The purpose of all life

[Ecmandu]

The evolutionary psychology gold is sex dimorphism, rape dimorphism,
and weapons and combat training dimorporphism all combine to give
females, relative to males, involuntary discomfort for sexual
signaling of any type, like when the eyes involuntarily blink when a
bug flies by them.

This means that the male and female subconscious interprets female
acceptance to male sexual signaling as a "no" for all first and
escalative approaches.

When a male does this, the male is sending a signal to the species, "I
don't care about the first no"

If the female accepts him after this, she is sending the signal that
"no means yes"

This "no means yes" is interpreted a rape by the subconscious mind.
It is taken out upon each other and the environment.

What's further understood by the subconscious mind is that had the
world been taught better about human sexuality at its inception, the
world would be a better place, and because all sexual selections would
have been different, nobody alive today would have ever been born.

Psychologically, people argue against all of this reflexively, that
100% of all human sex has been rape, to maintain their narrative of
meaning and purpose.

The 5 Stages that a Sex dimorphic species must traverse to not
contradict itself.

In a sex dimorphic species, one sex is larger and more threatening
than the other gender.

If it's not the individual, it is the whole… a 5 foot man approaching
a 7 foot women is still more threatening (his other friends), because
the sum total of men are stronger and more threatening. If for some
bizarre reason, men and women decided to go to combat against each
other, men would kill all the women, they would win that war.

Because of this phenomenon, when men approach women with the same
approach a women can use for a man, the women will show more
discomfort than the man will, from minute discomfort, to extreme
discomfort. Where a man may look in disgust and say "go away", the
women will call the police, or get a bunch of her male friends to get
the guy off her. For the same approach women are always more
uncomfortable than a male.

What this means as a whole, is that women have a "no" for first
approaches. This may not be true of all women, this discomfort for
being approached, but, since this is so extremely rare, this forces
the man to play mind reading games about female consent, which can
lead to very dangerous situations, making him believe he is the
special exception which reads the vibe better.

So the rule, is "No" for all first approaches from a male to a female.

This rule also applies to all children, as they are dimorphic as well,
compared to adults. It's a "no" for first approaches.

But it's not only the first approach that matters. It is the
escalation that matters as well. If a women turns to you and smiles
and holds your hand for the first time in an intimate way. Leaning
over to kiss her, is an escalation of first approach. This is also
mind reading, "the vibe"… every stalker on earth or inappropriate
person is feeling "the vibe". Vibe is almost universally abused, as a
mind reading game, and is not an excuse for escalation.

The problem here is that any behavior that is ornamental or escalative
from the male side, is already turning a "no" into a "I don't care
about the no". If an escalation is used and it turns into something
more, then the female is sending the signal to the entire species,
that "no means yes"

This is where the first stage comes in:

Everyone who has violated the 5,5,3 rule, needs to split up, or never
make sexual contact until the 5 stages of a sex dimorphic species are
cycled through. Otherwise it's just a "no means yes" relationship.

The second stage is to create intentional communities of about 1000 to
3000 people to work on the other stages.

First approaches must be 100% from the female side. This means NO
ornate male behavior.

Sex distribution ratios need to be equalized between the sexes. The
largest aggravation on the male side is that women are only having sex
without about 2% of the male population before they settle down with
somebody. For men, it is non consensual that women even have sex with these
men, but it's vastly more non consensual to men that only 2% of men
get almost all the sexual contact with women.

The next stage is that the sexes can start to approach at a 50% to 50%
ratio, with males only using direct approaches and not ornamental
approaches. Now this entire time, females can use ornamentation and
homosexuals can as well. An example of a direct approach is saying
"would you like to go out with me on a date?" An example of an
ornamental approach is watching a sports game on television or wearing
sports memorabilia to show your dominance to a female, your
aggression.

The 5th and final stage is now that the species has been made aware of
the damage of "no means yes" for all heterosexual bondings, males can
finally start to use ornamental behavior again.

