Let's Process Our Feelings II

Off Topic
881

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I think I’ve come to agree with orion and AC that respect forms the basis of romantic love for women.

However, I don’t think orion’s belief that men can never slow the slightest crack is true. In fact, I know it’s not because if you’re not both real and open, the lack of intimacy/knowing will destroy the relationship.

So you need to be able to be open without it being problematic, which means cleaning up your internals so they match your externals: confidence, integrity, decency, etc.
[/quote]
“He needs to open up to me, but I like it when he is mysterious. He’s got to share his doubts and insecurities, but he can’t appear weak, ugh gross. He’s got to be spontaneous, but only when I’m expecting it. He should listen to what I say, but know when I mean the opposite of what I said and know when I am actually saying what I mean. He needs to say the right things at the right times without me telling him. He should always do what I ask, but I don’t want him to just do whatever I say, he’s got to be able to tell me no and be his own man.”

Not faux-quoting you Em, just general chick paradox stuff :slight_smile:

882

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I think I’ve come to agree with orion and AC that respect forms the basis of romantic love for women.

However, I don’t think orion’s belief that men can never slow the slightest crack is true. In fact, I know it’s not because if you’re not both real and open, the lack of intimacy/knowing will destroy the relationship.

So you need to be able to be open without it being problematic, which means cleaning up your internals so they match your externals: confidence, integrity, decency, etc.
[/quote]
“He needs to open up to me, but I like it when he is mysterious. He’s got to share his doubts and insecurities, but he can’t appear weak, ugh gross. He’s got to be spontaneous, but only when I’m expecting it. He should listen to what I say, but know when I mean the opposite of what I said and know when I am actually saying what I mean. He needs to say the right things at the right times without me telling him. He should always do what I ask, but I don’t want him to just do whatever I say, he’s got to be able to tell me no and be his own man.”

Not faux-quoting you Em, just general chick paradox stuff :)[/quote]

If he’s his own man and I’m my own woman, none of that will hold true or matter. Everyone is inconsistent at times, but I’ve learned to say “I’m tired and maybe crabby” rather than “nothing’s wrong” and generally I’m pretty good at asking for what I want. Sometimes the answer is no. That’s fine, and I’m disappointed or not depending upon its importance to me. Certainly a “no” could be a relationship-ender if it’s an issue that’s essential to me. But “I think you should let me cut your hair” is not. I hope for the same in the man who’s right for me.

Mysterious doesn’t matter to me. Interesting does. At some point “mysterious” becomes “secretive and repressed,” whereas “interesting” always holds surprises.

883

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

However, I don’t think orion’s belief that men can never slow the slightest crack is true.

[/quote]

The more hardened the whore the more true it is.

Once she has the 1000 cock stare, you better treat her like an Ukrainian arms dealer would.

Some girls have that stare at the tender age of 23.

884

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

However, I don’t think orion’s belief that men can never slow the slightest crack is true.

[/quote]

The more hardened the whore the more true it is.

Once she has the 1000 cock stare, you better treat her like an Ukrainian arms dealer would.

Some girls have that stare at the tender age of 23.[/quote]

Ah, yes, the hardened whore, whose romantic love is based upon respect, which respect is founded upon her man’s utter disdain and complete lack of trust.

Yeah.

lol

885

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

However, I don’t think orion’s belief that men can never slow the slightest crack is true.

[/quote]

The more hardened the whore the more true it is.

Once she has the 1000 cock stare, you better treat her like an Ukrainian arms dealer would.

Some girls have that stare at the tender age of 23.[/quote]

Ah, yes, the hardened whore, whose romantic love is based upon respect, which respect is founded upon her man’s utter disdain and complete lack of trust.

Yeah.

lol[/quote]

No, the hardened whore is not that much different from the average bear, she just takes it to the extremes.

She also might respect different things than you do, but it is still the key to her, um, heart.

886

Plus, I like the extremes of human behavior because there you always see it in its truest form.

People displaying extreme behavior are not “different” just lopsided.

