history lessons

[aliasguy]

perhaps i don't see where this thread had anything to really do with this site either ...
http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=78948
but yet, i never marched over to that thread to ridicule you for what you had written.

perhaps you prefer to stick to the help me get laid threads.
http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=72659
http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59607
http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70514




then why did you?

-
-
-

To be fair, PK, the Tazman did put his homophobia question in the "Anything else" portion of the site.

You've stated you respect differing opinions and all that, but you seem kinda hostile to such differing opinions on your thread, here.

Significant disagreements emerge on many threads. Why take it personally? It didn't sound to me like Taz "marched" in and "ridiculed" you. He just said his piece.

You've said on this thread more than once that "we can agree to disagree."

Let's.


[edit..... looking up and citing 3 year old posts from the guy -- in an obvious attempt to embarrass him -- was NOT consistent with promoting insightful discussion of the issues at hand. Shame on you.]

-
-
-

 

[STR8UP]

I guess it matters because of the ego that goes in to it, like if you pay a prostitute you're seen as "lowering" yourself. Even though sometimes I'd love to just pay an attractive woman to have some non-attached sex, but I've never had the nerve to do it. Maybe if I was in some other country on military duty it would seem more acceptable. I see what you mean though because it does seem like a monetary "transaction" when you look at all the things you do that lead up to it. 9 times out of 10 you WILL be spending money.

One word.....AMSTERDAM.

Been there. It's an amazing place. You can walk up to a window and see an eastern European HB9.5, hand her 50 euros or whatever, and there ya go.

And if you do so nobody is going to judge you. Well, some people MIGHT, but most people with an open enough mind to visit the RLD aren't going to be the type to get in your face about it.

Anyway.....my whole point is that anyone who looks at prostitution as vile and disgusting needs to take a closer look at male/female relationships in general, cause there's a fine line between a prostitute and a woman who is simply looking out for her well being.

 

[Interceptor]

With that said I guess there's no point in asking anymore questions

Fine with me, Taz. Thanks for participating, see ya!!


Ok, Pen, no more trolling in here finally.
Now, please, go on. You have very interesting things to say.

Talk to me about how women "settle' for a man whom they don't love.
They simply act her part, no? but they get married , settle down, with a man who is convinced she loves him, but that's far from the truth.
How does this happen?

 

[Interceptor]

I think the idea to aspire to be a true Don Juan, is really self realization. ANd womne are part of that equation.
SoSuave is a great place to learn about Seduction, but it ultimately leads to building a beter life, and a masculine idea.

Basically, maximizing your masculine potential. That's why those who focus only on the "getting laid" part, are pretty narrow minded and missing out on a lot of other beneficial things IMHO. IMHO, it's like go past the main course, and straight for the dessert.
Some people would think it illogical to bypass the meal in favor of thedessert. don't you agree?
Many people would say that it would be illogical and immature, too. I tend to agree.


Interesting thing, that if you go to a really high quality site like Real Social Dynamic's site, you'll find very little info on actual seduction techniques.
But you will find tons, absolute tons on becoming the best masculine man you can possibly be.

Something to think about.........

 

[Tazman]

Are you serious? Wow.
This site has helped me tremendously since I first visited, I've made leaps and bounds I didn't think were possible within a short period of time (although I'm still not quite where I want to be), that I'm thankful for. Given all the positive things I heard guys saying about this Kitten lady, I mistakenly thought I could post my opinion and dig deeper into the topic (her premise), but after this extremely personal response/attack I am suddenly brought back into the reality of her being a woman who wasn't looking for a discussion that involved critical thinking, but rather validation of her beliefs.

Significant disagreements emerge on many threads. Why take it personally? It didn't sound to me like Taz "marched" in and "ridiculed" you. He just said his piece.

Exactly, I didn't attack her in anyway, which is why I was like wtf? I was pretty much saying I didn't understand what this was about and mistakenly thought she would sum it up for me, but I think she only responds well to guys she may know or who she agrees with, which is fine, but disappointing because for a split second I thought I was dealing with a woman who was different. Funny thing is I fell for something I should've have known better than, lol. You almost had me there, almost...

