Saturday, May 24, 2008
Perspective 132
Our Guest Connaisseur writes:
There is a part of us that likes to think a man is never taller than when he bends down to help a child, especially not his own.
Yet, the social contract of marriage is not based on that idea at all.
In fact, it is just the opposite.
Marriage exists to assure a man that:
1) The chances are better that the children his woman is having are his.
2) That his labors are benefiting his children - not the children of another man.
Married men are economic slaves and the only trade off is their slavery benefits their offspring.
Man can never be assured if his child is his, while woman always knows the child is hers.
Thus, the foundation of any society - a man's rights to his child (note I did not say "family" as some might think, but the rights of man to his offspring is the foundation and the concept of family is a byproduct of those rights) - are not secure, then society is not secure.
When the rights of man are not secure to included his children, then people who speak as if a man not having any rights to his children is normal are people who know their child is theirs and their labors benefit their child - only as a woman would speak...or perhaps a communist government which owns the collective's children, as well as everything else.
Men are not disposed to raise another man's child because that makes him an evolutionary loser, not passing on his genes. Yet, great honor and nobility is given to such a man by woman these days and society at large, "Such a good man to raise my bastard offspring."
This is dishonorable among men, save in a few exceptions, to raise another's offspring.
Primitive?
Tribal?
You say?
In our modern business enterprises we do not help our competitors - is this tribal or primitive?
Yet, how is this any different when it comes to the production of offspring?
Moreover, it is a very common pattern in modern society for her to get pregnant by "bad boy" whom she found exciting, but who leaves her. And then she looks towards or for "good guy" to raise bad boy's child. That is not a stretch for her, because it is her child - but it is for him, because he is raising his competitor's child.
Furthermore, we see operating in every mother, that she puts her children before her husband. And the biological father knows this and accepts this - when the rights to his child are secure he can accept this opportunity cost for the future of his genes manifest in his offspring. However, when his rights to his child are not secure, as modern society has it - men go their own way to establish themselves elsewhere.
Our Guest Connaisseur writes:
There is a part of us that likes to think a man is never taller than when he bends down to help a child, especially not his own.
Yet, the social contract of marriage is not based on that idea at all.
In fact, it is just the opposite.
Marriage exists to assure a man that:
1) The chances are better that the children his woman is having are his.
2) That his labors are benefiting his children - not the children of another man.
Married men are economic slaves and the only trade off is their slavery benefits their offspring.
Man can never be assured if his child is his, while woman always knows the child is hers.
Thus, the foundation of any society - a man's rights to his child (note I did not say "family" as some might think, but the rights of man to his offspring is the foundation and the concept of family is a byproduct of those rights) - are not secure, then society is not secure.
When the rights of man are not secure to included his children, then people who speak as if a man not having any rights to his children is normal are people who know their child is theirs and their labors benefit their child - only as a woman would speak...or perhaps a communist government which owns the collective's children, as well as everything else.
Men are not disposed to raise another man's child because that makes him an evolutionary loser, not passing on his genes. Yet, great honor and nobility is given to such a man by woman these days and society at large, "Such a good man to raise my bastard offspring."
This is dishonorable among men, save in a few exceptions, to raise another's offspring.
Primitive?
Tribal?
You say?
In our modern business enterprises we do not help our competitors - is this tribal or primitive?
Yet, how is this any different when it comes to the production of offspring?
Moreover, it is a very common pattern in modern society for her to get pregnant by "bad boy" whom she found exciting, but who leaves her. And then she looks towards or for "good guy" to raise bad boy's child. That is not a stretch for her, because it is her child - but it is for him, because he is raising his competitor's child.
Furthermore, we see operating in every mother, that she puts her children before her husband. And the biological father knows this and accepts this - when the rights to his child are secure he can accept this opportunity cost for the future of his genes manifest in his offspring. However, when his rights to his child are not secure, as modern society has it - men go their own way to establish themselves elsewhere.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Perspective 131
Our Guest Connaisseur writes:
Married women are perpetually insecure and like to practice hitting on men who won't, in theory, respond seriously. That way she can safely measure if she's still effective with men. And her escape clause is perfect. If you do respond to her testing, she will accuse you of being an unfaithful brute and grossly misreading her completely...men are such animals you know.
Same thing goes on with women that have boyfriends - you just don't think cupcake is like other women that do that. I think the editor on here has the best approach - he will mirror a woman, if she is flirting, he will flirt, if she uses an escape clause, he will also. It is interesting the way he effortlessly mirrors a woman's modus operandi as described above as one would toy with a novice at chess, and of course, exposing her as the unfaithful wife or girlfriend that she pretends not to be.
If it is a woman I have just spied out, and she's married, I let her walk out of my life. But if I am at a party and a married woman is ragging on her husband badly, she is most likely the woman who will go to bed with me the quickest.
Well, let me clarify that:
That was my technique back when I was carousing. It was extremely successful. It was my modus operandi. No matter what social setting I was in, the woman who was publicly castrating her husband (they almost always do this in private with their woman friends telling each other how much better a husband they could have had or deserved) would be the first to hop in the sack, because her marriage is all over, but the paperwork.
