Dating people with disabilities

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Maia wrote:

Æon wrote:

Isn't a male pathetic when he can't control himself or really says what he thinks?

Go on, I want to hear it.

Yes, lack of self control is pathetic.

I don't know, i think the opposite extreme is also pathetic to some degree, keeping it all in, which men are already expected to do with regards to violence. Express nothing say nothing do nothing, it might be enough for a god, but not for man, something must always come out.

Men largely not having families in their lives are becoming more desperate to create them, tread lightly in the years to come.

A man who is unable to keep his emotions under control, including violent ones, is like a child.

It is.
It is why I enjoy people watching.

this idea that you can be known and understood by another more than you can know and understand yourself, is at the root of emerging self-consciuosness which develops into nihilistic dogma, as and ideologies.
The logic is simple yet difficult to accept.It has to do with subjectivity and how objective a mind can be when it is prone to over-estimate itself - sometimes underestimate.
Distance creates the environment for objectivity to progress, so it is an external consciousness not involved in the needs and desires of a subject that can gain insights it can never have.
The more emotional the subject the less it can know itself. Emotion corrupts its self-assesments.

But there's another factor.
The superior can know and understand the inferior, but the inferior can never know or understand what is superior.
Can a dog know and understand a human more than a human can know and understand a dog?
An extreme case to make it clear.

So nihilism emerges as a defence against the trauma of seeing oneself as another sees you....or experiences you.
It negates, nullifies, rejects, anything that helps it cope with this.
Notice how on ILP these crazies dismiss psychology, or identity, or human nature, or self, or free-will...all of it to protect themselves from this source of anxiety.
Most have no empathic abilities, no ability to assess self, so they repeat the same mistakes and then fault another. This is also why they project, and don't realize that their hypothetical attacks on others are really attacks on themselves - the negative aspects of self, those that embarrass and hurt them, are unloaded upon another and then the other becomes the target of their scorn.
If you know what is happening it's kind of funny. You just sit back and let them tell you exactly what they fear and think of themselves, while attacking others.

But everyone begins to know and understand another by first knowing and understanding oneself.
But then he gradually eliminates oneself to leave the other clear and distinct.
This is why I say that empathy does not necessarily mean sympathy nor antipathy. If it does, then you cannot separate yourself form the other.
This is also the root of what we call objectivity. We are all trapped in our subjectivity, so what is objectivity?
A willful and persistent movement towards abandoning self-interest, corrupting emotions, needs and desires, to see oneself as objectively, coldly, honestly, as possible.

I do a fair bit of "people listening" myself, and I'm sure no one realises I'm doing it.

I fully agree that empathy does not imply either sympathy or antipathy, though it can lead to either of those things, of course, or neither.

Not so sure about cutting out emotion, though. I tend to rely on it far more than logic, especially for the important things. If something feels right, then it is right.

Knowing Thyself and through this objective assessment to know others is what is called EQ.
It determines your ability to create and maintain relationships, how adaptive you are, how able to deal with novelty or unforeseeable circumstances, how likable you can become, how able to read people and adjust yourself to their attitudes and convictions.
All feminine traits.

Of course ability does not automatically mean willingness.

On the bottom of the ability scale - the EQ scale let's call it - are those who come across as unlikable, creepy, unable to adapt, unyielding, unable to read people accurately affecting their ability to create and maintain relationships...
Misreading yourself leads to a misreading of others. Such individuals will accuse others of not agreeing with their understanding of them. It isn't they who misunderstood by they who self-contradicted; it's not they who are confused but the other.
The blame is always on the incomprehensible other, who is hated because he is a source of anxiety/fear.

So, we see how central the idea of Know Thyself is.
To truly and honestly - objectively - know thyself is not easy.
People tend to flatter themselves, and blame others for what happens to them - see how free will fits into this?
These are always spirits identifying with victims - herbivores.
Some become protectors of innocence, defenders of weakness, as a way of standing apart and above the herd they desperately want to belong to. For such creatures being excluded is the worse thing you can do to them.
Herd psychology, Nietzsche called it.
Followers of the status quo, popularity, conventional thinking. They cannot think outside social conventions.
No artistry...literal thinkers, emoters overwhelmed by their needs and desires.
They desperately what to believe this is a norm....all are exactly like them in this regard - all are subjective thinkers and proud of it.
The very idea of objectivity is incomprehensible to them - mythological.