The problem with the subconscious being aware that all sexual
encounters are rape "no means yes" is that men take it out on women,
society, other men and the environment at large.

If everyone is trained to use better communication for better outcomes
sexually as a global community of intentional communities, then we can
expect nothing less than better outcomes in all areas of our lives
here.

It is important to note that the number one use of ornamental behavior
in men is that contradicting of ones self. If someone contradicts one
self through many layers of encryption, the female brain interprets as
base code "He said he doesn't exist, but he's still here! He must be
God!"

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

The 5 heartbreaks of relationship

1.) If you've ever been hurt by not being in a situation that someone
else is, when you get to that point and it hurts someone else,
somewhere in the back of your mind is a self hatred for doing to
others what hurt you.

2.) If someone is attracted to a person you are with, it may make you
feel superior, however, the idea that the person you are with would be
with them the way you're with the person your with, causes fear ,
defensiveness and anger. The anger is actually at yourself. The
reason it's at yourself is because you share the attraction to one
person in common with them, to be angry at them for being with the
person you're with, is the same as being angry at yourself for being
with the person you're with. This causes self hatred. This is
avoided if people follow the step of evening out the distribution
ratios between the sexes.

3.) Depending upon the person, millions if not billions of people
could be equally or more compatible in an exciting and different way
than the person you are with. One love does not outweigh millions if
not billions of heartbreaks in terms of the loss

4.) I call this is commiseration heartbreak. When we love something
or someone, we are compelled to share it without harm, so that we can
commiserate with others in a bonding way about that love.
Hoarding a relationship, doesn't allow for this bonding to occur. And
causes the 4th heartbreak of relationship.

5.) The fifth heartbreak is that you don't have relationship in the
way you desire.

--------

The three objectifications:

Large Penis
Tall
Money

--------

The three abuses: The three abuses are used to circumvent the three
objectifications, they are MORE powerful in terms of what females
consider consent !!!

1.) proclivity to marry (slave/master/celebrations of the zero sum
nature of ones reality /victor mentality, antitrust contract(making
someone say what they're going to say and to forever, instead of
simply trusting them))
2.) sexual jealousy (if a woman has sex with another man, she will
leave you if you're not angry at her or the man she slept with)
(conditions men to be sexually jealous)
3.) approach escalation: Women have said no to all escalations - so
any escalation that turned into relationship is a no means yes
relationship.

There is one more part to explain:

If a male puts out to the universe, the cosmos, "I want a wonderful
woman", he has approach escalated ALL females in the cosmos, which
means he's not allowed to have sex with any of them, whether they
approach him or he approaches them. (I made this mistake 25 years ago
and have to live with it). My only options now are a female more
powerful than all males combined in existence, a planet going through
the 5 sex dimorphic stages before they meet me, or philosophic zombie
worlds, marionette worlds (using philosophic zombies), hallucinating
ones entire reality from eternal forms, or hyper dimensional mirror
realities. Women can put out to the cosmos that the man they approach
is their wonderful man, but they cannot put out to the cosmos that
wonderful men approach them.

A man must explain all of this to a woman, and not have asked the
cosmos for her, and she must comprehend all of it, in order for their
relationship to be a yes means yes relationship.

what's interesting about the subconscious mind, and everyone on this
planet who sees men and women holding hands and laughing, knows deep
in their psyche, that the woman is laughing at her rape and with her
rapist. This causes many minds to snap. Snapping is not an option.

I'm teaching you very deep secrets about this world and how to bring
lasting peace to it, I hope you consider these teachings well.

[MagsJ]

The second stage is to create intentional communities of about 1000 to
3000 people to work on the other stages.

I've seen those on many a Star Trek episode.. the Captain always coming away bemused by the concept.

If someone is attracted to a person you are with, it may make you
feel superior, however, the idea that the person you are with would be
with them the way you're with the person your with, causes fear ,
defensiveness and anger.

