Critique of Satyr's The Feminization of Man:

First of all, Satyr, I used that title to draw you in.

Having gotten you here, allow me to describe the history of why we're here:

I've been spending some time now working in the drive-by mode of philosophising we do on these boards and, as much as I love the spontaneous jam-like nature of it, the way it allows you to develop your ideas and writing style, like you, I sooner or later had to get the urge to write a more finished piece with more polished prose. I had (and still have) a few ideas about what that would be, but then came across your essay on ILP. I was of 2 minds. On one hand, given our history, I wanted the opportunity to peal away the layers and deal with you at last. On the other, I knew from your less snarling moments, you could make some pretty reasonable points. So I dedicated myself to a critical essay on it that resisted the impulse to just sit there and bash you. So I put your essay on Word, printed it out, and took it to the "library".

And I have to say: it was a pretty impressive piece of writing with a lot of sound points. The prose, itself, simply did what prose is suppose to do: it didn't try to impress with flare and simply explained your point. You didn't risk pretension at the sacrifice of being a great writer. But it was a good choice.

At the same time, it reminded me a lot of Pinker's The Blank Slate in that it made a lot of good points that led up to a questionable conclusion (mainly the naturalistic fallacy involved) that I hope we'll be able to hammer out, point by point, as we go through this string. It may actually lead to a more finished piece for me.

But for now, I'll have to turn to something else for that.

First of all, I'm a little iffy on the disclaimer. It almost sounded apologetic.

Especially for you.

Plus that, I'm not really sure any point you made was that offensive. You basically just described an evolutionary aspect of our makeup. And you were clearly influenced by evolutionary psychology which I took to like a duck to water -excuse the cliche.

I think what I need to explain to you here is that as I was listening to The Blank Slate, both times (I got it on an audiobook), I felt some guilt at my past mistakes, but as I was listening to the research he was citing, I never any of interfered whatsoever with my personal agenda. In fact, in many ways it supported it.

You have to understand that, despite what you see on mainstream media, the progressive sensibility has evolved well past the indescretions that Pinker describes. At least, it has with me. In fact, for me, it has progressed beyond the kind of liberalism you see in mainstream media which is a little too candy coated and comfortably within the perimeters of producer/consumer Capitalism for me.

Take, for instance, a sitcom like Will and Grace. On one hand, the producers are trying to make homosexuality acceptible: a good thing as far as I'm concerned. I mean the argument for gay rights is, ultimately, about the right to express ourselves sexually with one, two, three, whatever floats your boat, other consenting adults. It is about our sexual autonomy. The problem for me is that Will, a professional that, like the characters on Sienfeld, only has to concern himself with what product to buy as compared to the issue of whether he can actually afford it, weans us into acceptance by recognizing him as just another form of producer/consumer.

It is as if media has become this kind of Platonic realm of ideal forms that has to do with our role as producer/consumers.

Prose is an art-form.

A cross between rational expression and poetics.

The essay you speak of is no prose...or at least it was never intended to be prose.
It was me putting my opinions down on paper so as to better organize them and also purge myself of them.
That it took on a life of its own surprised me.

I was later forced to rewrite it, adding to it what I had neglected or chose not to include.
More recently I decided to add some more, as the parameters involved are many and many attacked me because I had left some holes open.
I'm sure your "naturalistic fallacy" can be included.

By the way, although the essay is full of my personal tastes and is certainly not free of my own personal positions and reactions to what I am describing, it is mostly a description of what is in regards to modern, western, societies, rather than any pronouncement of a "conclusion".
Of course it can be used to critique all social systems but that's not its primary intent.

That you obsess over the producer/consumer contexts, like a true liberal and westernized mind, growing up post-Cold-War would, my goal was to delve beneath the current politics and find the roots of it all.
This is why Will's sexual proclivities do not bother you, they actually make you feel good about humanity, whereas his economics does irk you.

For me Will's sexuality, and its mainstream popularity, is a symptom of a disease. The economics are but extensions of it.

Also, it, my essay, is in complete harmony with my metaphysical positions.

This is more of my style of prose:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

or

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

Well, dude, what do you expect with that nasty disposition of yours?

At the same time, I'm not sure you'd be the Satyr we know and love without it.


I guess the best I can tell you is that you have made a trade off -an essential one I suppose given your agenda.

I pretty much understood you from previous posts as taking the continental approach of merely offering a perspective.

But one of the biggest shortcomings, as far as I can see, of the continental approach lies not so much with its practitioners, as what it leaves itself open to as concerns its detractors:

Its detractors tend to take it way more serious than it is meant to be.

For instance, those who appreciate Baudrillard usually know that the Simulacrum is not real in the same sense, say, the room I am writing this in right now. We generally tend to agree that he is a sci-fi writer who happens to be writing philosophy. But if you take on his perspective, it can actually give you a lot of understanding about what is going on in the world.

I think this sense of the continental might have under lied the kind of apologetic tone of the disclaimer in your essay. Now this is not to say it shouldn't be there. It's just one of those things your own judgement will have to deal with. And I understand what you think you're dealing with -and what may well be. But.... I don't know. I wish I could be more certain. I wish I could help you more on that one.

Memes are noumenal empires.

Caesar has turned into a figurehead with Mickey-Mouse ears.

We live in that fantasy realm of a sci-fi writer.
Our reference points are all make-believe.

Who cares about my "detractors"?
Do you think I wish to change the world or to save humanity?

I seek to preserve what is left in it which is still good and noble and aware.
I seek a clan within humanity, but if this is a romantic fool's dream, then I seek solitude to reminisce.

I describe the world as a travel agent would describe a trip to Tibet, or a trek through the jungles of Borneo.
Whether the readers wish to follow or if they choose to sit in their comfortable living rooms, reading about dudes who have traveled there, means little to me.
They can stay where they are, as they are.
Their stagnation is to my advantage.