Maia wrote:

I do a fair bit of "people listening" myself, and I'm sure no one realises I'm doing it.

I fully agree that empathy does not imply either sympathy or antipathy, though it can lead to either of those things, of course, or neither.

Not so sure about cutting out emotion, though. I tend to rely on it far more than logic, especially for the important things. If something feels right, then it is right.

As a female this would be difficult.
Males tend to separate themselves from the object of their desire. This is why they can fuck and not necessarily make love, whereas for females this is difficult.

I offer the Hellenic ascetic method - asceticism not as an end, as it is for nihilistic spiritual dogmas, but as a means - like athletics, controlled sself-induced stress to strengthen the body and the mind.
So this absence of emotion is an exercise to cultivate objectivity, not to remain emotionless.

It's undoubtedly the case that women are more emotion-led than men, I've encountered it in pretty much everyone I know. This is not a bad thing though, or something to be ashamed of.

I do however have a strong objective instinct too, which I employ whenever necessary.

Maia wrote:

A man who is unable to keep his emotions under control, including violent ones, is like a child.

There's nothing wrong with indulging in youth from time to time, in fact I think today the worst aspects of youth are accentuated while the better aspects are suppressed.

"Control" is only meaningful in an environment where men can freely express violence, in a peaceful domesticated environment control is almost a given.

The female also lacks control in her standards of choice, being inflated due to being protected from the consequences of pissing the wrong man off for taking his kindness for weakness.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Maia wrote:

A man who is unable to keep his emotions under control, including violent ones, is like a child.

There's nothing wrong with indulging in youth from time to time, in fact I think today the worst aspects of youth are accentuated while the better aspects are suppressed.

"Control" is only meaningful in an environment where men can freely express violence, in a peaceful domesticated environment control is almost a given.

The female also lacks control in her standards of choice, being inflated due to being protected from the consequences of pissing the wrong man off for taking his kindness for weakness.

It sounds a bit like you're advocating male violence towards women, or at least the threat of it.

I'm a bit old fashioned, in the sense that I regard male violence towards women as far more serious that male on male violence, and deserving of much more severe punishment.

Maia wrote:

It sounds a bit like you're advocating male violence towards women, or at least the threat of it.

I am largely being descriptive, despite finding some satisfaction in the prospect of feminine subversion being checked by masculine force.

Maia wrote:

I'm a bit old fashioned, in the sense that I regard male violence towards women as far more serious that male on male violence, and deserving of much more severe punishment.

Some older fashioned folks would say it depends on the family and the quality of the father to enforce his daughters protection, the weakness or absence of which would somewhat warrant her free appropriation. Even her "choice" being largely influenced and somewhat decided by her father/family.

I see the quality of fathers out there, and particularly see those who let their daughters whore themselves on tiktok and onlyfans and have no sympathies for whatever fate they or their daughters face, in fact forceful appropriation might be welcome in some cases as it would be a change from the seducing men of the modern west. There is a reason why some western women have adopted the Muslim faith.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Maia wrote:

It sounds a bit like you're advocating male violence towards women, or at least the threat of it.

I am largely being descriptive, despite finding some satisfaction in the prospect of feminine subversion being checked by masculine force.

Maia wrote:

I'm a bit old fashioned, in the sense that I regard male violence towards women as far more serious that male on male violence, and deserving of much more severe punishment.

Some older fashioned folks would say it depends on the family and the quality of the father to enforce his daughters protection, the weakness or absence of which would somewhat warrant her free appropriation. Even her "choice" being largely influenced and somewhat decided by her father/family.

I see the quality of fathers out there, and particularly see those who let their daughters whore themselves on tiktok and onlyfans and have no sympathies for whatever fate they or their daughters face, in fact forceful appropriation might be welcome in some cases as it would be a change from the seducing men of the modern west. There is a reason why some western women have adopted the Muslim faith.

Actually no, I would say that any man who uses force against a woman is a worthless piece of s**t, and deserves everything he gets from his peers who will no doubt take a very poor attitude about it.