887

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

However, I don’t think orion’s belief that men can never slow the slightest crack is true.

[/quote]

The more hardened the whore the more true it is.

Once she has the 1000 cock stare, you better treat her like an Ukrainian arms dealer would.

Some girls have that stare at the tender age of 23.[/quote]

Ah, yes, the hardened whore, whose romantic love is based upon respect, which respect is founded upon her man’s utter disdain and complete lack of trust.

Yeah.

lol[/quote]

No, the hardened whore is not that much different from the average bear, she just takes it to the extremes.

She also might respect different things than you do, but it is still the key to her, um, heart. [/quote]

The hardened whore is your equal-but-opposite. So where does that leave you?

888

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

However, I don’t think orion’s belief that men can never slow the slightest crack is true.

[/quote]

The more hardened the whore the more true it is.

Once she has the 1000 cock stare, you better treat her like an Ukrainian arms dealer would.

Some girls have that stare at the tender age of 23.[/quote]

Ah, yes, the hardened whore, whose romantic love is based upon respect, which respect is founded upon her man’s utter disdain and complete lack of trust.

Yeah.

lol[/quote]

No, the hardened whore is not that much different from the average bear, she just takes it to the extremes.

She also might respect different things than you do, but it is still the key to her, um, heart. [/quote]

The hardened whore is your equal-but-opposite. So where does that leave you?[/quote]

Hardly my equal.

Even if, not worth my time, I could do productive things, like cutting my toenails.

889

[quote]orion wrote:
Plus, I like the extremes of human behavior because there you always see it in its truest form.

People displaying extreme behavior are not “different” just lopsided. [/quote]

I don’t think that’s true form. I think that’s distorted thinking and distorted behavior; not just lopsided but broken.

And if you don’t want the hardened whores, why do you spend so much energy and effort studying them and learning how to manipulate them?

And how are you not their equal when you are a promiscuous, mistrustful misogynist? Is a hardened whore not a promiscuous, mistrustful misandrist?

890

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Plus, I like the extremes of human behavior because there you always see it in its truest form.

People displaying extreme behavior are not “different” just lopsided. [/quote]

I don’t think that’s true form. I think that’s distorted thinking and distorted behavior; not just lopsided but broken.

And if you don’t want the hardened whores, why do you spend so much energy and effort studying them and learning how to manipulate them?

And how are you not their equal when you are a promiscuous, mistrustful misogynist? Is a hardened whore not a promiscuous, mistrustful misandrist?[/quote]

No because it is sexual access vs provisioning in some form or another, remember?

To apply the same logic to me that applies to women falls short.

We are not in the same boat.

891

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Plus, I like the extremes of human behavior because there you always see it in its truest form.

People displaying extreme behavior are not “different” just lopsided. [/quote]

I don’t think that’s true form. I think that’s distorted thinking and distorted behavior; not just lopsided but broken.

And if you don’t want the hardened whores, why do you spend so much energy and effort studying them and learning how to manipulate them?

And how are you not their equal when you are a promiscuous, mistrustful misogynist? Is a hardened whore not a promiscuous, mistrustful misandrist?[/quote]

No because it is sexual access vs provisioning in some form or another, remember?

To apply the same logic to me that applies to women falls short.

We are not in the same boat. [/quote]

But most women work now, no? So “provisioning” is not the carrot it once was. However, you have to be able to attract a woman with skill and ambition, which is not as easy as attracting the hardened whore.

In 2010 here in the States:

*Women comprised 47 percent of the total U.S. labor force.
*73 percent of employed women worked on full-time jobs, while 27 percent worked on a part-time basis.
*The largest percentage of employed Asian, white, and black women (46.1 percent , 40.6 percent, and 33.8 percent, respectively) worked in management, professional, and related occupations.
*The median weekly earnings of women who were full-time wage and salary workers were $669, or 81 percent of men’s $824. When comparing the median weekly earnings of persons aged 16 to 24, young women earned 95 percent of what young men earned ($422 and $443, respectively).

