Surrender and Sexual Predation

Satyr wrote:

What a wonderful piece of self-flattery.
It's nice that you have no interest in consequences.

You gather that from....?
What is moral, dear, but a concern for consequence?

Quote :

I learned something today:
Taste is not the result of cause and effect.

Really?
Who did you learn that from?

Quote :

I'll write that down next to my 'spontaneous combustion' entry, or the something out of nothing, argument.

Right.... in your strawman list.

Quote :

I spontaneously love meat...just because.
I do not feel any intellectual distress when I overindulge in my meat eating because I only care about the pleasure in eating it, and do not delve into why I do so.
I submerge in the here and now, with zero consideration over the potential consequences.

So why curb my actions?  
I am a manimal, after all.

phoneutria wrote:

Moral and consequence come into play on the decision to engage in an action,
not in the appreciative judgment of the sensorial stimulae gathered from the action.

"I love meat so, but I will have such an indigestion", has nothing to do with the taste of the meat, dear. To eat or not eat here is not taste, it is moral/consequence.

Mooooo wrote:

You have problems with hedonism, do you not.

Tell me about the relationship of eating and gluttony.

Mooooooooooooo wrote:

I'm saying there's nothing wrong with hedonism, only in what forms that pleasure takes.

Indeed, and that defines you as an individual.

So, never explore what pleasure is or why hedonism is even possible as a lifestyle, or what the consequences of it might be.

I have no problem with stupidity.
It only becomes a problem under particular circumstances.
Like when it is given special permission to not face the consequences of its own nature.

Moooooo wrote:

Yes. Negative aspects of X constitute a problem with X. It shouldn't be otherwise.

Very academic sounding.
I am convinced.

I will never discuss anything unless I have a problem with it.

Moooooooo wrote:

I believe you said that when you realized what dancing was for, you lost interest in dancing. You became tired. Am I wrong about that?

This was a personal choice...I still indulge in it, and I can appreciate the "pleasure" in movement or in sexual displays.

Moooooooooooooo wrote:

The thread is titled "sexual predation". You can't be saying that you are a sexual predator if you want to remove your prey's genes from the gene pool. I think you have it backwards

In the context of this thread predation would be parasitism: exploiting the other's sexuality for your own gain. This can take the form of exploiting pleasure, or duplicity.

Mo wrote:

None of those can be separated as cleanly as you would like.
Morality is the topic about how you ought to act, (which is separate from any particular moral theory), and consequences factor into those decisions (about how to act), as to questions of taste and aesthetics.

I cannot separate moral and consequence. You may notice further up that this distinction was made by Satyr, and my reply was that I find it hard to believe.

As far as taste and aesthetics, I do make a separation. It is very easy to perceive this distinction when you think about something that you find pleasure in, even though you know that it is bad for you. A "guilty pleasure".

phonee wrote:

You gather that from....?
What is moral, dear, but a concern for consequence?.

Wrong dear.
Moral is a set of rules, institutionalized, directing the members away from actions that have consequences to the system, and not, necessarily, to the individual. The consequences are then placed upon the individual BY the system, so as to control his behavior.
Morality is an imposed standard.

Therefore, imbecile, my pleasure in fucking every female I can find, is limited by a human moral standard that imposes a cost upon me.
No guilt required.
I do not control my urges on moral grounds, although some are brainwashed to make the effect more efficient, but on pragmatism.

Guilt and shame are trained into the individual to produce a control without force - internalized, self-restriction.

For example simpleton, my positions on rape are not on aesthetic grounds, or on moral grounds, but on pragmatic ones.
Rape is a viable male choice, in natural environments...but in manmade ones, strictly controlled, this is not the case.  

I do not drink like an alcoholic, not because of some moral rule, but because of the natural consequences to my health.
For aesthetic reasons, as well. I do not losing control and looking like a moron, drooling and stumbling about.  

In some species, nincompoop, the male will not fornicate with its mother, not on moral grounds, but because over time, the consequences proved to be detrimental to the offspring, the potential outcome.
I do not need a moral rule to not smoke, dear.It has an aesthetic and a pragmatic negative attached to it, for me.  

I do not kill, not because of some moral feeling, but because the possible consequences to my person, exceed the possible benefits in the immediate pleasure of killing.
Get it?

phoneeee wrote:

Moral and consequence come into play on the decision to engage in an action,
not in the appreciative judgment of the sensorial stimulae gathered from the action.

Simple woman....the consequences are not natural in our time.
For instance murder, rape, have almost negligible consequences in natural environments, but in human ones they carry a potential high cost.

So, my pleasure, you idiot, evolved in circumstances which my present environment contradicts.
I must adapt or face the consequences....I use my mind, and my will.

For example you buffoon, my taste in food, my attraction to sugars, and fats, and salt, evolved in austere environments.
In artificial human ones they are found in abundance...yet my genetic evolution is lagging behind the memetic evolution, creating a disparity which results in obesity, heart disease, diabetes etc.
One might speculate, that if medicine, human intervention, remained out of the process, then natural culling would eliminate the pleasure in these elements, in time.  
But it doesn't.

No morality involved---cause-effect.

