Zee bro...you know what is really fun..its when u take Mrs. Slimy chucha...have her put on her best burkha and then have her kneel and bob across tripuchilli mandir or some shit....you should see her show her kabba when the hinjews pull out their lullah's, I mean allahs.

flag objectionable content

Philo,

Human nature remains constant and immutable. you see...even the psychology of men(the desire to dominate) itself is the evidence of human nature...where have men got it from...off course by nature...are men something from outside nature?

Very interesting. No, men are as much part of nature as are women ... and Nature does not create anything out of a vacuum. This man/woman intrinsic nature which is different from the other is certainly an essential ingredient in the scheme of things, in the greater universe.

flag objectionable content

Philo,

Thanks. I will have to read and digest this. Yaar you're very technical ... lots of logic! In the meantime another fun thread for our Sufi Allah Hoo brothers/sisters!

flag objectionable content

zee

Right on the spot...you can never deny the role of physiological and biological diffrences in determining the social role of mene and women....people who think that gender is socialy determined or say that..

sex is given by nature and gender is the producrt of society...miss a damn big point that society itself is the menifestation of human nature. society is not something outside the realm of nature...even from a ''naturalistic'' and 'materialistic' approach that these ''einstiens' hold so dear, all social and psychological facters are ultimately determined by the natural process...society(or social relation) itself is the proof of human psycholoy and dare i say the most authentic methodoly to understand the scope of human nature...they may come up with the diversity of social relation in different periods of history....they agian miss a point here that the form of society and human psychology always keep on changing but the essence remains immutable.

For instance marxism...marxism has never dealt the issue of gender with a moral stanpoint...for marx it is a social issue...and the historical role of women is determined by that process of dialectics...so even from marxian point of view its useless and ridiculous to blaim any religion and patriarchal traditions for the so called and exaggerated misery of women.

For almost last two centuries now feminists have blamed their(women) problems on the outside world. They have used the very real difficulties created by revolutionary social changes to avoid the task of looking within for the real problem and the real solution. They have been indulging in an orgy of finger pointing at men and self-pity.

if this attitude had brought them happiness and fulfillment, if feminism(their concept of emancipation) had made them good mothers and joyful wives, or even pleased them with their new 'place' in the world... the game might have been worth the candle. But it is evident that it hasn’t been. The game has brought frigidity, anxiety, pain(not the pleasureable one) and arimpitts, hairy legs and a soaring divorce rate, as well as neurosis, lesbianism, juvenile delinquency... All that results when the women in any culture forget ther true womanly function.

Human nature remains constant and immutable. you see...even the psychology of men(the desire to dominate) itself is the evidence of human nature...where have men got it from...off course by nature...are men something from outside nature?

For a men being dominant(lovingly) in a relationship is really erotic..it gives him the sense of controle that is deeply the part of his physiology...and women's response and liking for that dominant role of men is evident by the entire history of mankind...

you see the most popular female fantasy is of being dominated by a man...you can have different definition of dominance of submissive but you can not get rid of this ghost deep inside human nature...

if you see the post feminist westren europe you can clearly see the popularity of BDSM MASTER/SLAVE, GOREAN...relationship as the evidence for this thesis.

flag objectionable content

philosopher,

Oh I get your post. "Suhag aurat ka zaivar hai".

Of-course. Agreed. Brilliant philo.

flag objectionable content

Here's an extract from an FP post. What do you think philo? Comments appreciated because you're a 'Philosopher'!

people still would have had sex because procreation is essential for a social safety net/insurance. You know, another working hand in the field, burhhapey ka suhara, and all that. The species would have still continued, and in a much more practical/calibrated manner where population growth would have stopped at points of full employment. Why did it have to involve pleasure which makes ballooning populations unable to fed themselves?

That was my point. God put pleasure in sex because it was meant to be ... and thus women would continue to be objectified. It is an integral part of the basic nature of things.

flag objectionable content

sorry

'functional'

flag objectionable content

zee

women's 'ornament' is to be purely 'functinal' in their submissive and 'objectified' role.

flag objectionable content