-U.S. Dept. of Labor http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-laborforce-10.htm)

892

I’ve just realized my income puts me nicely among “The 30 occupations with the highest median weekly earnings among women who were full-time wage and salary workers.”

Yay! I have nice feelings about that.

893

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Plus, I like the extremes of human behavior because there you always see it in its truest form.

People displaying extreme behavior are not “different” just lopsided. [/quote]

I don’t think that’s true form. I think that’s distorted thinking and distorted behavior; not just lopsided but broken.

And if you don’t want the hardened whores, why do you spend so much energy and effort studying them and learning how to manipulate them?

And how are you not their equal when you are a promiscuous, mistrustful misogynist? Is a hardened whore not a promiscuous, mistrustful misandrist?[/quote]

No because it is sexual access vs provisioning in some form or another, remember?

To apply the same logic to me that applies to women falls short.

We are not in the same boat. [/quote]

But most women work now, no? So “provisioning” is not the carrot it once was. However, you have to be able to attract a woman with skill and ambition, which is not as easy as attracting the hardened whore.

In 2010 here in the States:

*Women comprised 47 percent of the total U.S. labor force.
*73 percent of employed women worked on full-time jobs, while 27 percent worked on a part-time basis.
*The largest percentage of employed Asian, white, and black women (46.1 percent , 40.6 percent, and 33.8 percent, respectively) worked in management, professional, and related occupations.
*The median weekly earnings of women who were full-time wage and salary workers were $669, or 81 percent of men’s $824. When comparing the median weekly earnings of persons aged 16 to 24, young women earned 95 percent of what young men earned ($422 and $443, respectively).

-U.S. Dept. of Labor http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-laborforce-10.htm)

[/quote]

And those modern perversions alter ingrained instincts how?

Actually, I know how, but it only makes social dominance more important, not less.

Ukrainian armsdealer.

894

[quote]orion wrote:
And those modern perversions alter ingrained instincts how?

Actually, I know how, but it only makes social dominance more important, not less.[/quote]

Why, because “provisioning” has lost its value as a selector?

I’m pretty sure being “interesting” is still fundamentally social dominance and/or intellectual dominance.

895

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
And those modern perversions alter ingrained instincts how?

Actually, I know how, but it only makes social dominance more important, not less.[/quote]

Why, because “provisioning” has lost its value as a selector?

I’m pretty sure being “interesting” is still fundamentally social dominance and/or intellectual dominance.[/quote]

Yes, because provisioning has lost its value, once the state has taken away those resources at gunpoint and transfered them to the most trashy of women.

The respect and dignity one might receive for providing is greatly reduced if women can just vote their hands into your pockets.

896

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
And those modern perversions alter ingrained instincts how?

Actually, I know how, but it only makes social dominance more important, not less.[/quote]

Why, because “provisioning” has lost its value as a selector?

I’m pretty sure being “interesting” is still fundamentally social dominance and/or intellectual dominance.[/quote]

Yes, because provisioning has lost its value, once the state has taken away those resources at gunpoint and transfered them to the most trashy of women.

The respect and dignity one might receive for providing is greatly reduced if women can just vote their hands into your pockets. [/quote]

I get the sense that you’re upset not because you don’t like whores, but because you would like to be able to purchase one in its youth and keep it captive to its need for your provisioning and protection.

The exact set-up you seek, orion, is what had the women screaming for change. We see it playing out in the Middle East, no?

LoRez is correct, “interesting” is an indicator of status-y stuff.

I also appreciate the feeling of safety I get from good guys, which is dominance over the environment (whatever that means in any given context). I’ve already started hiding behind Hockey. I was bitten by a pit bull this weekend and until I became comfortable again kept him between the dog and myself. There was also a bear. Hockey went forward, I went the other way.

Financial security isn’t the only kind.

Also, together we have more income than either of us apart.

897

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
And those modern perversions alter ingrained instincts how?

Actually, I know how, but it only makes social dominance more important, not less.[/quote]

Why, because “provisioning” has lost its value as a selector?