I do not feel moral pangs of guilt, you imbecile, when I overindulge in salts, fats and sugars, but only concern for my own well-being, beyond the immediate gratification of an animal instinctive pleasure...evolved to serve within different conditions.

phoneutria wrote:

As far as taste and aesthetics, I do make a separation. It is very easy to perceive this distinction when you think about something that you find pleasure in, even though you know that it is bad for you. A "guilty pleasure".

A "guilty pleasure" is usually taken to mean something that is bad for you, on balance. Such as a temporary pleasure that causes greater pain, later. It could also be a pleasure that causes others pain. Depending on your theory of how you should act (i.e., your theory of morality), that would make a difference.

But in any case, taste and aesthetics and pleasure are always factors to be considered in how you ought to act (which is all that 'morality' means). ---'Morality' is the topic, separated from particular theories of morality. (Pleasure, consequences, and aesthetics are the variables to be weighed).

Morality = consequences within manmade environments, using human standards so as to produce a desirable behavior.  

Consequences = may include the previous, but most often used to refer to potential outcomes beyond manmade environments.

A lion does not go after the strongest cow, not on moral grounds, but on cause/effect inherited behavioral grounds of cost/benefit.
There is no moral law against homosexual behavior in animals...yet the consequences in the outcome, or lack thereof, are in play.
There is no moral law against killing in the wild, there is, on the other hand, a consequence.

Religion is institutionalized spirituality.

It is not spirituality itself.
Pagans, for instance, never produced religions, in the Abrahamic sense, and some have argued that the only spiritual dogmas that can be called religions are the Abrahamic ones (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) with their monopoly on the absolute.

Satyr wrote:

Wrong dear.
Moral is a set of rules, institutionalized, directing the members away from actions that have consequences to the system, and not, necessarily, to them.
Morality is an imposed standard.

I do not drink like an alcoholic not because of some moral rule, but because of the natural consequences to my health.

In some species, nincompoop, the male will not fornicate with its mother, not on moral grounds, but because over time, the consequences proved to be detrimental to the offspring, the potential outcome.
I do not need a moral rule to not smoke, dear.

I do not kill not because of some moral feeling, but because the possible consequences to my person, exceed the possible benefits in the immediate pleasure of killing.
Get it?

Have you no memory? Please read my post from Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:27 pm once again.
There, I state what I mean by moral, which has nothing to do with institution.

phoneeee wrote:

Moral and consequence come into play on the decision to engage in an action,
not in the appreciative judgment of the sensorial stimulae gathered from the action.

Simple woman....the consequences are not natural.
For instance murder, rape, have almost negligible consequences in natural environments, but in human ones they carry a potential high cost.
So my pleasure, you idiot, evolved in circumstances which my present environment contradicts.

For example you buffoon, my taste in food, my attraction to sugars and fats and salt, evolved in austere environments. In artificial human ones they are found in abundance...yet my genetic evolution is lagging behind the memetic evolution, creating obesity, heart disease.
One might speculate, that if medicine, human intervention, remained out of the process, then natural culling would eliminate the pleasure in these elements, in time.  

I do not feel moral pangs of guilt, you imbecile, when I overindulge in salts, fats and sugars, but only concern for my own well-being, beyond the immediate gratification of an animal instinctive pleasure...evolved to serve within different conditions. [/quote]

Some feel pangs of guilt, some go "whops, shouldn't have done that", both do so in concern for their own well-being.


And all of which has nothing to do with taste, as you stated yourself, right here.

phoneeee wrote:

Have you no memory? Please read my post from Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:27 pm once again.
There, I state what I mean by moral, which has nothing to do with institution..

I do not care how you use words, but only how to use words precisely and effectively.

Spirituality is not a religion....religion is an institutionalized spirituality.

phoneeee wrote:

Some feel pangs of guilt, some go "whops, shouldn't have done that", both do so in concern for their own well-being.


And all of which has nothing to do with taste, as you stated yourself, right here.

Taste has been defined, dear.

It does not emerge spontaneously., if by the term we do not explore the causes.
The word "spontaneous" is not an explanation...it only states an internal reason without delving into it.
It emerges in reference to environment and what the organism needs.

It is not magical, like "love".
It's effects may be felt as powerfully magical, to an organism that remains obtuse, and unable to explore the underlying reasons for its sensations, but they are not so for a rational mind.
It has a survival benefit...and that is why refined tastes offer an increase in survival potentials.  

My taste in food, is not accidental.
My taste in females is not so.
My attraction to music is not just because.

I do not like blue just because, either.
There are reasons, rooted in my organic construction, my internal organ hierarchies, producing a psychology with inclinations, preferences.  

Cause...Effect....the chain does not end there.

My tastes change over time.
Foods I did not like as a youngster, taste good to me now, and foods I did like then do not taste so good to me these days, being an old fart.
Get it?
Not accidentally, you simpleton.

You, dear, are a buffoon.

A vampire bat has a taste for cow blood not by accident, not just because.

phoneutria, do you keep changing your gender or am I seeing things?

perpetualburn wrote:

phoneutria, do you keep changing your gender or am I seeing things?

