Gender Everything

When I read Pandora’s summation of Mr R and Urwrong, I instantly thought of the Madonna/Whore complex.
This complex, which men (and women but for the sake of this example exclusively men) codify women into two camps and here we have two examples, one the saintly Madonna (Urwrong’s) and the Whore (Mr R’s). The good girls, (Madonnas) are almost virginal and the bad girls are the whores, sexually voracious almost masculine. So why are some men unable to combine the two images they have of women into a woman. Women at least know, there is no division in female sexuality but some men have issues with the separation of sex from love. Well, according to Freud it all stems from Mommy Dearest. The most difficult thing to do for some is to accept that all women are sexual beings, even the mother of your children, (or children yet to be conceived).

Pandora, you’ve got me wrong here. I don’t objectify woman as sex objects. If we’re talking about sex, then talking about some woman that I had sex with is what I’ll be talking about, but that’s certainly not the whole picture. You don’t get to have a regular flow of women in your life who are willing to spend time with you and even have sex with you if you go around treating them like or seeing them aswhores when they don’t want to be treated like or seen as whores. Sometimes though, that’s exactly what they want. You play the game. More than half of my closest friends, people I’ve known for decades and have always been in touch with, are women. Some of them I’ve had sex with, some I haven’t. I think there’s too much emphasis on the sex part. I have at least one meal a week with one of 2 philosophy professor women that I’m friends with. Most days I eat out and usually there’s some female or another who tags along. This doesn’t mean I’m trying to fuck them all. I will have sex with a woman who I find attractive if the offer is on the table. But I don’t generally associate with people who only want to have sex with me and nothing else. You can’t look at people as either men or women first and foremost. People are people. Most of them have something interesting or entertaining to say if they’re in their element and comfortable. I’ve dated women who work at churches and ones who went to college to get degrees in “divinity”. I’ve dated elementary school teachers, physical therapists, environmental scientists, girls who work at those weird shops that sell herbs and candles to people who are against conventional medicine, girls who sell drugs, girls with felony convictions, strippers, real estate investors, kept daughters of people who spend their time at country clubs, you name it. Surely I didn’t see them all as simply whores. I feel like you’ve got a bit of a bias here, and I feel that way because you seem to have categorized me incorrectly. I don’t think of sex as all that important a part of life. Maybe that’s why I’m able to get it without a lot of trouble. Stop acting like a physical act between 2 consenting adults is the end-all, be-all of sacred experiences and as though it is in some way a detriment to your humanity to participate in it and you may find that the world is a lot more lighthearted and enjoyable that it might seem to you now.

Pandora, I wonder if you’re too vain to understand and empathize with a man’s perspective.

This is your advantage, Smears. Men who spend a lot of time with women, or have grown up surrounded by women, “get them”, but they are also paying the price for it by risking becoming like one themselves in their minds.

Judging frim your post you’re just as vain, wrong, but your vanity is driven by your own deep insecurities.

I heard an interesting argument on youtube that women don’t dress up in ways that get them criticised as sex objects (usually by other women btw) because they want to be seen that way, or treated as such, but they do it because the act and result makes them feel better in itself.

I don’t think they’re lying or being naive when they say looking sexually attractive is for them and not for others, even though it completely looks that way to an outside observer and the obvious result of it in reality is that others consequently treat them as sexually attractive in any of the various ways that they do - many of which are unwelcome, and some of which work out in their favour in the sexual marketplace.
Men don’t think that acting all cocky in front of women, wooing them in ways that make them feel uncomfortable or even repulsed, or even looking at porn will get them any real “action”, they just do it because it feels good in itself. Such acts aren’t being chosen for any secret Machiavellian purposes, they’re just urges in just the same way as it is for women wanting to look pretty (though of course it is possible for both men and women to act with such intentions).

The obvious result is that sexual attraction gets to sometimes happen even without either party trying or making an effort towards those ends. Clearly this unintentional approach works better than intentional approaches, because it still works as is proven by its prevalence even today, and it does so whether people seem to want it or not. It’s cliché when people say you fall in love when you least expect it, but I think the above explains why. People are just doing what makes them feel good, without necessarily wanting or even expecting the consequences.