My essay, like most of my work, is a personal account meant to be read as a survivor's guide.

Well now see, your take on Will's sexual proclivities and it's relationship with nature is one of my problems. Now hear me out (what choice have you got, right?):

But first allow me my own disclaimer: I can't think of anything more beautiful than the face of a woman as it contorts in ecstasy.

But back in the 60's, they did an experiment in which they put 2 rats in a cage and allowed them to reproduce. As their offspring started to reproduce, it didn't take long before the cage became crowded. As it did so, the experimenters began to notice things that might seem familiar: an increase in violent behavior and same sex mounting. Now this is not to reduce homosexuals to the level of 2 same sex rats mounting in a cage. But it does suggest that an increase in human homosexual behavior may be a NATURAL reaction to overpopulation.

Nor is same sex sex exclusive to the the human species. In fact, Robert Wright, in The Moral Species, a study in evolutionary psychology, points out that same sex mounting is pretty common among a lot of species. In fact, he points out a certain kind of frog that has a specific call to tell his misguided "suitor" that he has the wrong frog to say the least.

But even without all this, I still say you're committing the naturalistic fallacy of arguing that nature is the ultimate moral authority -especially given that we have no way of knowing at which point nature ends and civilization begins.

Nevertheless, I look forward to the back and forth that comes out of it.

Once again: it was impressive.

Satyr wrote:

Memes are noumenal empires.

Caesar has turned into a figurehead with Mickey-Mouse ears.

We live in that fantasy realm of a sci-fi writer.
Our reference points are all make-believe.

Who cares about my "detractors"?
Do you think I wish to change the world or to save humanity?

I seek to preserve what is left in it which is still good and noble and aware.
I seek a clan within humanity, but if this is a romantic fool's dream, then I seek solitude to reminisce.

I describe the world as a travel agent would describe a trip to Tibet, or a trek through the jungles of Borneo.
Whether the readers wish to follow or if they choose to sit in their comfortable living rooms, reading about dudes who have traveled there, means little to me.
They can stay where they are, as they are.
Their stagnation is to my advantage.

My essay, like most of my work, is a personal account meant to be read as a survivor's guide.

And once again: there's the Satyr we've come to know and love.

But before there's plagues, floods, earthquakes, and the moon turning blood-red and disappearing

(allow me to leave in a way we're accustom to and restores order to the universe:

take care, asshole.

The same shit from a different asshole.

Yes, all is natural which exists.
Genocide, The Holocaust, pedophilia, necrophilia, pollution, mass-extinction, violence, rape, all of it.

Mutations arise and the environment determines which flourish and which do not.

We might say that the current increasing levels of infertility is nature auto-correcting.

Here's what you have a problem with, and you drum up all this "natural fallacy" shit to make it sound more impressive than it actually is:
You have a problem with anything that goes against the social norms you were raised in.

You'll go to great lengths to turn a genetic dead-end into a blooming spiritual promise.
Maybe you can dedicate some time into turning pedophilia into something socially "positive".

My definition of artificial versus natural is very specific and useful.
It has nothing to do with my personal preferences or tastes.

For me "artificial" is a designation meant to clarify a phenomenon.
In this case the phenomenon is willful intervention.

Are you reading carefully, because I might have said this many times before but I'm only going to repeat it once here?

Artificial, and it is in my essay, is meant to distinguish the point at which an organism's interventions upon its natural world exceed those of the preexisting natural order which gave rise to them.

We all intervene upon our environment. To exist is an act of intervention.
When we walk in a park we are crushing plants and bugs and disturbing nature.
A beaver intervenes upon its own environment when it builds a dam to serve its own purposes.
But in these cases the intervention is not excessive or to a point where it affects the organism more than the per-existing environmental conditions do.
Whatever small willful intervention they have is nothing compared to the natural processes that still govern their fate.

Man, on the other hand, has reached a point where his interventions are beginning to exceed the influences of the environment that per-existed his emergence.
In this case man's effect upon his environment influence him - in a looping effect - just as much as the environment preceding his interventions, and this influence is increasing exponentially to the point where nature is being pushed to the side as a factor.

This is what Baudrillard describes as a simulation and this is what is referred to when they say "life is imitating art" rather than the reverse.
Man is, in fact, cocooning himself....an increasing advancement towards solipsism and delusion.
This state, of course, relies on automated mechanisms which take care of nature, so to speak, as the participants within its artificial environments live lives of comfortable, yet slavish, oblivion.

Many things can be traced back to this: schizophrenia, narcissism, sexual dissatisfaction, disillusionment, adrenaline junkies, pornography, the occult, etc.

Satyr wrote:

You'll go to great lengths to turn a genetic dead-end into a blooming spiritual promise.
Maybe you can dedicate some time into turning pedophilia into something socially "positive".

Now that’s a big jump. What you fail to understand is that it never has, and never will be a matter of establishing who has the superior intellect here. It’s always been about impressing those who agree with us in the first place. Those who are so different than us that they will never agree will, ultimately, require force to get the point across. I really don’t have to convince you of anything, satyr. Do not think you are going to convince me of anything.

And I’m a little curious as to how many people you think you’re going to convince of anything having compared homosexuality to pedophilia. Everyone has their own agendas.

Satyr wrote:

Here's what you have a problem with, and you drum up all this "natural fallacy" shit to make it sound more impressive than it actually is:
You have a problem with anything that goes against the social norms you were raised in.

Really? What social norms am I a slave to?

Really: I'm curious.



Satyr, you must really hate liking me a lot.

And the Natural Fallacy shit is impressive because it is generally accepted among the intellectual community which, the last time I checked, both of us were working to be accepted by.

But that's right: you are beyond the general intellectual community.


Does anyone see the potential for a kind of Cassandra Complex in this?

The same thing every psycho-therapist has to try to explain to their patient:

Maybe to you, you have some special place in the world.



But maybe it's not as special as you seem to think.