This is what I would call a messy relationship, where outside influences ruin a relationship.. along with egos, the outcome of those egos dependent on who has the better options available to them.

[Ecmandu]

The second stage is to create intentional communities of about 1000 to
3000 people to work on the other stages.

I've seen those on many a Star Trek episode.. the Captain always coming away bemused by the concept.

If someone is attracted to a person you are with, it may make you
feel superior, however, the idea that the person you are with would be
with them the way you're with the person your with, causes fear ,
defensiveness and anger.

This is what I would call a messy relationship, where outside influences ruin a relationship.. along with egos, the outcome of those egos dependent on who has the better options available to them.

MagsJ, my post wasn't trivial or a comedy post.

For example: I've watched every episode, every spin off and every movie of Star Trek. Not in one, do the discuss using intentional communities to work on sex distribution ratios.

So where am I supposed to start with this entire inane post to my life's work?

[MagsJ]

MagsJ, my post wasn't trivial or a comedy post.

For example: I've watched every episode, every spin off and every movie of Star Trek. Not in one, do the discuss using intentional communities to work on sex distribution ratios.

I did not state in what form those scenes transpired..i. e. who discussed what with whom about such a community as that existing, so your doubt on the matter is perplexing.

My perspective on this topic/life's woes is a light-hearted one, and your perspective is always from one of constant anguish, so how you perceive my post obviously hinges on that fact.

I was expecting a better and more learn-ed reply from you, but no matter.

[Ecmandu]

MagsJ, my post wasn't trivial or a comedy post.

For example: I've watched every episode, every spin off and every movie of Star Trek. Not in one, do the discuss using intentional communities to work on sex distribution ratios.

I did not state in what form those scenes transpired..i. e. who discussed what with whom about such a community as that existing, so your doubt on the matter is perplexing.

My perspective on this topic/life's woes is a light-hearted one, and your perspective is always from one of constant anguish, so how you perceive my post obviously hinges on that fact.

I was expecting a better and more learn-ed reply from you, but no matter.

Now you're just projecting onto me.

This is likethe thread where it ended because I stated:

So you really want to tell the whole world and yourself that the meaning of life is consent violation ?

Dead silence.

MagsJ: I need to be straight forward with you:

You are tolerant: that's an admirable attribute

I've read you on many boards, you are nowhere even near approaching a philosopher.

You are a web of inanity and projection and defense mechanisms.

The philosophers life is MUCH harder than having a terminal illness.

[MagsJ]

Now you're just projecting onto me.

This is likethe thread where it ended because I stated:

So you really want to tell the whole world and yourself that the meaning of life is consent violation ?

Dead silence.

MagsJ: I need to be straight forward with you:

You are tolerant: that's an admirable attribute

I've read you on many boards, you are nowhere even near approaching a philosopher.

You are a web of inanity and projection and defense mechanisms.

The philosophers life is MUCH harder than having a terminal illness.

Please attack the argument, and not the character of the arguee i.e. me..

[Ecmandu]

Now you're just projecting onto me.

This is likethe thread where it ended because I stated:

So you really want to tell the whole world and yourself that the meaning of life is consent violation ?

Dead silence.

MagsJ: I need to be straight forward with you:

You are tolerant: that's an admirable attribute

I've read you on many boards, you are nowhere even near approaching a philosopher.

You are a web of inanity and projection and defense mechanisms.

The philosophers life is MUCH harder than having a terminal illness.

Please attack the argument, and not the character of the arguee i.e. me..

I would of it was.

[MagsJ]

I would of it was.

How very illegible of you.. but I get your drift.

So where am I supposed to start with this entire inane post to my life's work?

Did you utilise statistical research to arrive at your 'life's work' or from simply your viewpoint from personal experience?

You cannot simply disregard comment because it doesn't wholly agree with your work, and you certainly can't ad hom over it. Tread carefully.