I did that...to uncover the Phoneeee.

Some people's psychology is very distasteful....to me.
It assaults my senses.

Mo wrote:

In other news, only the decadent have a problem with hedonism---those whose pleasures are not aligned with their sense of value, such that what pleases them is harmful. Why else would someone have a problem with pleasure, unless (as a decadent) their pleasures were for what harms them?

There are functions in our mind which allow us to take a different path than the path of least resistance. Those functions themselves grow or decay with our choices, each moment. The only way as to move against this path of slow decay is to not choose hedonism.

If someone has an easy time, and it requires close to no effort to not indulge in that path of least resistance, or, that path looks like it's not the path of resistance when one compares ones' own behaviour with that of ones' peers, then it is only so because those function of the mind which allow to choose to not take the path of least resistance have been strengthened in the past, by those who came before.

On the level of the individual, decadence is not about saying, my values align with my hedonistic pleasures or not, no - just look at the 'fat-acceptance movement', people tell themselves all sorts of shit and start to believe it - no, decadence is about taking the path of least resistance and not using those functions of the mind which allow to choose a different path. From conscious moment to conscious moment.

The disparity between meme and gene, particularly when the meme is so clearly anti-life, anti-nature(past), and so deserves the label of Nihilistic, if the term is used correctly, as the nullification of the real, is partly to blame for this confusion between spirituality and religion or morality and consequences.

The average mind, born and raised within manmade environments, cannot understand anything outside of these institutionalized surroundings.
The ease with which needs are satisfied, their association with artifices, sheltering propagating weak genes, the control and minimization of consequences outside of any human standard, all contribute to this confusion.

We might imagine someone born with a taste for feces.  
In nature eating feces is not bad because of any moral rule, but because feces is toxic, and contains little reaming nutritional value.

We can envision a technique, a pill, that would eliminate the toxic effects, allowing for the enjoyment of eating feces....the pleasure in it.
So, why wouldn't we?

Well, one reason is that we have not evolved, genetically, to the point where the intervention, the mimetic artificiality, can be adapted to.
We experience an automatic, instinctual, visceral, gag effect...a spontaneous desire to vomit.
Our taste is linked to what we, as living organisms, need.

Hedonism: the act of escaping through surrender.
Man's addictions are produced by natural environments, evolving into an attraction to elements, shapes, colors etc.
This was useful in natural environments because nature is austere.  
Man invents methods to "correct" this, producing superfluousness.

Now man can indulge in excess.
Ease create atrophy.
Man then must develop methods to deal - to correct - the consequences of his previous intervention.
Atrophy must be compensated for.  
Stupidity is an atrophying of the brain, due to a lack of stress...a comfort not forcing ti to think, to stretch itself to its limits.

By reducing the consequences of some behaviors and increasing others, the system creates a desirable behavior.

Hedonism is also a form of inebriation.
An escape from the normal condition of need/suffering.  
If man could he would lock himself in an artificial reality, or place himself in a state of continuous orgasm, or a never-ending high.
Would this save him from reality?
No.
It would only make him numb to the inevitable.

Satyr wrote:

I do not care how you use words, but only how to use words precisely and effectively.

Spirituality is not a religion....religion is an institutionalized spirituality.

I see that you have revised your disdain for dictionaries.

Whichever the case may be, please don't bother to give me a lecture on absolute moralism. That whole post had the intention of avoiding that. If the term you want to use is "spiritual constraint", or whatever have it, please do.

Quote :

Taste has been defined, dear.

It does not emerge spontaneously., if by the term we do not explore the causes.
The word "spontaneous" is not an explanation...it only states an internal reason without delving into it.  
It emerges in reference to environment and what the organism needs.

It is not magical, like "love".
It's effects may be felt as powerfully magical, to an organism that remains obtuse, and unable to explore the underlying reasons for its sensations, but they are not so for a rational mind.  
It has a survival benefit...and that is why refined tastes offer an increase in survival potentials.  

My taste in food, is not accidental.
My taste in females is not so.
My attraction to music is not just because.

I do not like blue just because, either.
There are reasons, rooted in my organic construction, my internal organ hierarchies, producing a psychology with inclinations, preferences.  

Cause...Effect....the chain does not end there.

My tastes change over time.
Foods I did not like as a youngster, taste good to me now, and foods I did like then do not taste so good to me these days, being an old fart.
Get it?
Not accidentally, you simpleton.

You, dear, are a buffoon.

A vampire bat has a taste for cow blood not by accident, not just because.

This has nothing to do with this conversation, came out of nowhere, and is arguably not worth replying to. You are arguing with strawman again, dear.

The distinction I made was the one between a concern for consequence, and an appreciation of a pleasure.
I have no disagreement with your view on the origin of taste. Neither did I say that taste is "spontaneous", a word you brought into the discussion. My post in the taste thread, if you have any memory, discusses the origin of taste.

Read it again, love. Let it sink.

phoneutria wrote:

Moral and consequence come into play on the decision to engage in an action,
not in the appreciative judgment of the sensorial stimulae gathered from the action.

