put her in her place, or cannot do without because he protects her from other men?

RE
Are you saying without a man"s intervention, she would subcumb to all other men
She does not the ability to do this on her own, or have the knowledge to know what is best for her?

A man can respect a woman, but not trust her.

Satyr
What woman respects a man when she has the system doing this for her, and he must bow before it.

RE
He doesn't have to, unless he feels inadequate. A woman is very attracted to a man who is a rule unto himself.

Satyr
Tell me about walls.
Can there be windows and doors without walls?
Can there be intimacy without walls?

RE
People have a fear of intimacy because there is fear of abandonment, betrayal, and rejection. Intimacy is an elusive ingredient between some men and women.

Satyr
A man grows old and gathers his belonging, wanting to preserve them against poachers and thieves and destructive adolescent, turds, who shit everywhere and respect nobody because no hand has slapped them.

RE
Yes, if that man lives in an environment where there are many people living together, like high rise apartments, that destructive element is always present.

But that does not condone slapping for all situations. Some children respond to this and some respond more postively to reasoning.

Satyr
No, you are missing the motive.

RE
I am always aware of the hidden agenda.

Satyr
You are romantic. It figures

LOL. I cannot afford that luxury.

Satyr
Respect is about preventing a loss for the self.
I respect the one who has the power to take away, or to withhold, something I value.

RE
Someone who has the ability to hurt you.

"Loss, power, take, withholding, value".

is there a place for trust.

Satyr
Yes, and so is the Will...and life.
What is your skin, woman?
A barrier, a still imperfect, wall....keeping away the unwanted....trying to control what is within its perimeter.

RE
Skin is not just a "barrier". It can repell but it can also play an important part in sexual attraction.

RE
Respect creates trust, admiration and a willingness to submit.


Satyr
For a female psyche, yes.
Willingness to submit is about security.

RE
Security is to be found only in oneself, not through another.

Wanting to preserve the man's dedication and protectiveness...so as to be fully female.

RE
Not only the female psyche.

Did you not submit to your father, wanting to preserve, etc......., so as to be fully male in his eyes and your own. To accept what he taught to become that man.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Satyr
No, respect is based on what the man can do, and by doing it takes something away from her.

RE
To take away causes fear in the "victim", because that is what she becomes.
Now I understand why you are saying respect is fear.
A man has the ability to do all you say, but whether he has to resort to that, hinges entirely on the woman who chose him.

Not only man...the world.
A woman seeks safety from otherness...and this includes all others, not only other humans.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Satyr
Respect is about fear........about preventing a loss.

What woman respects a man who cannot put her in her place, or cannot do without because he protects her from other men?

RE
Are you saying without a man"s intervention, she would subcumb to all other men
She does not the ability to do this on her own, or have the knowledge to know what is best for her?

A man can respect a woman, but not trust her.

I'm saying a woman in the wild would have to make an alliance with a male...even a beta male...even a male she does not respect or think has value.
In human systems, - modern ones - the alpha-male is then institution, making all other males beta-males.

Now, here is where it gets a bit complex.
Depending no what value a female places upon herself, she will seek out the male most approximating the combination of primal fitness and social fitness...these are not always the same.
Sheltering always produces an over-estimation of self...this is a byproduct of Modernity, and this constant attempt to decrease the harshness of life....nature.

Due to social rules concerning adultery and monogamy, most females are then forced to compromise or, they make an early mistake, which they then try to correct by finding the opposite.
So, in their youth they go for the indifferent, dominant male, type...some get pregnant only to find he does not give a shit.
Then they must compromise and look for the "nice guy".
This is what most females call "growing up." Basically it is a settling, due to environmental rules....social environmental restrictions.
There are, of course, those few "cougars" who have a few kids with the "bad boy(s)" and then spends the rest of their lives fucking around.
Technologies, and institutional protection makes this a viable lifestyle choice.

Here's the extent of man's trust, if he is not pussy-whipped and a naive romantic imbecile:
During the Beaver Cleaver fifties they made a study concerning the fathering of children. they discovered that up to 10% of children born within stable monogamous families did not belong to the male of the house...and most of the time he did not know it.