 

[ketostix]

Well I don't believe there's much real difference between one woman and the next fundamentally. They all have their nature and it's females nature to be exploitive and opportunistic. This isn't because men oppressed them or didn't oppress them in the past, ancient past at that if even happened. It's about the present and this claimed past "oppression" is just braonwashing and basically feminist propaganda to justify women's behavior today.

Women are the way they are in the present because women are if anything aren't "opressed" enough. What I mean is they're going hog wild and men colectively don't hold them to standards, expect any standards or qualities from women, etc. Any guy that believes otherwise is a fool, no offense.

 

[aliasguy]

-
-
-

I think I've figured something out.

Penkitten apparently thought that discussion of "women's history" (for want of a better term) would be enlightening for the site. Maybe that is true, maybe not. Perhaps a full discussion of these matters would open our eyes in some way and help us to understand modern women and our relationships with them.

Nice thought, and there's at least a significant chance that I and some others erred in dismissing it out of hand. Maybe we were just plain WRONG. There may be all KINDS of things we could learn. No, I take that back --- there ARE all kinds of things we could learn.

But, I still have to ask - - - how can those ancient issues REALLY help us in interacting with women in ways that lead to "good" experiences for us (and for the women in our lives)?


The guys here talk, and discuss, and even b*tch and whine over all this "DJ" stuff. But I've yet to see a "men's history" thread. Yes, there are frequent references to "how it used to be"; some posters pining for the old days, when men "dominated" women, cavemanning, etc.

But those comments have not, at least as far as I've read, extended to a comprehensive evaluation of how men were "way back when." And you know why? Because it doesn't matter. Only the last 50 years or so matter, because THAT is the society we are living in.

The "patriarchy" matters not to us because we NEVER LIVED IN IT.

The "bonds of womanhood," etc. are so much talk inasfar as they relate to ancient history versus today. Those bonds were real, perhaps, then, but bear NO relationship to the sisterhood today, which is replete with complaining and vindictiveness over the slightest hint of criticism of the fair sex.

And, to be honest, I'm gonna admit my poor grasp of history, and say that I'm not sure that the "history" laid out by Penkitten on the first page of this thread is even ACCURATE. (I'm really not impressed with her analysis of prostitution later in the thread. Concubines have not much to do with common wh*rehouses, and I'm pretty sure there were common wh*res/prostitutes well before folks came to the new world.)



So, PK, go ahead and pick one or two lines from this post out of context and characterize me as whatever you wish.

-
-
-

 

[penkitten]

Talk to me about how women "settle' for a man whom they don't love.
They simply act her part, no? but they get married , settle down, with a man who is convinced she loves him, but that's far from the truth.
How does this happen?

i think that some women are brought up to think that in order to have a nice life, or be somebody that they have to settle down and get married.
people especially from my mother's generation.
so they settle down with someone that they "think" they love or "think they might grow to love " too fast.
they don't even know who they are yet, so how do they know who is right for them?
men do this too, but you never hear about it like you hear about it with women. maybe because it is not as often?
people are so afraid to be alone they end up feeling like they have to do something is all i can figure out.

 

[joekerr31]

Talk to me about how women "settle' for a man whom they don't love.
They simply act her part, no? but they get married , settle down, with a man who is convinced she loves him, but that's far from the truth.
How does this happen?

a woman can love just about any man. for women love is an 'emotion', its not a principle or commitment. as such they can fall out of love just as quickly as they fall in love.

for a woman love doens't mean anything other than a certain 'feeling' that she gets.

if a woman has a large enough fear of being alone, she will fall in 'love' with the best available man at the moment - any one that makes her feel not alone she will 'love'.

ever notice how quickly many women move on after a divorce. they quickly latch on to the next available man. they shower him with attention, etc. to make sure he stays in to them.

it is what it is.