Your taste for a woman does not care if she is married or not. Your taste for steak does not care if will give you a heart attack or not. You "like" those things regardless of consequence. Whether you pursue these things or not is where consequence comes into play.
They are separate.[/quote]
[/quote]

perpetualburn wrote:

phoneutria, do you keep changing your gender or am I seeing things?

I have the habit of entering forums as a male. It relieves me from carrying the baggage that comes with bearing an ankh.
Satyr wants to have a say on my image. He entered my profile and switched my sex. I wonder why not go further and change my profile to a picture of a beautiful woman. Endearing prank.

phoneeee wrote:

I do not care how you use words, but only how to use words precisely and effectively.

Spirituality is not a religion....religion is an institutionalized spirituality.

I see that you have revised your disdain for dictionaries.

And yet, you got the message, sweetie, no?

Spirituality is not necessarily a religion....but a religion is an institutionalized spiritual world-view.
Morality, sweetums, is a set of institutionalized rules of behavior, imposing consequences only found within manmade environments.

It's also called civility, when dealing in the secular form.
We are civil to one another due to the potential consequences, dear...though you might deny this in yourself...since you are never burdened by your conscience.

I am forced to adhere to these moral standards, without agreeing with them....and, more importantly, my judgment on circumstances is not necessarily related to moral impositions.  
Get the difference, simpleton?
I can appreciate consequences without having to moralize them....and I can moralize consequences I wish I did not have to follow.

phoneeee wrote:

This has nothing to do with this conversation, came out of nowhere, and is arguably not worth replying to. You are arguing with strawman again, dear.

No dear, the fact that you do not understand why it has a lot to do with what is being discussed is what makes you a simpleton.

See, your sensuality prevents you from appreciating mine.
You can't explain colors to a bitch.

phoneeeee wrote:

The distinction I made was the one between a concern for consequence, and an appreciation of a pleasure.
I have no disagreement with your view on the origin of taste. Neither did I say that taste is "spontaneous", a word you brought into the discussion. My post in the taste thread, if you have any memory, discusses the origin of taste.

My issue is in your usage of the term morality, as a tautology with the word consequence.

My conscience need not be moral....it can be natural, as an aesthetic evolved within nature and having nothing to do with a social rule, or a spiritual dogma.

phoneeee wrote:

Read it again, love. Let it sink.

Never, sweetuims, I smell blood in the water.
Are you menstruating?

phoneeee wrote:

Your taste for a woman does not care if she is married or not.

Exactly!!! And so it has zero to do with morality if I choose not to try to fuck her.
It may have to do with cost/benefit, as projected potentials.

phoneeee wrote:

Your taste for steak does not care if will give you a heart attack or not.

And I explained why tastes that evolve in natural environments need to be controlled within artificial ones. Not on moral grounds, imbecile...but on purely pragmatic ones....cause/effect....potential cost, potential benefit.
Morality is an environmental factor, but my decision is a reaction to the cost/benefits it forces upon me.

Morality is an environmental factor I must take into account before acting.
I may not agree with it, and think it is stupid, but i still have to care.  

phoneee wrote:

You "like" those things regardless of consequence. Whether you pursue these things or not is where consequence comes into play.
They are separate.

And if the environment that separates them persists, then the future humans will evolve the tastes appropriate to give them a survival advantage.
Get it?!

No?
Environment produces taste, dear.
Natural environments produce the tastes required to accentuate survival within them.

Ergo, taste is declining, in conjunction with intelligence.
And, at the same time, fucking, mixing, careless, carefree, risk free, cost free, reproduction, is on the rise.

Coincidence?
I think not!!!

phoneeeee wrote:

perpetualburn wrote:

phoneutria, do you keep changing your gender or am I seeing things?

I have the habit of entering forums as a male. It relieves me from carrying the baggage that comes with bearing an ankh.

And yet, despite appearances and makeup, your femininity is revealed.

Here's some more actions in bad taste: hiding your sex, your marital status, playing mind-games with the fuckin' master...MOI!!!
Pretentiousness anyone?
Would I fuck a married woman?
With no second thought, other than to the possible repercussions to my own well-being.
Would she be free of culpability?
Definitely, absolutely not.

Is my taste random?
No.
It's genetic.
Do I control it or try to?
Yes.
Not on moral grounds...on pragmatic ones.

I know, for a fact, that the 'seven year itch' is more than a fable.
It's biological.

phoneeeee wrote:

Satyr wants to have a say on my image. He entered my profile and switched my sex. I wonder why not go further and change my profile to a picture of a beautiful woman. Endearing prank.

Because despite my objective positions on rape, I prefer it when the other gives himself/herself to be willingly.
It's my taste, deferring to an idea(l), a towards, producing an aesthetic disposition.

And, how "mad" you imagine them becoming if they knew how gorgeous you are, would make me jealous.

Satyr wrote:

phoneeee wrote:

I do not care how you use words, but only how to use words precisely and effectively.

Spirituality is not a religion....religion is an institutionalized spirituality.

I see that you have revised your disdain for dictionaries.

And yet, you got the message, sweetie, no?