Of course, since the unintentional approach works so well, it also unintentionally puts either sex into unintentionally bad positions. Men occasionally get accused of appearing to be sexual predators, or even acting as one, when all they’re really doing is following their instincts like they might have done countless times before without any negative result, and women occasionally get accused of cock-teasing, “asking for it” or being sluts when all they’re really doing is following their instincts that make them feel good in themselves.

Successful sexual selection doesn’t require completely rational approaches, idealised courting doesn’t require approaching one another as real people getting to know each other at a really deep level before finding each other attractive. It can result in that, that can be part of it, but it isn’t the primary cause of successful sexual selection. The “shallow” stuff does that, and it does so unintentionally.

Donatella isn’t a dominatrix or a sex slave or a sexual object, she’s just doing what makes her feel good. It happens to work, and it doesn’t obviously invite “seeing the real her”, but it doesn’t need to and there’s not even any practical reason to demand that it should. The idealised romantic story sounds all very nice and everything, but the bottom line is what works best is going to keep happening, it should keep happening and it is going to continue to not be as simple as it appears. Maybe another way will emerge in future, maybe it will become the idealised romantic “real you” way, maybe it won’t - whatever works will endure.

David DeAngelo says women don’t dress to impress men, but each other.

Women dress up to impress each-other and demonstrate to the public their social caste and position. A high-class woman must dress appropriately. Women are jealous of women with higher social positioning. Men don’t really care what women wear. It’s what women do not wear (nudity) that makes men sexually enticed and lusting. Women also do not want to wear the same clothes daily or weekly as this indicates to the public that she cannot afford a wide-range of options. Dressing similar or the same as another woman, is also a negative, as it demonstrates that both women are ‘plain’ and common. Women want to feel high-class, and special, even when they’re not. That’s the key. Women are in their hearts feel low-class, and not special. So they are driven by need (to feel high-class and special, unique).

It’s also why sluttish and promiscuous women want to be treated like virgins. If a woman is very beautiful then she can pull it off, the self-delusion, because men and other women are more inclined to ‘forgive’ the indiscretions of a very beautiful woman. Common women cannot get away with this. A common, or ugly woman, must dress and act according to her sexual history.

And Pandora, just to be clear, you didn’t deny it. It seems obvious that you don’t have the ‘correct’ mentality to empathize with men. But this is common with women, who are so self-engrossed in their own Solipsism, that what a man thinks or feels is always considered “beneath” her.

Women in general don’t really care what men think, until it is biological, until it is their own father, brother, or son. Then, suddenly, it becomes important to ‘understand’ the opposite sex.

Men have a very high demand and impulse to ‘know’ women, because men are the ones with the overactive, driven sex drive. Men want to know what women think, in order to get into their panties. Pretty obvious.

[quote=“Pandora”]

[quote]
This is your advantage, Smears. Men who spend a lot of time with women, or have grown up surrounded by women, “get them”, but they are also paying the price for it by risking becoming like one themselves in their minds.

[quote]
You mean like me becoming “like a woman”, or me becoming someone seen by some women as “one of the girls” so to speak?

I mean, I like for things to be clean, and I don’t keep socks that have holes in them. I enjoy being out and having a social life. I prefer to eat good food and I’d generally rather have wine with dinner than beer. I have a shit ton of clothes and probably too many pairs of shoes if we’re being technical. But I also am generally very competitive, I don’t do much in the way of worrying about what other people think of what I’m doing, the question of status is one that I let others entertain on their own and I avoid participation in analysis of who’s who so to speak. I hate gossip, I’m brutally honest, and I generally do what I want first and find out whether people approve after the fact. I’m certainly not into pretentiousness or putting on any kind of show for the sake of others. I’m not above going to an Alanis Morrisette concert, but if I did I would actually expect to get laid for the sacrifice I’d be making.

And don’t forget Sephora, Smears.
I wonder how many men on this forum know and can recommend a Sephora skin care product. Hmm?

Relationships are a joint team effort, men and women need to stop seeing things as benefiting themselves only individually where the new mindset should be how we can benefit through things together.

