Oh for a nice, quiet, contemplative, poetic male....
fucking alphas is about right
Why do men think every damn thing is about penises?
Not every man thinks that way, I don't think; perhaps only the ones who are afraid to commit deeply, to give of themselves deeply, and choose to live mostly through the instincts of their animal nature alone. They sacrifice what is greater in them for what is lesser in them though both are important together.
Yes, a nice quiet contemplative poetic male would be sooooooooooo wonderful; of course, at the same time, one who is also capable of realizing the depth to which the sex act and the total giving of himself physically and spiritually to the other in those moments -- is such an awesome affirmation of life and a penetration of it (life) that goes far beyond the physical into the realm of where one might truly Know One's self through that act. We shudder to be there!!
They are trying to save themselves from the ravages of time...justifying their choices, up to this point.
If things are as abstract as they want them to be, then why a man, at all? I can find communion, a spiritual connection with males...in fact the ancients thought agape was only possible between males....females lacking the perspicuity for any depth.
Here they are now preaching depth, when their perspectives are as shallow as a muddy creek.
If love, as they imagine it, is simply a connection then why do they not hook up with each other and be done with males altogether? But no, sex is an integral part of it - even if they deny its severity- they merely suffer from the remnants of Medieval romanticism that placed pussy on a pedestal and made men fight over it....OOOOOOOOOh how romantic.
But in a way, males should fight for their mating privileges. Today it's what money's supposed to represent. But since women can be competitors and win the battle with ease it's even lost its meaning..
Now we're on 'equal' terms...where men look at women as providers and basically other men...
There's no male-only activity anymore that shows the woman that he's fit....any of that activity is illegal or left in a trailer park or the jungle...
Because we're no longer physical...
Males showed their physical fitness for the propagation of a healthier species...
So unless we're all shagging football players the male dominance is slaaacck.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37360 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
But in a way, males should fight for their mating privileges. Today it's what money's supposed to represent. But since women can be competitors and win the battle with ease it's even lost its meaning..
Now we're on 'equal' terms...where men look at women as providers and basically other men...
There's no male-only activity anymore that shows the woman that he's fit....any of that activity is illegal or left in a trailer park or the jungle...
Because we're no longer physical...
Males showed their physical fitness for the propagation of a healthier species...
So unless we're all shagging football players the male dominance is slaaacck.
football players are not representative of what is called a dominant male...it only considers muscle and mass an advantage, while ignoring a male's true advantage...his mind.
But what you say is true. problem is all that male competitiveness disrupts social interaction, and so civilization is not possible when females must be wooed.
Men discovered the method of implanting monogamy, by eliminating female sexual choice (what feminists call paternalism) and redirecting make competition to more productive, to the system, practices...through abstraction.
Men compete for money and privilege, and this offers them access to reproduction...and to higher quality females. The destructive element is eliminated...no it is actually redirected towards external threats, suing nationalism and idealism..
But in a way, males should fight for their mating privileges.
Putting biologist historian's hat on:
Males either fight each other for mating privileges or display directly to the females. Do you see anything at all different today as happened in the past.
The answer is NO.
Have a look at hump(lol)back whales fighting for their female in South Pacific.
Courtly love was a medieval European conception of nobly and chivalrously expressing love and admiration. Generally, courtly love was secret and between members of the nobility. It was also generally not practiced between husband and wife.
Courtly love began in the ducal and princely courts of Aquitaine, Provence, Champagne and ducal Burgundy, at the end of the eleventh century. In essence, courtly love was an experience between erotic desire and spiritual attainment that now seems contradictory, "a love at once illicit and morally elevating, passionate and disciplined, humiliating and exalting, human and transcendent".
The term amour courtois ("courtly love") was given its original definition by Gaston Paris in his 1883 article "Études sur les romans de la Table Ronde: Lancelot du Lac, II: Le conte de la charrette", a treatise inspecting Chretien de Troyes's Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart (1177). Paris said amour courtois was an idolization and ennobling discipline. The lover (idolizer) accepts the independence of his mistress and tries to make himself worthy of her by acting bravely and honorably (nobly) and by doing whatever deeds she might desire. Sexual satisfaction, Paris said, may not have been a goal or even end result, but the love was not entirely Platonic either, as it was based on sexual attraction.