I'm a little concerned that I'm having to defend gay rights to a guy about 5 years younger than me.

I thought the issue of tolerance and democracy was already settled.

d63tark wrote:

Satyr wrote:

You'll go to great lengths to turn a genetic dead-end into a blooming spiritual promise.
Maybe you can dedicate some time into turning pedophilia into something socially "positive".

Now that’s a big jump. What you fail to understand is that it never has, and never will be a matter of establishing who has the superior intellect here. It’s always been about impressing those who agree with us in the first place. Those who are so different than us that they will never agree will, ultimately, require force to get the point across. I really don’t have to convince you of anything, satyr. Do not think you are going to convince me of anything.

Who cares?
You are stuck on impressing or wanting to seem impressive.

Would I even care to attempt to change the mind of a Christian awaiting The Rapture?
His life, his lost opportunity, is the cost he must pay for being obtuse.
Thing is that this level of stupidity and the desperation that comes from trying to protect itself, can be manipulated by minds which can make my life difficult. That's the only reason I even care about such animals.
They are tools, and like tools they are mindless, harmless as objects, but they can be yielded as weapons.

d63tark wrote:

And I’m a little curious as to how many people you think you’re going to convince of anything having compared homosexuality to pedophilia. Everyone has their own agendas.

"Convince"?
Shit, boy, you are lost in your own needs.
I live in reality with sex being a method. I live in a reality where mutations arise due to this method, sometimes which contradict it.

I'm interested in being shown how pedophilia is other than homosexuality.
Are you an ageist?

If all life is sacred, dear boy, then ALL life is so.
If you place an arbitrary limit to discriminate, then justify it.
Claiming someone is immature is pretty vague.
At what point do they attain maturity?
Why 16 or 18 and not 14 or 12?
What criteria do you use, boy?

If reproduction is your criterion, as it is for me, then why do you refuse to apply it to the genetic mutation and/or social phenomenon of homosexuality?

See, boy, you are stuck in post-modern divisions. Marxist materialism and cosmo-theory, versus Judeo-Christian capitalism.
Jesus versus Marx.
One Jewish perspective versus another.

For you its' all about socioeconomics....leveling out the playing field, creating heaven on earth where nobody is ever hungry and nobody is ever hurt.
For you the world is a human world. You don't see anything beyond the institutional walls....your artificial domain of certainty where things are, or have been, settled once and for all; the rules are applied stringently and all remain "free" to be productive, good "citizens".
Institutionalization.


Fifty years!!!
Sounds about right.

d63tark wrote:

And the Natural Fallacy shit is impressive because it is generally accepted among the intellectual community which, the last time I checked, both of us were working to be accepted by.

Really?
You think I seek acceptance from some sort of "intellectual community"?
Thanks for exposing yourself, by the way.

Now tell me, would you wish to be accepted in the intellectual community of the Middle Ages - what they had called "modern" at that time - at the expense of your intellectual integrity?
Your motive is to be accepted rather than to perceive reality? Well then, this explains a lot, does it not, boy?

d63tark wrote:

Does anyone see the potential for a kind of Cassandra Complex in this?

Is that term from the "intellectual group" you wish to become attractive to?

Tell me what is this, a preemption of what will follow, because you seem to be projecting a "possibility".
Am I suffering?

d63tark wrote:

The same thing every psycho-therapist has to try to explain to their patient:

Maybe to you, you have some special place in the world.

But maybe it's not as special as you seem to think.

No doubt the possibilities are infinite.
Maybe knowing how "special" I really think I am should be imagined so that you could deal with how not-special you wish to think I am.
Maybe being fifty and still believing in the shit you do has to be compensated by making your beliefs the only acceptable ones available.
Outside the fantasy of how I think of myself, you need to make sure nobody proves to be something you cannot be, no matter how many years you live.

d63tark wrote:

I'm a little concerned that I'm having to defend gay rights to a guy about 5 years younger than me.

I know, boy, because age is the best indicator of intelligence.

It goes back to pedophilia.
You are five years older, ergo you are five times more mature and five times more intelligent.
Years are a multiplying factor.
Settling down, settling for, is the mature thing to do. At some point a man gets tired, no?
At some time a man just stops thinking outside the box, stops questioning and challenging and he begins investing, dedicating himself to its preservation, because all else only creates problems for him.
At some time he grows ashamed of himself, or he forgets who and what he was and a man simply believes that he was always destined to be exactly what he is and to think exactly what he does.

I think democracy is the biggest myth of all, and that you, despite your older age, still suckle on that tit, is what makes you special.
All ideas and ideals are wonderful in theory.

d63tark wrote:

I thought the issue of tolerance and democracy was already settled.

It would appear that you have "settled" on many things.

Do you know what "settled" really means, boy?
It is a term most often used to describe marriage as "settling down". The choice of words is not accidental, and it signifies the cessation of searching.

Perhaps age eventually forces a mind to compromise, but when you apply it to the seeking out of reality, then it signifies a mind interested in comfort and a stoppage of thinking.

Essentially you've decided that you know enough and that given what the popular opinions are you've settled upon them.
You've stopped exploring the world and you now simply know.

For example, you now know, in accordance to current social norms, that homosexuality is acceptable and pedophilia is not, just as a man of your age living in Iran knows that women should wear the burka and not tight bluejeans...just as a man in the past, of your age and wisdom, simply knew, because it was modern and current and popular for him at that time, that the sun rotates around the earth and that some women are witches and should be burned to death.

You simply know, now, at your age.
Reality and its nature has been settled and all that is left is hammering out some minor details and defending what you KNOW because you have already settled.

Be quite explicit here, Satyr: what, to you, is the obvious similarity between pedophilia and homosexuality. To start, plainly put: the homosexual lusts after his own sex while the pedophile lusts after the child -- there are, of course, both homo- as well as heterosexual pedophiles.

The similarities are:

Both are sexual mutations.

