“”""“A fool’s legs are soon parted?”""""
A fool’s mind is soon parted.
-Justhink
Well, your secret is now out…
So, how you doing?
(What, it’s been nearly two hours, and I’m the first? Where is everyone else? Probably too busy playing Warcraft III)
“”"""""""""“I hardly think that morality comes into play when discussing how to hook up for a one night stand.”"""""""""
This is where I completely disagree, although I’ll use ethical in place of moral - as moral is an irrational quality IMO.
If the means of deception allowed one person with quite a bit of ‘esteem’ going for them to be ‘the one’ for this evening of ‘prowling’; the effect renders that someone less flashy and more truthful with significantly less validation for their nehavior will for that evening become more-so depressed and dejected.
This will force them to abstract even more sincerity into their lives as a whole, thus creating a further divide between integrity and female selection (or they may just end it that evening). The loop is endless until such point that the individual actually becomes cognitively superior in knowledge and age then the female. This distribution of cognitive age becomes much more acute in males for a variety of physiological reasons - at which point the ethics of treating the female in the same manner that the female treated ‘them’ comes into question. The rational resolution is that the effect is the same as rape, just the the knowledge of the rape is supressed (being ‘put under and on stimulants’).
IF (which is not likely the case), the female should ever become aware of the rape that another individual perpetrated upon her and her niavety in regards to all the males ‘dying’ (for all practical purposes) from her ignorance, she would most likely wish she could go back and do it differently. It is an issue of projecting the respect of cognitive ages yet to be achieved by the individual, while allowing them to retain their dignity as a freely selecting person. It is the same issue in regards to pedophelia, with some slightly modified intensities on certain variables. Structurally, axiomically, the system is exceedingly equivilent in terms of both explanitory and predictive power.
-Justhink
Right, to cut through all the chatter … again. (Justhink: Dude, you give love … a bad name!)
Category A: Puffery. Everyone does it but not everybody should. Your “lies” are hopefully harmless. I’m not vice president, I’m executive vice president! Same as in Resumes – who showcases their bad side?
Category B: Mad Tomfoolery. If you can get laid telling people you’re a fireman slash nuclear scientist and you save burning buildings from people in your spare time, you’re not a liar, you’re an amusing man, and you deserve major tang.
Category C: Protacted deception. Lies that start to require other lies, a whole truss of lies to support your character, like getting a pager to pretend you’re a doctor; buying a fire ax; setting up a separate drop box. You’re setting up major disappointment, and you’re putting major energy into the lie. Getting laid sucessfully under Category C, may indeed require a sucker, but finding a sucker is not carte blanche to commit fraud. I’ll say that again, as it recurs again, and again. Being stupid or flawed is not an invitation to crime. Okay? It’s not true with rape, lies, three-card monte dealers, if someone leaves their car unlocked, stock manipulators, elections, none of these. What the fuck? If it’s survival of the fittest, and government protection is out the window, I’ll get my private army, and you know what? If you don’t have a private army, you’re asking for me to take your land, that’s what I think.
I mean really! Dear SEC: I had to defraud those elderly folks down in Tampa cuz they were STUPID!! Plus which I needed the money. Anyone who doesn’t check out land before they buy, deserves to get rooked, don’t you agree?
wonders if he likes paintball too
Ace,
ahem Yes, back to the discussion at hand.
I agree with the above statement wholeheartedly.
I have been trying to express a similar opinion, but my rambling way of typing does an excellent job of hiding my meaning. Thank-you for your understandable summation.
“”"""""""""“But this approach confuses intent and motive. The woman intended to give consent. The fact that the woman was motivated to give that consent because the guy said he was a neurosurgeon is of no moment.”"""""""""""
If someone intends to achieve intercourse at any cost, for the motive of intercourse; and by purpetrating fraud, negates the accumulation of transparent contracts, then this is a serious problem. Those who can actually support the structure are turned away, and punished for attempting to ‘play fair’ or be a rational human being. This erodes the entire social structure necessary to achieve any of the ideals proposed with which society even bothers to form at all.