Spirituality is not necessarily a religion....but a religion is an institutionalized spiritual world-view.
Morality, sweetums, is a set of institutionalized rules of behavior, imposing consequences only found within manmade environments.

It's also called civility, when dealing in the secular form.
We are civil to one another due to the potential consequences, dear...though you might deny this in yourself...since you are never burdened by your conscience.

I am forced to adhere to these moral standards, without agreeing with them....and, more importantly, my judgment on circumstances is not necessarily related to moral impositions.  
Get the difference, simpleton?
I can appreciate consequences without having to moralize them....and I can moralize consequences I wish I did not have to follow.

Moral, as a set of rules of conduct laid upon you by an institution, is a very narrow definition of the word.
My definition is simply that it is a set of rules of conduct. I do not specify where they come from.
Personally, as you have read in the aforementioned post, my set of rules of conduct comes from respect/love for my ancestry.

As far as a hierarchy of concern when it comes to an action, I see it thusly:
1. first I think of a thing I need/desire
2. upon that, I place consequence (harm vs. benefit to myself)
3. if the checks and balances of consequences is positive, upon that I place my "moral" concern (consequences to my actions that don't affect my directly, but weigh upon my honor to my ancestry)

If all three clear, then I engage. My original point was to say that I am light because I hardly ever find any disagreement between the three concerns above.

Now that you've made me repeat myself many times over, can you stop yelling at the walls? The kids will think you've gone senile.

Quote :

No dear, the fact that you do not understand why it has a lot to do with what is being discussed is what makes you a simpleton.

And yet, you agree with the separation between taste and consequence, which is what brought upon this entire branch of discussion. (*see below)

Imbecile, animal.

Quote :

My issue is in your usage of the term morality, as a tautology with the word consequence.

My conscience need not be moral....it can be natural, as an aesthetic evolved within nature and having nothing to do with a social rule, or a spiritual dogma.

See above.

Quote :

Exactly!!! And so it has zero to do with morality if I choose not to try to fuck her.
It may have to do with cost/benefit, as projected potentials.

Not with morality as you define it, but with morality as I define it.
The concern is not about taste.
The concern is not about the other.
The concern is how the action affects you, consequences (direct or indirect) upon you.

Quote :

And I explained why tastes that evolve in natural environments need to be controlled within artificial ones. Not on moral grounds, imbecile...but on purely pragmatic ones....cause/effect....potential cost, potential benefit.
Morality is an environmental factor, but my decision is a reaction to the cost/benefits it forces upon me.

Idiot. You are arguing in favor of my point.
How you cannot see it is beyond me.
Taste is not controlled by artifacts of society.
It does not come into play when it comes to deciding whether or not to engage in a pleasurable act.
Taste is all YES. If it's good, I want it.

Read. Again.

phoneutria wrote:

Moral and consequence come into play on the decision to engage in an action,
not in the appreciative judgment of the sensorial stimulae gathered from the action

I simplify for you of reduced comprehension ability by removing "moral" from the quote and replacing the definition of taste by "taste", so that your head will not explode:

phoneutria wrote:

[...]consequence come into play on the decision to engage in an action, not in taste

Quote :

Morality is an environmental factor I must take into account before acting.
I may not agree with it, and think it is stupid, but i still have to care.  

I place this as #4 in my hierarchy of concern. If I think that I can get away with it, I ignore it completely.

Quote :

And if the environment that separates them persists, then the future humans will evolve the tastes appropriate to give them a survival advantage.
Get it?!

Yes, dear. Thank you SO MUCH for explaining it so clearly to me, a mere little woman.



...dumbass.

I take partial responsibility for the derailment of this thread. Just so you know:)
I have half of a post from leasy, and one from mo in my cue.

Finally...
You use the tactic I've grown accustomed to over the years.
Now, you repeat back to me my own starting positions, as if they were yours all along, when you wanted to distinguish my conscientiousness from your carefree "pure" hedonism", so that you can save face.

What you mean by "masculinity" is ego, and you find it in yourself abundantly.  

If that's what it takes to get through that thickness, then I'll swallow my pride.

So, you've taught me something, sweetheart, like Purple Dragon used to do.
You taught me that pleasure is not free from environment, and so taste is shaped by it...and that asceticism is this projection beyond the immediate gratification, so that you become more than a dumb animal, a stupid cow, a dumb-ass jack-ass mooooooooo, surrendering to impulse for the fuck of it, just because...

You've also taught me - and I want to thank you for it - that morality is not the same as asceticism, because the latter does not impose a rule detached from natural consequences, inventing categories like "marriage" to impose a limit on predispositions, which have evolved to be pleasing in austere environments so as to ensure a particular behavior, rooted in a need.
Pleasure is, after all, the temporary relief from need/suffering...and when you are raised in a controlled world where mommy provides in abundance, and daddy only asks of you to do some chores around the house, you can feed that need, pretending it isn't there.

Therefore, being a dumb bovine, like the man-child you are mentoring, indulging in gluttony (hedonism) with the carefree abandonment of a child sheltered and protected from the worse consequences of his infantile actions, is only possible when mother and father institution is there to step in and correct the worse consequences your stupidity forces upon you.

