Ecmandu wrote:The second stage is to create intentional communities of about 1000 to
3000 people to work on the other stages.
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.
MagsJ wrote:Ecmandu wrote: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 wrote: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.
MagsJ wrote:Ecmandu wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:Ecmandu wrote: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 wrote:I would of it was.
So where am I supposed to start with this entire inane post to my life's work?
MagsJ wrote:Ecmandu wrote: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.
Ecmandu wrote:I've been debating post modernists on the net for 25 years now... I do grow irritated by it.
MagsJ wrote:Ecmandu wrote: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?
Mr Reasonable wrote: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.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: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.
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 wrote:Karpel Tunnel wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:Karpel Tunnel wrote: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.
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 wrote:
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 wrote: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 wrote:
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.
Ecmandu wrote:Mr Reasonable wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: Parodites, surreptitious75