The Feminization Of Man

[Satyr]

It's evident you are not so evolved yourself but still hold to the tired might is right simplicity. You have serious issues with women as that is almost all you talk about, it's like an obsession.

What a wonderful simplification of what I am saying.
Please continue to underestimate me.
It's amusing.

 

[SagaciousMind]

You don't think that female brains adapted over millions of years to suit their environment, the tasks they need to perform in order to reproduce?

No. It think that's a load of bull and even if they did, it wouldn't apply to everyone, because every culture had different tasks for people, so everyone would be just as different anyway.

 

[Dana D]

Wanderer,

Very well constructed post and logical progression. Though, I question your prognosis. I think, that due to variations in humans, though the overall percentage of androgonesness is increasing, the actual # of archtypical male individualists/inventors is also increasing with the population. Ergo, creativity will not stagnate.

Now, a thought just came to me that may undermine your whole premise (if I undstand it correctly) - Arguably the most creative and inventive mind in all of human history is Da Vinci. It is also generally accepted that he was ... ah ... homosexual. Seemingly not your archtypical masculine. How does this fit with your hypothosis?

 

[Cortex_Colossus]

Satyr,

what qualifies as a "feminized man" and can you give specific examples of them on this forum and do, or would, any of them wear women's clothing? If so, what kind? Indulge if you will. Indulge on your thoughts of God and how he cannot be seen or heard but directly affects everything. The feminization of His followers is unbearable and speaks of how Capitalism leads to masturbation.

By the way, have the thoughts of IceAgeCivilizations been put to rest?

 

[Cortex_Colossus]

The funny thing about women is that they believe that obliviousness (as opposed to a real indifference) is superior to having the guts to admit to facts. They believe that self-expression must be as pronounced as possible and the obliviousness to the opinions of others indicates a "superiority" - "watch out communists." But while they believe they are expressing themselves in an original manner, it is in fact quite the opposite. Men are feminized and woman-like when they become institutionalized and society puts up walls of confinement in their psyches. These stupid and indulgent men of society have a fear of success and development is arrested as it is only success that speaks the loudest.
The belief that wearing a constant smile and having everyone love you is feminine and leads to imbecility.

 

[Satyr]

Wanderer,

Very well constructed post and logical progression. Though, I question your prognosis. I think, that due to variations in humans, though the overall percentage of androgonesness is increasing, the actual # of archtypical male individualists/inventors is also increasing with the population. Ergo, creativity will not stagnate.

Has masculinity disappeared or is it atrophying?
You see, in evolution, nothing just vanishes...it slowly declines.

Now, a thought just came to me that may undermine your whole premise (if I undstand it correctly) - Arguably the most creative and inventive mind in all of human history is Da Vinci. It is also generally accepted that he was ... ah ... homosexual. Seemingly not your archtypical masculine. How does this fit with your hypothosis?

And I've met women, heterosexual women, that had very masculine minds. It's an attitude of Becoming.
The former, and now departed, past queen regent of this very forum had, arguably, a very masculine outlook and spirit, and the warrior princess, and now the one hammering swords into plowshares, has a very masculine mind. More masculine than most of the male retards on this forum.

Did you read the disclaimer?
Furthermore that two contradictory attitudes can coexist within the same individual - one dominant and the other repressed - is a well-known psychological premise.

Jung described an externally masculine attitude as repressing a feminine soul, and an outward feminine attitude as repressing a masculine soul.

Also, any sexual deviance can be a symptom of psychological illness and inherited organic issues.
For me sex has evolved for only one purpose. any divergence from this is a consequence of external pressures and particular circumstances which exposes an individual's heritage and environmental conditions, as well as his mental and physical ability to cope - his reactive potential.

From whom is it "generally accepted" that DaVinci was a homosexual?

 

[Satyr]

Satyr,

what qualifies as a "feminized man" and can you give specific examples of them on this forum and do, or would, any of them wear women's clothing?

The Christian mind, is an example of a feminine spirit. A spirit of cowering shame and groveling submissive souls.
And yes, they wear pink panties and push-up bras.

If so, what kind?

Kalvin Kleins.

Indulge if you will. Indulge on your thoughts of God and how he cannot be seen or heard but directly affects everything. The feminization of His followers is unbearable and speaks of how Capitalism leads to masturbation.

You are proof enough.
Are you not mentally masturbating with this post?
I bet you smirked while you typed and your panties were all in a bunch with your every "creative" sarcasm.

By the way, have the thoughts of IceAgeCivilizations been put to rest?