And yes, a dumb cunt, with abortion clinics, the day after pill, condoms, rape laws, and police forces, can become a slut, enjoying her sexuality, because the manmade system prevents natural consequences from worrying her dull, empty skull with any form of care.

After all, freedom is to be as carefree as a child...just playing, and enjoying without a worry in the world.
And no, morality need not apply, because in nature when you are stupid you pay for it with death.
No morality required.
But in human environments stupidity is desired, as a social virtue, and so some rules have to be in place to minimize the destructive repercussions.

Now go fuck yourself with a random bum and feel the pleasure.
Do not think of anything beyond the sensation.
No AIDS should stress you out.

The tactic of disengagement, when the bug is caught out in the open, and the lights are tuned on.

Civility, as a defense mechanism....
"Forgive me for derailing"...as if the topic was not morality and pleasure.  

The accusation was that the old fart, Satyr, denies himself pleasure on moral grounds...which do not burden a hedonistic bitch, and her pup.
Her animal, cynical, canine, pleasure is unburdened by any other consideration than the pleasure itself.
She is pure slut, glutton...and proud of it.
She is natural, authentic...carefree...because in nature that what bitches are.
They, these feral bitches, theoretically, could care less about the consequence of their actions...because dogs are free from the awareness of consequences.
They have no morals. They'll eat and fuck and drink anything that moves.
Morality is not present.

And she has the audacity to think she has something valuable to teach a boy.  

'Cause in nature a bitch has da police, da pill, abortion clinics, and rape laws.
It magically works out that way.

'Cause like that proverbial female dog, this one, proud of it, can fuck anyone, anytime, for no reason other than that it feels good.
Pleasure, according to her, is free, in her, of all morals, and presumably all sense of any possible outcome.
She will not get pregnant and face a lifetime of costs for her orgasm...'cause the system magically makes her immune to that natural angle.  

And her pet puppy, Mooo, is also now an emerging hedonist, a gluttonous man-whore in the making....so he can eat and eat, and drink and drink, and do drugs, and fuck anyone, and not feel guilty, or shame, or anything except pleasure...with no consequences.
Because to consider consequences is a moral act...and they are way above such restricting dogmas.
Know why?
Because the only consequences are moral ones.
Someone might get hurt...or cry....
That's it.
They cannot think of a selfish reason to control their appetites.

Satyr wrote:

In the context of this thread predation would be parasitism: exploiting the other's sexuality for your own gain. This can take the form of exploiting pleasure, or duplicity.

Well, predator... if you are a parasite, exploiting sexuality for your pleasure and duplicity... it doesn't make much sense, immediately afterwards, to call me a gluttonous man-whore without shame or guilt, who thinks only of his own pleasure.

I am nothing like you. Nor will I ever be anything like you.

Mo wrote:

Satyr wrote:

In the context of this thread predation would be parasitism: exploiting the other's sexuality for your own gain. This can take the form of exploiting pleasure, or duplicity.

Well, predator... if you are a parasite, exploiting sexuality for your pleasure and duplicity... it doesn't make much sense, immediately afterwards, to call me a gluttonous man-whore without shame or guilt, who thinks only of his own pleasure.

I am nothing like you. Nor will I ever be anything like you.

  

Pleasure with no concern for the consequences, was not my position, man-child.
Maybe you and your mentor can have a private meeting and discuss this.

A predator we all are.
Some consciously so, others with the ignorance of a child, which confuses this for innocence; some successful, other not so much; some clever others simple.
Are we not of the same species?
Only some of us have played the method for so long, that we become convinced that the method is selfless. This makes it more effective, since we also evolve the ability to perceive duplicity.

Gluttonous, man-child, is a reference to excess not to a moral rule denying one's pleasure or forcing one to pretend he is selfless, and that his actions are morally pure.
An ascetic does not deny himself pleasure, he simply does not give into it, calling it the end, the reason why, the just because...like a fuckin' manimal.
Like you do, for instance....or is duplicity deeper with you.
Like manipulating the so-called mentor of manipulation?

A slut is, in theory, someone who enjoys pleasure with no regard to any consequences, social or pragmatic, no values preventing her/him from indulging in all pleasures, great and small, with no reservations, except fr his/her "tastes" of course.
You are the one calling yourself a hedonist, man-child.
This is the opposite of what I stand for.

A christian hedonist?
A selfless one?
A contradiction pointing to a pretense.
Or are you proud to be a dildo?

I am an ascetic, man-child.  
I know what pleasure is, and I direct my will towards controlling my needs, so that I enjoy quality rather than quantity.

Some clarifications...
Consequences, and taking them into consideration, need not be moral.
Spirituality need not be a religion.
Pleasure is not the absolute satiation of need.

......Suffering<>NEED<>Pleasure......

The two ends represents a gradation of the central sensation of flux.
The negative<>positive duality is divided along the lines of "requiring no effort"<>"requiring effort".

Do you understand man-whore?

Ergo, suffering increases with no action necessary, with no effort...whereas pleasure requires an action, a risk, a cost, effort.
Stupidity does not require anything more than an absence of seeking.
Wisdom requires effort, struggle, pain and suffering.