Western civilization cannot survive with this division, infighting, and separation of the sexes. All of our interests must and need to be unified as one singularly collective whole.

I have an amazing memory and I’ve spent a lot of time at malls with women. I don’t think that makes me like a woman. I also worked in a warehouse before I went to college and the place was a distribution center for salon products, so I unloaded trucks full of hair spray and shit and did inventory there, and a couple of times a year we would travel to these big beauty supply events where we would set up tables in a civic center for hair stylists to come and buy stuff, so I learned some stuff there. I gotta tell ya, being one of the dudes working in a convention center full of women who are obsessed with lotion and hair products and all that was a great time. Hotties everywhere and only a few of us guys working.

Because sex feels good, duh. How deluded are you, exactly???

Typical male response, a male thinking with his dick. Why do I even bother?

Are you implying sex doesn’t feel good by this disagreement? I pity you for not having a healthy sex life, Pandora. Someday, I hope you will. And then you’ll understand more about how females are the privileged gender, by control of sex. You control the supply (of Pleasure) to the masses (of men). Maybe it is not pleasurable for you. But you must be a small minority of women. Most women enjoy sex as much if not more than men.

NFL Players get cheerleaders.
Doctors get nurses.
Musicians get groupies.
Soldiers get army-wives.

For almost every profession and sub-culture on the planet, there is a compatible ‘female’ to the specialized-male.

But what about Philosophers?
Which women do Philosophers get?

The answer is none. There is no ‘feminine’ counterpart for philosophy. Philosophy is 100% masculine, in the strictest sense, that women completely lack the fortitude, composition, and ability to relate to philosophy in any meaningful sense. Women do not ‘Reason’, have very insignificant processes for rationality and logic, relying more on ‘emotion’ and ‘feeling’ than anything else. The causes can be simplified. A woman does not need to be reasonable in her lifetime. She does not need to reason. Logic and rationality have very limited uses for her.

Women don’t need to problem-solve, in general, when men compete to do it for them. Again, this symbolizes “female-privilege”, that women are the privileged-gender. Instead of needing to do work, needing to work, rather women have all the work (including Philosophy and Sciences) done for them, on their behalf. How else could something so dry as statistics, number theories, and advanced mathematics be done? Except by expendable men, who are more than happy to serve any function in life?

Philosophers get no cheerleaders, no nurses, no groupies, no army-wives. There is no ‘female’ counterpart to philosophy.

Women have a natural defense mechanism to protect their (female)-privilege.

One of the primary methods of defending female-privilege, is to launch continuous preemptive attacks on “male-privilege”, which doesn’t really exist. There is no such thing as “male-privilege”. The same applies to “white-privilege”, but that is another topic to discuss, in another thread. Privilege implies little or no costs, or rather, that the costs are bared by others. With women, this is obvious. Just about everything a woman has, or wants, is handed to her, by men, who want to monopolize material assets, in exchange for sex, sexual access, and sexual (mating) rites. The very definition and core meaning of “Rights” refers to mating-rites. If you have a “Right” to a woman then you have to fulfill a long list of demands and requirements (revolving around female-privilege).

Women created an illusion in the 20th Century, called “Feminism”. To acquire more power, women needed to build a mirage, a phantom, called “male-privilege”. This is a scape-goating pathology. Women could therein blame all wrongs and evils on “male-privilege”, while female-privilege, real-privilege, is completely erased and shifted from the picture. This is why, today, in 2018, nobody at all, in the entire world, discusses “female-privilege”, but instead the topics, the arguments, the debates, the news-media, are all severely focused on “male-privilege”. Humanity is focused upon delusions, so that reality is never addressed, seen for what it is, and understood. If humanity could confront reality then it should become very obvious about which gender is truly “Privileged” versus the other, which is not.

For example, imagine if you were born ‘immune’ to physical violence. Nobody is allowed to touch you, without your permission. It is a severe crime to hit you. The entire society will rally around you, to protect you, if there were ever real or probable threats of violence. If somebody wanted to harm you, then 100 people within your vicinity, would come to aid you.