And if you're nice to such a woman she'll have you back again - if you want to go.
That is why we must carefully consider any type of mythical moral superiority that we might impart on women of yesteryear - as I have seen some younger men do on various forums (the eyes of the Mirror scan to and fro across the whole earth) - commenting that women were better back then than now.
I will clarify this also:
When women were ladies, us older men over-looked their bad side - their "good" outweighed their "bad" to say. They were not morally superior, just better behaved that we could tolerate them more often than not.
But modern women are no longer ladies and ignoring their bad side will get you in serious trouble - legally, financially, and emotionally. Women have turned into heavyweight boxers - mentally and physically. The young man is right in his avoidance of the modern woman in America.
Thus, I see no reason to treat them with kid gloves any more. If she wants to be treated like a lady, she has to be one mentally and behaviorally. That's nearly impossible now for Western women, certainly American women.
Moreover, what we have is women using shaming language as their modus operandi against the current tide of men going their own way. "You're not manly enough!" or "You are too manly and need to get in touch with your feminine side!" The list is infinite from the depths of women's insecurity. Shaming men into doing this or that, is a sure sign of a little girl's mentality in a woman's body - no matter how many education credentials she might have that say otherwise.
Our Guest Connaisseur writes:Married women are perpetually insecure and like to practice hitting on men who won't, in theory, respond seriously. That way she can safely measure if she's still effective with men. And her escape clause is perfect. If you do respond to her testing, she will accuse you of being an unfaithful brute and grossly misreading her completely...men are such animals you know.
Same thing goes on with women that have boyfriends - you just don't think cupcake is like other women that do that. I think the editor on here has the best approach - he will mirror a woman, if she is flirting, he will flirt, if she uses an escape clause, he will also. It is interesting the way he effortlessly mirrors a woman's modus operandi as described above as one would toy with a novice at chess, and of course, exposing her as the unfaithful wife or girlfriend that she pretends not to be.
If it is a woman I have just spied out, and she's married, I let her walk out of my life. But if I am at a party and a married woman is ragging on her husband badly, she is most likely the woman who will go to bed with me the quickest.
Well, let me clarify that:
That was my technique back when I was carousing. It was extremely successful. It was my modus operandi. No matter what social setting I was in, the woman who was publicly castrating her husband (they almost always do this in private with their woman friends telling each other how much better a husband they could have had or deserved) would be the first to hop in the sack, because her marriage is all over, but the paperwork.
And if you're nice to such a woman she'll have you back again - if you want to go.
That is why we must carefully consider any type of mythical moral superiority that we might impart on women of yesteryear - as I have seen some younger men do on various forums (the eyes of the Mirror scan to and fro across the whole earth) - commenting that women were better back then than now.
I will clarify this also:
When women were ladies, us older men over-looked their bad side - their "good" outweighed their "bad" to say. They were not morally superior, just better behaved that we could tolerate them more often than not.
But modern women are no longer ladies and ignoring their bad side will get you in serious trouble - legally, financially, and emotionally. Women have turned into heavyweight boxers - mentally and physically. The young man is right in his avoidance of the modern woman in America.
Thus, I see no reason to treat them with kid gloves any more. If she wants to be treated like a lady, she has to be one mentally and behaviorally. That's nearly impossible now for Western women, certainly American women.
Moreover, what we have is women using shaming language as their modus operandi against the current tide of men going their own way. "You're not manly enough!" or "You are too manly and need to get in touch with your feminine side!" The list is infinite from the depths of women's insecurity. Shaming men into doing this or that, is a sure sign of a little girl's mentality in a woman's body - no matter how many education credentials she might have that say otherwise.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Changing Worlds
It could be the red wine from Spain I've been drinking, the serenity in being far from the maddening crowds of life, or a combination of both.
Maybe I realize it more as I age, or maybe it was always in front of me - just to be discovered - one world slowly fading, and a new one expanding before me.
Times, seasons, societal expectations, etc., that one world keeps have faded from my care or concern. I'll set the times and seasons I want to keep, and the expectations as well - my new world and its order.
Why set your clock ahead for daylight saving time, when if you leave it alone, in a number of months, the world will see it your way again.
Take a place to stand and move the world in your direction as the rest of the people live in their fading world of illusions with their false sense of life and being, while you see reality clearly for what it is and can be - by your design.
It could be the red wine from Spain I've been drinking, the serenity in being far from the maddening crowds of life, or a combination of both.
Maybe I realize it more as I age, or maybe it was always in front of me - just to be discovered - one world slowly fading, and a new one expanding before me.
Times, seasons, societal expectations, etc., that one world keeps have faded from my care or concern. I'll set the times and seasons I want to keep, and the expectations as well - my new world and its order.
Why set your clock ahead for daylight saving time, when if you leave it alone, in a number of months, the world will see it your way again.
Take a place to stand and move the world in your direction as the rest of the people live in their fading world of illusions with their false sense of life and being, while you see reality clearly for what it is and can be - by your design.