No, but I believe you are vying to become his replacement.

 

[Xerxes]

The former, and now departed, past queen regent of this very forum had, arguably, a very masculine outlook and spirit, and the warrior princess, and now the one hammering swords into plowshares, has a very masculine mind. More masculine than most of the male retards on this forum.

Xev still rocks

 

[Dana D]

Has masculinity disappeared or is it atrophying?
You see, in evolution, nothing just vanishes...it slowly declines.

According to Wanderer, it is atrophying. Of course, evolution usually takes millenia.

And I've met women, heterosexual women, that had very masculine minds. It's an attitude of Becoming. The former, and now departed, past queen regent of this very forum had, arguably, a very masculine outlook and spirit, and the warrior princess, and now the one hammering swords into plowshares, has a very masculine mind. More masculine than most of the male retards on this forum.

Did you read the disclaimer?
Furthermore that two contradictory attitudes can coexist within the same individual - one dominant and the other repressed - is a well-known psychological premise.

Jung described an externally masculine attitude as repressing a feminine soul, and an outward feminine attitude as repressing a masculine soul.

Also, any sexual deviance can be a symptom of psychological illness and inherited organic issues. For me sex has evolved for only one purpose. any divergence from this is a consequence of external pressures and particular circumstances which exposes an individual's heritage and environmental conditions, as well as his mental and physical ability to cope - his reactive potential.

Is this address specifically to me or intended for all?

From whom is it "generally accepted" that DaVinci was a homosexual?

Freud for one. An in depth discusion in the International Review of Psycho-Analysis, (1988). 15:129-130, A. Carlos Pacheco, Leonardo Da Vinci: An (Almost) Famous Transsexual?

Even in his lifetime, he was accused by the Church of the "crime" of homosexuallity. But there was no proof of this and/or his political ties at the time led the the charge being hushed up.

After some research I have found that "General accepted" is inacurate. You've caught me there. Please replace with "repeatedly questioned throughout history".

There have been repeated conjectures that the Mona Lisa and St. Anne were self portraits of him in drag.

And no, I'm not parroting Dan Brown. These theories have been proposed for decades/centuries.

Whether or not he was gay, he may still a monkey wrench in Wanderers theory due to his amply recorded non-masculinity.

 

[Satyr]

According to Wanderer, it is atrophying. Of course, evolution usually takes millenia.



Is this address specifically to me or intended for all?


Freud for one. An in depth discusion in the International Review of Psycho-Analysis, (1988). 15:129-130, A. Carlos Pacheco, Leonardo Da Vinci: An (Almost) Famous Transsexual?

Even in his lifetime, he was accused by the Church of the "crime" of homosexuallity. But there was no proof of this and/or his political ties at the time led the the charge being hushed up.

After some research I have found that "General accepted" is inacurate. You've caught me there. Please replace with "repeatedly questioned throughout history".

There have been repeated conjectures that the Mona Lisa and St. Anne were self portraits of him in drag.

And no, I'm not parroting Dan Brown. These theories have been proposed for decades/centuries.

Whether or not he was gay, he may still a monkey wrench in Wanderers theory due to his amply recorded non-masculinity.

Reread the essay.
Reread my response.

does the exception to the rule, disprove the rule?
Was he homosexual?

Xerxes

Xev still rocks

Your obsessions are understandable.

 

[Cortex_Colossus]

The Christian mind, is an example of a feminine spirit. A spirit of cowering shame and groveling submissive souls.
And yes, they wear pink panties and push-up bras.

They also wear purple panties.

You are proof enough.
Are you not mentally masturbating with this post?

Perhaps.

I bet you smirked while you typed and your panties were all in a bunch with your every "creative" sarcasm.

I did not smirk. I cowered in shame like the way you cower when girls ask you why your penis is so small.

GOD IS REAL BECAUSE HE WAS PROVEN USING LOGIC. AND IT WAS SHOWN THAT LOGIC MIGHT BE REALITY. ALL LOGICAL EVENTS ARE POSSIBLE AND WHAT IS POSSIBLE CAN BE INEVITABLE (THE MANY-WORLDS THEORY). LOGIC IS THE ETHER OF INFORMATION AND WE ARE CARRIERS AND RECIEVERS OF INFORMATION. FRANK TIPLER HAS DEMONSTRATED THE IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY OF THE UNIVERSE. I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU AS YOU'RE SOUL WILL BECOME SUSCEPTIBLE TO TEMPTATION AND SWAYED BY ITS OWN UNBELIEF. YOU MATERIALISTS ARE SO CONSUMED BY APPEARANCES THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO SALVAGE THE SOUL IS REFUSED AND IGNORANCE REIGNS SUPREME.

