Welcome to Gaia! ::

MachineMuse's avatar

Friendly Lunatic

Christ the Holy Son
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son
Seduction was and will always remain the female form of power

So I have to whore myself to even be remotely comparable to a man?



biggrin

Nope, as a woman you've got MANY more options. The two emotions that almost every male felt in the presence of Lou Andreas-Salomé were confusion and excitement—the two prerequisite feelings for any successful seduction. People were intoxicated by her strange mix of the masculine and the feminine; she was beautiful, with a radiant smile and a graceful, flirtatious manner, but her independence and her intensely analytical nature made her seem oddly male. This ambiguity was expressed in her eyes, which were both coquettish and probing. It was confusion that kept men interested and curious: no other woman was like this.They wanted to know more. The excitement stemmed from her ability to stir up repressed desires. She was a complete nonconformist, and to be involved with her was to break all kinds of taboos. Her masculinity made the relationship seem vaguely homosexual; her slightly cruel, slightly domineering streak could stir up masochistic yearnings, as it did in Nietzsche. Salomé radiated a forbidden sexuality. Her powerful effect on men—the lifelong infatuations, the suicides (there were several), the periods of intense creativity, the descriptions of her as a vampire or a devil—attest to the obscure depths of the psyche that she was able to reach and disturb. The woman who succeeds by reversing the normal pattern of male taking the risky initiative in matters of love and seduction will have untold powers. A man's apparent independence, his capacity for detachment, often seems to give him the upperhand in the dynamic between men and women. A purely feminine woman will arouse desire, but is always vulnerable to the man's capricious loss of interest; a purely masculine woman, on the other hand, will not arouse that interest at all. Follow the path of the woman who reverses the traditional dynamic, however, and you neutralize all a man's powers. Never give completely of yourself; while you are passionate and sexual, always retain an air of independence and self-possession. You might move on to the next man, or so he will think. You have other, more important matters to concern yourself with, such as your work. Men do not know how to fight women who use their own weapons against them; they are intrigued, aroused, and disarmed. Few men can resist the taboo pleasures offered up to them by such a woman.


So what you're saying is I should spurn the patriarchy but it will work out better for me if nobody else does.
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son
Seduction was and will always remain the female form of power

So I have to whore myself to even be remotely comparable to a man?



biggrin

Nope, as a woman you've got MANY more options. The two emotions that almost every male felt in the presence of Lou Andreas-Salomé were confusion and excitement—the two prerequisite feelings for any successful seduction. People were intoxicated by her strange mix of the masculine and the feminine; she was beautiful, with a radiant smile and a graceful, flirtatious manner, but her independence and her intensely analytical nature made her seem oddly male. This ambiguity was expressed in her eyes, which were both coquettish and probing. It was confusion that kept men interested and curious: no other woman was like this.They wanted to know more. The excitement stemmed from her ability to stir up repressed desires. She was a complete nonconformist, and to be involved with her was to break all kinds of taboos. Her masculinity made the relationship seem vaguely homosexual; her slightly cruel, slightly domineering streak could stir up masochistic yearnings, as it did in Nietzsche. Salomé radiated a forbidden sexuality. Her powerful effect on men—the lifelong infatuations, the suicides (there were several), the periods of intense creativity, the descriptions of her as a vampire or a devil—attest to the obscure depths of the psyche that she was able to reach and disturb. The woman who succeeds by reversing the normal pattern of male taking the risky initiative in matters of love and seduction will have untold powers. A man's apparent independence, his capacity for detachment, often seems to give him the upperhand in the dynamic between men and women. A purely feminine woman will arouse desire, but is always vulnerable to the man's capricious loss of interest; a purely masculine woman, on the other hand, will not arouse that interest at all. Follow the path of the woman who reverses the traditional dynamic, however, and you neutralize all a man's powers. Never give completely of yourself; while you are passionate and sexual, always retain an air of independence and self-possession. You might move on to the next man, or so he will think. You have other, more important matters to concern yourself with, such as your work. Men do not know how to fight women who use their own weapons against them; they are intrigued, aroused, and disarmed. Few men can resist the taboo pleasures offered up to them by such a woman.


So what you're saying is I should spurn the patriarchy but it will work out better for me if nobody else does.


