This is from the comment string found here…

http://www.godlessblogger.com/2010/08/01/truly-intelligent-design-pic/#comment-71081708

“Regardless, where do you come by this information? Is there a poll or study that you could share with us or is this your impression?”

A poll or study on what the country would look like without sports programs in education? It would be speculation and thus does not exist as a study. I could just as easily ask you to find me a study that talks about what it would be like if velociraptors were suddenly as common as wild deer. Would the lack of such a study make a claim about such an alternate world being bloody and dangerous less apt? (Would Jurassic park count as a study?)

Clearly, they don’t teach debate in your schools.

“I know and have known plenty of kids that have chosen sports and education.”

Nor do they teach the scientific method it seems. Note: Your entire life is not a representative sample. I am not speaking in absolutes I am speaking in generalities and trends. Your entire life could be populated by examples which may appear counter to my assertions, that does not mean my assertions are proven false. Ask any political atheist about the difficulty of proving a negative, and the correct placement of the burden of proof.

“I was the starting outside linebacker for my high school and played chess.”

Here we go again with the argument from personal experience. I suppose then if one guy in Nebraska informs me that he spoke to god last night and god says I should pay him, then obviously god both exists and wants me to pay this man. Now you’re just bolstering my first point. I’m not going to get bogged down in a memory war about what you may or may not have been in school.

But I will say this. Not many nerds are line backers, neither the long standing version or even the hair gel male model with glasses version of today, now that technology openly equals money and the SciFi predictions are popping up as fact left and right.

“I never thought anything about it.”

So we’ve established that you are oblivious. You probably never thought about it for the same reason people born with trust funds don’t think about money.

“These aren’t necessarily in opposition as you seem to think they are.”

You are living in a dream world. The only reason they aren’t in opposition now (maybe) is because “nerd” has become mainstream as I just explained. Because nerds now mean money and cool technology and an obvious corner on the future. (Old nerds are now being called aspie kids, so it went from being weird to being a mental illness in need of curing. Like how rebels, despite being required for a society’s long term growth, now have Oppositional Defiance Disorder.) To claim there is no dichotomy between those that favor the mind over the body is hopeless self indulgent wishful thinking.

A huge facet of the human condition (another thing your drone mills train children to never even think about) is the fact that we are an intellect, an emergent intelligence literally printed on an ape. Our brain is literally a layered map of our evolutionary past. The NEO in neo cortex means new. Prior to intelligence the body was everything. Intelligence stands opposed to the body. (A 3 pound brain being cheaper in terms of food energy than 500 pounds of muscle) And in time we will shed it. Sport is the glorification of the body, there is therefor a standing and obvious conflict as deep and as old as the species itself.

The moment a technique and a tool became a force to rival something you were given at birth is the moment that war began and it’s been an evolutionary arms race ever since.

“Google “student athlete” and you’ll come up with over 7,000,000 hits.”

And putting “football rape” in Google yields About 9,470,000 results. So what?

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1857059&page=1

Is Jock Culture a Training Ground for Crime?
Studies Find College Athletes More Likely to Commit Sexual Assault

Save your Jocks make great role models speech for the sponsors and scouts.

The fact of the matter is training the body by definition neglects the mind, and there is a well known correlation between muscle mass and testosterone and testosterone and violent behavior. This makes evolutionary sense.

“So, I suppose 2/5ths is a “good portion”, but read as a proportion of student population, less than 1% of students are punished in any physical way in schools.”

Trivialize it all you want. (Would you hand over 2/5ths of your gross income to me if its such an inconsequential figure? I thought not. How about to a charity of your choosing if it’s just me you hate?)

Ironically you bring up “in any physical way.” How many coaches make their kids run laps or the like for infractions? Regardless. The fact remains we literally knock children into line. Your profession is reprehensible to me. Your negligence and incompetence (as a whole career path) is legendary and would not be tolerated were it not so darn useful for the state. And yes 2/5ths is goddamn too many.

Carlin summed it up nicely.

“As far as schools “beat children,” I’m not sure what your definition of “beat” is, but in my district, the largest in Colorado, simply grabbing or hitting a student will get you fired quickly. It simply is not tolerated at all and everybody knows it.”

Good. When that becomes true nationally, public and private, then we can talk.

“I suppose that schools will always lag behind the technology curve to some extent, but to say that it’s “usefulness… is called into question” is absurd. ”

Oh really?

Start at 40 seconds. See also 3:20. (If you can’t sit through the whole 5 minutes.)

You have no idea what you’re dealing with. And to think that you are in a position to instruct children who will outlive you on how to survive the world THEY’LL live in is what’s absurd.

“And I don’t think that you have “established” anything except your ignorance of current educational practices and trends.”

Well in my original piece I wasn’t try to establish much. The current educational practices are trivia. I know because I still can’t take a net connected laptop with me to my tests. (Can I?) It’s headline news when a school anywhere in the world even tinkers with such a thing. The school system actually still thinks using a machine is CHEATING. What are we, Amish?

People think the government is bad about catching up, jesus, schools are a billion times worse.

“Do you understand the weight of categorical statements?”

Do you understand the power of exponential growth? The whole concept of a 12 year long (minimum, the average is higher) education program is lunacy in the context of today let alone 12 years from now. You want to talk about whats steadily falling? Let’s talk about the value of an associates degree.

“Again, where do you get this data?”

I’m not going to play the absolute citation game with you because some things are obvious. And if you want to reject water being wet until there is a definitive recent study on the subject I can’t help you.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Government-Agencies-Propose-Spending-Hundreds-of-Millions-of-Dollars-on-Math-and-Science-Educational-Programs-93298309.html

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/06/spending-on-sports-vs-spending-on-teaching/

http://www.edlotterman.com/RWE/Articles/20020523Sports.htm

I don’t think anyone is going to accuse the United States football spending as “Lagging behind.”

If you think we spend as much on chess club as we do on football you need a lengthy run of anti-psychotics.

In public schools which get purchased more often? New jerseys or new science books? Please. The science books wear out faster.

“a whopping 98.6% of its budget on things like staffing, facilities, transportation”

Is the football field not a facility? Is the coach not staff? Is the bus to and from games not transportation? The actual cost of sport is notoriously difficult to calculate. Besides, this is just one school and it’s not even a third party audit.

“As far as I know, work is not “compulsory” as the unemployed in this country would be happy to point out. / But even then, nobody is coerced into going to work.”

Wow. School really is its own little world. Work absolutely is compulsory in this country unless you are lucky enough to have been born with a trust fund. We live in a capitalist society that lauds the rich via some Horatio Alger inspired ethos of pluck and determination for having had the ability to amass wealth, despite the fact that most of the time they were born with a good chunk of it anyway.

Class mobility in this country is largely a myth. Even lottery winners self destruct a lot of the time since the system is so caustic to “new money.” We routinely blame homeless people for being homeless as if they are all drug addicts, but the thing is drug addicts typically aren’t homeless because they can buy and sell drugs when they’re aren’t in jail or in some way being supported by the state which refuses to confront the drug problem on the basis of what it actually is. A public health issue, not a criminal justice issue.

We routinely throw men in jail when they can’t pay child support regardless of the economic situation. We routinely deny disability claims with the assertion that no no, you’re well enough to work despite having no requirement to produce proof that such theoretical jobs exist much less are available.

You don’t even know how unemployment is calculated do you. Are you aware that people without jobs are not always counted as unemployed? I leave that for you to explore.

Saying work in America isn’t compulsory is exactly like saying food isn’t compulsory.

Sure, if I don’t mind starving.

” It doesn’t have to be a public or even a private school. Parents may home school or register their children into virtual schools at any point therein, so no child has to go to a building with dozens or hundreds of others if the parents don’t want them to.”

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1331/Children-America-WORKING-PARENTS-CHILD-CARE.html

The reality of the situation is that children are hostages of the state. The only people that actually have the options you mention are the rich or the disappearing middle class. Though I hope that’s changing.

We live in a culture that shits itself with indignant shock when a parent so much as let’s her son ride the subway alone.

https://encrypted.google.com/search?btnG=Google+Search&q=son+rides+subway+alone

The idea of being unschooled is novel if not illegal and almost certainly inviable in most places in the United States. And you want to know why? See the Carlin video above.

“You expect a sovereign nation to act against its own interests? Really?”

I see semantics isn’t your strong suit either. And you rag on me for false dichotomy.

Note that I said “DOES NOTHING BUT.”

A state is more than capable of acting in its own interests IN ADDITION to the interests of its citizens from time to time. Our state does no such thing, EVERY action it takes from the war in Iraq to the social security system is made to forward one of it’s aims. Aid to us is incidental. It routinely attacks anything which could forward the needs of its people if it stands to incur even a minor loss of power or money.

Drug war, nuff said.

“So far you’ve shown nothing that would verify this.”

See above. The whole concept of a centrally regimented education system is a fools errand as much as a planned economy is.

*lowering dropout stats*

What exactly does that prove? Heh, we accredit colleges to prevent diploma mills on the grounds that infinitely high graduation rates indicate worthless education. Educators (math fetishists in particular) routinely bemoan the rising graduation rates as a SYMPTOM OF the broken education system. Looked at that way your stats actually back my point.

“Again, give us your evidence and not your cynicism. In the Denver Public School system, where my children attend and enjoy school, students overwhelmingly enjoy school. 82% “like going to school most days.”

Please. Setting aside Stockholm syndrome… They are children, and they have absolutely no basis for comparison. You might as well ask your inside cat how it likes being confined to your house. Put simply it doesn’t know any better. Our society treats children as property, and they by virtue of recent birth simply aren’t equipped to know what they are missing. And by the time they are adults, they no longer have a choice. Hell the entirely of a child’s data stream is censored anyway. God forbid they should hear naughty words or see genitals. *Victorian gasp of shock.*

I am one of the few that will speak out about children’s rights (like to the point of letting them vote) and I am universally scorned for it. Jesus man we can’t even make it illegal to hit them. We’re literally better to prisoners (in theory) than we are our own children we’re never in a governmental sense going to give them the freedom to to opt out of “education”.

True freedom will come for them only when technology obviates the state. So long as the state exists, children will be second class citizens.

Your polls are like asking Iranian women how they feel about burqa laws with their husbands in the room.

“Where do you come up with this?”

Logic. Another class you don’t teach. The needs of the individual conflict by definition with the needs of the state, that’s why we have a state. It’s called a common good problem and central structures have been required to mediate them since agriculture was invented.

Watch the bbc show connections for a fascinating exploration of that process.

Every other element of the social contract from property rights to protection from assault (for adults anyway) stems from this basic truth. The individual is caustic to the state. Education either empowers the individual, the child in this case, or it empowers the state by fashioning the child into an adult of a desired type.

Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me that your goal as a teacher and parent is NOT to produce in principal a socially adjusted adult? Sure your motivation may be benevolent, you may want “a good life” for “your” children, but the fact is, without that influence they may becomes something completely different than you were expecting, and is that unexpectedness not a threat?