Both are genetic dead-ends (unfit). They are propagated parasitically.

Both rely on sheltering and modern secular humanism to hope for legitimacy.

Both flourish underneath secular humanism and its blanket protection.

Both aspire towards legitimacy, one simply being further along the road towards it than the other.

Both have a good case given that both adhere to the inherit "logic" of secular humanism and the Judeo-Christian ethics it is an outcrop of.

Both are symptoms of systemic decay - decadence. They've become popular throughout history during periods of comfort and abundance amongst the leisure classes.

Both are practiced by individuals with obvious genetic failings.

Both are symptoms of individual degradation, if we take essence as being the sum of an individual's entire past. They are an indication of genetic pollution.


Shall I go on?

Both rely on a hypothetical, a "what if?", to justify themselves.

Both depend on the duo of secular humanism and Judeo-Christianity, ironically enough, to validate themselves.

I'll have to go through these individually.

Quote :

Both are sexual mutations.

Of course, we're speaking evolution. Everything is a mutation. Surely you know how the process works. This point is nil.

Quote :

Both are genetic dead-ends (unfit). They are propagated parasitically.

This argument is sophomoric to the point that I feel intellectually dirty for having even to consider it. Every one of your favourite philosophers were genetic dead-ends. The propagation of philosophy itself, in a very real sense, is wholly parasitic. That you mean this pejoratively betrays an emphatically unsophisticated understanding of the intersection between evolution and civilization.

Quote :

Both rely on sheltering and modern secular humanism to hope for legitimacy.

This point isn't developed enough for critique, as you'd have to expound upon why appealing to secular humanism for legitimacy is a negative. Unless of course you just mean this as a neutral observation, in which case this, too, is a nil point. There are similarities between everything, the idea is to draw out the significant ones. Without making the argument that an appeal to secular humanism for legitimacy is significant in an important way, your point is negligible.

Quote :

Both flourish underneath secular humanism and its blanket protection.

Again, why is this significant? New atheism also flourishes under secular humanism, is it to be identified with pedophilia as well?

Quote :

Both aspire towards legitimacy, one simply being further along the road towards it than the other.

This is really dragging on, isn't it? Speaking in these terms, everything strives towards legitimacy.

Quote :

Both have a good case given that both adhere to the inherit "logic" of secular humanism and the Judeo-Christian ethics it is an outcrop of.

You haven't explicated such logic, and, again, you've yet to argue its significance. To make the point again: so does new atheism. But it's simply nonsensical to loudly proclaim that new atheism and pedophilia are essentially the same things.

Quote :

Both are symptoms of systemic decay - decadence. They've become popular throughout history during periods of comfort and abundance amongst the leisure classes.

I've already made this point above: the way you've defined symptoms of decay also captures just about everything we think well of, culturally. Philosophy, art: these too must be merely decadent, nothing more than symptoms of leisure.

Quote :

Both are practiced by individuals with obvious genetic failings.

I shouldn't even be justifying this one with a response, but I don't want to leave any of your post out. This point needs some serious substantiation if it is to be taken seriously in the least. Again, does the celibate philosopher, too, practice his art as a result of his obvious genetic failings?

Quote :

Both are symptoms of individual degradation, if we take essence as being the sum of an individual's entire past. They are an indication of genetic pollution.

This seems to be a popular point for you. You've still yet to substantiate it. Homosexuality is degrading? Because it is genetically parasitic? Ridiculous. Refer to my above comments. They are an indication of genetic pollution, again, because they are genetic dead-ends? This argument isn't taken seriously past high-school. I'm disappointed to have to see you make it.

Quote :

Both rely on a hypothetical, a "what if?", to justify themselves.

Surely not. Unless, of course, you actually want to make an argument. Until then, I can't really do much more than say: "no."

Quote :

Both depend on the duo of secular humanism and Judeo-Christianity, ironically enough, to validate themselves.

This has been covered above.

without-music wrote:

Of course, we're speaking evolution. Everything is a mutation. Surely you know how the process works. This point is nil.

No, the point is not nil.
I didn't say they were simply mutations but sexual mutations.

Sex is the starting point.

without-music wrote:

This argument is sophomoric to the point that I feel intellectually dirty for having even to consider it. Every one of your favourite philosophers were genetic dead-ends. The propagation of philosophy itself, in a very real sense, is wholly parasitic. That you mean this pejoratively betrays an emphatically unsophisticated understanding of the intersection between evolution and civilization.

How sad, your personal prejudices are clouding your mind.

What is sophomoric is your response.

Philosophy is a discipline which can undoubtedly produce genetic dead ends, or ideas which inhibit rather than promote life, but this is not the entirety of philosophy, you poor thing.
Philosophy can also produce ideas which promote and enhance survival.

Both pedophilia and homosexuality depend on heterosexual copulation between two biologically mature individuals to propagate themselves. By themselves they are unable to reproduce.
In Evolution Theory this is called being unfit.

without-music wrote:

This point isn't developed enough for critique, as you'd have to expound upon why appealing to secular humanism for legitimacy is a negative. Unless of course you just mean this as a neutral observation, in which case this, too, is a nil point. There are similarities between everything, the idea is to draw out the significant ones. Without making the argument that an appeal to secular humanism for legitimacy is significant in an important way, your point is negligible.

How pathetic.

without-music wrote:

Again, why is this significant? New atheism also flourishes under secular humanism, is it to be identified with pedophilia as well?

Undoubtedly you have en emotional reaction to this possibility.
I don't know what New Atheism is, but I do know that the difference between Communism and Christianity is simply that one placed heaven on earth and made man the all-mighty entity.
As far as I know atheism is simply the denial of the possibility that there is a God, it has no morality.

without-music wrote:

This is really dragging on, isn't it? Speaking in these terms, everything strives towards legitimacy.

