Pity

Urstruly #43, ``The problem arose when women became non-dependent of men.``

WRONG, it wasn`t a problem, it was a solution to hundreds of years of being doormats.

``The new liberated women now associate sex with their past dependence on men, which pains them.``

WRONG again, women don`t think with their gonads as men do, thus sex isn`t the driving force behind their ``liberation.`` It is men`s supression and his need for woman`s submission that motivates women towards liberation.

``The delima thus is that women want ``love`` but they do not want to obey the other clause of the contract i.e. they have to satisfy the lust.``

what? (delima = dilemma by the way)

``This argument may be extended to include the new woman`s insistence on monogamous relationships on part of men.``

And what`s wrong with the insistence on monogamous relationships? The age of the hen chasing, procreation driven rooster is gone. STOP using that outdated, biological explanation for men`s wandering desires.

What if a woman demanded polygamous relationships? Would her spouse/lover happily agree to that? I think not. What is the point of marriage or of having a serious relationship with a person of the opposite gender anyway?

``Men and women must recognize the fact that they are two different species.``

Nope, they are one species, two types. Both have libidos, both have brains to control them. Both have a responsibility to this world and to their children. That doesn`t mean that they both like wearing lipstick, but who cares about such measly differences. Save for the special maternal role of woman, we`re essentially the same.

``Therefore, they cannot be ``equal.``

I suggest you study the Yin and Yang sign deeply.

Look at it, evaluate it, and come up with an answer. Men and women are complementary, equal in what matters the most, unequal in what matters the least.

Re: PM, #45

``I`m lost here...I`m really confused``

I thought you would be. Your post reflects that.

Patrick M, you`re a nice person, mainly because you know the word koan. You`re too innocent, though. It`s a tough world out there. Watch out.

Re: Your Post #47

``which do [you] enjoy more-- the righteousnes or the indignation??``

With two question marks? Both and neither!!

urstruly:

Kindly enlighten us as to how many decades have passed since your last encounter(platonic or otherwise) with a member of the fairer sex. Please discount any cyberspace encounters.

Thanks

-sac

re. #43

Urstruly, your post made good sense, especially (and at least insofar as by `women` you mean the most feminist among them) ...

``The [dilemma] thus is that women want ``love`` but they do not want to obey the other clause of the contract i.e. they have to satisfy the lust.``

Fine. But then you go and throw in this curve ball just to forward your apologetics again:

``... This argument may be extended to include the new woman`s insistence on monogamous relationships on part of men.``

If indeed woman should relent on the monogamy demand, why should the new contract not allow for extramarital ralationships instead of polygyny, esp. given that there are actually more women than men on this earth? I asked u this question earlier on another board, but you declined a reply.

rgds,

PM

Godot:

In my infinite naviete, I came up with this idea: Those unburdened by the weight of guilty consciences will happily bandy these ultimately innocuous jokes, while other unfortunates will have their guard up so high that the mere mention of certain unPC words will inspire in them bouts of righteous indignation.

Now, which do enjoy more-- the righteousnes or the indignation??

re. Godot #42

``So, you are suggesting that, since non-desis are highly unlikely to visit this forum, it`s fine to throw gross and tasteless jokes at them. Who is being politically correct here, me or you?``

I`m lost here. How would my suggesting the above constitute political correctness? Last time I checked, it wasn`t PC to say unPC things behind backs either. BUt what I`m really confused(flcker, flicke :)) is how you construe the jokes as being ``thrown at them``.

First, I did not suggest that it was ONLY because non-desis are highly unlikely to visit that these jokes were kosher. I said especially. But mainly, I argued that most blacks would be quite willing to laugh along, especially because the joke did not attack their race, their heritage, their nothin` :). In fact, nothing was ``attacked``. Trust me, I`ve got genuiune (acutally, 50%) Black Americans for cousins, so I know!

``Don`t flatter yourself. You are as far away from Tao as the earth from the milky way``

Now, since the earth is part of the milky way, I can only imagine you`re throwing me a koan there. Thanks.