The term and Paris's definition were soon widely accepted and adopted. In 1936 C. S. Lewis wrote The Allegory of Love further solidifying courtly love as a "love of a highly specialized sort, whose characteristics may be enumerated as Humility, Courtesy, Adultery, and the Religion of Love". Later, historians such as D. W. Robertson in the 1960s and John C. Moore and E. Talbot Donaldson in the 1970s, were critical of the term as being a modern invention, Donaldson calling it "The Myth of Courtly Love", because it is not supported in medieval texts. Even though the term "courtly love" does appear only in just one extant Provençal poem (as cortez amors in a late 12th century lyric by Peire d'Alvernhe), it is closely related to the term fin'amor ("fine love") which does appear frequently in Provençal and French, as well as German translated as hohe Minne. In addition, other terms and phrases associated with "courtliness" and "love" are common throughout the Middle Ages. Even though Paris used a term with little support in the contemporaneous literature, it was not a neologism and does usefully describe a particular conception of love and focuses on the courtliness that was at its essence.
Richard Trachsler says that “the concept of courtly literature is linked to the idea of the existence of courtly texts, texts produced and read by men and women sharing some kind of elaborate culture they all have in common.”He argues that many of the texts that scholars claim to be courtly also include “uncourtly” texts, and argues that there is no clear way to determine “where courtliness ends and uncourtliness starts”based on the fact that the readers of the text enjoy the supposedly totally courtly texts without realizing they are also enjoying uncourtly texts. This presents a clear problem in the understanding of courtliness.
The practice of courtly love was developed in the castle life of four regions: Aquitaine, Provence, Champagne and ducal Burgundy, from around the time of the First Crusade (1099). Eleanor of Aquitaine brought ideals of courtly love from Aquitaine first to the court of France, then to England, where she was queen to two kings. Her daughter Marie, Countess of Champagne brought courtly behavior to the Count of Champagne's court. Courtly love found its expression in the lyric poems written by troubadours, such as William IX, Duke of Aquitaine (1071–1126), one of the first troubadour poets.
Poets adopted the terminology of feudalism, declaring themselves the vassal of the lady and addressing her as midons (my lord), a sort of code name so that the poet did not have to reveal the lady's name, but which was flattering by addressing her as his lord. The troubadour's model of the ideal lady was the wife of his employer or lord, a lady of higher status, usually the rich and powerful female head of the castle. When her husband was away on Crusade or other business she dominated the household and cultural affairs; sometimes this was the case even when the husband was at home. The lady was rich and powerful and the poet gave voice to the aspirations of the courtier class, for only those who were noble could engage in courtly love. This new kind of love saw nobility not based on wealth and family history, but on character and actions; thus appealing to poorer knights who saw an avenue for advancement.
Since at the time marriage had little to do with love, courtly love was also a way for nobles to express the love not found in their marriage. "Lovers" in the context of courtly love did not refer to sex, but rather the act of emotional loving. These "lovers" had short trysts in secret, which escalated mentally, but never physically. The rules of courtly love were codified by the late 12th century in Andreas Capellanus' highly influential work De Amore ("Concerning Love"). De amore lists such rules as "Marriage is no real excuse for not loving", "He who is not jealous cannot love", "No one can be bound by a double love", and "When made public love rarely endures".
A how to:
Attraction to the lady, usually via eyes/glance Worship of the lady from afar Declaration of passionate devotion Virtuous rejection by the lady Renewed wooing with oaths of virtue and eternal fealty Moans of approaching death from unsatisfied desire (and other physical manifestations of lovesickness) Heroic deeds of valor which win the lady's heart Consummation of the secret love Endless adventures and subterfuges avoiding detection
Then remain in the dark. Mumble like a somnambulist and then retell the visions of the dream, expecting them to come to life.
I wonder if there was a psychological test available to determine which of us was ‘more’ in the dark, insofar as our facing reality and seeing it as it is concerned, which of us would be shown to be less in the dark. Don’t assume that it would be me, as I am not assuming that it would be you, as we really do not know one another that well. What we write cannot paint the whole picture; it can only be our own subjective perceptions of one another, based on our own experiences. And they may indeed be biased.