Yes, and what is it that seeks social legitimacy?
You asked for the similarities, I gave you them.
If it bothers you on a personal level that is really your problem.

without-music wrote:

You haven't explicated such logic, and, again, you've yet to argue its significance. To make the point again: so does new atheism. But it's simply nonsensical to loudly proclaim that new atheism and pedophilia are essentially the same things.

Again, I don't know what "New Atheism" is, but if it's some new crop of liberal bullshit, then it should be included in the heading "secular humanism".
The commonality, dear boy, is that both secular humanism and Christianity seek to protect the weak and the desperate and those whom are denounce by the majority.
They both shelter mutations with no other standard other than they exist and so "deserve" respect.
Both have as their common denominator the generalization of "humanity".
One claims that all "deserve" salvation if and only if they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, whereas the other simply does away with the metaphor of a God made human and goes straight for the human. It then sanctifies it and posits as its only rule for entrance adherence to the common good, as this is broadly expressed by multiple political agendas.

Secular humanism, beginning with Marxism, is an evolution of Judeo-Christianity.
It adapts to an environment of universality, seeking to coalesce heterogeneous populations, and in environments with demographic and resource pressures.
Ergo effete males are its "ideal", making homosexuality and any sexual mutations which does not "hurt" the individual, a desirable mutation.

Now, since still the vast majority speak of sex in romantic terms, and resit the idea that sex is both aggressive, intrusive, a display of dominance, and an activity that places the accepting partner, whether female or effete male, in a vulnerable situation, they still cannot fully justify why sex with a 16 year-old is unacceptable whereas sex with an 18 year-old is, even if frowned upon and gossiped over.
I would say that they cannot bring themselves to admit all of the above plus that sex is a reproductive method and not some hedonistic device or some transcendental unifying practice.

If, as the liberals claim, love is wonderful and sex is beautiful and bonding and divine, they should follow through with their own "reasoning", as pedophiles urge them to, and accept sex between an adult male and a prepubescent female or boy.
Pedophiles make that argument constantly on these forums.
Why?
Because they follow the secular humanist positions down to their logical end and with it they justify their own sexual dysfunctions.
If being penetrated is not a submissive act, and if penetration is not an aggressive act, no matter how many candles you light and whether the female or male willingly submits to it, then what would hurt the child?

As an add on, your bullshit liberalism has also to content with speciesm, because if appearances do not matter then how are we to categorize nature and what makes a dog different from a cat?
If color does not matter, reducing the argument to a single characteristic to diminish it, then why does form, taste, sound matter?

without-music wrote:

I've already made this point above: the way you've defined symptoms of decay also captures just about everything we think well of, culturally. Philosophy, art: these too must be merely decadent, nothing more than symptoms of leisure.

Now you are either pretending to be stupid or you are stupid.
modern art definitely displays the symptoms of cultural decay.
Art always reflects the psychology of the artist, and if it becomes popular it also displays the psychology of the ones admiring it.

I emphasize "modern art" not all art.
If you think modern music with its bullshit lyrics and its continuous obsession with sex and relationships, and with its sampling (plagiarizing) of previous music does not signify a decline, then you are truly a moron.

If you think the obliteration of the family unity is not directly linked to both Judeo-Christianity and, more recently, the "liberation of women", then you are a moron.
There was a reason why marriage became an institution and why monogamy had to be enforced before stable civilizations arose.

without-music wrote:

I shouldn't even be justifying this one with a response, but I don't want to leave any of your post out. This point needs some serious substantiation if it is to be taken seriously in the least. Again, does the celibate philosopher, too, practice his art as a result of his obvious genetic failings?

Perhaps you should seek the reasons why a philosopher remains celibate in other places.

I give you the parable of Tarzan.
Tarzan having found himself amongst apes feels lonely, alien, alienated.
Would he copulate with an ape?

Here's another little story:
With copulation and the emerging of two genetic lines much can go wrong.
During gestation the embryo is vulnerable to the slightest hormonal imbalance or to the mother's bad nutrition or anxiety or exposure to the elements.

Some mutations offer an advantage and are propagated, others offer none but neither are they detrimental to the organisms sexual success and they are nil, others still are harmful to the organisms fitness and they are soon faced with the inevitable.

Now why is homosexuality and sexual divergence so prevalent?
First off sex is a relatively recent evolutionary method.
Second some of these sexual deformities offer a utility to the group and so force the individual into a social role which offers it immediate survivability.

Why do beta males suffer a drop in testosterone when included into a pack?
Could it be that certain mutations are only viable within social groups?

And one more thing...
Is it not interesting that you exhibit the same vehemence and resistance to accept pedophilia alongside homosexuality as many did in the past in regards to homosexuality?
It is as if you are repeating the prejudices to the sexual mutations that arise based on nothing more than taste, as your own logic implies both as socially viable practices.

It seems a bit hypocritical to claim that sex is divine and opens up the person to a unique experience of unity, and to then deny this experience to a child on the grounds that it is too young.
If such sacred myths are to be denied to the young then why are we baptizing children before the age of one, and why are we circumcising them, and why are we sending them to school before they are mature enough to make a choice?
The ancient Greeks sent their children to get an education at the age of eight, we send them at five or six, force them into a regimented existence - in essence we sent them to work - denying them the pleasures of childhood, and then we pretend to be enlightened.

Here are a few more similarities:

Both pedophilia and homosexuality use "love" as their sacred justification.

Both claim that sex evolved for far more profound reasons than the propagation of a species.

Both deny the intrusive and aggressive nature of sexual intercourse, such as has made it necessary for one type to evolve the characteristics to endure it and even find satisfaction and meaning in it.

Both depend on the dismissal of human nature, and nature in general, to make their points.

Both are only possible within social groupings.

Both are displays of sexual dysfunction in relation to the particular sex's role in the reproductive cycle.

Now one last thing....