And please, lighten up. Try to consider that an action may be wrong or right depending solely on its RESULTS. Send PC on vacation. It`s a liberating experience, really!

rgds,

PM

re. scout #41

``... the only thing changed in a homosexual man (as compared to a heterosexual man) is the object of his sexual desire, not his libido itself. So if the testosterone driven desire/lust remains, how can you (or the Greeks) say that what a gay man feels for his partner is based on sheer love as opposed to sheer lust?``

Good point. Quite right. And no, I was not pushng the Greek spin, not because I think they had it wrong, but because I`m aware of how different the conceptual landscape is two and a half millenia later. First, the Greeks (Athenians, acually) didn`t have a word, an identity, to describe exlusive homosexuality. All men of nobility were required to - shall we say `nurture` - adolescents of promise-- while still performing their procreative duties with women.

While there might have been an element of lust operating even in those relationships, it cerainly wasn`t the driving force behind them. (But who knows-- what with the complexity of mixed motivations!!)

In the present age of politicized sexual identity, you`re quite right in questioning that ``what a gay man feels for his partner is based on sheer love as opposed to sheer lust``

In fact, if gay porn sites are anything to go by, it`s almost all about unuaduterated :)lust.

(Of course, I`m not suggesting that these sites are representative of all gay folks` mindsets)

I guess you shot down Urstruly`s unwitting gay-friendly theory there! :)

THE CONTRACT

Further to my post # 29

...while still living in the caves and having those mutually dependent ``loving`` relationships, mankind finally was able to recognize the fact that `men are from mars and women are from venus`. In other words, they finally figured it out that they were two different species, who do not think alike; they have different needs; and yet they can`t live without each other. Thus they felt a need for a social contract to exist peacefully and with mutual respect. The social contract came with the `religions`. Almost all religions in the world attempt to define a relationship between men and women. This was begining of a new era-the era of love without guilt (of being dependent) for women and and era of being lusty without guilt (since love was being bartered for lust) for men.

As long as mankind kept on obeying different clauses of the contract there was peace and love in the society (b/w men and women). The problem arose when women became non-dependent of men. The new liberated women now associate sex with their past dependence on men, which pains them. The delima thus is that women want ``love`` but they do not want to obey the other clause of the contract i.e. they have to satisfy the lust. This argument may be extended to include the new woman`s insistence on monogamous relationships on part of men.

This upset in the status quo has brought chaos in the society. Men and women are returning back to their post-ape past where love and lust were still undefined-but they were good for a short term barter. Hence we see the decline in family values,lack of relationships and lack of love in ``liberated`` societies.

THe point: Men and women must recognize the fact that they are two different species. Therefore, they cannot be ``equal`` (Please do not take the word `equal`in the narrow sense). If they want to maintain peace and order in the society they must recognize that there is need for a new contract again or we may revert to tried and tested ones.

Re: PM, #40

Congratulations for figuring out my gender! Only took another reading for a genius like you!

``I AM indeed (egregriously) naive...``

Yes, you are. The ``innocent`` joke you posted validates that.

``I *am * known to be an absolute tubelight on occassion. :)``

You are one, and not only on this occasion.

``...(ESPECIALLY in a forum unvisited by those who, for reasons of insecurity and/or history, might actually be offended).``

So, you are suggesting that, since non-desis are highly unlikely to visit this forum, it`s fine to throw gross and tasteless jokes at them. Who is being politically correct here, me or you?

Don`t flatter yourself. You are as far away from Tao as the earth from the milky way

PM #39, ``the Greeks long ago taught that the purest love was only possible between two males, not so much because females were inferior (which they *were * deemed) but because the love between males (presumably) transcended the `baseness` of biological imperative.``

HMMMMMMMMM.... this thought makes sense at first, but if you truly think about it, the only thing changed in a homosexual man (as compared to a heterosexual man) is the object of his sexual desire, not his libido itself. So if the testosterone driven desire/lust remains, how can you (or the Greeks) say that what a gay man feels for his partner is based on sheer love as opposed to sheer lust?

re. Godot #38

[``Found none``!!! You missed the entire point of that ``joke``!!!]