Satyr wrote:

A predator we all are.

I'm still nothing like you.

Quote :

Are we not of the same species?

Nice analogy. It makes me a race realist.

Quote :

Only some of us have played the method for so long, that we become convinced that the method is selfless.

Selflessness has nothing to do with it. Some other people get my consideration when I act, because I value some other people. And when I don't value someone, like you, I am still myself.

Mooooo wrote:

Satyr wrote:

A predator we all are.

I'm still nothing like you.

Something to be proud of, man-child.

Mooooo wrote:

Nice analogy. It makes me a race realist.

Your race is not my race.
I'm human.
You are bovine.
If you allow your mentor to "cultivate" you, you might become a milk-producing one, because right now you are practically useless.

Mooooo wrote:

Selflessness has nothing to do with it. Some other people get my consideration when I act, because I value some other people. And when I don't value someone, like you, I am still myself.

That is real hurtful, man-child.
I want you to hold onto my pain, and warm yourself with it tonight.

phoneutria wrote:

Quote :

"Burden his conscience" is a piece of moralism that he clearly said he did not subscribe to.

Is that so...

That is so.

Quote :

What's this, then?

Satyr wrote:

My conscience is only burdened by consequences, not morals.

Its what I already addressed, but since you pretend and attempt to convolute, lets recap again:


1. You said, "My hedonism finds balance in not permitting one pleasure to interfere with the others.
He "lives lightly" because he doesn't allow burdens to his conscience.
I "am light" because my conscience is not burdened by that which I enjoy."

2. Satyr said, "It's good to have no conscience and to justify yourself after you've surrendered to your animal instincts. "Live Lightly" is conscious. It is choice."

3. Following which, you said, "You also equate having no burdens in conscience to having no conscience. If you want to speak against hypocrisy and against a lack of conscience, please do so..."  

4. Following which Satyr said, "Evasion. Nice."

5. And you responded, "fighting windmills again, dear"

6. Then I said, "If Satyr appears to be fighting windmills, its because You made the situation that way.
Satyr said, ""Live Lightly" is conscious."
And you responded speaking of "no burdens in conscience to having no conscience."
The conscious and the conscience are two different matters."

7. Following which YOU said, "I "am light" because my conscience is not burdened by that which I enjoy."

8. Following which Satyr then mirrored, "My conscience is only burdened by consequences, not morals."


While you are trying to be clever or feigning ignorance of the sequence of events As If it is Satyr who Introduced "burden" of "conscience" and that kind of moralism into the picture, he was merely responding using "your terms", in effect to still convey, his position has nothing to do with moralism.

Quote :

You think that I am trying to inject words. Dear, I think you are trying to remove words.

see above.

you are a manipulator.

Quote :

"Burden his conscience" is not a piece of moralism. It is a caution agains one's own actions, regardless of whether that caution comes from moral or consequence.

Such obfuscation.
What is a caution "for" if it has nothing to do with consequences!

Quote :

(fangirl, you are so cute)

I know. But try sole-mate...hovering around the feet and chthonic regions... slave-girl like. Only because it sounds more grounded and earthy compared to the condescending implication you attempt by the usage fangirl - airy, naive...   you wish.

Quote :

Quote :

You don't desire activities that would burden your conscience, because consciousness prevents spontaneous enjoyment and you are averse to reification, and so you surrender to the momentary able to enjoy both the blond and the brunette, etc. as you do not deny any of your desires.

You base your argument on the matter of my conduct in the categorical statement that consciousness prevents spontaneous enjoyment, which, and I'm sorry to say, dear, is entirelly false. In fact, I hold that the opposite is true.
I do expect you to prove it to be true, as it is your categorical statement, and I hold you to the highest esteem.
You wouldn't simply pull things out of your derrièrre like this. Deffinitely not. You have standards, dear.

Its because I do have standards, you didn't have to appeal this much to my sensibility for standards.

You wrote:

"When we engage on aesthetic pursuits, it is not because we are concerned with our necessities, it is done freely and spontaneously for its own sake, because it interests us."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

- So, in the above consciousness, the concern with one's need is divorced from aesthetic pursuits which is a spontaneous enjoyment for its own sake.

Elsewhere, you also wrote:

"I am averse to repetition because my conscience will only last so long."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

- Any further consciousness would thwart the spontaneous enjoyment and the awe of that first moment.

Also, just recently in this thread:

"Taste does not come into play when it comes to deciding whether or not to engage in a pleasurable act."  

- I cannot think of a more non-discriminating statement than that. Separating consequence from pleasure is what makes you a hedonist.


Now, I dare you to follow through with your "categorical" smear on the "matter of my conduct" to demonstrate my naivete. Do it.

Quote :

Quote :

The "lightness" being in the distinction in the usage of the words conscious and conscience.

For Satyr, being conscious means Hierarchical and qualitative, moraline-free rank judgements of superior/inferior.

For you, being conscious means moral-awareness - discriminating a rose and a jasmine, and finding them equally enjoyable for whatever of their moral virtues.
To you, a wine has certain virtues and a cognac has certain virtues that make them both enjoyable.