[Mowk]

Ecmandu,

How old are you, this time, anyway? You haven't struck me as all that old to have had much of a life to base work on. I believe there is perspective in the question; relatively speaking.

I'm a human I'm told. There's far more to me then that, feels like a we. We get some sense, and extend an olive branch.

Many questions. I look forward to a lesson, teacher.

I warn you, I think slow as a sloth.

Mowk

[Ecmandu]

I would of it was.

How very illegible of you.. but I get your drift.

So where am I supposed to start with this entire inane post to my life's work?

Did you utilise statistical research to arrive at your 'life's work' or from simply your viewpoint from personal experience?

You cannot simply disregard comment because it doesn't wholly agree with your work, and you certainly can't ad hom over it. Tread carefully.

We've already discussed 3 studies in this thread

This is the post that caused mr. Reasonable to stop his post modern nonsense deconstruction of a species fact that is common sense and everyone knows.

The three studies are almost jokes ... it's like you and mr reasonable arguing with me that water is not wet.

So someone goes out and does three studies to prove it.

I'm not sorry for getting agitated by you arguing the effect that water is not wet. It's inflammatory on just about every possible level. It's not discourse, it's postmodern counter intelligence. That's the polite way to say it. And then you come in and say, "well the studies still don't prove water is wet"

I've been debating post modernists on the net for 25 years now... I do grow irritated by it.

viewtopic.php?p=2715594#p2715594

[MagsJ]

I've been debating post modernists on the net for 25 years now... I do grow irritated by it.

..and herein lies your problem.. do learn not to get irritated, won't you.. it could be your undoing here.

Not both genders say yes to sex / not both genders say no to sex.. why would a guy approach a strange female and ask her openly for some relations?

[Ecmandu]

I've been debating post modernists on the net for 25 years now... I do grow irritated by it.

..and herein lies your problem.. do learn not to get irritated, won't you.. it could be your undoing here.

Not both genders say yes to sex / not both genders say no to sex.. why would a guy approach a strange female and ask her openly for some relations?

Homosexual don't have sex dimorphism (although bi sexual do)

Homosexuals don't have the same rules as heterosexuals.

Of course lesbians aren't going to approach men and gays women.

Again, what are you trying to say here? What's your point?

Heterosexuals are 90% of the population, and thus have the most impact on the subconscious.

Every heterosexual relationship is no means yes.

A heterosexual claiming consent is like a child playing with a toy car about an inch long and saying it's a real car and they're really driving it. You children throw around the term consent as if you really know what it means.

Another analogy is someone rubbing gently the genitals of a 2 month years old baby. The baby doesn't know what this means, just like the child with the toy car.

You all think you're adults (it's acting) when you say "we are consensual partners". No! You're not! You're play-acting consent ... it's not actual consent

Like a child, you just want to pretend like you are big men and women.

[Mr Reasonable]

For the record, I stopped because you're too dense to absorb anything outside your tunnel vision. When you're citing 30 year old studies with small samples from far away places with homogeneous political beliefs....I just can't help but to think that you're scouring the Earth for things to confirm your biases.

[Mowk]

Side steps and short cuts.

Tough road. You've got spirit. But here's the gig. It doesn't matter at all how right you maybe, who can tell. But are you guessing consensus is going your way?

Do you think that is going to change here? Regardless of how much of your life you pour into it?

I'd recommend giving it a rest. See if anything new comes up to discuss. Something refreshing.

[Ecmandu]

For the record, I stopped because you're too dense to absorb anything outside your tunnel vision. When you're citing 30 year old studies with small samples from far away places with homogeneous political beliefs....I just can't help but to think that you're scouring the Earth for things to confirm your biases.

Oh sure, I'm being dense.

Every evolutionary psychologist, every social scientist, and every cultural anthropologist, and every sex researcher considers it a species fact that sex dimorphism triggers aversive behavior in women relative to men:

Try these simple studies which have been shown to apply cross culturally in all human societies on earth.