This is the extent to which nature buys into the romantic crap about love and commitment and female loyalty:
Another study was made on couples where the male often traveled and was absent or away from his female companion.
they discovered that no matter how trusting and naive, the male was, his testicles did not buy into the social pretenses. They produced more sperm during the absence, so as to deal with the possible presence of another male's sperm in the female's vagina - paced there, potentially,m during his absence.

There is a good reason for male and female promiscuity.

For males it's a matter of time.
A male is only dominant for a short period during his life. As he grows older he cannot compete against younger, more virile males. So, during the period of mhis own domiantion he tries to fertilize as many females as possible.
His only criterion is female fitness...hips to waist ration....beauty, symmetry....skin tone...etc.

For females it's a matter of variety.
First she must remain loyal so as to ensure that the male will contribute to the child's upbringing. In larger brained species, such as humans, this is about 7 years - ergo the "seven year itch".
Second, the female must have children form different fathers, and not only the dominant ones.
This because altering environmental conditions, in nature, require different genetic combinations to hope for one being able to survive them.
The alpha-male is preferred, because his dominance proves his fitness, but sampling amongst the betas is also part of female procreative tactics.
There are multiple reasons for this, besides sampling variety.
The most important one is alliances...inter-group strategies.
The alpha-male does not show preferences...his main concern is preserving his control over the group, as long as possible, and part of this requires internal harmony.
In other words he is indifferent tot he particular female, but only cares about the sum of them...this is the character trait of "bad boys": indifference for the particular.

Follow, so far?
But the female needs alliances within the group...because of internal conflicts, competitions etc.
this is why females are so interested in social issues, on social cohesion and harmony, (here the interests of females and the alpha coincide...or the institution's interests and the desires of the effete and the feminine coincide - they are always socially "healthy").
A female establishes and maintains relationships. Women have many shallow relationships and they always try to remain in contact with family and friends.

See how primate behavior is the same as human behavior...though liberal twats claim to be far too intricate and different and above animals to be understood?

Carrying on....another method is to find one of the beta-males and promise sexual favors. The male, in order to maintain the possibility for sexual favors will become the rug she walks on.
With humans, these effete betas, become the most staunch advocates of feminine rights.
The beta baby-sits for her, he brings her food (bribes, gifts, payment...like a john paying a prostitute)...and she, to keep him on the line, sometimes gives him her vagina...in secret.
In human constructs because the alpha-male is an abstraction and has no penis, this penis is supplied by the betas most worthy ...or the ones who best reflect the interests of the institution. In other words, the betas, most effete and submissive to institutional control.

This is where it gets fucked up.
You see, because the institution cannot fertilize females genetically, but only mimetically (ideals, ideas, principles, values, beliefs), the ones who are the most socially "healthy", the beta-male who is the most nidoctrinated, or domianted by this alpha-male, is the one who steps in to be the symbolic penis...althuogh after a child is born the State steps in, again, taking control over the infant.
The beta-male, the nice guy, the socially successful, is but a surrogate cock. His gens do not matter, because it is his willingness to wubmit that makes him an atrractive alternative...because he represents the alpha-male's dominance...the alpha being the State, the insitution.

This is why Niggers are so popular these days.
That they carry inferior genes, in the brain department, does not matter...because they remain slaves. On top of that they have a higher capacity to give pelasure to the female...a female who no longer gives a shit how stupid her children are, because the State is there to protect them form their own stupidity, and because the individual is not successful only if he surrenders to the State...and surrendering to the State is easier when you are dumb or effete, preferably both.

All this about the average, Modern, female.
There is, obviously, another group.
This post is getting long...so, in short:
When a female is one of the rare ones. The ones belonging to the upper 5% amongst females...or the ones belonging to the top 1% amongst both sexes, ni the area of intelligence...then her criteria change.
Not because her nature changes but because her choices diminish.
A female always wishes to be fertilized by they above her....this determined by her own evaluation of herself.
Here, self-knowledge, self-esteem, play a big part.
For such a rare female fucking beneath her, intellectually, would be like copulating with an ape.
If she found a male above her, according to her own self-evaluation, it would be difficult to find an alternate choice to compete.
Such a male would have no competitors she could consider as potential suitors.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Satyr
What woman respects a man when she has the system doing this for her, and he must bow before it.

RE
He doesn't have to, unless he feels inadequate. A woman is very attracted to a man who is a rule unto himself.

My sweet...you are lost.