 

[aliasguy]

a woman can love just about any man. for women love is an 'emotion', its not a principle or commitment. as such they can fall out of love just as quickly as they fall in love.

for a woman love doens't mean anything other than a certain 'feeling' that she gets.

if a woman has a large enough fear of being alone, she will fall in 'love' with the best available man at the moment - any one that makes her feel not alone she will 'love'.

ever notice how quickly many women move on after a divorce. they quickly latch on to the next available man. they shower him with attention, etc. to make sure he stays in to them.

it is what it is.

-
-
-
joekerr----
"it is what it is."

you're so right, man.
-
-
-

 

[ketostix]

a woman can love just about any man. for women love is an 'emotion', its not a principle or commitment. as such they can fall out of love just as quickly as they fall in love.

for a woman love doens't mean anything other than a certain 'feeling' that she gets.

if a woman has a large enough fear of being alone, she will fall in 'love' with the best available man at the moment - any one that makes her feel not alone she will 'love'.

ever notice how quickly many women move on after a divorce. they quickly latch on to the next available man. they shower him with attention, etc. to make sure he stays in to them.

it is what it is.

This is exactly it. You nailed it Joekerr. This is what I've been saying and I think Str8up has been saying, although I don't want to put conclusion in his mouth. Women do not really care about the guy per se, they're not really even that picky, actually less pick than men only wmost women have more options than most guys have, inversly porportionate relationship. Women only care about, for lack of a better term, opportunities and exploiting a relationship with a man. The emotions women like so much will come automatically with the opportunity. This is their nature. It has nothing to do with what men did or didn't do in the past. Only the present matters.

 

[Tazman]

[edit..... looking up and citing 3 year old posts from the guy -- in an obvious attempt to embarrass him -- was NOT consistent with promoting insightful discussion of the issues at hand. Shame on you.]

I don't think "insightful discussion" was the agenda especially after that response that just came out of left field. I participate in these discussions because I like to see what others think, but I'll admit it's hard to adjust myself to cater to the sensitivity of some of the people on this board.

I'll leave it alone after this, but is this not evidence of how different men and women are, in that women don't really focus on critical parts of a discussion/debate, but rather how they "feel" about a certain topic and take opposing views as an attack and lash out rather than challenge it to make a solid case for their opinions? If everyone agrees with you what do you gain? (these can be taken as rhetorical)

 

[joekerr31]

just to make this even more of a mess.... as relating to women in history... case in point that women are just as screwed up, if not moreso than men, cleopatra married her 10 year old brother when she was 18.

one of the problems with looking at history is that more often than not what you will find is that we don't come from a lineage of rational, evolved human beings. but rather sick and twisted perverts (by today's standards).

 

[penkitten]

just to make this even more of a mess.... as relating to women in history... case in point that women are just as screwed up, if not moreso than men, cleopatra married her 10 year old brother when she was 18.

one of the problems with looking at history is that more often than not what you will find is that we don't come from a lineage of rational, evolved human beings. but rather sick and twisted perverts (by today's standards).

yes and then she sent him off to war and he was killed which meant that she married a second brother (because they believed you had to have that pure blood line to be ruler there) until she finally messed around with ceaser and had his son who could replace the second brother as ruler.

 

[joekerr31]

yes and then she sent him off to war and he was killed which meant that she married a second brother (because they believed you had to have that pure blood line to be ruler there) until she finally messed around with ceaser and had his son who could replace the second brother as ruler.

see, your thread has actually got me thinking that maybe there isn't anything wrong with women. maybe they've always been f*cked up.

maybe what has gone wrong is that males have romanticized loved. maybe its not the women doing it, its the men.

we've seen too many movies where the hero's reward is the love of some woman. when in reality everyone was f*cking any warm hole that was around back in the day.

 

[penkitten]

see, your thread has actually got me thinking that maybe there isn't anything wrong with women. maybe they've always been f*cked up.
.

it also has gotten me thinking that we are more messed up than i initially thought.