Truth to tell, insofar as I am able, I try to remain as much in the light as I can, bringing more and more light to bear on my life.
….Carl Jung said something to the effect that life sends us, entangles us within certain problems and it is up to us to find the solutions. I leap for joy in find solutions. But why do you call me naive?
Time will teach you this, dear.
You wish for the moon, no? I live in the sun, even in the darkest of nights. Apollo is my god of preference.
Time, circumstances and events teach all of us, if our eyes remain open, that we are naïve, Satyr – if we are lucky, that is. For instance, I learned, through my being attacked, how naïve I was to think that a god could be a personal one and that we are all special to this god. A definite loss there but also such a shedding of light (and skin) that dispelled that ‘darkness’ – knowing what I know now, or intuit, would I choose to go back to that antiquated way of thinking – no, I wouldn’t. A definite gain there. Would I choose not to have been attacked – no, because what I discovered brought me closer to the truth about myself and an absurd paradigm. As Freddie said, we must all have a little chaos in order to give birth to a dancing star. I do indeed dance more freely because of this (even when I don’t.)
You can call me Artemis. …except that….
"Adorable" as in childish, dearest...but I seek women, with every sense of the word. No pedophile, am I...look for that elsewhere.
Are you capable of seeing a difference between ‘childish’ and ‘child-like’? Are you capable of seeing the beauty and the wonder of a child-like adult, Satyr?
I don’t look for pedophiles, unless it be to just see them rotting away in prison. How did we get from adorable to pedophiles?
Uzume wrote: I am so very busy with living my humaneness in pain and joy and hunger and love and hope and sometimes despair and confusion and deferred gratification
How preciously fulfilling, and here you come looking for something more, to add to your absolute contentment, no dearest?
Yes, perhaps I do…I like a romp in the jungle and the woods. I like going thrashing through the woods to see and hear what I might. I love adventure and facing the unknown and learning what I am capable of. But do you think, dear chimp, that all of this necessarily leads one to absolute contentment or even a bit of contentment. No, it doesn’t though it makes one feel more alive and isn’t THIS what life is all about?
Were you floating in a lake, completely happy?
But you forgot that your heart was beating and your cells feeding and your lungs breathing, didn't ya dearest?
The dream is ideal.
I’ve been known to float in a lake in complete abandon to the moment. Oddly enough, there ARE moments when one feels so completely alive, for instance, when one’s life is being threatened, that one can be completely aware of the functions of its body.
But yes, I do, for the most part, go through life without being in touch with the beating of my heart and the workings of my lungs and my muscles, etc. And it is a good thing to sometimes stop and ponder the little amazing world within and how it continues with us not even having to be aware of it.
Have you ever, when you’ve looked up into the sky, and noticed a plane fly by, taken the time to become completely amazed and thunderstruck at how the human brain could have evolved to such a point that humans were capable of such a feat…getting such a massive and heavy thing as an airplane …flying?
Uzume wrote: - that I do not have time to define what is human though I just did.
Did ya? Then cut and paste, dearest...easy as pie. Show us that mind of yours at work.
…cutting and pasting? Is that Really the mind at work? I am showing my mind at work…you just don’t appreciate it. But that’s okay…as I do appreciate my mind and accept my limitations and also accept its occasional brilliance (though of course you do not see that either). SMILE
No, you are an artiste...you prefer innuendo, don't ya...while reality, clear as day, is too blinding...the moon to the sun.
I value the sun. I appreciate it for its energy, nourishment, nurturing. We couldn't live without it. And I also value the moon for its more subtle light albeit it comes from the sun’s graciousness. I wonder which truly creates more havoc in our world, the sun or the moon?
Uzume wrote:
Actions do speak louder than words, do they not, dear human Chimp?
They do, indeed, and words are expressions of potential actions....
I understand this but still words are JUST words until they are put into action. But sometimes the energy of the thoughts and words are wasted through entropy. But I would not say in your case – definitely not in your case.
but you love implying a superiority you cannot provide evidence for
Why do you say this? I certainly do not mean to come across as being superior. Do I?
I am primal, and that is what intrigues you, because your position is based on hyperbole, fantasy, the possible, with no reference to anything in reality...the imagination letting go, because it cannot cope.