Congratulations, you’re a woman. This is female-privilege, an ‘immunity’ to physical violence.

But UR, there are many women who are victims of physical abuse and violence, what about that?!?!?!

Calm down, woman. Most cases of physical abuse and violence against women, are by their “boyfriends”, whom you have chosen to allow into your lives. Women have a love-hate relationship with violence, in this way. Women want to woo and seduce the most violent types of men, but this is dangerous, obviously. Some women can’t control (violent) men very well, and so, they may be hit and beaten. However, most of the time (90% perhaps), the beaten and “abused” woman, returns to the violent male. Why does she do this? Why does she choose this?

Because women respect violent/dominant men about 1000x more than they respect wimpy, non-violent men. Women would much rather take a few hits, if it gives her the ability to ‘control’ the wild, more masculine man. This is the core of most, if not all, female sexual fantasies as well. Women dream of ‘controlling’, seducing, with sex, powerful beasts of any variety. That is the inner-core of feminine nature. Most, if not all females, share the same fantasies, using sex, to both rise in power through life, and also to defend all accumulated female-privileges, which are passed down through millenniums. Females continue to gain privilege, assets, controls, with every new generation. Females are protected by laws. Females can do, and teach, just about anything to their children, and get away with it.

How dare you come between a mother and her child?!

How many more privileges could we delve into, if people wanted to?

Here’s another example of so-called “female privilege”:

Obstetric Fistulas:

Suffering in Silence
A Walk to Beautiful

Do men like you ever think about the risks a woman takes, or do they only think about themselves and their dicks? In your ideal world, women could live in isolation and suffering and you’d still call them the privileged sex.

LOL, that’s funny. Women “taking risks”, very funny. I read online news, and entertainment news too, where women take “bold risks” wearing some stupid revealing outfit that makes her look like a slut. Yes, very “risky” or risque, as you will understand as a woman. Isn’t it ironic? What a woman knows of “risk” is taking her cloths off, to reveal herself, to seduce men?

You have no idea what men risk, by comparison. It becomes more obvious now, that men take 99% of the real risks in life.

The world, as it is right now, is my ideal world. Your mental flaw is common. You believe that I “resent”, hate women. You’re wrong though. My descriptions are not complaints. They’re not “I wish it were another way”. I am quite content with females being the privileged-gender. I haven’t told the whole story yet.

The value of men rises with age, experience, accomplishment, and the accumulation of assets. At some point in men’s adult lives, men finally become “equal” to the value of a woman. This is when men and women trade sex, and have children, usually. Because a woman’s sexual value degenerates from her youth. Women become desperate, the older you get. With men, it’s inverse. Men start out desperate, but gain confidence and value later on. Whereas the older a woman gets, her value approaches reality, that most (or all?) women are only as good as the children you can bear, birth, and upbring.

yahoo.com/entertainment/chr … 07274.html

Oh, those “fearless” women out there!!! O-M-G

Of course, everything is about sex and sexual value to you.

I don’t know about Christina Aguilera, she does not even represent an average woman, but I do think that women should be educated and given choice to make their own living and be independent. Otherwise, you’d have a situation, like above, in which women are used as beasts of burden and reproduction. I bet the men in those societies have thinking similar to yours, preferring their women to stay isolated and uneducated, and dependent on men and their own rationalizing about what’s best for them. But maybe men’s own estimation of themselves is not that far off from their estimation of their women, in that it is the insecure and powerless men that have the most incentive to keep their women on a chain.

Just so you know, I don’t agree with all these hashtag and pussy hat movements (I don’t even know what that’s all about) and I don’t take them seriously. In the West, women have become liberated to the point where their own movements are becoming subverted and corrupted, like your Aquilera, or any of those retarded Kardashians. This is not why women fought for equal rights. To me, when it comes to such inanities, it only ends up harming women, as if to say that this is what women’s freedom ends up with. And I don’t know why you’re watching these things… perhaps looking for a reason. I don’t watch or care about celebrity dramas, they are not even representative of average population or average issues (and his whole celebrity entertainment business brainwashing propaganda could be a while topic of its own).