Wake up. Your job is to churn out workers.

“I’m going to guess that you’re an advocate of individualism, because again there is a false dichotomy given here. Either/or, this/that, good/bad. You know, there’s a lot of gray in life.”

Indeed I am. And that’s a pretty phrase but its sadly untrue. Any precise statement is either true or false. the only gray is in our perception of it. Or put another way, rational minds can not agree to disagree on objective subjects.

To whatever degree you impose the state view on your children by definition you harm who they otherwise would have been via opportunity cost. And we don’t know that full cost because any individual can be a black swan event. Or put another way we don’t know what we don’t know. This goes back to what I was saying about not being able to imagine a world without football in schools.

A band of individuals will always respond faster than a monolithic system unless that system is so interconnected it ends up being a singular organism. Thats the argument behind capitalism isn’t it? Individual action adding up to a more efficient whole than a centrally planned economy? The whole Invisible Hand is faster than the eye routine?

“That was some convoluted reasoning. Hitting = torture, but some think hitting is good. Sports=harm (torture), so those that think hitting is good will think sports (torture) is good. Ergo, hitting=torture=harm=sports=non-deviant behavior. Huh?”

You have two options, either you are straw manning me or you fail to understand. Neither of which bode well for your defenses. Typing “huh” is not an argument. Brow beating and implication of scorn might get you far in a building full of captive middle school students but not with me. Ask a complete precise question, and get an answer of the like in turn.

Sorry I can’t make it simple and complete at the same time. Some data just can’t be further compressed without loss of fidelity.and of course I may simply lack the ability to compress it further even if it is possible.

“How did religion get in the argument?”

Because religion’s primary usefulness is its production of oblivious homogeneous persons. Just like education with it’s sports program intact. Agriculture made the product of the rank and file a requirement. Religion did it for most of humanity’s history. Recently education has stepped up as religion began to fail in that role.

“Cannot individuals gain personally from sports while also helping the team?”

In theory sure. But I can also learn a great deal about myself and come away a stronger person as a result of a heroin addiction. (I can provide a bevy of authors musicians and artists who have.) That does not mean we’re going to pass out H in gym class. The point is finding what is good in general for people. (Children are people.)

“The cross-country runner that tries to make a personal best each time she runs?”

Please. We don’t crowd around the TV watching cross country runners. We don’t spend 70 billion a year (http://www.sgma.com/press/3_U.S.-Sports-Industry%3A-Nearly-a-$70-Billion-Business) on cross country runners. (Its distressingly difficult to get a solid cumulative estimate of the size of the sports industry in America broken down by sport.) But this should help you out. http://www.sportsuntapped.com/the-15-highest-paid-nfl-players-in-2010-will-probably-surprise-you-111260/

You know what she’s not doing while she’s running like a hamster in a wheel? Helping humanity. The pledge-a-thon activity you’re about to mention is not fair because its an arbitrary payment. The doner could obviously donate without a runner.

“The football player that perseveres through pain and exhaustion to gain a starting position and a sense of success and completion?”

Go bust ass with habitat for humanity, the body doesn’t know the difference. Note you said “a sense of” not a reality of. Sure sports feel good, we’re made to fight, men especially. Built on apes remember? The question is the potential for good, and the reality of our lives as thinking organisms in a dynamic setting that is full of stuff constantly trying to eat us.

Sports is a great big festering neon distraction. (Yeah. Tool. What of it.) The price we pay for organized state sponsored football is WAY WAY WAY too high in every objective or ethical sense.

“Didn’t he just help himself and his team?”

He only helped himself in the sense that you convinced him the team’s well being IS his well being or you paid him in some way. That’s cheating. If I pay someone to do virtually anything obviously its good for them in the sense that I paid them. That does not mean the action itself is somehow rendered good. Indeed history is replete with horrific paid acts.

“The Susan G. Komen Race For the Cure has raised over $180 million dollars that has gone to research grants to end cancer.”

Ooooo and maybe if we weren’t spending 70 billion a year on sports equipment we’d have a full blown cure by now. Setting aside the fact that charity itself has issues. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g )

“This is bad? Tell me how this is bad.”

Two words. Opportunity cost.

The appraisal of the value of any thing must include the value of what is lost by having it. What does having this thing cost us? What does this thing’s existence prevent from existing?

Let’s drop the money from the Iraq/Afghan war and all sports spending into cancer research for a single year, and see what happens. They probably couldn’t even spend it all in the same year.

“…was off the mark on many points, only some of which I cited.”

By all means do the rest. Think of it as loyalty to your profession or if you have an open mind a rational testing of your logical resolve. Your children’s future is at stake after all. Given the principals of cognitive dissonance and post purchase rationalization, how likely are you, really, to admit an error if I am unequivocally correct?

” I’m not throwing it out the window.”

It’ll go out the window without your throw, the only question is how many kids are still in seats when it goes. There is a better way. And it’s on its way whether we’re ready or not.

“Most of our country’s populace was educated by public schools and we still are the most productive nation in the world. ”

By what standard? Our chief exports are trash and weapons. Weapons economically are negative in value, they destroy themselves, bombs explode, bullets fire, jets burn fuel. Etc. Did you read 1984? You must have. Just what do we produce? Even our entertainment is falling in value. Did you see how many awesome non American movies there were between 2000 and now? Man, we’re getting schooled out there. (pun intended)

“Sports can do children a great deal of good physically, emotionally, and psychologically while also having them interact with others. ”

And it can also destroy their bodies, distract them from important issues, and their own minds, give them body fixations, encourage sexism (cheer-leading is about as empowering as a money shot, not to mention jailbait fuel), and later on tear their ego apart. And as for interaction, they would do that anyway if we left them alone. And I hardly think slamming into some kid from the next country over is a meaningful interaction. I’d rather have them chat on myspace.

“This can be within the larger school setting or outside of it, but either way this is not necessarily bad. ”

Well, I guess we just disagree. And only one of us is right. The fact is our bodies are temporary and I don’t mean that in some mythical religious way I mean in time we’ll shed them like we did our tails. Some people almost already have. Hawking for example. That brilliant man effectively doesn’t even have a body and while he would I assume prefer one again he gets along with out one to our collective benefit.

I expect to spend my deep future in a sphere (yup, like in Phantasm) that manipulates its surroundings via surrogates. I hate my body, it’s a huge threat to my brain. Very few deaths percentage wise are caused by brain error. (setting aside behavior) The brain is extremely durable, it doesn’t even feel pain directly did you know that?

Sports embrace the body, they cultivate a visceral dopamine addiction. An instant gratification attitude that by definition costs the future. Sports cause all sorts of long term injuries and any health benefits are often temporary in the long run. From destroyed skeletons to brain damage to overt permanent sporting injury, in general anything that causes people to forcefully and repeatedly collide with each other or objects is a bad thing. That’s why they wear armor and padding. Even your cross country runner is going to have a bad back and knees probably.

“Do some kids hate school? Yes, of course. Do most? No.”

And you’re willing to sacrifice those that do. I’m not. Whatever theoretical good sports can do it absolutely does not warrant a state mandate. Your crap about the whole thing being voluntary is just that. You know even I tried out for the basketball team as a 3rd grader. You think that was a choice?

I don’t blame you for not understanding. You were a child once, you probably never had the chance either. By the time you got around to choosing your choices were already made just like the rest of us. Hell the whole western concept of a choice needs to be examined. Philosophy, another thing they don’t teach in school.

http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=558 And I’m not just bitching. I have some solutions.

“I spent a lot of time researching and writing this so I could attache background citations. Please do the same with yours. Making off the cuff remarks based on your opinions and assigning them a factual stance is irresponsible writing and thinking. ”

I spent about 4 hours on this reply I spend about that time on all my lengthy posts. I agree completely but there is a line between demanding citation and looking for an excuse to disbelieve as a result of vested interest. Careful which side of that line you are on.

The whole premise of the thing is the phrase “new world order” as if its a proper noun with a specific meaning. I have never liked that usage because it’s unfair. It’s impossible to cite.

The video pretty much opens with a bunch of politicians and aging fops talking about “a new world order” as if I’m supposed to be shocked.

I could do the same thing with a phrase like “a brighter tomorrow.” So keep that in mind.

However, it is capitalized in some of the offered documentation, and since all these people live in the same tiny social circle they clearly do mean it the same way. That is interesting, but regardless of whether or not some people mean it as a conspiracy tag, many others probably do not. In a way if it IS a conspiracy that’s a genius name for it, since in and of itself it’s plausibly deniable.

Also I don’t like Alex Jones, and his insanity. He needs to keep his mouth shut about his satanic ritual crap. He’s a zealot nutbar, despite being right about a great many things. And he has no idea how to actually change things, probably because he’s actually scared shitless of change (as are all fundamentalists)

0:28:49

Oh Jesus, it’s Alex. I wonder if he’s going to tell me about the evil gays. *facepalm* Oh really jackass? is that what I’m watching? Thanks for telling me. How about you plug something for us? Yea, that’s better, thanks. He seriously doesn’t realize he helps “the globalists” every time he opens his mouth because he discredits everything he talks about by being him and talking about it. Or hell, maybe he does. After all, no one’s killed him.

Back to the show. Later on at 0:37:53 we hear “Global Governance” This term is much better because it says something about intent. New World Order can literally mean anything so long as it’s new, applies everywhere, and has structure. What they are talking about is a bunch of people who though means subtle and gross have for whatever reason de facto control of society. Fine. Not at all shocking.

If you want to attack that, publicity and dvds are not the way to go. You have to attack the roots of their power.

The conspiracy people seem to think that its like… a bunch of people join a council, are given power, and then design wars. It’s the other way around. These people are a consequence of the system. They are a natural outgrowth of capitalism and the centralization that is required for our survival. You could shoot every one of them in the head right now and in 6 months you’d have replacements for all of them.

Our current world structure demands the existence of top down management because we have massive centralized systems. The conspiracy people don’t seem to realize that. They think the way things are is because these people exist when really these people exist because of the way things are.

If you want to change things, get behind a disruptive technology. (http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=663)

0:39:37

He’s right about dictatorships and the question he should be asking is why. He should look at these nations, where they have a new leader every 3 years because someone shot the old ones, and ask why time and again do dictators happen? Because, that is the most efficient way to solve the problems of state. Let me share with you something from SciFi that will convey what I mean. Bear with me here.

Data, Speaking about The Borg: “The technology required to achieve this biological and artificial interface is far beyond our capabilities. There are many advantages.” Riker: Speed being the obvious one. This ship literally thinks what it wants to do and it happens.”

This idea is the crux of why monarchy comes about time and again and why dictators rule in a simple setting. A group, by definition, can not act as quickly as an individual and there are two fundamental truths about reality that make that important. 1. No decision is usually worse than a bad decision. 2. Speed is more important than strength.