 

[Satyr]

They also wear purple panties.



Perhaps.



I did not smirk. I cowered in shame like the way you cower when girls ask you why your penis is so small.

GOD IS REAL BECAUSE HE WAS PROVEN USING LOGIC. AND IT WAS SHOWN THAT LOGIC MIGHT BE REALITY. ALL LOGICAL EVENTS ARE POSSIBLE AND WHAT IS POSSIBLE CAN BE INEVITABLE (THE MANY-WORLDS THEORY). LOGIC IS THE ETHER OF INFORMATION AND WE ARE CARRIERS AND RECIEVERS OF INFORMATION. FRANK TIPLER HAS DEMONSTRATED THE IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY OF THE UNIVERSE. I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU AS YOU'RE SOUL WILL BECOME SUSCEPTIBLE TO TEMPTATION AND SWAYED BY ITS OWN UNBELIEF. YOU MATERIALISTS ARE SO CONSUMED BY APPEARANCES THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO SALVAGE THE SOUL IS REFUSED AND IGNORANCE REIGNS SUPREME.

This is the type of brain that's out there, as a majority.

His CAPITALIZATION is supposed to make up for his stupidity.

I quote:

GOD IS REAL BECAUSE HE WAS PROVEN USING LOGIC.

This alone is not only off-topic but enough to show the depths of this mind's retardation.

Listen to more:

AND IT WAS SHOWN THAT LOGIC MIGHT BE REALITY. ALL LOGICAL EVENTS ARE POSSIBLE AND WHAT IS POSSIBLE CAN BE INEVITABLE (THE MANY-WORLDS THEORY).

and here's the finniest part of all, the threat that sways his non-matyerialistic soul:

I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU AS YOU'RE SOUL WILL BECOME SUSCEPTIBLE TO TEMPTATION AND SWAYED BY ITS OWN UNBELIEF. YOU MATERIALISTS ARE SO CONSUMED BY APPEARANCES THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO SALVAGE THE SOUL IS REFUSED AND IGNORANCE REIGNS SUPREME.

What we have here is the average sciforum member.

Pathetic?
Yes.
Sad?
Yes.
Funny?
Very much so, if one ignores the fact that this imbecile votes and is part of a growing majority.

And here's this Christian mind in its full glory:

I did not smirk. I cowered in shame like the way you cower when girls ask you why your penis is so small.

Lead us with your example, oh great mind.

I don't know about any of you but I would rather have a tiny, tiny penis than a tiny, tiny brain.

I, for one, do not judge myself by the size of my cock nor by how much little girls giggle.
But in the Kingdom of God these things matter.

 

[Ripley]

So much here to tackle—my oh my. Just a few notes where I first paused, thus unwilling to go much further.

From the Prologue, The leveling of man continues. Fourth paragraph.

"A fundamental characteristic of weakness, as a concept, is its willingness to sacrifice a part of itself to save its entirety."

Not unless one considers that one's essences are permanent like finger prints and none will ever be "sacrificed" to a lesser cause but, if need be, put into stasis until more favorable circumstances will allow for their floodgates to open again. One isn't being weak by seemingly losing those qualities but wise to know when and how to fly light, when and how to set things aside, when and how to contract or detract, when and how to whisper or disappear, when and how to be moral or decadent: one isn't so much jettisoning aspects of oneself, nor cowering or demeaning oneself into sacrifice or into a lesser self—one is simply maneuvering in place for the sake of the whole**.

"Weakness is furthermore characterized by its inconspicuousness, its ability to blend and vanish into the multitude, its non-confrontational incorporation into more powerful entities, its expendability, its commonness, its malleability, its reliability and willingness [when conscious] to conform and adapt."

Morphing is a disability? Camouflage is unoriginal? Compromise is permanent? I'd say it's a talent for the futuristic to cleverly know when and how to be…

"The ‘If you can’t beat them join them’ strategy is one most often practiced in nature and in our universe […]"

I don't see nature subservient to itself. But we are semi-natural, I think, because we are not so spontaneous: we contrive method and discriminate about the when and the how.

"[…] what cannot survive on its own inevitably either perishes or winds up as a part of something bigger and stronger, by means of consumption, via having its parts absorbed, or assimilation, via having its parts conformed."