Get a cute girl and a cute guy.

Have them take off their clothes in public settings such as streets, sidewalks, busses, bars, strip clubs, grocery stores, Macy's etc... the women will be escorted out, the men will have the police called.

Try the study where a cute guy and a cute girl walk up and down streets asking "wanna fuck me now?"

Watch how quickly the police get called on the men, and how quickly men say yes to women.

What I'm stating is a species fact.

What you're stating is that we don't all know this, when, in fact, you and Mowk and MagsJ all three know this.

I don't think you're dense, I think you're afraid to admit the necessary logical conclusion which is that you're all shallow hearted rapists.

[Karpel Tunnel]

The men are going to face problems from other men in those situations. And any women going for the men, will face punishment, short term or long term from men and women. You can't take a second long slice of action and draw all sociological conclusions from it.

[Ecmandu]

The men are going to face problems from other men in those situations. And any women going for the men, will face punishment, short term or long term from men and women. You can't take a second long slice of action and draw all sociological conclusions from it.

Actually, you can draw the conclusion that nobody considers female sexual signaling as much of a threat as male sexual signaling.

Women get a slap on the wrist, men go to jail.

[Karpel Tunnel]

The men are going to face problems from other men in those situations. And any women going for the men, will face punishment, short term or long term from men and women. You can't take a second long slice of action and draw all sociological conclusions from it.

Actually, you can draw the conclusion that nobody considers female sexual signaling as much of a threat as male sexual signaling.

Women get a slap on the wrist, men go to jail.

A man sexual signaling has until recently been considered even a postive thing. A woman sexual signaling - and I mean, suggesting that sex now would be a good idea - has been likely to be considered a whore, family destroyer and more. I don't think any of this is simple, but I disagree with what seems like a simple take on your side.

[Ecmandu]

The men are going to face problems from other men in those situations. And any women going for the men, will face punishment, short term or long term from men and women. You can't take a second long slice of action and draw all sociological conclusions from it.

Actually, you can draw the conclusion that nobody considers female sexual signaling as much of a threat as male sexual signaling.

Women get a slap on the wrist, men go to jail.

A man sexual signaling has until recently been considered even a postive thing. A woman sexual signaling - and I mean, suggesting that sex now would be a good idea - has been likely to be considered a whore, family destroyer and more. I don't think any of this is simple, but I disagree with what seems like a simple take on your side.

It's a sociological universal. There are no subtleties when it comes the the punishment for sexual signaling between the sexes.

Male sexual signaling being seen as a positive thing, relative to women has never been seen as positive.

If a woman flashed you in the 1950's and a man did.

The man would be the one in jail. Not the woman.

[Karpel Tunnel]

It's a sociological universal. There are no subtleties when it comes the the punishment for sexual signaling between the sexes.

Male sexual signaling being seen as a positive thing, relative to women has never been seen as positive.

If a woman flashed you in the 1950's and a man did.

The man would be the one in jail. Not the woman.

Well, perhaps we should define sexual signaling, because to me this is ridiculous. A woman who went around flirting with married men in the 50s would face severe social ostracism and rape. A flirtatious man, doing this in front of the boyfriends and husbands, if done bluntly, would get in fights and worse. But if he did it when alone with the women, not much would happen. The women would be putting their futures on the line. And this is nothing compared to what happens now in the Middle east. Mens sexual signaling, even grabbing a woman simply walking alone and assaulting her, would be considered the womans fault or seen as inevitable. A woman flirting in Iran is heading for death. Boys in high school in the us flirting with girls are seen as doing what they are supposed to. Girls can flirt, but they better be careful to not seeming to suggest sex in the near future or they still face serious problems. The whole metoo thing definitely has upped the ante for men's risks, but in general it is still seen as the norm that men can and even should be on the make and women should not be on the make, even in the US.

[Ecmandu]

It's a sociological universal. There are no subtleties when it comes the the punishment for sexual signaling between the sexes.