Abstract , in the other forum, goes on an on about how homosexuality is a "survival strategy".
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Of course this is directly linked to my The Feminization of Mankind thesis.
Many times I've made the point that the current situation, made possible due to human interventions upon natural processes, of overpopulation and resource stresses, creating the need for the idea of ownership (the Marxist/Capitalist dilemma) and mass mind-control (morality, religion, mythology, mass-media) etc. is what lays the ground for the emergence of certain types of political and social ideals.
If the current situation persists for centuries we can look forward to a hive-mind, or a ant-colony like existence.
What are the basic characteristics of a bee hive?
All females....but technology can abolish even the need for drones.
Mindless and conforming - no individual personality outside certain limits.
Dedicated exclusively to work and the maintenance of the hive. Labor becomes the only source of pride and meaning.

We already see some of these peeking through our artificial uniqueness.

That the major religions of the world today share many principles and morals shuold not be considered accidental, nor should it be taken as evidence of some divine source or some transcendental truth.
It is the environment that brings them into prominence and lays down the fertile grounds for them to flourish.

I would expect that rats placed in a closed box and given ample food and drink would eventually bring their numbers up to a point where some idea has to be introduced to usurp the gene with a meme.

There is nothing mystical not sacred about the humanitarian principles or about any religions tenets. They are simply useful and this is why they propagate across huge numbers of individuals who would not have survived without the helping hand of human intervention.

Now, before we rise up and high-five each other, cheering our good fortune, let us consider another thing:
Whenever man intervenes upon nature the collateral effects are numerous and unforeseeable.
One very obvious side-effect is pollution. Another not so obvious one is genetic pollution.

Quote :

Both pedophilia and homosexuality depend on heterosexual copulation between two biologically mature individuals to propagate themselves. By themselves they are unable to reproduce.

The entirety of your "argument" hinges on this concept. It is this that I call sophomoric. You seriously misunderstand the intersection between evolution and civilization. What you call parasitic, I call culturally admirable. Actually, I think the height of a culture can be measured by the amount of paratisiticism it births forth.

You've also severely underthought the responses I gave you, and resorted to your typically excessive verbosity in an attempt to gloss over that fact -- not to mention your horribly inaccurate characterizations of my position. I have little emotional investment in the issue, I only think your equation of homosexuality with pedophilia is incorrect. But, to be quite frank, you've bored me out of all interest I had in engaging you on the topic when I first responded.

Last, I feel like I should emphasize the fact that what "bothers me on a personal level" isn't so much your slandering of sexual orientations foreign to your own, as it is your sloppy, inadequate argumentative methods which seem to surge in tandem with your condescension.

Satyr wrote:

Both pedophilia and homosexuality use "love" as their sacred justification.

Some pedophiles do this, if cornered and some certainly believe it. Others are not under this illusion. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals vary on this issue. Some seeing the pleasure they get from it - and whatever else - as all the justification they need.

Quote :

Both claim that sex evolved for far more profound reasons than the propagation of a species.

Well, since homosexual sex and even long term partnerships exist in animals - and in the case of the former in many, many different species - this is likely the case. Or at least there seems to be no evolutionary reason to rule it out since so many species have thrived while having homosexual sex as minority activity. Just like humans.

Quote :

Both deny the intrusive and aggressive nature of sexual intercourse, such as has made it necessary for one type to evolve the characteristics to endure it and even find satisfaction and meaning in it.

This is another weak generalization. Heterosexuals are mixed on this. And homosexuals vary on what they do and do not do in sex. And certainly lesbian feminists do not deny this, and of course their sex can be, but is not remotely always, less intrusive than heterosexual sex.

Quote :

Both depend on the dismissal of human nature, and nature in general, to make their points.

The pedophiles deny the differences in the natures of children vs. adults and somehow think children can freely choose this sex - those pedophiles who give a shit about the child making choices.

Homosexuals do not deny human nature - except those who believe that 'really' we are all bisexual or whatever. They simply think that human nature is more varied than some think. Given that animals engage in homosexual sex, and again, even some going so far as to pair for life, the case that homosexuality is a minority natural expression in many species is really rather silly to argue with.

See Biological Exuberance (book) for detailed examples of the variety of species where there is homosexuality.

Quote :

Both are only possible within social groupings.

So are discussion forums.

Quote :

Both are displays of sexual dysfunction in relation to the particular sex's role in the reproductive cycle.

So are oral sex and condoms. And again the onus is on the people who think it is unnatural for some to be homosexual, given the wide range of examples amongst animals. Religious people can fall back on a deity's displeasure - but atheists talking about nature are on very weak grounds.

Pedophiles are willfully denying power issues. I am sure some homosexuals, just as some heteros, do the same. But otherwise, we are dealing with two adults. Sure, some people may end up doing something they didn't want to 'really' or really, but that is the case everywhere. And homosexuals often did try and no doubt still do try to be heterosexual, despite their distaste for the sex.

without-music wrote:

Quote :

Both pedophilia and homosexuality depend on heterosexual copulation between two biologically mature individuals to propagate themselves. By themselves they are unable to reproduce.

The entirety of your "argument" hinges on this concept. It is this that I call sophomoric. You seriously misunderstand the intersection between evolution and civilization. What you call parasitic, I call culturally admirable. Actually, I think the height of a culture can be measured by the amount of parasitism it births forth.

Bravo!!!
Now it is not my "misunderstanding of evolution" which makes me sophomoric but that it contradicts your admiration for parasitism.

Did you think all of philosophy was parasitical, boy?
What a grand generalization from the one who might find it deplorable to generalize.
But not all generalizations are deplorable. For instance the generalization of a human species is a "good" generalization.

Then again there are different kinds of parasites, but you like to put them all into one sack so that homosexuality isn't soiled by its relation to pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality or any other sexual deviation.

without-music wrote:

You've also severely underthought the responses I gave you, and resorted to your typically excessive verbosity in an attempt to gloss over that fact -- not to mention your horribly inaccurate characterizations of my position. I have little emotional investment in the issue, I only think your equation of homosexuality with pedophilia is incorrect. But, to be quite frank, you've bored me out of all interest I had in engaging you on the topic when I first responded.