Only if one becomes absent-minded enough in the process and forgets oneself completely and absolutely. So again, if one is clever enough—and knows when and how to be…

"It is this transcending fundamental principle that is primarily responsible for the constant state of flux and fluidity, we experience as change and time, and which characterizes our state of being and our perspective of reality."

I don't see flux and fluidity as a weakness, implying, I think you are, that there's a decrease in virility perhaps? But rather I see flux and fluidity as an integral characteristic, an integral quality, an adjustment by the more sturdy and concentrated aspects—distinguished aspects—that know when and how to manifest. **I would even propose that it is those same paramount qualities in us that intrigue us to strategize a lighter version of ourselves with their absence—not so much for the sake of preserving a whole, but for their own whimsical maintenance routines—for the whole will be dependent on them to be there when most needed.

 

[Oli]

GOD IS REAL BECAUSE HE WAS PROVEN USING LOGIC.

Also disproven using logic.
So any choice is a matter of personal taste, neh?

AND IT WAS SHOWN THAT LOGIC MIGHT BE REALITY.

Yeah?
No.
Since logic can be used to show that logic doesn't work, what does that do to reality?

ALL LOGICAL EVENTS ARE POSSIBLE

Given enough time, maybe.

AND WHAT IS POSSIBLE CAN BE INEVITABLE (THE MANY-WORLDS THEORY).

Providing the many-worlds theory is correct.

LOGIC IS THE ETHER OF INFORMATION AND WE ARE CARRIERS AND RECIEVERS OF INFORMATION.

The "ether of information"?
Please show us.

FRANK TIPLER HAS DEMONSTRATED THE IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY OF THE UNIVERSE.

Reference please.

I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU AS YOU'RE SOUL WILL BECOME SUSCEPTIBLE TO TEMPTATION AND SWAYED BY ITS OWN UNBELIEF. YOU MATERIALISTS ARE SO CONSUMED BY APPEARANCES THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO SALVAGE THE SOUL IS REFUSED AND IGNORANCE REIGNS SUPREME.

Well you managed to get some truth into the last three words.

 

[Satyr]

So much here to tackle—my oh my. Just a few notes where I first paused, thus unwilling to go much further.

From the Prologue, The leveling of man continues. Fourth paragraph.

Not unless one considers that one's essences are permanent like finger prints and none will ever be "sacrificed" to a lesser cause but, if need be, put into stasis until more favorable circumstances will allow for their floodgates to open again.

All compromises to soemthing else is an admittance of weakness in relation to it.

One isn't being weak by seemingly losing those qualities but wise to know when and how to fly light, when and how to set things aside, when and how to contract or detract, when and how to whisper or disappear, when and how to be moral or decadent: one isn't so much jettisoning aspects of oneself, nor cowering or demeaning oneself into sacrifice or into a lesser self—one is simply maneuvering in place for the sake of the whole**.

Adaptation is weakness trying to correct itself in relation to otherness.
Any time there is change there is an inadequacy.
This is called progress and evolution : weakness adapting to strength, overcoming it and then changing the power balances in turn resulting in the repetition of the process.

Morphing is a disability? Camouflage is unoriginal? Compromise is permanent? I'd say it's a talent for the futuristic to cleverly know when and how to be…

When I hide I admit my fear or inability to cope with what threatens me directly and honestly and as I am.
I have to change or mask, to survive.
Wisdom? Yes.
Isn't intelligence a product of weakness?

One more reason an omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent God is so absurd.

I don't see nature subservient to itself. But we are semi-natural, I think, because we are not so spontaneous: we contrive method and discriminate about the when and the how.

you are talking about a later development of nature - nature overcoming itself or a piece of nature dominating and controlling or attempting to, the rest - an attempt as an absolute.

Only if one becomes absent-minded enough in the process and forgets oneself completely and absolutely. So again, if one is clever enough—and knows when and how to be…

That you are forced into such a necessity exposes a weakness.
The strong forces a change in the other.

I don't see flux and fluidity as a weakness, implying, I think you are, that there's a decrease in virility perhaps?

There is constant fragmentation and instability.

But rather I see flux and fluidity as an integral characteristic, an integral quality, an adjustment by the more sturdy and concentrated aspects—distinguished aspects—that know when and how to manifest.

To "know" is a alter adaptation; a new strategy of efficient focus of energies, made necessary by a need.
All need is weakness; a dependence, as opposed to independence.