Male sexual signaling being seen as a positive thing, relative to women has never been seen as positive.

If a woman flashed you in the 1950's and a man did.

The man would be the one in jail. Not the woman.

Well, perhaps we should define sexual signaling, because to me this is ridiculous. A woman who went around flirting with married men in the 50s would face severe social ostracism and rape. A flirtatious man, doing this in front of the boyfriends and husbands, if done bluntly, would get in fights and worse. But if he did it when alone with the women, not much would happen. The women would be putting their futures on the line. And this is nothing compared to what happens now in the Middle east. Mens sexual signaling, even grabbing a woman simply walking alone and assaulting her, would be considered the womans fault or seen as inevitable. A woman flirting in Iran is heading for death. Boys in high school in the us flirting with girls are seen as doing what they are supposed to. Girls can flirt, but they better be careful to not seeming to suggest sex in the near future or they still face serious problems. The whole metoo thing definitely has upped the ante for men's risks, but in general it is still seen as the norm that men can and even should be on the make and women should not be on the make, even in the US.

In thinking that you're addressing the topic, you are actually avoiding it:

Which sex is the most uncomfortable with sexual signaling from the other sex?

If a guy whips his dick out in a train station in iran, who's more afraid, the men or the women?

The women of course!

What if a woman strips down naked in an Iranian train station? Are the men SCARED!!

No!! Hell no!!

Their culture though states that women who signal sexually are asking for sex.

The west has the same culture in a much subtler way.
It's still the definition of rape, just like it is in Iran.

Hell, this board even has a male flasher in prison as we speak!!

[Ecmandu]

Edited above post

[Ecmandu]

I hope I didn't offend you Karpel.

It truly is the point, and I may have veered from it myself, which had you posting away from the topic of this discussion:

Men are less affected by sexual signaling from women in terms of AVERSION, than women are from men.

This has long been considered, and still is considered a universal in the social sciences.

The primary reason, and this is also considered a universal in the social sciences: sex dimorphism.

The universal is without dispute in the very broad category labeled "social science":

Evolutionary psychologists
Cultural anthropologists
Sex researchers

All three of those fields not only consider this a fact beyond reproach, there have been numerous studies which support it.

There are depth to these studies as well.

For example: women find a stoic type expression sexier in men than smiling. Smiling can be considered the slightest sexual signaling. Men are most attracted to smiling. What this means is that even in minutae, women are more averse to sexual signaling .

[Mr Reasonable]

For the record, I stopped because you're too dense to absorb anything outside your tunnel vision. When you're citing 30 year old studies with small samples from far away places with homogeneous political beliefs....I just can't help but to think that you're scouring the Earth for things to confirm your biases.

Oh sure, I'm being dense.

Every evolutionary psychologist, every social scientist, and every cultural anthropologist, and every sex researcher considers it a species fact that sex dimorphism triggers aversive behavior in women relative to men:

Try these simple studies which have been shown to apply cross culturally in all human societies on earth.

Get a cute girl and a cute guy.

Have them take off their clothes in public settings such as streets, sidewalks, busses, bars, strip clubs, grocery stores, Macy's etc... the women will be escorted out, the men will have the police called.

Try the study where a cute guy and a cute girl walk up and down streets asking "wanna fuck me now?"

Watch how quickly the police get called on the men, and how quickly men say yes to women.

What I'm stating is a species fact.

What you're stating is that we don't all know this, when, in fact, you and Mowk and MagsJ all three know this.

I don't think you're dense, I think you're afraid to admit the necessary logical conclusion which is that you're all shallow hearted rapists.

Even if someone accepted all this as the honest truth, it still doesn't mean that everyone is a rapist. When someone says, "rapist", this isn't what they mean. You're trying to change the definition of a rapist to suit this weird thing you've concocted and in the process you're defying common sense.

[Mr Reasonable]

I mean, by your own logic, you're violating my consent right now and therefore you're a rapist.