Maia wrote:

Actually no, I would say that any man who uses force against a woman is a worthless piece of s**t, and deserves everything he gets from his peers who will no doubt take a very poor attitude about it.

But the man who is able to seduce through body and confidence signalling is your ideal. Well, women largely have that now, and yet they are still unsatisfied given rising rates in divorce and dropping rates of relationships...i wonder why...

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Maia wrote:

Actually no, I would say that any man who uses force against a woman is a worthless piece of s**t, and deserves everything he gets from his peers who will no doubt take a very poor attitude about it.

But the man who is able to seduce through body and confidence signalling is your ideal. Well, women largely have that now, and yet they are still unsatisfied given rising rates in divorce and dropping rates of relationships...i wonder why...

What I can tell you is that where I come from, any man who raises a hand against a woman tends to be beaten to a pulp by his own peers, and shunned forever thereafter.

I would imagine if a man would be willing to do such a thing, knowing the consequences, I would be curious as to the details of the situation, but i know these days that the benefit of the doubt is usually given to the feminine and that the feminine, no matter how subversive they may be, are to be left alone to continue acting as a force of entropy upon the west today.

I'm more forgiving of the chaos of feminine nature, for rational reasons. It is typically childish, animalistic and unaware of itself, and so an even-temper for me, allows for a more productive approach in dealing with them.

But the point Impulso is making Maia, is that the modern feministic culture exacerbates these unruly female proclivities, and that masculine discipline is necessary, sometimes, to tame female behavior. It's perfectly normal. Nothing bad about it.
Only now, men face dire consequences for it, because men are not allowed to be men.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

I would imagine if a man would be willing to do such a thing, knowing the consequences, I would be curious as to the details of the situation, but i know these days that the benefit of the doubt is usually given to the feminine and that the feminine, no matter how subversive they may be, are to be left alone to continue acting as a force of entropy upon the west today.

I can only repeat, any man who uses violence against a woman is a completely worthless individual.

Kvasir wrote:

I'm more forgiving of the chaos of feminine nature, for rational reasons. It is typically childish, animalistic and unaware of itself, and so an even-temper for me, allows for a more productive approach in dealing with them.

But the point Impulso is making Maia, is that the modern feministic culture exacerbates these unruly female proclivities, and that masculine discipline is necessary, sometimes, to tame female behavior. It's perfectly normal. Nothing bad about it.
Only now, men face dire consequences for it, because men are not allowed to be men.

Since I'm childish, animalistic and unaware of myself I'm not sure why you're bothering to address any sort of comment to me.

See, this is why you need to know thyself in order to know the other.

apaosha wrote:

See, this is why you need to know thyself in order to know the other.

You don't have the best track record of comments toward the disabled...

What was it, "kicking their crutches out"??

Does Maia deserve to live, in your opinion?

I'd suggest you compromise a little and lower your standards. Otherwise you might face this frustration forever.

apaosha wrote:

I'd suggest you compromise a little and lower your standards. Otherwise you might face this frustration forever.

If that comment was directed at me, then you appear to have misunderstood my reasons for asking the question. It was not to vent frustration, since I have none, but rather, to assess the quality of those who reply.

No, Maia, he was talking to me.

You see, Satyr is a "Spartan", and Apaosha has a long track record of disdain and contempt for the disabled.

But it's value when convenient. They won't tell you what they truly think. I merely wanted to put their feet in their mouths.


Virtue when convenient, right Satyr and Apaosha?

No disdain Maia...I may be disabled myself. No hate, no love...no emotion at all.
He's projecting.
I am simply honest.
Objective.
My personal preferences are kept out of my analysis, as much as possible.
My positions on any subject have very little to do with what I prefer, or what I desire, or my personal circumstances.

When I do express my personal preferences I make it obvious; when I offer my opinion on what is, my preferences are not involved.

Men lower their standards because for males the objective is more important than the means, and males always have relationships with what is inferior, below them.
They are both conditioned to be so and have no choose, since women always go for what is superior.
Women are a culture's genetic - biological aesthetic - and memetic - ideological, spiritual, cognitive - filters.
Indoctrinating females ensures male compliance - especially among the average and below average.