My core point on this subject is this. A king, given the current set of our technological abilities is a good idea, and killing the king will only give you a new king. There will always be people of influence. You can’t legislate morality. You have to have something to replace it with, else you get a power vacuum and that causes genocide. Just telling people to wake up accomplishes nothing. We’re not as stupid as you think. We see whats going on, but you’re providing no alternative of any kind, much less a viable one.

These Alex Jones types have no idea what to do with the world. They are full of flowery rhetoric and they are clearly to a man wholly ignorant of game theory. They are the intellectual equivalent of the Amish. And since they have nothing to offer and no idea how to strategically orient themselves for a true and lasting victory they are where they are, selling dvds.

Seriously. What do these people expect the powerful to do? Encourage dissent and lack of communication? What is the best way to wipe out an enemy? Shoot them or make them an ally? By definition, the most supreme form of diplomacy, merger, is a loathsome act to these people. They apparently Want to live in the shadow of war… Permanently.

Shock and surprise! People with enough power to actually change things actually trying to change things for their benefit. By definition that’s a conspiracy yes, but then again so is a school of fish. It’s cellular automata. It’s rational decisions made by the thousands leading to a trend.

They want to prevent war and prevent revolt. We need government to manage our central systems to keep us alive because without central management we get insoluble common good problems. That’s a fact. That MUST be changed (the only way it will is disruptive technology) before we can get rid of the state, and the desire for a half assed patch work system of states (National sovereignty and states rights) is just a check list for permanent war.

I’ll give a flying fuck about national sovereignty and states rights when I can be a nation or a state. As it stands it’s a choice of who owns me, and if I have to make a choice I’ll go with the one least likely to get me starved or shot. These pampered yuppie theorists have no idea what’s going on or what would happen if even a 5th of their lunatic wishes were granted.

And I’m sick and tired of fear mongering and spin being used to sell dvds. Loose change was epic journalism. This is a bigoted Luddite church commercial.

0:43:52

Yes because people are stupid. They don’t think about the long term. Hell, they buy bottled water for fucks sake. You have to “Frog’m” as my dad puts it. You have to do it slowly. Good or bad. And if you assume that nations will ALWAYS exist the centralizing effort is the only rational answer. War MUST be made obsolete. Basically everyone is bitching about the price of peace. Easy to do when it’s not your toddler that blew off his hands thinking the bomblet was a toy.

These fake wars are there to extract money from YOU and keep YOU out of the way because you’re a meddlesome moron that asks the sky fairy for protection while beating your children and ranting about the NWO. If you people weren’t so stupid and breeding like roaches maybe the people who manage to run everything would level with us. But if we were that smart we’d not have let them get there in the first place. Ultimately, we’re just jealous.

We all want to be safe, and being powerful helps.

The thing is, nations ARENT always going to exist. But these theorists actually want them too. Don’t you get it guys? You’re demanding the permanence of the very conditions that gave birth to these people you so hate.

You’re CREATING the conditions in which they thrive.

0:47:37

Uhh, yes it is a systemic reaction. That’s just you being ignorant of life and the interaction between humans and reality.

How did they GET powerful? Why only powerful people? How many were powerful BEFORE they joined these groups? These are important questions. Sure people are born into money and power but as far as the CFR and the like these people had money and influence or their families did before the groups existed. That’s an important point.

It’s like the mafia. Everyone wants to be a gangster so they can kill people, but it’s the other way around, the mafia takes you in because you kill people.

They ARE trying to be secret. And YOU’RE why! You CLEARLY don’t understand, generally. You want oversight, but at some point oversight will kill us all.

The reason these people have to try and stay underground is because people by and large don’t understand statecraft enough to realize that shooting the king is a shit idea. You people would muddle the process so badly with ignorance that nothing would ever get done. (Congress) You conspiracy people wouldn’t tolerate them being rulers in the open! When rulers by virtue of the current state of humanity and technology, are exactly what we require. Again, Look at Congress. Would you REALLY want THEM in actual charge? Sure you can say the CFR types elect them. But did they put a gun to your head? We could write in and get whoever we want as president. Do we? No, because we can’t be bothered. And if we were EVER going to be bothered it would have happened by now.

People complain about congress being a sham, well thank fucking god! They’re a bunch of religious psychos, liars, and coke heads… and we elect them! We’d all be radioactive glass by now if they were actually in charge.

Name your state’s representatives and senator. Yea I thought not. (me either, don’t feel bad) You know why? Because ultimately people don’t want to be bothered with power. They want the perks and none of the sleepless nights.

The problems that are blamed on the elite are really manifestations of systemic issues with our reliance on centralized structures. I say reliance because the alternative is death. (currently) The materials economy, belief in the efficacy of punishment and reward, the concept of property, etc. These have consequences. And while the most noteworthy is us being alive, not all are good. The only possible solution to an absolute common good problem is coercion or deception of the individuals in question. I’m sorry if that sucks but that’s how logic is built here. Blaming these power mongering psychopaths is missing the point. Sure they are assholes, but you have to understand the soil from which these weeds spring.

A lawn mower isn’t a solution it’s a stopgap. Alex Jones and his ilk fear the level of change required. Hell most of them still rely on a personal sentient god for sufficient comfort to live. Sky Santa for the win. (I’m a deist btw.)

We have been manipulated on a mass scale, but we demand it. We’re unwilling to share. We’re slaves to our animal nature. We fear change unless we’re SURE it benefits us and one can never be sure of anything. In short, we are afflicted with the human condition.

“Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you.” ~Ghost In The Shell

The simple fact is there is too much information for a single unaltered human mind to contain, let alone process. The beginning of wisdom is the statement “I don’t know.” That’s why we have specialists. People to focus. Leadership is a focus like any other.

In olden times the logistics of democracy were limited by location, we couldn’t go to the capitol and tend our land, so we elected leaders. (or tolerated leaders who took power) Now its an issue of information. What happens when leadership requirements grow beyond human capacity? What happens when the decisions needed are so complex that no person could cast a rational vote?

“That’s the problem with you people. You can’t think but five minutes in front of your face.” ~Matrix Revolutions

What happens when I tell you your jealousy, your inability to share a mate, is the Root tool used to control you? Then, well, even the foil hats say I’m nuts. You people create by your lifestyle choices the mire from which these monsters spring.

What the conspiracy theorists paint as dynasties of evil spring DIRECTLY from the notions of reward and punishment that they clearly believe in and the notions of property rights they clearly cherish.

1:09:52

Oh god here we go, paperclip. *facepalm*

http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=1383 That gets addressed here as well.

See? Clearly a function of ignorance. Why is it the very same people that scoff at McCarthyism’s childish, obsessive, fear of communism fail to understand that “Nazi” just means national socialist and that the majority of them didn’t give a flying fuck about the Jews and pointedly were not frothing insane evil monsters, instead focusing on personal well being like the rest of us.

How many people have cars killed? Did they not know cars would potentially kill people when they made them? Did they not make them anyway? not that car makers are nazis just that mass death is disregarded by apparently non-evil people. So what makes the Nazis evil? Torture? Murder? Bigotry? Sadism? Hardly unique stuff.

This notion that being a nazi makes you evil really needs to be challenged in this context when one considers that ALL of Germany became nazi when Hitler came to power. Many of these people are no more nazi in the contemporary way than I am a democrat because a democrat is in office.

And even if they were evil frothing Nazis so what? They were also national assets and human weapons. If you’re so for national sovereignty then you have to be behind us having the weapons and not the soviets. Or anyone else. If letting one nazi live unpunished (as if punishment has value) saved the lives of 10 million Americans or more by keeping a cold war cold, then I’m behind that call and I’m not sorry about it.

That’s the kind of decision you don’t want to make, so you ignore your congressmen. That’s also why I’m not running for anything.

Whole global warming thing:

http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=242

1:54:37

Oh here we go, chip fear. Man they really are touching on all the foily bases aren’t they.

http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=1369 for why that’s a bunch of crap.

It’s a technology folks. Used properly its no worse than a diabetic wrist band. And if it’s used improperly you can just cut it out.

1:57:31

Cute baby. Way to play the kid card. But you assholes already drop them in the social meat grinder of public education. Quit acting like you give a shit sufficient to change things. You talk a big game about sovereignty but lets talk about kids. You willing to let them have an adulthood test as opposed to an arbitrary chronological standard? Of course not, then they might be able to tell you you’re full of shit and you won’t be able to hit them for it.

http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=993 Interesting comments here about the kid card.

1:58:23

lmao I knew it, I should have predicted it, Alex Jones after all. He’s always gotta throw in his psycho Satan Illuminati pagan insanity. Probably conditional on him producing it. Alex: “I’ll sign on but you’ve gotta throw in some pagan occult, and gay bashing. No discussion.”

Skull and bones is populated with occultists about as much as Phi Kappa Kappa is peopled with Greek philosophers.

I suppose if you count homo-erotic hazing, pathetic live action role play, and cocaine use as esoteric occult ritual then yeah, it’s occult.

2:01:21

PAGN RITCHULS! GIT THA PITCHFERKS FELLAHS YEE HAWWW!

Seriously? On noes! Scary pagans!

It’s better than your boring ass churches and fat sweaty monster “speaking in tongues.” Show tunes aren’t my thing, but The Master and Margarita is one hell of a book. (pun intended)

2:02:13

Ignore the pain of others you say? Sounds pretty honest to me if you have ambition. Again, what about children? What about the concepts of punishment and reward? You people are shitting in the living room and then blaming the neighbors about the smell.

2:02:52

The reason the elite are linked with the occult is fairly simple. You just have the be a student of history and the mind. It boils down to the psychological power of habit and ritual, as Anton LaVey can explain in depth, and to the invention of banking, the Templars, and the church’s debt.

Look up why Friday the 13th (like the post date on this article? Maybe it’s a conspiracy!) is bad luck. The Templars invented the “chit” and later became the Masons. (Born in Blood is a great book.)

2:04:01

Let’s just round out this farce. Bring on the Gay bashing YAY! *Face Palm*

And that’s it. We’re done.

All that being said the objective statements made as far as I know are on the level.

It’s also entertaining as well as informative, barring the constant beg for money and occasional hyperbole. The old man interviewed clearly knows his stuff. His words alone make this worth watching.

And this does serve as a moderately useful “holy shit” moment for all those people too attention deprived to read a People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

For an explanation of the test, watch this video.

But there is a problem with the general (and this young lady’s specific) interpretation of the results of this test.

Assuming the Bechdel test shows that movies don’t cater to women, this does not equal a positive statement that they do cater to men.

Her approach is indicative of the general reaction to the test so I’m going to use it. She claims the results of the test on a large sample of movies reveal a “systemic problem” and I couldn’t agree more. Where we differ is just what that problem is.

She’s falling into an ego trap. A false dichotomy fallacy (and possibly others).

“…the entire industry is built upon creating films and movies that cater to and that are about men…”

That may be true (I strongly disagree) but even if so, that doesn’t follow from the test alone. All the test shows is that women lack interaction on screen. Nothing more. The reasons for this are still up for debate.