Sir, (now that I`ve looked up your ID :)), perhaps I AM indeed (egregriously) naive in thinking that there is nothing offensive in temporal`s satire on ``Black`` languauge (ESPECIALLY in a forum unvisited by those who, for reasons of insecurity and/or history, might actually be offended). Frankly, methinks you have been overschooled in Political Correctness.

If indeed I have still not got the `entire point`, please do point it out to me. I *am * known to be an absolute tubelight on occassion. :)

For my part, I have laughed with my Black friends over such matters (and `worse`). I am a little disturbed by your suggesting that blacks are so insecure as to take offence to such jokes. And a little amused at your highly abstract morality in this case.

Incidentally, I`ve found that self-respecting African-Americans don`t mind being referred to as ``blacks``, though the more colour-conscious desis usually think they would.

``After reading `My Identity` and interacting over that with me, you still cannot tell if I`m a Sir or a Madam!!! Brilliant!!!``

Sir, it might just mean that ``[Your] Identidy`` was not lacking in the element of forgettability. :)

BTW, I `m curious to know if you`d react the same way if I were to joke about the (premoninantly White) Southern pronunciation of ``fifty``, of which, as an AL resident, I`m sure you`re aware. Would that be in bad taste too?

And how about this innocent one:

Q: How do you get five black rapists off their victim?

A: Throw them a basketball.

?

Thanks for the Taoist quote, though

``Beautiful words are not true/True words are not beautiful``

Why, those words are sublimely ... beautiful!!

rgds,

PM

re. Urstruly:

``Love is not in man`s genes it is a learned behavior which was taught to him by women. Over the centuries it might have caused some genetic abberation in some of of the men-quite possibly in poets and gays``

This is interesting, though you know you`re not the first to suggest it, right? I think it was suggested in that 1994 Time magazine review of the book ``Is Infidelity in our Genes?``-- or something such. Your contentions in your post are almost completely consistent with that theory. That last bit (the second sentence I`ve quoted) doesn`t quite wash, though... How would ``it`` be capable of causing genetic aberrations?

Don`t get me wrong... I`d love to believe that part, for it suggests that (a) `love` has begotten gayness in whatever measure, and (b) that only gay men (and poets) are capable of true, feminie-like, love.

Just FYI, the Greeks long ago taught that the purest love was only possible between two males, not so much because females were inferior (which they *were * deemed) but because the love between males (presumably) transcended the `baseness` of biological imperative.

Then again, maybe Plato and his cronies were all just self-serving philosophic perverts. :)



temp,

Thanks for sharing your `agape` experiences with us. That was ... lovely!

rgds,

P

Re: PM, #34

``Found none. I see no `racism` operating in joking about the improper use of language``.

Found none!!! You missed the entire point of that ``joke``!!!

``Sir/Madam, I really think you`re overreacting.``

After reading `My Identity` and interacting over that with me, you still cannot tell if I`m a Sir or a Madam!!! Brilliant!!!

Now I know why you didn`t get that ``joke``!!! If you weren`t an adult, your naivete would be quite charming!!!

Re: temporal, #29

``Godot, yaar lighten up. You are mistaken, I am not the one who has claimed piety. Or prophethood! :)``

Does that mean it`s okay for you to post a racist joke? Or is it only the pious and the prophets who are not blatantly racists?

Don`t worry, temporal. I never saw you even close to someone who`s enlightened. Your ``joke`` only confirmed my view of you that your Inner Man is completely different than your Outer Man.

By the way, re your view of ``love`` in your post, along with your other similar verbose and meaningless posts:

Beautiful words are not true

True words are not beautiful

(the Tao)

{{Love is not in man`s genes it is a learned behavior which was taught to him by women. Over the centuries it might have caused some genetic abberation in some of of the men-quite possibly in poets and gays.}}

Sigh..testesterone strikes again..

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

SameerJB

I hope your mother gets well soon. I will pray for her recovery and good health and also for your peace of mind.