Last, I feel like I should emphasize the fact that what "bothers me on a personal level" isn't so much your slandering of sexual orientations foreign to your own, as it is your sloppy, inadequate argumentative methods which seem to surge in tandem with your condescension.

As always the back door is found, in true homoerotic style, and the justification follows, as usual.

I think anything which challenges your "brilliance" boy, is to be avoided.
Play your guitar, look into space with that empty gaze which imitates deep contemplation, and then put a smirk on that effete frame of yours.

By the way, boy, why do most philosophers, the great ones most often, resort to celibacy?
Think of sex outside your adolescent romanticism.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Kovacs wrote:

Some pedophiles do this, if cornered and some certainly believe it. Others are not under this illusion. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals vary on this issue. Some seeing the pleasure they get from it - and whatever else - as all the justification they need.

I'm talking about how the sexual mutations tries to legitimize itself politically, not what individual homosexuals and pedophiles say in private or think in their heads.

True, even heterosexuals try to legitimize natural heterosexual behavior, such as promiscuity and adultery, so as to excuse themselves in relation to social and religious rules.
Others try to excuse their obsessions and sexual fetishism.

Sex is to central in human psychology that through it man's deepest insecurities and weaknesses find avenues of expressing themselves.
I've always said that the best way to fully know someone is to be told his/her sexual fantasies.

Kovacs wrote:

Well, since homosexual sex and even long term partnerships exist in animals - and in the case of the former in many, many different species - this is likely the case. Or at least there seems to be no evolutionary reason to rule it out since so many species have thrived while having homosexual sex as minority activity. Just like humans.

Homosexuality does occur in nature and it is usually in displays of mock copulation establishing and maintaining group hierarchies.
Also it is a byproduct of emasculation when males are to be included within a social group with only one dominant pair or one dominant male.

Monogamy is indeed a rare but natural phenomenon.
Unfortunately humans are not one of the species which is naturally monogamous. He has to be coerced into it and even then, and sometimes under the penalty of death, he still breaks his vows and cheats...or even worse he spends his entire life in misery daydreaming about the girl next door or his best friend's wife.
Welcome to civilization.

But even in monogamous species a curiosity has been observed. When one of the partners is injected with testosterone the union dissolves.

Kovacs wrote:

This is another weak generalization. Heterosexuals are mixed on this. And homosexuals vary on what they do and do not do in sex. And certainly lesbian feminists do not deny this, and of course their sex can be, but is not remotely always, less intrusive than heterosexual sex.

Again, I am talking about how the sexual mutation tries to become mainstream and not what happens behind closed doors.
Most people know that being penetrated is an intrusive act which depends upon a particular psychology to be tolerated, if it is not forced.

This is why we protect children from it.
This is why females evolved a particular psychology.
This is why unwanted sex is considered traumatic to a female even if she is not harmed and her plumbing is built to accept such intrusions.

Also, what one does and how one explains it are not one and the same.
A sadist might beat the one he presumably adores, and then later find ways to legitimize his sexual need so as to harmonize it with social and cultural conventions.
A Catholic priest will no doubt find ways to harmonize his faith in a good God with his actions against boys here on earth.

I call this compartmentalization.
Orwell called it Doublethink.

That males can cheat on their wives towards whom they profess undying love and loyalty is to be explained as a conflict between memes and genes.
Many of them actually believe it.
Currently every famous rich dude who gets caught cheating is diagnosed as being a sexual addict, instead of explaining it from an evolutionary perspective. The system must protect the bullshit it relies upon to control the masses.

This is something I have also termed as the schizophrenia of the modern mind.
Why do women flaunt their tits and asses in public and then feel insulted when some man looks or when they are sexualized and exploited?
Why do they say they want a "nice" guy but are always attracted to the not so nice guy?

Kovacs wrote:

The pedophiles deny the differences in the natures of children vs. adults and somehow think children can freely choose this sex - those pedophiles who give a shit about the child making choices.

Homosexuals do not deny human nature - except those who believe that 'really' we are all bisexual or whatever. They simply think that human nature is more varied than some think. Given that animals engage in homosexual sex, and again, even some going so far as to pair for life, the case that homosexuality is a minority natural expression in many species is really rather silly to argue with.

See Biological Exuberance (book) for detailed examples of the variety of species where there is homosexuality.

More varied?
Perhaps you should consider this variant from a purely survival point of view.
A homosexual species would die out instantaneously. In fact it could not evolve at all.

The only thing varied is the amount of mutations allowed to flourish within human controlled environments and how these mutations give birth to multiple others.
The issue here is that human meddling has made sexual procreation almost obsolete.
This makes males superfluous in more ways than one.

The environmental conditions also apply.
When pollution becomes prevalent there is no telling what microbes will flourish within them.

Kovacs wrote:

So are discussion forums.

With the good comes the bad.
What is interesting is how we even require forums for communicating, and why.

Why, for example, can we not find what we seek in our immediate environment and we are driven to seek it out in global networking?

Maybe the Tarzan story applies here.

Kovacs wrote:

So are oral sex and condoms. And again the onus is on the people who think it is unnatural for some to be homosexual, given the wide range of examples amongst animals. Religious people can fall back on a deity's displeasure - but atheists talking about nature are on very weak grounds.

Here is another example of people pulling shit out of their assholes and presenting it as an argument. It seems you people have a text ready-made for the ones you think would challenge your liberal viewpoints. Without even reading you simply take it out and read from it.

I know that anytime you get a hint of racism your mind jumps to violence and Hitler and redneck skinheads.....and I know any time you hear someone even implying that women are not the same as men that you get images of neo-con fanatical Christians or guys with wife-beaters smoking cigars and drinking beer.
This is called conditioning.