Given the female dominated (via sexual selection for attitudes towards monogamy) social rules which severely limit what a man can be, and what a man’s role is in terms of conflict resolution, coupled with our genetic psychological nature and physical distinctions, is it not just a little unfair to demand movies be made with these roles reversed?

Would fight club have worked with all women? Feminists constantly bemoan their under representation in career paths like medicine and science, but you know where else they aren’t? Garbage trucks, sewage treatment plants, coal mines, and all the other hard, dangerous jobs that you pretty much have to be forced into doing. And what’s usually forcing them? That same male role that suddenly doesn’t get any flak now that it’s profiting a woman. Men are consigned to life long slavery to their family under the traditional picture.

The males in these movies are hollow as well. Simply reverse the genders and look how silly the movies become. Women simply don’t attempt to solve major problems in the ways that men do. Indeed society is structured in such a way that they are often excluded from tactical situations. Feminists are quite happy to lay war at the feet of men and perhaps rightly so, but it’s unfair to then in effect call war movies sexist because they aren’t full of women.

Feminists need to understand that just as women don’t sign up to be coal miners and garbage truck workers they also don’t want to be shot at because they are rational. In short, men are in the center frame of these movies because the women were given the option and wisely stepped out. Indeed the truth of this is so well ingrained that the alternative makes for a interesting and novel plot all by itself. (G I Jane for example)

It is an established biological fact based on clear understandable evolutionary logic that women seek monogamy. This implies (mostly violent) competition on their behalf. If men are doing the competing, and women are simply waiting, which makes for more interesting drama?

The test is in spirit unfalsifiable because any time someone tries to make a movie that puts women on equal footing it is accused of putting a vagina on Rambo and calling it sexual equality. How often do feminists complain that lead women in movies are just men in dresses?

Put very simply, from Hollywood’s perspective women are peaceful and peace is boring.

The movies that fail the test suck for men too.

I’ve constructed a similar test for men’s roles in those movies which fail The Bechdel Test to show that just because the movie sucks for women, it doesn’t mean it’s awesome for men.

Basically, just look at the shit men have to go through in movies. And what for most of the time? To save a woman, to please a woman, to avenge a woman, to live (often “for” a woman, note the cliche “girl back home” death sentence), or for money (and what is the number 1 bonus of money in the mind of most men?)

1. Is the lead’s motive primarily linked to a female?
2. Is the lead’s well being assumed to be secondary to said female?
3. Is the lead forced to suffer in some exceptional way, kill someone, or die?

How many movies answer yes to all three? (I’ll be looking into it.)

My point is the movies don’t have to cater to men OR women. They could cater to gender stereotypes generally. And those stereotypes can be just as harmful to men as they are to women.

If the price of being the center of attention is the shit men go through in movies, I’d LIKE to be ignored.

It’s like the Chinese curse. May you live in interesting times.

Looked at from one direction the failure of the test could be a sign that we revere women by efforts to isolate them from trauma. I don’t hold that view (We revere women, no question, but that’s not why the test fails), but one could, and defend it.

Update: I’ve made a spreadsheet of the movies listed at http://bechdeltest.com/sort/rating which fail the test. The majority of the movies I haven’t seen.

So far here are the movies I have that answer yes to all three.

I’m willing to stipulate that a minority of the movies that fail will answer yes to all three, but mostly because the question doesn’t really apply, if men and women are fundamentally different in any way then it must become clear that some movies are not gender interchangeable and thus cries of sexism become as silly as calling a black hole racist. Still many of them answer yes to all three, and those that don’t answer yes to any of them still strongly reinforce submissive (to the status quo) male roles which require us to be strongly destructive and yet obedient while maintaining a carefully crippled emotional state.

The last popular movie with real depth of male emotions outside the roles was about gay cowboys.

nuff said

—

50 First Dates ( Dates with who? | A date by definition is to please a woman primarily. | She forgets him. )
8MM ( Dead girl. | He willingly risks his life to avenge a dead girl. | He permanently damages his mind. )
A Beautiful Mind ( He only cares because of his wife. | He submits to shock therapy to fit back in. | Ditto. )
Army of Darkness ( Gimmie some sugar baby. | He crashes his battle winning car to save her. | Zombies. )
Avatar ( Princess Blue | He attacks the military. | He’s forced to kill his former co workers. )
Batman Begins ( Rachel. | He routinely attacks the mafia. | Forced to fight, constantly. )
Braveheart ( Murron | Attacks the English in vengeance. | Is publicly tortured to death. )
Casino Royale ( | | ) *to be continued
Con Air
Conspiracy Theory
Equilibrium
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Forrest Gump
Ghost
Gladiator
Groundhog Day
Hellboy II: The Golden Army
Hitman
I, Robot
Identity
Impostor
Law Abiding Citizen
Moon
Ninja Assassin
Ocean’s Twelve
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
Point Break
Quantum of Solace
RoboCop
Saving Private Ryan
Serenity
The 40 Year Old Virgin
The Bourne Identity
The Bourne Supremacy
The Fifth Element
The Hurt Locker
The Incredible Hulk
The Legend of Zorro
The Terminator
The Truman Show
Transformers
WALL-E

This is a repost form my very first blog. I might update it i might not.

—

Many times when people read some of my work they come to the conclusion that I am cynical and that I hate women or view them in a bad light.

The purpose of this post is to answer that claim, so that I can have a full bodied response at my fingertips.

I consider myself a masculist, and here I’ll include the definition.

Well, in looking for a suitable definition, I found a lovely double standard.

According to Http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/feminism …

Noun

feminism

1.

A social theory or political movement supporting the equality of both sexes in all aspects of public and private life; specifically, a theory or movement that argues that legal and social restrictions on females must be removed in order to bring about such equality.

According to Http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/masculism … (until I edited it, I’m sure someone will put it back)

Noun
masculism (plural masculisms)

1.

A belief in the superiority of men or the masculine.
*

1983, Sheila Ruth, quoted in Judith Evans (1986), Feminism and Political Theory [1], ISBN 0803997051, page 70:
Fascism, fully revealed, is the extreme, exquisite expression of masculism, of patriarchy, and thus the natural enemy of feminism, its quintessential opposite.
*

1997, Nalini Persram, “In my father’s house are many mansions”, in Black British Feminism: A Reader [2], ISBN 0415152887, page 213:
It often takes a crisis of some sort to initiate the difficult but empowering feminist process of renegotiating the masculisms that dominate the discourses of origin, authenticity and belonging in a way that transforms margins into frontiers, lack into (ad)vantage.
*

2004, Thomas Schatz, Hollywood [3], ISBN 0415281350, page 73:
The Rocky-Rambo syndrome puts on display the raw masculism which is at the bottom of conservative socialization and ideology.

So, when one argues for equal rights from the man’s perspective, they are a bigot, but when one argues for equal rights from a woman’s perspective they are a civil rights figure.

Anyway, I’ll define masculism correctly, and continue to answer the charge that I am a woman hater or am cynical etc.
Noun

masculism

1.

A social theory or political movement supporting the equality of both sexes in all aspects of public and private life; specifically, a theory or movement that argues that legal and social restrictions on males must be removed in order to bring about such equality.
1.

For example, the social restriction on arguing that men are the oppressed gender in America. As if honor killings over the proper use of a burka are common in the states.

No, I do not hate women, I just feel that they are in an undeserved socially superior position. Like the blue eye brown eye school experiment demonstrated, whenever an oppressed group is given power over their oppressors on equally flimsy grounds they will act as badly as those who oppressed them. This is a sad human fact.

Feminists in the modern American context simply want revenge. They want a period of social superiority to make up for the long period of inferiority.

Granted, the global picture of women’s rights is a grim one, and feminists are indeed needed all over the world, and in those contexts I consider myself a feminist as well. But here in America, any disadvantages females encounter are consequences of their own choices.

For example, if a woman wants to complain about being a victim of violent crime then they should not subsidize violent men with mates. Time and again the smaller gentler man is disregarded in favor of the larger aggressive one. This means that what it is to be a successful man is inherently linked with violence because of the choices women make.

Rape is not a significant source of children anymore in the west on an evolutionary level, men desire sex more than women for hormonal and biological reasons, therefor women have more sexual power because more often than the man, the women becomes the gate keeper of sex, or as I like to put it, The Chooser Sex.

Women as a result generally get to choose when a family is formed. No glove no love, they can say. Thanks to legal favoritism they also choose who gets to be a father and thus THEY control what it is to be a man and father, because if a man or father does not measure up she can divorce him and take his child in the majority of cases.

Therefor it is not fair to blame men for how they are since how they are is largely under female control.

Pointing this out does not mean I hate or blame women. I consider this a social inequity perpetrated on both sexes by The Company (Corp/Gov/Church), using monogamy as its chief tool, for purposes of profit, as I have explained before.

I don’t hate women, I love women. I personally consider them my superior by default, as they are physically built better, from the gene up, and they are calmer and more compassionate by and large, which may be a reason they tolerate violence too much, their forgiving nature, but in any case this situation is the result of sexual selection practices they have instituted, and perpetuate.

This may seem conflicted, one might ask :”but if you consider them your superior why do you complain about their supposed superior standing in society?”

Quite simply because why they are superior in this society has nothing to do with why I consider them superior as a gender. Women in this society are superior because they posses a vagina, not because they have a gift for compromise, compassion, diplomacy, and personal strength.

Women are on top socially because they are desired sexually. This has nothing to do with their general advantage in the traits I mentioned above, which means that women who possess none of those traits are still placed on top, like Paris Hilton for example.

I think most everyone can agree that she’s a vapid monster. But she does not need to be hated because she enjoys sex or money, most of us do, and that’s nothing to be shamed of. She needs to be hated because she sells sex covertly and is part of a culture that encourages others to do the same, with disastrous results, such as anorexia. She demands pampering because she fits The Company’s social definition of beauty.

I wish the playing field to be equalized so that the traits I mentioned above can be accorded their due respect. And I personally believe that in an equal society primarily women would be in charge until such time as sexual selection or transhumanist pressures begin to more evenly divide those traits up among the genders.

No, I do not hate women. No, my view is not cynical, it is in fact hopeful. Sex is something sacred and it is a human right. To trade like so much beef is a grand sacrilege. It should be shared freely circumstances permitting. Sex is the perfect drug and we are all born with it, we should not have to pay third parties for it. And we should revere those who are kind enough to give it away or sell it at fair market value, not call them sluts and whores and attack them as if they were inhuman. Nor should we attack and humiliate those who wish to buy sex, or who openly want sex, for being perverts or pathetic, anymore than we should attack a starving person looking for a meal.

Some will blame men for their hunger, claiming sex obsession, but this is radically unfair. Sex is a basic animal need. Testosterone is what makes men different from women, and it is also the sex drive hormone in both sexes. Pointing this out does not make me a woman hater.

No, the fact is, its everyone else that has the dark and cynical view of love and sex. I see it as a crystal pure flowing stream. Not a dirty six pack of Dasani.