I’m pretty sure being “interesting” is still fundamentally social dominance and/or intellectual dominance.[/quote]

Yes, because provisioning has lost its value, once the state has taken away those resources at gunpoint and transfered them to the most trashy of women.

The respect and dignity one might receive for providing is greatly reduced if women can just vote their hands into your pockets. [/quote]

I get the sense that you’re upset not because you don’t like whores, but because you would like to be able to purchase one in its youth and keep it captive to its need for your provisioning and protection.

The exact set-up you seek, orion, is what had the women screaming for change. We see it playing out in the Middle East, no?

[/quote]

I was wondering how a woman would spin it so that he current setup could be seen as a plus.

I thought it would be a version of, “well, now that we got the provisioning out of the way, is it not wonderful that women can choose based on love or some such”.

You are not that far off.

Well, let us tax women to the hilt then, to provide me with a first class whore (the professionel kind) two times a week then, so that I can choose for “love” too.

The thing is, like it or not, all relationships to some degree are about power. To take away mens power amplifies the womens power as a group in an unatural way which ripples through society as a whole.

At least for Europe that means that we are finished, given our demographic situation. Whether women, or men for that matter, “like” any given setup is of no concern to me, I am interested in what works and what does not.

Doing “what feels good, maaaaaaan” rarely does.

898

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
And those modern perversions alter ingrained instincts how?

Actually, I know how, but it only makes social dominance more important, not less.[/quote]

Why, because “provisioning” has lost its value as a selector?

I’m pretty sure being “interesting” is still fundamentally social dominance and/or intellectual dominance.[/quote]

Yes, because provisioning has lost its value, once the state has taken away those resources at gunpoint and transfered them to the most trashy of women.

The respect and dignity one might receive for providing is greatly reduced if women can just vote their hands into your pockets. [/quote]

I get the sense that you’re upset not because you don’t like whores, but because you would like to be able to purchase one in its youth and keep it captive to its need for your provisioning and protection.

The exact set-up you seek, orion, is what had the women screaming for change. We see it playing out in the Middle East, no?

[/quote]

I was wondering how a woman would spin it so that he current setup could be seen as a plus.

I thought it would be a version of, “well, now that we got the provisioning out of the way, is it not wonderful that women can choose based on love or some such”.

You are not that far off.

Well, let us tax women to the hilt then, to provide me with a first class whore (the professionel kind) two times a week then, so that I can choose for “love” too.

The thing is, like it or not, all relationships to some degree are about power. To take away mens power amplifies the womens power as a group in an unatural way which ripples through society as a whole.

At least for Europe that means that we are finished, given our demographic situation. Whether women, or men for that matter, “like” any given setup is of no concern to me, I am interested in what works and what does not.

Doing “what feels good, maaaaaaan” rarely does. [/quote]

No, it’s not about marrying for love. That’s been in play all along. Intelligent, pretty girls with winsome personalities are probably going to do well under any social construct. Strong (intellectually, emotionally, physically, morally) men will also thrive regardless of construct.

Winners and losers now vs then are the people who need a specific set of circumstances to flourish. I don’t know why I have to keep reminding everyone that not every girl is pretty. Should homeliness sentence a woman to a life of abuse and hard labor? The current system allows her to live in comfort and with dignity.

Not every man is noble. There is a reason the birth rate continues to decline in developed nations, despite women’s instinct for procreation. The ignoble man does not do as well when he can’t rely on women’s utter dependence on his good will. Now he has to win a good woman if he wants to keep her rather than simply trap one, who will then be stuck.

For most people “what feels good, maaaaaaan” is a committed long term relationship that allows them to build assets and a family. People everywhere are doing that regardless of the system, as they always have. Some people are going to suffer to some degree regardless. Previously it was badly married women. Right now it’s foolish men who choose women looking to trade sex for assets. They should be looking for women looking to share sex and assets.

899

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
And those modern perversions alter ingrained instincts how?