It has to do with judgement and the objective.
What is superior is incomprehensible to the inferior - to make it comprehensible the inferior reduce it to a level they can comprehend by taking themselves as a standard.
The objective determines how the mind evaluates the means to attain it.
This is a cold masculine way of stating what females intuitively and emotionally do on a daily basis, only they call it chemistry, or love, or spirituality, or energy, or feeling.

Intelligence is but one part of what attracts a male to a female, and although it is more important to females it is not the only criterion.
Symmetry/Proportionality in regards to the body - physical - is called beauty.
Symmetry/Proportionality in regards to the mind - mental, psychological, spiritual - is called charm, or personality, or decency, or stable, or sanity.

Example:
Do we all want our children to be the best at everything, to be superior to us?
Yes.

Let's use an allegory.
A man wants to build a boat. He wants to build the best boat, so he wants the best wood, necessitating the best tools and talent to harvest and construct.
First step is to self-evaluate. Do you have the best tools and the talent?
Is the best wood available, or present in your side of the forest?
A male is not thwarted he must build a boat one way or another, with the tools in his possession, his talents, and the available materials, not the ideal ones, not the perfect tones.
If he cannot self-evaluate or is unable to compromise he will never build a boat and spend his days waiting to find the best wood, to develop his talents, and craft the deal tools.
Every creative act is a risk.

In nature males compensate by fertilizing as many females as possible.
Women also compensate by sperm sampling, when and if they can, and as much as they are permitted to.
This is why females are not loyal to their tribe, and why paternalism is considered a repressive, unwanted restriction on their sexual options.

Males like monogamy because it increases their confidence that the offspring born through their relationship with the female are his own.
Females likes monogamy when they needed males to help them with the weening of the offspring - to provide and protect.
But this is no longer the case, because the state has taken over this role.
This forces males to make more compromises or to success socially, upgrading their attractiveness by becoming the state's representation of an ideal - representation of the state's values and interests.
You'll notice how beta and omega males tend to be pro status quo and the official narrative and the popular conventional beliefs, trying to remain as close to the State's interests as possible so as to attract females.
Alphas' tend to challenge the status quo because they have other advantages like biological markers that trigger female intuitive attractions, despite their cultural indoctrination.  
Genes/Memes

To return this to the subject....disabilities are less detrimental to females, and more determinable for males.

Well, I'm perfectly happy with who I am, and if that's a problem to anyone, that's very much their loss and not mine.

Independence and self-reliance are second nature to me.

Maia wrote:

Well, I'm perfectly happy with who I am, and if that's a problem to anyone, that's very much their loss and not mine.

Independence and self-reliance are second nature to me.

Describing reality and how the world works, is not a critique on individuals.
Individuals can adapt or endure simply accept.
We all do the best we can.
Knowing how the world is helps individuals understand how they can adapt, endure, and/or accept.

If I analyse beauty as symmetry/proportionality this does not mean I am benefiting from this analysis, nor am I critiquing people who are not symmetrical/proportional, i.e., attractive.

Objectivity cares not about subjective reactions, or how they relate with the analysis of the objective.

I get it. Maia is an exception the rules.

Don't get defensive. I saw her potential from the start. Her journey has been long and hard to get to this point.


Wasn't the Oracle of Delphi, blind?

Coincidence, maybe?

Or does history repeat?

Æon wrote:

I get it.  Maia is an exception the rules.

Don't get defensive.  I saw her potential from the start.  Her journey has been long and hard to get to this point.


Wasn't the Oracle of Delphi, blind?

Coincidence, maybe?

Or does history repeat?

You can only appreciate the physical.

There are many kinds of disability.
Looking in on ILP you can see the kind you may be able to relate to.
Plenty of mentally disabled individuals there.

Ah yes, I never respected her intelligence.

How kind of you to imply.

In my post on the Tentative defence of Monogamy, and elsewhere, I give an overview.

Developed minds appreciate mind before body; animals, and simpler minds appreciate body before mind.
This doesn't mean physical symmetry/proportionality or the ideal is not attractive, only that it has less importance.
Handicaps are a factor that make individuals less ideal.
This is fact.
But other attributes may compensate.

I've met very attractive women who were cold and dim and not very feminine, who lost their appeal for me, and I've met average women who were so charming and feminine they became very attractive to me.