Editorial addition:

I have a problem with cultural aspects of general female behaviors and choices. But to have a problem with women simply because they are women would be equivalent to racism. I have a problem with choices, not people.

I love people.

However, yes, I have a dim view of some people as they are defined by their actions because of the choices they consistently make. No cynic thinks of himself as a cynic, they all think of themselves as realists. I personally think of myself as an optimist.

After all, look at the hope I show is speaking at all, if I was a cynic would I not take the attitude “why bother”?
Posted by Innomen at 1:41 PM
9 comments:

Ping said…

I can understand your defensiveness towards people concerning this subject because I’m sure they attack you regularly. It took a little bit for me to realize quite where you were coming from and to refrain from attacking you. Instead I chose to take a more intellectual route and try to get some form of understanding.

It’s good to hear that you love people, haha. To be honest, I hate most of the choices that women make, but I also hate some of the choices that men make as well. I try not to see things in terms of gender, just as I try not to see things in terms of race or even sexual orientation.

That is true, you do see a solution and a light at the end of your tunnel, which is better than giving up at all. Please do understand that when I say feminist or feminism I also mean an equality between the genders. There is a negative connotation today due to radical feminists who do happen to be man-haters or who want revenge for the oppressions in the past.

But I don’t go to protests, I don’t burn my bras, I don’t have a crew cut, and I love men. But I am interested in things such as salary equivalent for equally qualified individuals, despite gender. Even despite race, everything.

About your argument concerning sexual drives, to succumb to this primal urge and others we surely have, doesn’t it sort of degrade society to a more barbaric level? Also, if sex is such a sacred thing, doesn’t partaking in the act with anybody one feels like kind of reduce it?
Sunday, February 17, 2008 1:31:00 PM PST

Innomen said…

I am by no means saying men are innocent in all this, far from it, I’m just saying that when people with less power react to the actions of people with more power, their actions can be partially excused because with power comes responsibility.

When I speak of men and women I’m not referring to them as genders so much as cultures. Presence of a penis or a vagina means next to nothing compared to the roles, decisions, and power.

I also seek equality of the genders, as explained above. I never saw you as rabid or man hating. You do not come across that way at all. But as far as salary equivalence goes, as an anarcho-capitalist I believe that a business has the right to pay as little for a service as they can, the market function if untampered with will balance it out.

I don’t see sexual drive as a bad thing. To me its like hunger. People should be allowed to eat. The argument that freedom of sexuality will lead to over indulgence is flawed. It would be like arguing that making food available would turn the world into a giant roman vomitorium where people eat obsessively. Sex like any other need becomes less important to a person when the need is met. The argument is circular.

Lets say I starved a group of 50 people, and lets say I fed them once every 24 hours at a table and there was only enough for half of them. They would attack the table like wild animals. Is this an indication of what humans behave like when food is freely available?

And no having sex often does not reduce its meaning. Sex is sacred precisely because of its infinite and pleasurable nature. Beautiful women can with a word or a gesture bring pleasure to people costlessly. What cheapens this is selling it and withholding it out of petty jealousy or a desire for power.

Thank you for your comment, and replies.
Sunday, February 17, 2008 4:29:00 PM PST

Ping said…

I do not mean sex in abundance reduces it, as I have had sex repeatedly [with one partner] and it never felt reduced to me.

What I do wonder is… if a person is having sex with everybody on his/her street, doesn’t that kind of reduce it? If I chose to have sex with a guy who has banged everybody in my apartment building, I don’t think I would feel that great about the experience.

Many girls I know who choose to engage in sexual activities with many men confess later that they were participating in a form of self-destruction and self-worthlessness.
Sunday, February 17, 2008 4:45:00 PM PST

Innomen said…

No, thats what I meant. Sex is sacred because its one of the few things we have that can be shared without cost.

“Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.” -Siddhartha Gautama

Women are trained to identify their ego and self worth with the monetary value of their sex. This is dreadfully cold, and is precisely the type of damage I am trying to undo. Sleeping with everyone in your building merely makes it impossible to sell that sex, or the hope of it, for favors or advantage. But, you’ve created a lot of happiness, and given the nature of the demand for sex, you could continue to create happiness.

No ethically objective view can object to that in and of itself. Women are constantly being objectified. And I wish to remove that force from society, and ironically the best way to do it is to indulge the types of activities those in power say contribute to the objectification. It is their style of insidious genius to claim that the solution is actually the cause of the problems the their solutions to which usually cost you freedom money or both.

In this case the terms ’slut’ and ‘whore’ spring to mind. What are those terms? Slut, a woman who gives away sex, thus undermining their effort to sell it (They being the big three gov corp church.) Whore a woman who sells it directly thus cutting out the big three. Now you know why they demonize these activities. Money and power, thats it.

My goal in life is to give women back the power stolen from them so that men can be freed from the bonds of the big three.
Monday, February 18, 2008 11:32:00 AM PST

Bapudi said…

This, like most philosophy, is purely theoretical. I’m guessing you don’t have a wife/girlfriend. My advice: get one, and try putting your theories into practice. You’ll probably deepen your understanding of females and learn something about what it really means to be a man in the process.
Sunday, June 29, 2008 6:50:00 AM PDT

Bapudi said…

You’re missing a major point in your analysis of sex — when woman gets pregnant, she has to carry that baby for nine months inside her own body. If the man was interested only in “cost free” pleasure, she then has to raise it for 15-18 years. It’s true that birth control changes this, but this dynamic held true for millions of years. It’s a deeply embedded instinct. In other words, women’s role as “The Chooser Sex” is a survival skill, not some vast conspiracy to keep you horny or give women power. You have it backwards — women use their sex for money and power precisely because it is one of the few powers traditionally afforded them.
Sunday, June 29, 2008 11:27:00 AM PDT

Innomen said…

This, like most philosophy, is purely theoretical. I’m guessing you don’t have a wife/girlfriend. My advice: get one, and try putting your theories into practice. You’ll probably deepen your understanding of females and learn something about what it really means to be a man in the process.

Get one? Like a blender or a candle? What isle are they in? Who will I have to pay?

My theories are on the nature of interaction between males and females and the related social pressures. I put my theories into practice every day. I don’t need a girlfriend to understand how men and women are treated in this society.

Edit: I don’t have one and nor do I want one given their cost.

You may be content to let someone else dictate gender roles to you but I’m not saddled with such insecurity. Or put like my earlier feminist counter parts would put it: I’m not defined by a woman. I don’t need a woman to tell me who I am. I don’t require external validation because I’m a psychologically healthy (In terms of self consistency) self actualized individual. Regardless of the culture of humiliation. IE “You don’t want to join our little boys and girls club? You’re crazy and pathetic.”

I have no more pride in being a man then I have in being white. I’m comfortable being a man, I’m at peace with it. It’s part of who I am, but I didn’t earn it, and I don’t think it makes me better then anything or anyone, so I’m not proud of it. Your attitude is precisely the kind of hidden sexism I’m trying my level best to annihilate.

I’m a human. Not a man. And you or anyone else telling me what it is to be a man is as absurd as telling me what it is to be a person, which I cannot possibly fail at. I may not measure up to your social ideals, but your social ideas are subjective, personal, and I would guess from your comments, in my opinion, completely absurd.

You’re missing a major point in your analysis of sex — when (a) woman gets pregnant, she has to carry that baby for nine months inside her own body. If the man was interested only in “cost free” pleasure, she then has to raise it for 15-18 years.

You seem to see women as both devoid of the ability and the responsibility of and for making choices. It is not your place to tell a woman what to do with a child unless that child is yours and even then its not yours like a suit, its yours as in you have a relation.

Society decides what is done with a child, and society places various decisions regarding what is done in the hands of the parents, but not all. Society if it feels you’re not up to the task will take the child from you. If you fail miserably enough it will incarcerate you, or even kill you. You have an illusion of solitary child rearing in your skull that needs to be erased if you wish to reach parity with reality. My position is that children are raised by society as a whole in any case excepting feral children, which are absurdly rare. Parenting these days is largely about who pays for things more then anything else. The Company takes care of the rest, from the message they get at church, to the shows they watch on TV, to the lies taught them at school. Of course the Company convinces you that you’re in charge that way when the children utterly fail at begin human they can blame you instead of themselves, if they can’t find a profitable use for that failure first.

This system of encouraging psychosis and then profiting from it was in my opinion best exemplified by the SS. The HJ selected young impressionable boys, engineered submission to the group, fostered insecurity and jealousy and then gave them a victim. All that sounds disturbingly familiar.

It’s true that birth control changes this, but this dynamic held true for millions of years. It’s a deeply embedded instinct.

For one the human race is only about 200,000 years old. For two is the desire to slaughter your enemies with a rock is also an instinct. Are we to subsidize that as well? I don’t care how hard you find it to use your upper abstract reasoning to rule your lower primate brain, it is still required of you if you choose to be a human over a chimp. If you wish to indulge your base animal instincts and feel that their label of natural instinct justifies the resulting horror then go live in the woods, if you can.

In other words, women’s role as “The Chooser Sex” is a survival skill, not some vast conspiracy to keep you horny or give women power. You have it backwards — women use their sex for money and power precisely because it is one of the few powers traditionally afforded them.

Obviously the instinct originated in nature, I stipulate that. But The Company encourages it while suppressing others for purposes of power and profit. I think you’re struggling to justify a system that has you quite literally by the balls and you’ve chosen to attack the messenger.

We have the ability and this the responsibility to look at what we do, and make corrections for the benefit of the species. Unless you think pleasure and life are worthless.
Sunday, June 29, 2008 5:54:00 PM PDT

Bapudi said..

Get one? Like a blender or a candle? What isle are they in? Who will I have to pay?

No, you have to interact socially. They’re not a commodity, they’re people with whom you have to form relationships.

I put my theories into practice every day. I don’t need a girlfriend to understand how men and women are treated in this society.

I would argue that an intimate relationship with a woman would give you a less purely intellectual understanding of that.

You may be content to let someone else dictate gender roles to you but I’m not saddled with such insecurity.

I’m not, and I don’t. You obviously don’t know me. I’m not defined by a woman, and I don’t require external validation. But one does end up plumbing some depths of human nature in a close relationship that one doesn’t chatting with people online and writing theoretical treatises. The more intimate the relationship, the more you discover parts of someone that you’d never see otherwise. A different dimension is uncovered.

Being in a close relationship with a woman doesn’t mean I’m subscribing to society’s gender roles. My girlfriend and I actually blur many of the more superficial gender roles.

Your attitude is precisely the kind of hidden sexism I’m trying my level best to annihilate.

How exactly are you trying to do that? By arguing with people on the internet?

I don’t know what “attitude” you assume that I have. My point is that you’re not speaking from the deep experience of interacting with someone on a daily basis.
And I didn’t call you crazy or pathetic. In fact, my tone is not nasty or insulting at all, although that may change.