Actually, I know how, but it only makes social dominance more important, not less.[/quote]

Why, because “provisioning” has lost its value as a selector?

I’m pretty sure being “interesting” is still fundamentally social dominance and/or intellectual dominance.[/quote]

Yes, because provisioning has lost its value, once the state has taken away those resources at gunpoint and transfered them to the most trashy of women.

The respect and dignity one might receive for providing is greatly reduced if women can just vote their hands into your pockets. [/quote]

I get the sense that you’re upset not because you don’t like whores, but because you would like to be able to purchase one in its youth and keep it captive to its need for your provisioning and protection.

The exact set-up you seek, orion, is what had the women screaming for change. We see it playing out in the Middle East, no?

[/quote]

I was wondering how a woman would spin it so that he current setup could be seen as a plus.

I thought it would be a version of, “well, now that we got the provisioning out of the way, is it not wonderful that women can choose based on love or some such”.

You are not that far off.

Well, let us tax women to the hilt then, to provide me with a first class whore (the professionel kind) two times a week then, so that I can choose for “love” too.

The thing is, like it or not, all relationships to some degree are about power. To take away mens power amplifies the womens power as a group in an unatural way which ripples through society as a whole.

At least for Europe that means that we are finished, given our demographic situation. Whether women, or men for that matter, “like” any given setup is of no concern to me, I am interested in what works and what does not.

Doing “what feels good, maaaaaaan” rarely does. [/quote]

No, it’s not about marrying for love. That’s been in play all along. Intelligent, pretty girls with winsome personalities are probably going to do well under any social construct. Strong (intellectually, emotionally, physically, morally) men will also thrive regardless of construct.

Winners and losers now vs then are the people who need a specific set of circumstances to flourish. I don’t know why I have to keep reminding everyone that not every girl is pretty. Should homeliness sentence a woman to a life of abuse and hard labor? The current system allows her to live in comfort and with dignity.

Not every man is noble. There is a reason the birth rate continues to decline in developed nations, despite women’s instinct for procreation. The ignoble man does not do as well when he can’t rely on women’s utter dependence on his good will. Now he has to win a good woman if he wants to keep her rather than simply trap one, who will then be stuck.

For most people “what feels good, maaaaaaan” is a committed long term relationship that allows them to build assets and a family. People everywhere are doing that regardless of the system, as they always have. Some people are going to suffer to some degree regardless. Previously it was badly married women. Right now it’s foolish men who choose women looking to trade sex for assets. They should be looking for women looking to share sex and assets.[/quote]

You are still avoiding the point.

This system takes resources from men and redistributes it to women.

I have no problem with “strong, independent women” I just want them to be just that, strong and independent, not mooching parasites.

Our system is historically, well, maybe not unique, but an abberation insofar as women can feel reasonably safe and provided for without a specific man to take care of them.

They just dont have to deal with a specific man anymore to feel that way and it shows.

If the basis of female affection is respect, you take a lot away from men if he is no longer respected for what he is best at, providing.

The welfare state is a species of socio-sexual environmental pollution.

Second, the ignoble man is on the rise, precisely because men no longer receive the signal that being a well situated provider pays off in the end.

There never was a choice between the patriarchy and an egalitarian utopia, only the choice between the partiarchy and the puerarchy.

http://puerarchy.com/2013/07/16/ironwood-speaks-welcome-to-the-puerarchy-this-is-what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-you/

Or, if you want it really long:

900

Do you really believe it was about women wanting men to vacuum? Orion, it was about men punching women with closed fists and the women not having the wherewithal to get out. It was about men flaunting infidelity and women standing by powerlessly. It was about homely or “big boned” women having to tolerate and cover up for drunken pigs because they weren’t well-bred enough to go to college and become teachers or nurses. It was about shitty sex because no foreplay, or outright rape.

Yes, things have gotten distorted and there are many negatives currently for both sides as a result of the shift, but it was never about household tasks. Jesus.

I say this as a woman who LIKES traditional gender roles but relishes the security of an education and career.