What man, no matter how strong and confident, would dare to be fully male, when the state is there....an easy way for the feminine, infantile, mind to find protection and escape his wrath?
Say a female is this mouthy, cunt, wanting to find a man to put her in her place, and make her feel like a woman.

What man would risk jail, knowing that she can run to the authorities, the institution,m when she does not like what a man really feels like....of she can claim he raped her, days after they had rough sex?
Men are scared to approach a female, under the threat of sexual harassment.

Stupid cunts, around the world, think men are intimidated by "strong women"...when it is the state their "strength" depends upon which is intimidating...not the women at all.
Feminization of Mankind...dear.
Who dares to be a man, when the masculine spot is monopolized by an idea(l), and enforced by faceless bureaucratic institutions?

Are you looking for a "real man" sweets?
Well, good luck with that.

reasonvemotion wrote:

SSatyr
Tell me about walls.
Can there be windows and doors without walls?
Can there be intimacy without walls?

RE
People have a fear of intimacy because there is fear of abandonment, betrayal, and rejection. Intimacy is an elusive ingredient between some men and women.

Oh shit, there's that "fear" strategy again. It's like a shaming method.
Sweets, intimacy is a myth, only imbeciles buy into.
Nobody, at any time, is completely open with anyone else present.
This goes back to the example with the "sperm production"...the body knows what the mind thinks is irrelevant.
Romantic idealism is your candy, sweets...like this loyalty you sell.

Only a moron would reveal himself totally to an other.
Might as well take a knife and place it on your throat.

Sweets, intimacy decreases and increases, in proportion with trust. Trust is tested over time...and only a childish retard would trust someone (s)he has not experienced through thick and thin.
This is why the Hellenes valued agape, friendship, over eros, sexual love/lust.
In modern times the last is confused for the first.
Most thing being sexually attracted to someone is love, as in agape.
Showing you body is not intimacy; admitting some of your fears and flaws, is not intimacy.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Satyr
A man grows old and gathers his belonging, wanting to preserve them against poachers and thieves and destructive adolescent, turds, who shit everywhere and respect nobody because no hand has slapped them.

RE
Yes, if that man lives in an environment where there are many people living together, like high rise apartments, that destructive element is always present.

But that does not condone slapping for all situations. Some children respond to this and some respond more positively to reasoning.

Yes, and the "some" is the deciding factor.
Can you reason with a dog, or a gorilla?
No...it only understands physicality; rational, metal, arguments, do not influence it.

In the past, fear kept the masses of genetic filth at bay.
Now, having been given these "rights", protections, privileges, this sense of indestructible, entitlement...what do they respect?

What can a degenerate product of inferior genes respect or understand of respect?
I do not hit my son because when I tell him something, and I explain why he should not do it, he respects me.
If he did not, I would have to use force.
He is superior. He succumbs to reason.

And no, not all children are the same. I know...I see...I watch.
I do not live in a fuckin' bubble.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Satyr
No, you are missing the motive.

RE
I am always aware of the hidden agenda.

Nothging hidden here.
This was my beef with the turd on ILP.
Why hide my opinions here, of all places...on the Internets, in a hypothetical "philosophy forum", when I do this every day in my daily life?
If I cannot even speak my mind here, then what is lefty?
If you cannot be honest here, then where can you be so?
If my tongue is kept still, due to the same social conventions it is silenced out there, then what use do I have for this place?

reasonvemotion wrote:

Satyr
You are romantic. It figures

LOL. I cannot afford that luxury.

But you can....because it is given to you.
You accept it, because it is easy, not knowing what the price is.

You, and those like you, live in luxury, sweets...in affluence, in superfluousness...in an artificiality...and you do not know it nor do you wish to know it...because ti just feels good.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Satyr
Respect is about preventing a loss for the self.
I respect the one who has the power to take away, or to withhold, something I value.

RE
Someone who has the ability to hurt you.

"Loss, power, take, withholding, value".

is there a place for trust.

Of course...but never in any absolute sense.
Trust is an investment...it builds over time.

Who do I trust?
The one who, under various circumstances, displayed a consistency that did not become detrimental to I.
The inconsistent, moron, who one day says "I love you" and the next beats you for no reason, is not to be trusted....no matter how you sympathize with him/her.