 

[joekerr31]

see the problem with life is we are all WAY to smart for our own good now.

back in the day people were idiots. i mean, life was simple. wake up, get food (somehow), get through the day, f*ck some stinky hairy chic who was your wife, slap your kids around, hit the sac with a smile on your face.

now we know better. the only problem is we don't know how to BE better yet. we know what NOT to do, but not so much what TO do.

which is why i love a lot of VU's posts, because they are typically all about what TO DO in a world where no one really knows anymore.

and what makes all this even harder is that life is so short. really we don't have time to be thinking everything through, we should just be acting. but the problem with that is that if you don't think things through, you end up with a b*tch for an ex wife, a couple of messed up kids and wondering what the point of life was?

hehe, what a mess. :crackup:

 

[Ricco]

Not sure if history has been a major factor but money sure has.

Women are around a lot of money these days either from child support, alimony, rich husbands, parents etc. They have in a sense gained power.

Unfortunately with this new role come issues such as smoking, drinking and driving, addictions and getting fat - basically similiar to what men went thru. it is amazing how many women I see smoking these days.

 

[penkitten]

Women are around a lot of money these days either from child support, alimony, rich husbands, parents etc. They have in a sense gained power.

perhaps some... but not all.
my monthly child support pays for one month of child care and nothing else.
no alimony.
my husband is not rich (he pays half of the bills and all of his schooling.)
my father is dead and my mother can hardly rub two dimes together when she is done paying her bills, shes poor.
however, it's ok, because i can hold a job to provide for the family, because that is what you are supposed to do when you have a family.

but i agree with you that some women feel entitled to not work, sit around and let everyone else pay their bills for them, even if it means total welfare. that is what i see on a daily basis at work.

 

[Interceptor]

maybe what has gone wrong is that males have romanticized loved. maybe its not the women doing it, its the men.

This is exactly it.

Here's what I believe.

Men have romanticized Love and Women.
They have created a pedastal for woman, their nurturing quialities, and the divinity of Motherood.
As a result, Femeninity is attached to all of the female species.
Menaing, we have gone into a state where we see ALl women as being divinely blessed with the gift of Femeninity.
but this isn't the case. Just as there are Males, whom a re NOT Men.
There are Females, whom are not Women.

This is my theory on the romanticsm of femalse, and of Love and Being "in love". In addition, the almost divine like aura that men attach to women.

Men need something to believe in.

In times of great stres, hardship, and challenges, especially war and conflict...
....men needed to know that there wass somethign worth fighting for.

What was worth fighting for?

Whom did m,en on the battlefield think, dream, fantasize about?

their Women.


Women were created and cast as divine aura, a idealization which has created the AFCism of today.
the Halo Effect is the objective perception of our casting of this fairy tale look on womne.
The proverbial Pedastal is the tangible, conceptualized view of womne in our society.
Women were put on the pedastal to be worshipped as our saviors during times of extreme hardship and co9nflcit.

If there were no "good women". there would be nothing to fight for. Nothing worth going back home for. iothing worth living. Their Femeninity, Divine Femenin grace, and nurturing were our Salvation. The "dream" and the :drasm girl" are all outgrowth of this popular belief system.

Bottom Line:

Men are the Romantic Ones.

Women are the practical, dare I say it, Logical ones.

A woman will marry for everythign but love. She will put her emotions aside like a Vulcan and do what is necessary to gain what she wants in life. manipulate, dominate, seduce, be seduced, give her body and her sex, all completely unattached and unflinching in her vision of complete her final objective...her Mission.
Woman can fvck you,marry you,tell you anything they think your Ego wants to hear, tell you they love you, be your wife, mother, girlfirend, best friend, and it may all be an act.
We refuse to believe this.
And once we disconnect. Women realize they have lost their "power" over us.
An illusion. A fake power, in which they never really possessed.
There is so much more I want to write about , but it's late. I gotta go.

Will finish my thoughts, and better organize my beliefs for you to contemplate.

For now, research : Halo Effect