Everything I have said here is based in reality. At the same time, I tend to be a creative person and yes then I do use hyperbole. One of the most wonderful things about a human being is its ability to fantasize and to see the possible…where there might seemingly be only the impossible. Open up your eyes, Satyr, the whole of creation has evolved from that, blindly or not.
In my imagination, I can see you standing on the top of a mountain and pounding your chest. I don’t know how much that intrigues me but the sight of it makes me want to laugh. At the same time, I do admire you for your passion and your work ethic and for what you’ve wanted to and have accomplished though truth to tell, I may not agree with it all though I am sure there are many others who do – and that is what makes the world go around.
But I am sure there is a lot more to you than meets the eye – perhaps it is only revealed to those who sit with you around the campfire after the great hunt, exchanging the thrilling feats and losses of the day. But too bad there couldn’t be some women there too. Also, were you to do it all over again, your life, only you could ask the question if you would do it differently. That is the answer that I would be interested in.
What makes you think the past is inferior to the present or possible future, or that a stupid cunt, like you, has overcome her sexuality, and all that this implies and determines about her?
You’re being absurd here now. The past/present/future is all the same to me…it is all part of one continuum of who I am. I don’t see any of it as being inferior to any other of it. You might try to compartmentalize that but you would only come up with different shades of the same thing. Calling a part of one’s life ‘inferior’ is absurd because to do this you would have to see and to understand every part of it and yourself. And truth to tell, if that could be done, once that was done, one would hardly see it as being inferior but as where one simply is NOW.
Stop calling me ‘cunt’. Overcome my sexuality? Again, you’re being absurd. Why would I even want to overcome my sexuality? That’s like saying – overcome your being a human being. I am a human I am a woman. Can one overcome their genes, even if I could, I would choose not to. I enjoy being a sexual creature and there is more to that, Satyr than just having sex. It’s also a part of loving/nurturing/being nurtured and the way in which I perceive and sensate the world. Would I choose to be a rock?
Write another poem, dearest, and imagine a knight, in the moonlight, on a steed, coming to rescue you and offer you value, with romantic words of dedication and loyalty.
Hahahahaha. Actually, it might be me who was rescuing the knight. Aside from that, are you really so primal that the thought of a man and woman being dedicated and loyal, to one another and enjoying the moonlight together, is offensive to you? Even two lions on the Serengeti might enjoy a stroll together in the moonlight and then ROAR! You would probably just drag the female by the hair into your cave. What a pity though that you would ONLY experience what the lions would. I don’t need to be rescued by a man – just to feel in harmony with him, unless it is more fun not to be. hahahaha Of course, if I was in trouble and couldn't handle it myself, I wouldn't care who rescued me, not even if it was you. hahahaha
Then come back here and tell me about how you are not a woman, through and through, living in an age that prefers feminine energy and Jewish fatalism...then, complain about the state of mankind, and of man, as a sexual type, when it is YOU, dearest pussy, that have been trained to expect him to be as he is.
But I Am a woman through and through though I also function on a level with my animus, with my assertive and aggressive and passionate side, which helps me to survive in this world, but really I value most the woman in me – or ought I to say myself as a Whole. I also value most, the masculine side of a man but also the much lesser feminine side in him which is about nourishing/nurturing and being creative.
Notice in the gorilla vids how the female's are not even given the benefit of loyalty and fidelity.
It's practically a given that they will cheat and change sides. How...sweet.
Some females in a gorilla group may leave one in exchange for another group. Note the size of the females compared to the females? With this amount of dimorphism they have little option other than to take sides. To stay or to go is not her choice but his as he is not content with one mate.
Once more for the record:
In 1871 Charles Darwin advanced the theory of sexual selection, which related sexual dimorphism with sexual selection.
In many non-monogamous species, the benefit to a male's reproductive fitness of mating with multiple females is large, whereas the benefit to a female's reproductive fitness of mating with multiple males is small or non-existent. In these species, there is a selection pressure for whatever traits enable a male to have more matings. The male may therefore come to have different traits from the female.
These traits could be ones that allow him to fight off other males for control of territory or a harem, such as large size or weapons; or they could be traits that females, for whatever reason, prefer in mates. Male-male competition poses no deep theoretical questions but female choice does.