You seem to see women as both devoid of the ability and the responsibility of and for making choices. It is not your place to tell a woman what to do with a child unless that child is yours

Huh? I’m not telling anyone what to do with their child. I’m pointing out that sex means a lot more than “cost free” pleasure, which your analysis seems to equate it with. It comes with huge responsibility, especially for women. In an evolutionary sense, that has an impact on human nature. Read up on evolutionary psychology to get the gist of what I’m saying.

Society decides what is done with a child, and society places various decisions regarding what is done in the hands of the parents, but not all. Society if it feels you’re not up to the task will take the child

This is a non-sequiteur and does not pertain to the point I’m making. I’m not talking about how children are raised in society, I’m talking about how women’s psychological relationship to sex is hugely impacted by the reality of pregnancy and child rearing. Women are, to some extent, programmed by evolution not to just give sex away. If that impulse didn’t exist, the survival of the species would have been jeopardized.

Furthermore, this impulse can be observed in most animals that engage in sexual reproduction, with some notable exceptions.

For one the human race is only about 200,000 years old.

This is true of our exact species, but the genus is perhaps 2.5 millions years old (Wikipedia). The species delineation isn’t a sharp line, but a continuum of change. Evolutionary instincts didn’t change sharply one day 200,000 years ago.

For two is the desire to slaughter your enemies with a rock is also an instinct. Are we to subsidize that as well?

I’m not “subsidizing” anything, I’m describing to you a reality of human nature. Again, my point is that your theories are all a bit airy and intellectual, but not solidly grounded in an understanding of how people actually act.

But The Company encourages it while suppressing others for purposes of power and profit. I think you’re struggling to justify a system that has you quite literally by the balls and you’ve chose to attack the messenger.

I’m not justifying it. I’m not making a moralistic argument — you are. In my opinion, you’re spinning a paranoid fantasy about something that essentially has a biological basis. I mean, come on, “The Company”? I’m trying to inject a more empirical basis into this discussion. Does society really suppress the instinct to kill, or does it merely channel it into certain accepted forms (war, state executions, etc)? The same is true of the sex drive.

I’m not justifying this, I’m describing it. I think your description is unsupported by anything but your own speculation.

We have the ability and this the responsibility to look at what we do, and make corrections for the benefit of the species. Unless you think pleasure and life are worthless.

I certainly don’t think pleasure or life are worthless, but I’m not sure that it’s possibly to totally override many of our deeper biological impulses. You may accuse me of cynicism (which would be inaccurate, but we can discuss that as a separate philosophical thread), but I am skeptical that human nature can be changed by intellectual theories or social programs. It can be channeled or controlled, moderated or accepted, or even rejoiced in.

If you want to get personal, my read is that you are justifying your inability to be intimate with women by spinning grandiose theories of gender relations, without really observing gender relations from the inside. But I don’t really know you, so that may just be my prejudice.
Sunday, June 29, 2008 7:19:00 PM PDT

Bapudi said…

Get one? Like a blender or a candle? What isle are they in? Who will I have to pay?

No, you have to interact socially. They’re not a commodity, they’re people with whom you have to form relationships.

I put my theories into practice every day. I don’t need a girlfriend to understand how men and women are treated in this society.

I would argue that an intimate relationship with a woman would give you a less purely intellectual understanding of that.

You may be content to let someone else dictate gender roles to you but I’m not saddled with such insecurity.

I’m not, and I don’t. You obviously don’t know me. I’m not defined by a woman, and I don’t require external validation. But one does end up plumbing some depths of human nature in a close relationship that one doesn’t chatting with people online and writing theoretical treatises. The more intimate the relationship, the more you discover parts of someone that you’d never see otherwise. A different dimension is uncovered.

Being in a close relationship with a woman doesn’t mean I’m subscribing to society’s gender roles. My girlfriend and I actually blur many of the more superficial gender roles.

Your attitude is precisely the kind of hidden sexism I’m trying my level best to annihilate.

How exactly are you trying to do that? By arguing with people on the internet?

I don’t know what “attitude” you assume that I have. My point is that you’re not speaking from the deep experience of interacting with someone on a daily basis.
And I didn’t call you crazy or pathetic. In fact, my tone is not nasty or insulting at all, although that may change.

You seem to see women as both devoid of the ability and the responsibility of and for making choices. It is not your place to tell a woman what to do with a child unless that child is yours

Huh? I’m not telling anyone what to do with their child. I’m pointing out that sex means a lot more than “cost free” pleasure, which your analysis seems to equate it with. It comes with huge responsibility, especially for women. In an evolutionary sense, that has an impact on human nature. Read up on evolutionary psychology to get the gist of what I’m saying.

Society decides what is done with a child, and society places various decisions regarding what is done in the hands of the parents, but not all. Society if it feels you’re not up to the task will take the child

This is a non-sequiteur and does not pertain to the point I’m making. I’m not talking about how children are raised in society, I’m talking about how women’s psychological relationship to sex is hugely impacted by the reality of pregnancy and child rearing. Women are, to some extent, programmed by evolution not to just give sex away. If that impulse didn’t exist, the survival of the species would have been jeopardized.

Furthermore, this impulse can be observed in most animals that engage in sexual reproduction, with some notable exceptions.

For one the human race is only about 200,000 years old.

This is true of our exact species, but the genus is perhaps 2.5 millions years old (Wikipedia). The species delineation isn’t a sharp line, but a continuum of change. Evolutionary instincts didn’t change sharply one day 200,000 years ago.

For two is the desire to slaughter your enemies with a rock is also an instinct. Are we to subsidize that as well?

I’m not “subsidizing” anything, I’m describing to you a reality of human nature. Again, my point is that your theories are all a bit airy and intellectual, but not solidly grounded in an understanding of how people actually act.

But The Company encourages it while suppressing others for purposes of power and profit. I think you’re struggling to justify a system that has you quite literally by the balls and you’ve chose to attack the messenger.

I’m not justifying it. I’m not making a moralistic argument — you are. In my opinion, you’re spinning a paranoid fantasy about something that essentially has a biological basis. I mean, come on, “The Company”? I’m trying to inject a more empirical basis into this discussion. Does society really suppress the instinct to kill, or does it merely channel it into certain accepted forms (war, state executions, etc)? The same is true of the sex drive.

I’m not justifying this, I’m describing it. I think your description is unsupported by anything but your own speculation.

We have the ability and this the responsibility to look at what we do, and make corrections for the benefit of the species. Unless you think pleasure and life are worthless.

I certainly don’t think pleasure or life are worthless, but I’m not sure that it’s possibly to totally override many of our deeper biological impulses. You may accuse me of cynicism (which would be inaccurate, but we can discuss that as a separate philosophical thread), but I am skeptical that human nature can be changed by intellectual theories or social programs. It can be channeled or controlled, moderated or accepted, or even rejoiced in.

If you want to get personal, my read is that you are justifying your inability to be intimate with women by spinning grandiose theories of gender relations, without really observing gender relations from the inside. But I don’t really know you, so that may just be my prejudice.
Sunday, June 29, 2008 7:19:00 PM PDT
Innomen said…

I totally forgot to respond to this.

No, you have to interact socially. They’re not a commodity, they’re people with whom you have to form relationships.

They aren’t? Then why do models make more than doctors? Why is pornography a billion dollar industry? Why is sexual slavery a problem all over the world? Why have there been murders over women since before agriculture? What do you think marriage is/was?

If you think women are not a commodity you have your head so deep in the sand I don’t even know where to begin. It’s like you telling me there’s no such thing as humans.

“Relationship” is just a metaphor for courting and attempted copulation and the various fees of both abstract and real imposed by the market and participants.

I think Dianna Ross said it best.

“She said love don’t come easy It’s a game of give and take.”

I would argue that an intimate relationship with a woman would give you a less purely intellectual understanding of that.

No, you’re overwhelmed by social conditioning and emotion and you’re dimly aware of this and what it took to get you there, and you want me to join you. This argument is also employed by child abusers who want others to sympathize with there purely animal reactions.

Ever here the saying Can’t see the forest for the trees? Or being too close to a problem? Any student of problem solving knows that distance and objectivity are keys to clarity.

If anything my situation allows me to see more and clearer than you’re capable of. Your argument is like saying “You’d understand antisemitism if you were born into the Nazi party.”

I’m not, and I don’t. You obviously don’t know me. I’m not defined by a woman, and I don’t require external validation.

Again, you’re blind to the obvious. Look at your clothing, your entertainment choices, your modes of speech, your social position. you’ve been defined by women ever since your mother chose your crib color. You’ve been defined by women just as they’ve been defined by men ever since we made gender a social binary category. Your ignorance of your own motivations is staggering. You need external validation to survive, to keep a job to avoid jail. What do you think the social contract is?

But one does end up plumbing some depths of human nature in a close relationship that one doesn’t chatting with people online and writing theoretical treatises.

Boy that was like using a washcloth to hide an elephant. I think I like it better when people openly call me a basement loser. As above, proximity to an issue clouds it. I’ll answer the claim that I have no friends In detail in the next chapter. I’ll simply say you are mistaken.

The more intimate the relationship, the more you discover parts of someone that you’d never see otherwise. A different dimension is uncovered.

That’s only if you’ve been living a lie and believing one. You confuse discovery of ignorance with discovery of deception. I’ll use a crass but clear example. Whats it sound like when your girlfriend takes a shit? You find this out later because of intimate contact. You are ignorant of this at first because it is hidden. The desired impression is that women simply don’t have intestines. (As opposed to it being manly to fart, in some circles.) This “dimension” you speak of I already see. Of course I can’t convince you of that any more than I can convey the qualia of red. I see the root motivations of all intelligent action. I’m in parity with reality to a greater degree than you are, not less. I’ll let history be the judge.

Being in a close relationship with a woman doesn’t mean I’m subscribing to society’s gender roles. My girlfriend and I actually blur many of the more superficial gender roles.

Yet you feel the need to specify the gender, because a close relationship with a man might make you sound less manly. Gender roles are so ingrained in your behavior you don’t even notice them.

Do you have any idea how generic that claim is and how paradoxically common the attitude is? No one thinks they have a common relationship outside of cults who seek commonality. the believe that you are somehow special and different, and exception to the rules, a secret superior, is critical to the survival of The Company. If you thought what you had was bland and normal, human nature suggest that you’d seek to improve. Especially in a society based on the Horatio Alger mythology of hard work and novelty being the price of all success.

How exactly are you trying to do that? By arguing with people on the internet?

No, by writing of my opinion and submitting it for peer review in the laboratory of life. First in blog form, then in a book. The pen is mightier than the sword. but let me guess, the best way to change the world in your opinion is to have babies, right? And I guess you think you thought of that all by yourself as well.

I don’t know what “attitude” you assume that I have.

I don’t have to assume, you’ve shown it directly.

My point is that you’re not speaking from the deep experience of interacting with someone on a daily basis.

No I’m not. I’m speaking from a position of distance and objectivity. But I’ll say I’m far more intimate with my circle of friends than you are with your mate. Intimate does not mean sex as the TV has obviously convinced you. Intimacy is closeness, parity, real trust. a real trust that simply can’t be had at the same time as trying to live up to something. Thus I’ll always be closer to them then you are your girlfriend, because I don’t have to worry about my friends dumping me if I don’t perform up to specification.