-Justhink
Ace0 -
I believe that I have been making the continued case that C collapses A & B at critical mass. A & B are a luxury of ignorance; not a clear analysis of protracted deceptions. You yourself stated that ignorance does not excuse a crime … you agree with me on many points, yet refuse to recognize the link that these points direct to — that A & B require ignorance as a condition, in order to operate.
-Justhink
Here’s a thought, Justhink – if women would rather have sex with other men than you, it may not be because they are irrational and all other men are rapists, it may be because you go around saying that all women are mental children with no integrity who are sexually frigid and only care about using men for material gain.
Ace0Spades -
Also making the point that humans can and do reach a critical mass of C; and that these individuals are the necessity to the structural integriity of society and perception of human value.
To have a sexual selection process that negates the value of ‘transcendant C’ will cause societal degeneration - as C defines all ethical stucture necessary to use tools in accordence with the process which allowed them to emerge.
-Justhink
“”""""""""""""“Here’s a thought, Justhink – if women would rather have sex with other men than you, it may not be because they are irrational and all other men are rapists, it may be because you go around saying that all women are mental children with no integrity who are sexually frigid and only care about using men for material gain.”"""""""""""""
And you can’t walk through that fire because? I consider this to be a productive analysis of the consent situation; aparently ‘cruelty’ without a rational basis is considered much more desirable. The question. Do you actually feel like, and/or percieve of yourself that I am incorrect by necessity, because i speak of you like a robot? Does that give YOU the actual impression that I’m treating you like one? Can you as a human being walk through that fire and declare yourself as having both desire and reason, and that the two may not be communicating effectively? Can you withstand the pressure of the topic of informed mind control (as opposed to player implication of possession which is empty and can be controlled) from my part towards yourself, and still possess the where-with-all to give consent; or is that fire too hot for you?
It has been well over a decade since I even bothered with females at all to this degree. I don’t talk about any of these topics which are discussed on this board to anyone in my immediate proximity, and never have. Their opinions and determined relationship with the topics can be discerned without the need to present them; and it also brings up issues in regards to an internal desire to have peers rather than pupils, when I’m literally carrying most of the lessons. That in and of itself creates a variety of contradictions in regards to desire fulfillment being applied transparently. Females have a significant cognitive transition period around the age of 40-50, yet the margin was still too narrow to be considered consentual IMO. I determined most of this by the age of 15-16 as a curious FYI. Males in general seem to reach this stage of perception much quicker then females, and at an accellerated rate due to the existential pressure applied from a contradictory selection process. NOT talking with other males, it is clear to me that I’m not the only one who observes and weighs these issues. I can be considered delusional, however an actual argument along those lines would be appreciated if one was so inclined to tease away my confusion.
-Justhink
NOW I see Justhink’s strategy. It ain’t deception, it’s confusion!
“”""""“I’ve veered off my “immoral, though not horribly so” into “no harm, no foul” on this issue.”"""""
Hmm… being a dentist sounds like a wonderful job now.
You may want to reconsider your stance?
-Justhink
The inconsistency being raised is that females press the issue of cognitive age; demanding some form of evidence for it, and then effectively deselect it when they ‘smell’ it. It’s not enough to be a certain look or personality; one actually is required to literally lie about value perceptions in relation to the entire purpose for existing. I’m arguing that if this is a condition demanded of consensual (non-pay-to-play variety) sexual recognition; then females are creating a double burden on the male end above and beyond their own. To the extent that this quality is deselected; the burden becomes irrational to bear. More fundamentally, ignorance becomes the selective factor for sexual selection in this regard.
-Justhink
So, how about them Angels?
Trying to get back on coherent ground, acts of minor deception as a means of seduction are harmless enough. Many women wear high heels and cosmetics to enhance their appeal. I don’t see any reason why this form of deception is any better or worse than a man fabricating an exotic background for himself.
Once you get beyond the one-night stand, though, you may as well play it straight. It’s simply easier.
“”""""""“Many women wear high heels and cosmetics to enhance their appeal.”""""""""