Now tell me, where did I say homosexuality was "unnatural" or not a product of nature?
Then again, why do you exclude pedophilia or fascism or violence from this group of natural phenomena?
Necrophilia is also natural.

I simply said that these sexual mutations are not only unfit, from an evolutionary standpoint, but also dependent on human meddling to flourish.
I also said that in regards to homosexual displays or activities that there is no other species with exclusive homosexual tendencies and that if some arise that they are easily discarded from the gene pool through natural culling methods.
I also said that homosexual displays, even those exhibited in prisons, other than offering a sexual release when females are not available, is mostly a display of dominance and a practice establishing and maintaining hierarchies.
I also said that homosexuality like pedophilia and many other sexual deviations are parasitical.

If you wish for me to expand upon why fetishes arise and what they indicate, I can do so.
For instance, why would a married man watch porn?

Kovacs wrote:

Pedophiles are willfully denying power issues. I am sure some homosexuals, just as some heteros, do the same. But otherwise, we are dealing with two adults. Sure, some people may end up doing something they didn't want to 'really' or really, but that is the case everywhere. And homosexuals often did try and no doubt still do try to be heterosexual, despite their distaste for the sex.

All of sex is a power game.
Why a biological male would allow another to insert his penis up an orifice meant to expel waste material or why he, or a woman, would place a penis in their mouth, should be explored beyond your pleasure instincts and your modernistic prejudices.

True, two consenting beings are free to do as they please behind closed doors, but I am also free to draw conclusions from that activity.
Your shared cultural prejudices as to what constitutes an adult is your problem.

By all accounts sex is wonderful and harmless and an expression of love.
The arbitrary lines you draw as to who deserves or has the "right" to partake is your problem not mine.

My objections to pedophilia is the same as my objection to homosexuality or necrophilia or bestiality.
I don't have two different standards to apply on different occasions.

Your compartmentalization and doublespeak is your participation in the communal Schizophrenia.
Enjoy it...it is popular and part of a growing majority.
You belong.

Quote :

You belong.

And you don't. Now tell yourself this is why you consistently fail to be taken seriously -- but what I'd like to know is why you continue to strive in vain for legitimation.

without-music wrote:

Quote :

You belong.

And you don't. Now tell yourself this is why you consistently fail to be taken seriously -- but what I'd like to know is why you continue to strive in vain for legitimation.

Boy, you are becoming desperate now.

Being a hypocrite to survive is not the same as buying into your own hypocrisy and building an identity upon it.

That you think I wish to legitimize my views is more a reflection of your own desires.
You simply wish to find a common weakness to lower me down to your level.

I think I have said it about a million times as to why I write and to whom I write.
I am social...but I do not wish to be included within your societies, boy.
Get it about philosophers and solitude?

Luckily the douche-bags come to the surface quickly enough. Usually after some controversial issue is raised against their post-modern romanticism concerning race or sex.

I say luckily because then I can talk over their heads, rather than directly to them.

Yes, yes. It was an exchange of this nature that set the Dragon off on me, as well. I'm really much less emotional, "desperate", than I seem. I know why you write, for whom you write -- no need to reiterate. As strange as this may sound, Satyr: I think I'm actually less well-suited to forums than you are, in a curious sort of way.

No need for name-calling now; I don't fancy myself a douche-bag. Feel free to talk over my head, though; I get the feeling you've intended to for a while, anyway.

I must apologize for my half-heartedness on this forum -- I don't have the time required for any real contributions so sometimes I let slip these small bitter exchanges that always end in alienation. For no real reason, either -- just to pass the time, I suppose. Perhaps one day I'll really engage you, Satyr. I imagine you lie in eager anticipation of such a confrontation always, but that might just be the romantic in me speaking.

As for your assumptions about my views on race and sex, I imagine you take me for a liberal, a spineless egalitarian. Actually, I'm more of a hermeneuticist -- things like race and sex quite obviously shape our horizonal perceptions of the world, as well as our place within it, but I think we still have some sort of ability to project a freedom onto that facticity. We can resist being constituted and wholly reduced to such an alienating minimum, and so seize control of who we are, in spite of our factical make-up. To this extent, you might consider me perfectly beneath you, just one more pathetic liberal, one more lazy-thinker -- that's fine, really. As long as you understand where I'm coming from. Sartre's always been dear to me, but I side more so with Merleau-Ponty. And always ever the Nietzschean.

Anyway, until next time...

My oh my. After reading this thread, I've decided to let myself be approached only at the peak of ovulation.
Which brings the pondering... how silly of men to spend valuable energy on fruitless sex.
You'd think that nature would come up with a tool to prevent all this useless sex!
You silly nature you.

Oh, it has?
Why then, I wonder. Why did it choose to strip that tool from us apes?

Nature, salope!

Satyr wrote:

Both pedophilia and homosexuality depend on heterosexual copulation between two biologically mature individuals to propagate themselves. By themselves they are unable to reproduce.
In Evolution Theory this is called being unfit.

But since it is reproduction which ties us to the animal kingdom - Africans, for example, are more fertile than whites or Asians, and animals are more fertile than humans - and evolution is moving us away from such, and considering we are rapidly approaching if not already immersed in the era of designer babies and human cloning and gene therapy, I'm not sure of exactly what direction you're going here Satyr.

One could go to the other extreme and say that heterosexuality is going to become redundant, the physical act of copulation an embarrassing reminder of our primitive past, now only practised by backward terrestrial cultures lacking the intelligence and sophistication to reproduce themselves using technology. Visits to the vast Museum of Natural History on Titan will reveal glass cabinets filled with stuffed human couples mounting each other, holograms of humans 'doing it' in earthly jungle environments or Victorian bed chambers, detailed dissections of human reproductive organs, much to the shock and curiosity of what appear to be groups of passing children, but which are in fact centuries old beings which have evolved from our own.