I’m sure you think you can “be yourself” with “your” girlfriend, but the fact is you can’t. Proof? Think of ten things that would be fun that you could do to get dumped. Now lie to me and say you can’t think of any. My answer is that you’re either a liar or devoid of imagination.

And I didn’t call you crazy or pathetic. In fact, my tone is not nasty or insulting at all, although that may change.

Yes you did. Do you think by saying it may change makes it ok? Look like the law culture has penetrated pretty deeply. “Customer was given notice our liability is satisfied.”

I’m not telling anyone what to do with their child.

By telling me what do do with my mating habits you’re telling me what to do with family and thus my children.

I’m pointing out that sex means a lot more than “cost free” pleasure, which your analysis seems to equate it with.

Exactly. You think it means “cost full” pleasure. You think you have to pay someone (you probably think I’m talking about your girlfriend). Again since you’ve demonstrated a complete lack of imagination I’ll again specify abstract and real costs. And you think paying these costs gives you special privilege, that “real love” demands sacrifice. And you think this because the TV tells you so and your girlfriend parrots whats on the TV. You lifted you concept of what a relationship is, off prime time. Else how do you think they managed to get 300 million people to ALL adopt monogamy? Did you not notice what they do to polygamists? We burn them if we can’t break, humiliate, or neutralize them.

Don’t tell me its merely father to son tradition. If that were the case we’d still have a pillory in the town square and white’s only drinking fountains. TV is the great social homogenizer. Combined with church and school, it ensures that the only differences that propagate are the differences they allow.

As I said before, Intimacy is not sex. Sex can be a route to intimacy granted but then again so can a good meal or a long conversation. And intimacy need not be limited to one person, it can be had for several, such as equal love for a dozen children. Sex is a basic animal need. To demand that all sex must be meaningful and deep is akin to demanding that all sex leads to children.

It comes with huge responsibility, especially for women. In an evolutionary sense, that has an impact on human nature. Read up on evolutionary psychology to get the gist of what I’m saying.

I suggest you read my other work. I’m well aware of the impact of evolutionary psychology and biology on the human mating dynamic. That’s the whole point of this response. How you think is a function of the social pressure you feel powerless to combat. I’m well aware that sexual selection operating through the vehicle of female choice is the root of speciation. You and your kind are becoming a different species as per the demands of The Company. You’re becoming morlock and eloi.

This is a non-sequiteur and does not pertain to the point I’m making. I’m not talking about how children are raised in society, I’m talking about how women’s psychological relationship to sex is hugely impacted by the reality of pregnancy and child rearing.

So now you claim that there is no nurture, only nature? Where did that deeply important personal interaction impact go? How can you simultaneously argue the importance of evolution and discount the impact of child rearing? It is not a non sequitur, its just too big a problem for your mind to hold all at once. (I do not mean that as an insult, merely as a fact, like your height or race) What you’re only capable of seeing as a non-relation is in fact a crucial variable.

Women are, to some extent, programmed by evolution not to just give sex away.

And men are programmed to lethally bash in the skulls of their competition. We’re talking about the future and what should be.

If that impulse didn’t exist, the survival of the species would have been jeopardized.

And it should be discarded for the baggage that it is. Just because it was a good idea in the jungle doesn’t mean it’s a good idea now. Take our lust for fat as an example. The majority of medical science could be construed as a fight against biological instinct. Not to mention all of psychology.

Furthermore, this impulse can be observed in most animals that engage in sexual reproduction, with some notable exceptions.

Exactly. I grow weary of antler bashing heavy plumage and pointless competition. I don’t want to be an elk. I want to be a human, how about you?

This is true of our exact species, but the genus is perhaps 2.5 millions years old (Wikipedia). The species delineation isn’t a sharp line, but a continuum of change. Evolutionary instincts didn’t change sharply one day 200,000 years ago.

Don’t be pedantic. Your statement was made in the context of humanity. You even mentioned birth control in the same sentence. I don’t see a lot of fish wearing condoms. If you want to drag life prior to humanity into the mix I’m all for it. There are billions of examples of my correct appraisal of the situation to be found in the fish and insect kingdoms. Monogamy is an evolutionary dead end. Even the birds are abandoning it.

Humanity barring intervention will be sterile in around 150K years as a result of our mating system. We simply adapt too slowly now. Even an x-men style mutation would take thousands of generations to propagate sufficiently to save humanity. Much less the slow accumulation of traits typical of the evolutionary process. Watch Idiocracy and ignore the jokes. Or go read Adam’s Curse.

I’m not “subsidizing” anything, I’m describing to you a reality of human nature.

You’re subsidizing jealously with your defense of monogamy. Monogamy is an element of the social contract designed specifically to cater to jealousy. Rather than combat it like other elements of the social contract combat violence.

Again, my point is that your theories are all a bit airy and intellectual, but not solidly grounded in an understanding of how people actually act.

I humbly disagree. A simple look at divorce rates and other monogamy related statistics show that humans are serial monogamists at best and are actually closet polygamists by design both mentally and physically. Why do you think men make millions of sperm? 1 in 200 males alive today are directly descended from a single man. Why was Temüjin as a human male capable of this? Whence comes the desire for harems?

I don’t think its me that needs to do more reading.

I’m not justifying it. I’m not making a moralistic argument…

That is laughable. You seem to have already forgotten your own words.

– you are.

Indeed I am. Though I would prefer the term ethical over moral, but that’s a quibble.

In my opinion, you’re spinning a paranoid fantasy about something that essentially has a biological basis.

Ignoring the pejorative “paranoid”, yes I realize it has a biological basis. See below.

I mean, come on, “The Company”? I’m trying to inject a more empirical basis into this discussion.

Yes, “The Company.” A mocking tone is not a counter argument. How that’s for empirical?

Does society really suppress the instinct to kill, or does it merely channel it into certain accepted forms (war, state executions, etc)? The same is true of the sex drive.

I am not allowed to kill my fellow citizens, which is acting on hatred. I am allowed to be monogamous with them which is acting on jealousy. War and executions are specifically carried our dispassionately (in the ideal.) That’s why we don’t hand murderers to their victim’s families or openly torture them.

I’m not justifying this, I’m describing it.

Badly.

I think your description is unsupported by anything but your own speculation.

And you’d be wrong.

I certainly don’t think pleasure or life are worthless, but I’m not sure that it’s possibly to totally override many of our deeper biological impulses.

I am. See below.

You may accuse me of cynicism (which would be inaccurate, but we can discuss that as a separate philosophical thread), but I am skeptical that human nature can be changed by intellectual theories or social programs. It can be channeled or controlled, moderated or accepted, or even rejoiced in.

You need to explore paradise engineering and transhumanism. I agree that no mental discipline or policy will solve the problem, instantly. But, policy (political) pressure shapes a society, and so does removing it. If we legalized polygamy (I reject the term polyamory) we’d be better off in the long run.

If you want to get personal, my read is that you are justifying your inability to be intimate with women by spinning grandiose theories of gender relations, without really observing gender relations from the inside. But I don’t really know you, so that may just be my prejudice.

*smirk* And I thought you weren’t taking a moral stance. By this logic in order to understand pedophilia I’d have to sleep with children. Or in order to understand serial killers I’d have to have a few bodies in my crawl space. Only in the realm of mating is crap like that tolerated. Because they want us to go “Oh yeah? Well I’ll just go get married do my job and have kids, that’ll show ‘em!” I won’t fall for such transparent (to me) manipulations.

As above, intimacy is not where I can put my dick. and that’s basically what we’re talking about. For example I’m quite intimate with my mother, and with my friends, and yes some of them have vaginae (shock and surprise.)

My apologies for the vast delay.

In regard to the following clip.

On stumble there has been some doubt expressed about this video. One guy in particular said: “Euhm… is that really how it works? If a girl thinks something is normal it turns automatically in an obligation???”

Let me tell you yeah that’s EXACTLY how it works. I don’t know about you but every city I’ve been to pretty much had a dress code for girls. In smaller towns and suburbs especially. Around here it’s the tank top, showing bra, and short shorts. To think this kind of media inspired homogeneity does not extend to their sex lives is asinine self delusion.

Now I realize my life is hardly a representative sample but I lived though my late teens in my own home with drug dealers (who were also very good people thank you very much) as roommates, so I know a little something about people screwing each other. And let me tell you, monkey see, monkey do. ESPECIALLY when it comes to sex since as this brilliant woman points out porn is de facto sex ed.

What you end up with is face sucking, (the TV substitute for sex evolved from the practice of mother’s spitting into infant/toddler mouth) and the “hardcore formula” as anyone who has seen more than two vanilla hetro pornos will immediately recognize. (Oral, oral, missionary, doggy, money.) Oftentimes prefaced by watching the very porn under discussion, almost like a (literal) fucking cheat sheet.

Her position is closely related to what I was speaking of in this post. http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=781 “The Myth of Romantic Pr0n”

And I think some romantic porn for men with compassion is just the ticket, and I don’t mean sycophantic female sex object permission seeking worship, we already have plenty of that, but some genuine loving fantasy for men that keep the face spraying to a minimum.

And she’s also absolutely right about this shit changing the world. I wonder how she’d feel about my solutions. http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=406 “The Solution”
http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=663 “Disruptive Technologies: What can I do?”

It’s so funny to me how much “cool” stems directly from over reaction to insecurity. Which is what all torture (even fantasy) is, either from the insecurity of the state or the insecurity of the individual.

Ironically it also applies to the tortured. Though for them it’s physical insecurity.

Have you guys noticed how torture has become the new death?

Can any of you honestly tell me movies like Saw and Hostel weren’t born directly from the fact that torture and the bad guy winning is what made Se7en a smash hit? Marathon Man? Midnight Express? The Siege? Brazil? If you can deliver an artful torture topic/scene rest assured your work will be known.

Hostel is probably the most honest and refined for mas consumption version of this as of this writing. The plot of the movie focuses on the market value of being able to torture someone.

I think this fetish for torture stems from a clearly implied logic. If you’re torturing someone you’re not being tortured. You may be tortured later, but while you are doing the torturing, by definition you are immune to torture.

This is a big deal psychologically speaking since threat avoidance is a huge part of human behavior and torture is clearly also by definition the worst thing that can happen to a person. In my insecure teen years and even early 20s I remember reading 1984 and being fascinated with O’Brien, I remember wanting to be a torturer, but I also knew even then the paradox. I wanted to cause pain because I was angry with pain.

It’s like being intolerant of the intolerant or torturing a torturer. What are the ethical implications of the desire to do something to someone for the very thing you want to do to them?

Does it really boil down to who struck first? I think this is why I tend to reject vengeance. It just seems ultimately counter productive. Getting information from someone can be accomplished much better through trickery.