Pretty much, yes.
MachineMuse's avatar

Friendly Lunatic

Christ the Holy Son
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son
Seduction was and will always remain the female form of power

So I have to whore myself to even be remotely comparable to a man?



biggrin

Nope, as a woman you've got MANY more options. The two emotions that almost every male felt in the presence of Lou Andreas-Salomé were confusion and excitement—the two prerequisite feelings for any successful seduction. People were intoxicated by her strange mix of the masculine and the feminine; she was beautiful, with a radiant smile and a graceful, flirtatious manner, but her independence and her intensely analytical nature made her seem oddly male. This ambiguity was expressed in her eyes, which were both coquettish and probing. It was confusion that kept men interested and curious: no other woman was like this.They wanted to know more. The excitement stemmed from her ability to stir up repressed desires. She was a complete nonconformist, and to be involved with her was to break all kinds of taboos. Her masculinity made the relationship seem vaguely homosexual; her slightly cruel, slightly domineering streak could stir up masochistic yearnings, as it did in Nietzsche. Salomé radiated a forbidden sexuality. Her powerful effect on men—the lifelong infatuations, the suicides (there were several), the periods of intense creativity, the descriptions of her as a vampire or a devil—attest to the obscure depths of the psyche that she was able to reach and disturb. The woman who succeeds by reversing the normal pattern of male taking the risky initiative in matters of love and seduction will have untold powers. A man's apparent independence, his capacity for detachment, often seems to give him the upperhand in the dynamic between men and women. A purely feminine woman will arouse desire, but is always vulnerable to the man's capricious loss of interest; a purely masculine woman, on the other hand, will not arouse that interest at all. Follow the path of the woman who reverses the traditional dynamic, however, and you neutralize all a man's powers. Never give completely of yourself; while you are passionate and sexual, always retain an air of independence and self-possession. You might move on to the next man, or so he will think. You have other, more important matters to concern yourself with, such as your work. Men do not know how to fight women who use their own weapons against them; they are intrigued, aroused, and disarmed. Few men can resist the taboo pleasures offered up to them by such a woman.


So what you're saying is I should spurn the patriarchy but it will work out better for me if nobody else does.


Pretty much, yes.


That's pretty selfish, but I've been exploring that aspect of myself lately...
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son
Seduction was and will always remain the female form of power

So I have to whore myself to even be remotely comparable to a man?



biggrin

Nope, as a woman you've got MANY more options. The two emotions that almost every male felt in the presence of Lou Andreas-Salomé were confusion and excitement—the two prerequisite feelings for any successful seduction. People were intoxicated by her strange mix of the masculine and the feminine; she was beautiful, with a radiant smile and a graceful, flirtatious manner, but her independence and her intensely analytical nature made her seem oddly male. This ambiguity was expressed in her eyes, which were both coquettish and probing. It was confusion that kept men interested and curious: no other woman was like this.They wanted to know more. The excitement stemmed from her ability to stir up repressed desires. She was a complete nonconformist, and to be involved with her was to break all kinds of taboos. Her masculinity made the relationship seem vaguely homosexual; her slightly cruel, slightly domineering streak could stir up masochistic yearnings, as it did in Nietzsche. Salomé radiated a forbidden sexuality. Her powerful effect on men—the lifelong infatuations, the suicides (there were several), the periods of intense creativity, the descriptions of her as a vampire or a devil—attest to the obscure depths of the psyche that she was able to reach and disturb. The woman who succeeds by reversing the normal pattern of male taking the risky initiative in matters of love and seduction will have untold powers. A man's apparent independence, his capacity for detachment, often seems to give him the upperhand in the dynamic between men and women. A purely feminine woman will arouse desire, but is always vulnerable to the man's capricious loss of interest; a purely masculine woman, on the other hand, will not arouse that interest at all. Follow the path of the woman who reverses the traditional dynamic, however, and you neutralize all a man's powers. Never give completely of yourself; while you are passionate and sexual, always retain an air of independence and self-possession. You might move on to the next man, or so he will think. You have other, more important matters to concern yourself with, such as your work. Men do not know how to fight women who use their own weapons against them; they are intrigued, aroused, and disarmed. Few men can resist the taboo pleasures offered up to them by such a woman.


So what you're saying is I should spurn the patriarchy but it will work out better for me if nobody else does.


Pretty much, yes.


That's pretty selfish, but I've been exploring that aspect of myself lately...


Oh?

Think of me as your personal....