I addressed this point. If that’s what women need to do to believe that there is actually all of this really complex work involved on their end for the issue of sex, attraction and consent; then whatever – it’s a waste if you ask me. It’s as if they feel a lack of self-esteem for their ability to not be told “yes” upon most requests. This establishes the entire game. It establishes all of the game dynamics, and as I would equally argue, does not contribute anything to society.
I mentioned in a preceeding reply on this thread that men would consider a woman dying her hair to ‘feel’ validated for requesting sex; like a one-in-a-million landing of the jackpot for some lucky guy. These female modifications are entirely irrelevant to their lack of consistency in the selection process.
Physical appearence does matter; but not nearly as much as the exchange of sexual time and energy between human beings for psychological well-being. Females can put on tight jeans, tube-tops, get implants, consmetic surgery, lyposuction, make-up and twirl their hair for hours and increase their ability to sexually select someone by maybe 0.000001 percentage point. It doesn’t change the underlying dynamic, and works as a temporary solution to a systemic psychological problem IMO.
-Justhink
I also meant to add that females do not significantly effect their ability to have sexual intercourse with the person of their choosing, by applying all this wild stuff. By doing so, they can simulate in their minds that sexual selection requires more work and effort than it really does. Reality in this situation suggests that these modifications have very little actual effect on their ability to engage in sexual activity with a ‘comperably’ attractive person – a scale that most people allow considerable leniency for.
I’d suggest that women can actually ‘move-up’ the ladder to this degree, repeatedly finding someone of a higher attractiveness standing in relation to all males as they are in relation to all females. There is also the tendency to simulate integrity by selecting someone (for marriage or gossip value) precisely because they are significantly less attractive and/or motivated then the female. Females have a teemendous amount of options and flexibility in regards to sexual selection then males do - unless the male has accumulated sugnificant capitol and commodity. For females to even attempt to pretend that this isn’t the case is exceptionally abusive and disrespectful to the scores of males out here in the world who are trying to figure out what the hell it is with females. Not all males are articulate or have the time to make observations of articulation - yet this general sense permeates, and carries covert dysfunction even into marriages.
Females leave a considerable amount of repressed anger in the wake of such an absurd selection process; which develops into wild crazies much like the points I’ve ruminated and abstracted here - in regards to selection and consent. The situation is that females have a significant advantage in terms of actually being sexually validated. In terms of being a person who is born and exists; this is a very big deal. That the sex which is ‘designed’ to literally be attracted to you - in a sense a part of the universe that says “you matter” - is denied a vast majority of males until they are scooped up later in life for marriage money; leaves a general raw spot in society IMO. Females are observed time and time again to throw themselves upon males who cannot abstract their own absurdity - such that they select a very narrow band (I’d guess a 10% 70% ratio 10% of males recieve 70% of the hetero-sexual sex) and then when these males commit, they begin looking for the ‘dejects’, the ones with the integrity to not abuse those patterns of deception. I am of the opinion that this is a significant social issue that has very tight security, in that it is being caged to use that burning existential value to drive productivity and consumerism.
-Justhink
You did? My eyes must have glazed over, as they frequently do when I try to slog through your incomprehensible ramblings.
Just to pluck one moderately coherent but completely wrong factoid from your post:
Sooooo, cosmetic enhancements only offer a one hundred-millionth improvement in getting lucky? I’m afraid I’ll have to call bullshit on this one, J. I invite you to look around on beauty/fashion/lingerie websites for “before and after” pictures of models and try to honestly assess whether or not these cosmetic improvements are trivial. A woman who feels enhanced through cosmetic improvement may carry herself and speak with more confidence, thus improving her appeal. I don’t see how any of this proves women are inherently immature or anything else negative.
I’ve made this observation before, Justink; when you try to be comprehensive, you make yourself incoherent; and when you try to be concise, you’re inevitably wrong.
By the way, in addition to “counter-intelligent”, I suggest you stop using “consistancy” as the verbal equivalent of an Enron accouting trick, i.e. something overly vague, secretive and undefined used to conceal meaning from the general public.