To be clear killing someone for a particular crime is not vengeance that is threat avoidance. However I am against the death penalty because our court system is really bad at making decisions, however some people clearly deserve to die. My solution generally is to arm the populace to the teeth and let the problem take care of itself.

Social convention is the will of the majority thus we will always outnumber criminals by definition, so I don’t see a problem with handing out guns. A nearly crime free society is worth the accidental and wrongful deaths that might come with those guns. This line of thinking should be familiar to you, you employ it every time you see a car wreck fatality and fail to sell your car. It’s about the good outweighing the bad. It’s paying for an advantage by gambling with your life and you do it every day. Shooting for perfection can be counter productive.

Anyway, Torture is the direct result of ignorance.

If we can convince people that 911 didn’t involve some kind of internal conspiracy we can convince anyone of anything. Perhaps one of the most dangerous aspects of the human mind is how strongly it wants to be lied to.

I can’t help feeling superior to the whole torture porn crowd now. It just seems childish to me, like an arms race of shock value. And it just gets silly after awhile. Saw 5? Come on.

Torture stopped being dark and edgy a long time ago.

And while we’re on the subject why is it when men get tortured in film its all grunting and gnashing like some Maori war chant but when women get tortured its all whimpering and moaning like phone sex?

It’s weird, like how Japanese sex scenes always sound like rape.

Either I’m obsessed or the enforced primacy of gender roles is everywhere. To the point of the expectation that even under torture we maintain them.

I’m sorry but if someone is working on my face with pliers I’m going to cry and whimper and beg. It doesn’t matter how manly I do or don’t look.

Intense sexual regulation, rBGH, pedo paranoia, abstinence training, and monogamy obsessed media, results in the following.

Low IQ Guy, (Intense sexual regulation keeps away all but the stupidest potential mates) taking the now very fertile and willing, (rBGH) girl’s virginity at 16, (who is dressed for the part, and lets him thanks to monogamy obsessed media) meanwhile instead of a condom the couple has only a promise ring, attempt to “pull out” based on hear say (abstinence training). Yay! Teen pregnancy.

New parents now spend so much time working they fail to properly raise their child, instead relying on TV (monogamy media) and the state (abstinence training) to do the job. Fast forward.

Father, sees daughter hit puberty at age 10(rBGH), becomes obsessed with the idea of some moron taking her virginity at “sweet” 16(pedo paranoia), heaps on the external discipline (Intense sexual regulation) and creepy level of “concern” for her sexual habits(monogamy media), forcing her to seek freedom in rebellion and deception (Intense sexual regulation). Father thinks he has an asexual princess because she’s good at changing clothes in the bathroom now (Intense sexual regulation). She rebels at the mall by shopping for sexy clothing and acting just the opposite of what her father suggests, as the TV tells her, meets cute drummer who looks 19 thanks to (monogamy media) maxim mag, he in turn thinks she’s a 19 year old hottie because cosmo mag (monogamy media) taught her 19 ways to drive men wild. Bam! Teen pregnancy.

Father says to drummer marry her get a job and pay up (monogamy media) or I’m pressing charges (Intense sexual regulation) and that pregnancy is going to send you to prison for (pedo paranoia) child rape.

Rinse lather repeat.

I was reading The Damnation Game by Clive Barker and in it there’s a charcter who is obsessed with porn and in listing his collection Clive mentions “romantic” porn.

Curious if such a thing existed I Googled it briefly. As you might expect all I found was normal porn and gay porn labeled “porn for women.” But it got me thinking about why such a thing doesn’t exist, and if not why not?

It’s a hugely complicated issue when I spent a moment on it. Basically it has to do with the real purpose of why society openly tolerates porn in it’s current form now. Porn’s real function is not to satisfy sexual appetite but to exacerbate and shape it.

Porn always has a lot missing. And before you say “well yeah that’s because it’s porn” I say well still there’s a gap that logically should be jumped. In romantic comedies and mainstream movies romance always comes with trials. The men always have to earn the sex (and more importantly the approval and affection) in some way. But humans like the idea of getting something for nothing. There should be media to cater to that fantasy, that reward of affection and approval without saying why, or saying why in some vague and universally applicable way, for example just because the lead is male, which is what some fundamentalist types are often after. A culture where they are accepted by default for being born the way they are, as males.

Seduction for its own sake while tremendously common among actual men and women would also be a theme that should be common if porn was actually about fulfilling a need and not making it worse. Contrary to what the TV would tell you, women do occasionally seduce men for what amounts to altruistic purposes. Women also positively respond to direct questions and requests in this context from time to time, but again that never makes the boob tube because the point of romantic comedies and TV relationships in general is to train men to be obedient workers and to train women to be compliant (to the will of the TV) hall monitors and prison trustees.

The gap is between the earning of the romantic comedy and the sloppy unsatisfying reward of pornography. We all know that sex is the implied reward of fulfilling the masculine end of the gender spectrum’s social contract, but there is more, a romantic, emotional element that has been suppressed along with the rest of the male emotional spectrum. Indeed among a man’s assets when listed in an attempt to display his worth is often explicitly stated in relation to the sex appeal of his wife. “He had a beautiful wife and loving children” or the like.

There should exist in media the reward segment that falls between these positions. Or depictions of the kind of conquests real men and boy fantasize about, even attempt, but rarely if ever accomplish. For me it would be very direct, new girl shows up, events conspire to produce time alone, conversation happens and they go from there, but in the missing media it would be idealized. Love/lust at first sight, only with a normal looking human.

The dialog would ideally be crafted to cater to insecure men. Twisting the situation and the female’s responses such that common “mistakes” become advantages. Failure morphed into success.

Instant girlfriend, not just sloppy sex with cookie cutter script and ugly french fingernails. And don’t talk to me about soft core porn because that’s just models or over the top crappy “skinemax” type movies.

There are things that come close of course. Red shoe diaries, a small (official?) part of the Emmanuelle series, the Story of O, Secretary and some hentai. Also in my opinion, Dream On, and in some ways, Californication. But I’m thinking romantic porn should be a full fledged subtype. And these examples always struggle to justify the acceptance, or to gloss over its absence with some sort of distraction. Story of O for instance we’re never told really why O has such fanatical devotion for her man but he’s depicted as handsome and painfully rich and if that’s not distracting enough we have the entire BDSM element to shock us away from thinking about it.

A video simulation of all the positive aspects of having a girlfriend should be a sizable market. A video that makes lonely guys feel not just indulged, but wanted, successful, as people. Depictions of worlds where they are fulfilled and enjoyed, worlds where the guy not capable of being the hero, ugly or not, nerd or solidergod, “finds someone”.

If nothing else it surprises me that there aren’t male chauvinist themed porno films. Like, over the top 1950s good house keeping meets Jenna Jamison. Now I don’t mean the 5 seconds of back story on some porn movies, I mean like selling a whole world to the viewer populated with fantasies. Just look at how everyone is reacting to Madmen. You can’t tell me that’s not 90% attributable to a depiction of a world full of sexy ladies content to be “the little woman”.

I think the reason romantic porn of these types, media that fills the gap, doesn’t exist is precisely because it could exist so easily. I think that gap is there so that men are induced to seek it in real life “no matter the cost” as per their television and sexual stereotype instructions. Given some men’s reaction to sex dolls and hentai, I think it’s clear that an extensive romantic porno collection could provide some men with everything they need, perhaps a substantially larger portion of men then the current social picture of a artificially satisfied man, the loner pervo image, would suggest, or is comfortable with. In much the same way that a good horror movie collection plus video games is more than adequate to the task of satisfying our more violent impulses.

There is also the fact that porn of this type would require actresses capable of selling the impression that they strongly like the lead male without having any idea why. Seeing that done without having some excuse to “justify” that emotion could seriously damage some people’s world view.

Showing an actress perfectly mimicking how your girlfriend or wife actually treats you when you’re home alone and happy could make you a little paranoid. And in a society with an economy based on monogamy and sexy female approval/permission as the end all be all achievement, that could cause some SERIOUS problems.

I think that’s exactly what they don’t want. And the rest of my blog explains why.

Funny how quickly the pendulum swings in the other direction. It’s like the blue eye brown eye experiment.

For decades women in America were trained to change themselves to please men, to the point of having whole institutions dedicated to it. (They were called finishing schools.)

And then a generation of fierce independent brilliant women within a single generation undo all that damage and for the first time in history women are on truly level footing. Of course you press home the advantage, as would anyone I suppose.

And now a whole generation of women and girls grow up never having any idea what its like to be banned from sectors of life just because they have a vagina, and what do you do with it? Do you show yourself to be ethically superior? No. You sow the seeds of a new sexism. You demand with a straight and shameless face that men train themselves to suit your whim.

What’s really interesting to me is how many times I’ve had this conversation. So many young ladies selling themselves as something they will never be. Unique. You all actually seem to believe that my refusal to live up to your collective expectations is somehow a negative reflection on me.

I’ve read that logic before, generations ago. Males who thought themselves superior by design, confused and angered when women failed to serve in some way. “Frigid bitch” they cried. As if wanting nothing to do with some loathsome caveman was a flaw in their character.

I suppose you think you’re entitled. Eye for en eye eh? Eh, who knows. Maybe you are. But remember only those in charge have the power to change the rules, and if they don’t change, someone’s always going to be in charge and it won’t always be you.

DANGEROUS PEDOPHILE RAPIST MOLESTER!! BURN HIM! That poor innocent dove, someone kill that loathsome manbeast sicko perv QUICK!

>.>

That’s what I’m supposed to act like right?

What’s really funny is all the comments on stumble and the like about how she looks older. I’d bet my thumbs they are very nearly the same age. It’s like no one actually believes girls can look college girl sexy at 12, despite the fact that we all know that young girls use the proceeds of a mutli-billion dollar fashion and cosmetics industry to dress to look older while simultaneously college “women” use the same technology and systems to dress younger, and both for the same reasons. Because the TV/movie said so.

Of course it’s not a conscious thought, it just surfaces as preference. A vague monkey see monkey do effect of default control. “Well that’s just how girls are.” When 99% of examples of girls they see are digital or under the same digital influence as they are.

No wonder they all wear short shorts with writing on the ass.

It’s like they refuse to believe it, because if they did suddenly they’d have to choose between being a pedophile by their twisted definition (“OMG you think a kid looks sexy PEDOPEDOPEDO! Where are my apples?”) or realizing that society’s most hated might not be slimy loathsome sadistic monster 100% of the time after all, that in fact they might be totally normal men simply confused by what amounts to a perfect illusion.

But that makes us question the nature of culpability, responsibility, free will, the roll and effect of movies and advertising in our society, and we bloody well can’t have that.

And if there is one thing people hate more than ANYTHING its having to give up a scape goat, especially when the process requires them to face a real social problem.

You know whats great about that class of pedophile haters? They are the same kinds of people that correlate being black with being a criminal to avoid understanding oppression, poverty, and a corrupt justice system.

P.S. If you think this picture is an isolated incident, just put “jailbait” in Google images.