What do you trust?
Consistency...order.
What is ordered?
Reason.
If I hurt you and give no reason at all, then trust is lost. If I hurt you and explain why I did it, and it is reasonable, then trust builds.
What is leadership, sweets?
What is a dominant male?
A cock and muscles?
For an animal, yes.
For a rational creature...it is reason.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Satyr
Yes, and so is the Will...and life.
What is your skin, woman?
A barrier, a still imperfect, wall....keeping away the unwanted....trying to control what is within its perimeter.

RE
Skin is not just a "barrier". It can repell but it can also play an important part in sexual attraction.

RE
Respect creates trust, admiration and a willingness to submit.

Skin is very important...it displays potential.
Skin is a natural parchment, upon which a genetic history is written.
Skin is but a start.

Submission is a feminine need. To belong to what it considers superior to otherness; to serve a king.
Submission must come crawling.
Power is indifferent.
See the paradox of power; the master/slave dynamic?
By showing interest, by wanting an other to submit, the individual exposes a weakness.

Need must be from the part of the weaker...or else the master becomes entrapped in the same dynamic with the slave...and the two are equalized.
A god, for example, who needs followers, who requires others to believe...is a contradiction to His monist status.
See why the "bad boy" makes young girls wet...and still inspires older broads to moistness?

reasonvemotion wrote:

Satyr
For a female psyche, yes.
Willingness to submit is about security.

RE
Security is to be found only in oneself, not through another.

Yes.
But since self can never be outside (inter)activity, then security, power, is always partial...and in relation to another.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Wanting to preserve the man's dedication and protectiveness...so as to be fully female.

RE
Not only the female psyche.

Did you not submit to your father, wanting to preserve, etc......., so as to be fully male in his eyes and your own. To accept what he taught to become that man.

Yes, I did submit.
Do you understand why the older Hellenes had an almost erotic relationship with their pupils?
Freudian..
Is it not a rite of passage to break free from your father's dominance, so as to become a full male?
Why are females considered adolescent males, in their psyche?
Do you understand?

A female never goes beyond her capacity to go beyond from; she remains a stunted male, even if she matures, physically, faster than males do.
She IS physicality, whereas males, with their bigger brain potential, grow slower and surpass females intellectually.
Not all.
The previously mentioned upper 5% females, are far above the average male.
Isn't this why, I told you, the intellectually superior females are more prone to monogamy...out of an absence of alternatives?

Sleep on it.

Satyr wrote:

Showing you body is not intimacy; admitting some of your fears and flaws, is not intimacy.

But it's a start isn't it? What then is intimacy to you?

I do not live in a fuckin' bubble.

Yea. That bubble bursts kind of during childhood or thereafter. But we keep chasing that bubble all of our lives. We all do, even the "bad boys".



The way I see it, from the "standards" that women dream of today: for me it is impossible to even become a beta male, let alone beta provider. So I act alpha towards them. Or as alpha as the environment allows me to be.

Intimacy, for me, is a merging of psyche.
The body can be a conduit, but with humans, who are more intellectual (at least some), it also requires a mental merger.

The body merges when a masculine and a feminine interlock, sexually.
This is a genetic merger...genetic intimacy.
The ultimate symbol, product, of this intimacy is a child.
A child is the combination of two genetic codes.

The memetic version, or addition, would be when two minds interlock idealistically.
A shared idea(l).

With humans both are required.

Eros is the first, the genetic kind.
Agape is the second, the memetic kind.
The symbol for such a merger can be anything, depending on what idea(l) is shared.
The shared idea(l) must be created by both...and it can be any object/objective.
This merger can happen between males, without the eros component...without the physical.
Here, the object/objective is only a projected abstraction: an idea(l) object/objective.

Perfect intimacy would be both the genetic and the mimetic in unison.
In such a case, the projected idea(l), object/objective, would not necessarily be something projected outward, but something projected inward.
The shared "towards" would be something primal: an emotion, a sensation, the moment.
The two participants would be lost, in unison, within the animalistic here/now.

Satyr:
Feminization of Mankind...dear.


Sigh......Well then, it is all over for you.


Not all hide behind the excuse of bureaucratic institutions. But most of this talk only discusses the problem and rarely offers a solution


Common sense.



Sleep on it

"Excuse" for what?
What is "over", for me, dear?

Your still the King.

Don't fret darling...