Sigh. I’m just encouraging you, aren’t I? I’ll stop now.
You did? My eyes must have glazed over, as they frequently do when I try to slog through your incomprehensible ramblings.
Just to pluck one moderately coherent but completely wrong factoid from your post:
Sooooo, cosmetic enhancements only offer a one hundred-millionth improvement in getting lucky? I’m afraid I’ll have to call bullshit on this one, J. I invite you to look around on beauty/fashion/lingerie websites for “before and after” pictures of models and try to honestly assess whether or not these cosmetic improvements are trivial. A woman who feels enhanced through cosmetic improvement may carry herself and speak with more confidence, thus improving her appeal. I don’t see how any of this proves women are inherently immature or anything else negative.
I’ve made this observation before, Justink; when you try to be comprehensive, you make yourself incoherent; and when you try to be concise, you’re inevitably wrong.
By the way, in addition to “counter-intelligent”, I suggest you stop using “consistancy” as the verbal equivalent of an Enron accouting trick, i.e. something overly vague, secretive and undefined used to conceal meaning from the general public.
Sigh. I’m just encouraging you, aren’t I? I’ll stop now.
“”"""""""""Sooooo, cosmetic enhancements only offer a one hundred-millionth improvement in getting lucky? I’m afraid I’ll have to call bullshit on this one, J. I invite you to look around on beauty/fashion/lingerie websites for “before and after” pictures of models and try to honestly assess whether or not these cosmetic improvements are trivial. A woman who feels enhanced through cosmetic improvement may carry herself and speak with more confidence, thus improving her appeal. I don’t see how any of this proves women are inherently immature or anything else negative.
I’ve made this observation before, Justink; when you try to be comprehensive, you make yourself incoherent; and when you try to be concise, you’re inevitably wrong.
By the way, in addition to “counter-intelligent”, I suggest you stop using “consistancy” as the verbal equivalent of an Enron accouting trick, i.e. something overly vague, secretive and undefined used to conceal meaning from the general public.
Sigh. I’m just encouraging you, aren’t I? I’ll stop now.""""""""
I call BS on this. For one; the concept of females ‘getting lucky’ mischarachterizes the sheer degree of potency in sexual selection at their disposal at any place where guys would be hanging out looking for it (or even not looking for it). I say that you’re the one playing word games by not admitting that ‘lucky’ means something much more than sex with an attractive male to a female. ‘Lucky’ is that the guy was also an idiot. There is a settling process used to determine this before a female consents.
Females have a process where “so and so is cute, I’ll talk to so and so” (assuming they get over gossipping about it and actually do it); then they proceed to start conversation which has nothing to do with the request for sex. (they may use an envoy to make matters worse). If a male brings this up in an efficient means, he recieves terms that don’t even exist on the male end “creep” “scum” “asshole” “thinks with his genetilia” – (‘creep’ is an important big term IMO that males do not use about females), which also translates into moron, idiot, typical guy. That sums up female mentality in regards to sexual selection. What can a male do? You have 30 year old virgins who are far from scum, far from ugly and far from poor who’ve been listening to this crap their whole lives. It is virtually impossible to expose this type of dynamic in a male - males do not contradict themselves on this one very precise interaction.
The ones who do, are the selected.
Earnest, self-representation and acute awareness of the variables being processed in terms of consistency between behavior and intent are deselected. The emergence of this property in even the slightest form results in immediate termination of the innitial desire on the females end.
On the topic of make-up; seriously! I have been exposed to the mass media assault on before and afters like the next person, however, my observational experience is that males who have had these types of encounters with females their entire lives could really care less whether they slither in mud in a jumpsuit and walk in to ask for sex. I’m quite certain that a large degree of males (probably even a good portion of married ones), have had this occur so many times, that they would consider such an event to be a sign from the heavens that their luck has turned. It’s not that big of a deal; the problem results in players who have adopted the ability to insult females; having never experienced enough pressure to appreciate how much suffering lingers in this process - and how much they are being aided by engaging in behaviors which other males realize achieve the results but not the intent.
-Justhink