To be clear, you apply the discriminating capacity of your consciousness to moral evaluations; Satyr apples it to scientific/objective evaluations.

Pleasure dictates your choices, your moral good/bad.
Reality and consequences dictates his choices, his objective good/bad.

You are that hedonist who wants to preserve the pleasure, and therefore the boundaries of your enjoyment are within the circumference of pleasure. Attuning your consciousness to this circumference-of-pleasure is what you call moderation.

He is an ascetic-epicurean who wants to preserve value-standards and therefore the boundaries of his enjoyment are objective and then "made to be" within the circumference of pleasure. Disciplining himself to this balance is what he calls moderation.
He does not enjoy the wine for wine's sake, but as a means. Because it is not the moral virtue of the wine, that affects his conscious choice ("just because it gives pleasure" and therefore "good"), he "makes it" enjoyable or pleasurable by drinking it in moderation.

Your lightness is about spontaneous abandonment.
His lightness is about disciplined balance.

I attribute this little piece of nonsense to a small confusion on your part: Moral and consequence come into play on the decision to engage in an action, not in the appreciative judgment of the sensorial stimulae gathered from the action.
Taste is neither moral nor consequence. It is aesthetic.

What hogwash.

You wrote:

"A spontaneous action is a free action because it is not rooted in an imperative to act.
Failure to engage in a spontaneous activity will not result in suffering.
This is is what defines a purely aesthetic engagement."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"a healthy hedonism in which one delights in the pursuit of virtue."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Your sense of aesthetics is moral, as you define aesthetic engagement to be an enjoyment for its own sake and in the pursuit of virtue that is not conscious of being rooted in need.

Quote :

I also see the subtle jab there, relativism. Dear, don't let me stand between you and your prejudice, you've know it for longer than you've known me

Your aesthetics couldn't have been more defined and lacking in conscious, than when You relativized Satyr's and your position as the same.

Quote :

Quote :

Ha!

You are free to believe as you please, but in my assessment, the answer is no, and the difference is non-negligible.

I treasure nuances.

You as well, dear. It is evident to me that there is very strong tendency in your assessment to see what you wish to see, and you don't seem to let little things as logic or coherence stand in the way of that.

And it seems very evident to me, your Faith, your Want to see me as naive will weave along words like "illogical" and "incoherent" now into the web of your deceit.

Interesting. the maneouvre.

Since when did presenting awareness of critical difference amount to relativism? The opposite in fact.

Quote :

We've all been at fault to judge/conclude first, and then theorize it. Dear, you are human.

Its always therapeutic to talk to yourself like that. You are engaging the right method, Dear.

Quote :

On this note dear, I am inclined to drop this entire portion of our conversation, as it does not seem fruitful enough, or close enough to the subject of the thread. Perhaps move it to a separate thread... What do you think?

I leave it to you, since it is Your Pressing Need to Want to believe that it is I who needs to settle something.

Quote :

I'll reply to the "huntress" portion of the conversation in a separate post. Stand by

At your leisure.

Mo wrote:

Satyr wrote:

In the context of this thread predation would be parasitism: exploiting the other's sexuality for your own gain. This can take the form of exploiting pleasure, or duplicity.

Well, predator... if you are a parasite, exploiting sexuality for your pleasure and duplicity... it doesn't make much sense, immediately afterwards, to call me a gluttonous man-whore without shame or guilt, who thinks only of his own pleasure.

Satyr's thinking that way of you perhaps has something to do with fifi saying, her morals come from her respect/love for her ancestry, which is what Apaosha had said too, and to which you asked him to f--- his sister, and yet, you seem to raise no questions on the value of such a valuing with regards to fifi...

Hasn't most of his thinking/posting been a response to her?

I mean, I believe him, he couldn't care less about my opinions because he is proud of the idea that he is "nothing like me"...therefore his assault on my "hedonism" was not about my positions, at all. I am an ascetic, (the opposite of a hedonist)... and apoasha should "fuck his sister", if he values his ancestry, because phoneee should fuck him and not her brother.
We already know some kind of bloodline is fishy here.

And let us not forget that Satyr telling a woman he wants to fuck her is vulgar, base, primitive, because the more romantic, feminine, method of dancing around the "bush," in an endless insinuation, making it all seem selfless, magical, dreamy, innocent...wooing her with subtle words of repressed need, when the deed is the deed.

Right.

Mo wrote:

Satyr wrote:

I don't know who is "glorifying surrender" so I cannot respond.

You should read the OP, about how "surrender" is an affirmation of one's values. It's worth reading.

Surrender by a "Sovereign huntress", not a "prey".

Contexts.

Clear?

Lyssa wrote:

Satyr's thinking that way of you perhaps has something to do with fifi saying, her morals come from her respect/love for her ancestry, which is what Apaosha had said too, and to which you asked him to f--- his sister, and yet, you seem to raise no questions on the value of such a valuing with regards to fifi...

I didn't tell Apaosha to fuck his sister because he respects and loves his ancestry. I told him to fuck his sister because he said he wants to replicate his genetic material as closely as possible.

Every so often I say something ridiculous. I'm far from perfect.