Females may choose males that appear strong and healthy, thus likely to possess "good alleles" and give rise to healthy offspring. However, in some species females seem to choose males with traits that do not improve offspring survival rates, and even traits that reduce it (potentially leading to traits like the peacock's tail).
Two hypotheses for explaining this fact are the sexy son hypothesis and the handicap principle.
The sexy son hypothesis states that females may initially choose a trait because it improves the survival of their young, but once this preference has become widespread, females must continue to choose the trait, even if it becomes harmful. Those that do not will have sons that are unattractive to most females (since the preference is widespread) and so receive few matings.
The handicap principle states that a male who survives despite possessing some sort of handicap thus proves that the rest of his genes are "good alleles." If males with "bad alleles" could not survive the handicap, females may evolve to choose males with this sort of handicap; the trait is acting as a hard-to-fake signal of fitness.
So DEAR it is the male-male competition that causes the dimorphism that is caused by the males wanting to screw around.
Last edited by maryshelley on Tue Aug 31, 2010 11:51 am; edited 1 time in total
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37360 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
See, now you are coming to terms with your sexuality and how men and women differ on a very fundamental way, and not merely cosmetically.
On a side note: the true measure of a friendship, loyalty, is when the partners choose to live and die in unison...not change camps out of necessity....or when their choice has proven to be a wrong one.
You see why males are nobler, dear? You see why this sense of irresponsibility, this accusing everyone but yourself, this absence of integrity, is a sure sign of feminization?
See, now you are coming to terms with your sexuality and how men and women differ on a very fundamental way, and not merely cosmetically.
On a side note: the true measure of a friendship, loyalty, is when the partners choose to live and die in unison...not change camps out of necessity....or when their choice has proven to be a wrong one.
You see why males are nobler, dear? You see why this sense of irresponsibility, this accusing everyone but yourself, this absence of integrity, is a sure sign of feminization?
Careful you don't mix gorillas up with humans. An easy and common mistake to make. Humans, if I may mix my metaphors, are a different kettle of fish.
You will note that in the case of humans body dimorphism is much less than in gorillas and therefore mating strategies are entirely different.
Humans, you see, are not gorillas.
PS I've gone back and highlighted the words 'non monogamous species' in my previous post (for emphasis)
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37360 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Careful you don't mix gorillas up with humans. An easy and common mistake to make. Humans, if I may mix my metaphors, are a different kettle of fish.
Oh dear...if only this were true. this is where your weakness lies. it is in your denial to see yourself in nature, because it unsettles your modernistic delusions and social mythologies.
Careful you do not separate yourself, with no apparent justification, from what you were told you should feel ashamed of.
See the secret hide, dear?
You are NOT different, dear...and if you've mastered your past, by knowing and accepting and controlling it, has yet to be determined.
maryshelley wrote:
You will note that in the case of humans body dimorphism is much less than in gorillas and therefore mating strategies are entirely different.
They are different in degree, dear, not in substance. A fly's mating tactics correspond to a mammals, they are just more intricate and use more convoluted behaviors t9o enable the birth of larger brained individuals.
maryshelley wrote:
Humans, you see, are not gorillas.
Neither are gorillas chimpanzees, or horses or dogs.
Can you find yourself in them? No, dear, because the method you've used, up until now, is dismissal, and some ambiguous, if not totally absent, definition of what the term "human" means.
WHAT is different about you, in relation to a gorilla, dear? I can think of one thing, can you?
…except that….
go through life without being in touch with the beating of my heart and the workings of my lungs and my muscles, etc. And it is a good thing to sometimes stop and ponder the little amazing world within and how it continues with us not even having to be aware of it.
Aside from that, are you really so primal that the thought of a man and woman being dedicated and loyal, to one another and enjoying the moonlight together, is offensive to you? Even two lions on the Serengeti might enjoy a stroll together in the moonlight and then ROAR! You would probably just drag the female by the hair into your cave. What a pity though that you would ONLY experience what the lions would. I don’t need to be rescued by a man – just to feel in harmony with him, unless it is more fun not to be. hahahaha Of course, if I was in trouble and couldn't handle it myself, I wouldn't care who rescued me, not even if it was you. hahahaha