**I would even propose that it is those same paramount qualities in us that intrigue us to strategize a lighter version of ourselves with their absence—not so much for the sake of preserving a whole, but for their own whimsical maintenance routines—for the whole will be dependent on them to be there when most needed.

You are talking about strength/weakness as a comparison between lacking phenomena.

We are all weak, to varying degrees, and so our concept of strength is a comparison of our perception of 'self' with the 'other' or with an ideal.

Nothing/Something, are just such idealized projections of an absolute imagined state.
They don't actually exist - in fact they are the very definition of non-existence since existence is temporal - but are human generalizations and undefinable projections of self-awareness and exaggerations so as to make the human condition comprehensible.
They are metaphors, as all language is based on symbolism and metaphorical insinuation - an art-form.

Because the mind conceptualizes by simplifying and abstracting sensual information into incomplete artificial absolutes, like a picture that captures a moment in time only partially by simplifying it and not registering the infinite details, it uses words as if they were absolute, when they are not.
The brain is an ordering tool - a reaction to the growing entropy/disordering - and so it relies on ordering information which makes experience and knowledge possible by filtering out the chaotic excess into simplified abstractions or snapshots, which have ceased to be the moment we perceive them - we are always a step behind the ongoing flux and we project forward what we analyze backwards.
This is why pattern recognition is so important.
It is finding, or attempting to find, a piece of consistent order in the growing disordering, which will help us comprehend, predict and plan our own fate.

 

[Satyr]

Also disproven using logic.
So any choice is a matter of personal taste, neh?

Reality is a matter of "personal taste"?
That's taking perspectivism, which only states that each individual mind is forced to live in accordance with its own perceptions of reality, into the realm of the absurd; making human Will the decider of what is actual.
The mind interprets reality., If it does so accurately it is successful, if it does not it fails. If I wish to believe I am immortal does not mean that I am so.

Yeah?
No.
Since logic can be used to show that logic doesn't work, what does that do to reality?


Given enough time, maybe.

So, if "given enough time" I await for purple dragons to come out of your asshole, will I be rewarded with this spectacle?
Are you saying the only thing separating absurdity from rationality is time?

I guess we'll have to give more time to you sounding more rational and to Cortex_Midget to grow a larger cerebral cortex.

Providing the many-worlds theory is correct.

You're improving.

The "ether of information"?
Please show us.

Don't ask too many questions, it's all about "his logic" - pespectivity would say that his absurdities are actual since he believes them.

Reference please.

the Bible I presume.

Well you managed to get some truth into the last three words.

Indeed, he did.

 

[Oli]

Reality is a matter of "personal taste"?

Tut Satyr, I expected better from you of all people.
Not my point of view - reread it. There's a question mark on the end.

So, if "given enough time" I await for purple dragons to come out of your asshole, will I be rewarded with this spectacle?
Are you saying the only thing separating absurdity from rationality is time?

You missed the maybe, and the follow-up of many worlds being true.

I guess we'll have to give more time to you sounding more rational and to Cortex_Midget to grow a larger cerebral cortex.

You're improving.

You're slipping.

the Bible I presume.

Frank Tipler is quoted in the bible?
Jeez, that's some book.

 

[Squirt-gun]

I think most reasonable people might conclude that male and female self perceptions of their respective sexual, social, family, and economic rights, responsibilities and opportunities have changed dramatically since WWII. But this evolution of change has always been in play for many reasons.

Many men might feel their "turf" has been threatened by the enormous changes that have taken place for women in recent times. Not me!

 

[Fugu-dono]

Many men might feel their "turf" has been threatened by the enormous changes that have taken place for women in recent times. Not me!

Yes very true. That's called insecurity and that's a far worst trait than men going metro or whatever other feminising traits people in this topic have suggested men have developed. Insecurity is probably as unmanly as it gets without going homo (not hat there's anything wrong with the latter though it's not in me).

I guess the images of big muscle sweatshop pheromone fuming male is being threatened by clean slim athletic male images to some people. These poor insecure sods can't accept pop-images for what they are. Just images. If they get homotional about it then they are insecure lil whining bitches and are probably worst than any homosexuals I've ever encountered. :shrug:

 

[Satyr]

Tut Satyr, I expected better from you of all people.
Not my point of view - reread it. There's a question mark on the end.

It must have been the Grand Marinier, clouding my vision.

You missed the maybe, and the follow-up of many worlds being true.





You're slipping.

I was wet.

Frank Tipler is quoted in the bible?
Jeez, that's some book.

Isn't everything insinuated there, in hyperbole and metaphor?