Ayn Rand.
MachineMuse's avatar

Friendly Lunatic

Christ the Holy Son
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son



biggrin

Nope, as a woman you've got MANY more options. The two emotions that almost every male felt in the presence of Lou Andreas-Salomé were confusion and excitement—the two prerequisite feelings for any successful seduction. People were intoxicated by her strange mix of the masculine and the feminine; she was beautiful, with a radiant smile and a graceful, flirtatious manner, but her independence and her intensely analytical nature made her seem oddly male. This ambiguity was expressed in her eyes, which were both coquettish and probing. It was confusion that kept men interested and curious: no other woman was like this.They wanted to know more. The excitement stemmed from her ability to stir up repressed desires. She was a complete nonconformist, and to be involved with her was to break all kinds of taboos. Her masculinity made the relationship seem vaguely homosexual; her slightly cruel, slightly domineering streak could stir up masochistic yearnings, as it did in Nietzsche. Salomé radiated a forbidden sexuality. Her powerful effect on men—the lifelong infatuations, the suicides (there were several), the periods of intense creativity, the descriptions of her as a vampire or a devil—attest to the obscure depths of the psyche that she was able to reach and disturb. The woman who succeeds by reversing the normal pattern of male taking the risky initiative in matters of love and seduction will have untold powers. A man's apparent independence, his capacity for detachment, often seems to give him the upperhand in the dynamic between men and women. A purely feminine woman will arouse desire, but is always vulnerable to the man's capricious loss of interest; a purely masculine woman, on the other hand, will not arouse that interest at all. Follow the path of the woman who reverses the traditional dynamic, however, and you neutralize all a man's powers. Never give completely of yourself; while you are passionate and sexual, always retain an air of independence and self-possession. You might move on to the next man, or so he will think. You have other, more important matters to concern yourself with, such as your work. Men do not know how to fight women who use their own weapons against them; they are intrigued, aroused, and disarmed. Few men can resist the taboo pleasures offered up to them by such a woman.


So what you're saying is I should spurn the patriarchy but it will work out better for me if nobody else does.


Pretty much, yes.


That's pretty selfish, but I've been exploring that aspect of myself lately...


Oh?

Think of me as your personal....

Ayn Rand.

*bats eyelashes*

No, but really, feminism is a good thing and it has improved on the freedom of everyone to be themselves rather than stuffing an increasingly broad set of identities into a pair of norms.
Ah! So it's FEMINISM that turns women into 2nd class citizens!

Here I was thinking that it mostly had a lot to do with them being considered property by most "traditional" cultures for millennia, rather than a movement to reverse this which has only really existed in any substantial way in the past century but is still somehow retroactively responsible. Silly me.
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son



biggrin

Nope, as a woman you've got MANY more options. The two emotions that almost every male felt in the presence of Lou Andreas-Salomé were confusion and excitement—the two prerequisite feelings for any successful seduction. People were intoxicated by her strange mix of the masculine and the feminine; she was beautiful, with a radiant smile and a graceful, flirtatious manner, but her independence and her intensely analytical nature made her seem oddly male. This ambiguity was expressed in her eyes, which were both coquettish and probing. It was confusion that kept men interested and curious: no other woman was like this.They wanted to know more. The excitement stemmed from her ability to stir up repressed desires. She was a complete nonconformist, and to be involved with her was to break all kinds of taboos. Her masculinity made the relationship seem vaguely homosexual; her slightly cruel, slightly domineering streak could stir up masochistic yearnings, as it did in Nietzsche. Salomé radiated a forbidden sexuality. Her powerful effect on men—the lifelong infatuations, the suicides (there were several), the periods of intense creativity, the descriptions of her as a vampire or a devil—attest to the obscure depths of the psyche that she was able to reach and disturb. The woman who succeeds by reversing the normal pattern of male taking the risky initiative in matters of love and seduction will have untold powers. A man's apparent independence, his capacity for detachment, often seems to give him the upperhand in the dynamic between men and women. A purely feminine woman will arouse desire, but is always vulnerable to the man's capricious loss of interest; a purely masculine woman, on the other hand, will not arouse that interest at all. Follow the path of the woman who reverses the traditional dynamic, however, and you neutralize all a man's powers. Never give completely of yourself; while you are passionate and sexual, always retain an air of independence and self-possession. You might move on to the next man, or so he will think. You have other, more important matters to concern yourself with, such as your work. Men do not know how to fight women who use their own weapons against them; they are intrigued, aroused, and disarmed. Few men can resist the taboo pleasures offered up to them by such a woman.


So what you're saying is I should spurn the patriarchy but it will work out better for me if nobody else does.


Pretty much, yes.


That's pretty selfish, but I've been exploring that aspect of myself lately...


Oh?

Think of me as your personal....

Ayn Rand.

*bats eyelashes*

No, but really, feminism is a good thing and it has improved on the freedom of everyone to be themselves rather than stuffing an increasingly broad set of identities into a pair of norms.
That's horrible for the true Individual because considering the fact that there is no norm to break from... The individual can't shine because everybody is an "individual"

We should never complain about most people's slavish conformity for it offers untold possibilities of power and seduction to those who are up for a few risks(True Individuals). Radicals have existed in all ages and cultures (Alcibiades in ancient Greece, Korechika in late-tenth-century Japan), and wherever they have gone they have thrived on the conformist role playing of others. The Radical displays a true and radical difference from other people, a difference of appearance and manner. Since most of us are secretly oppressed by our lack of freedom, we are drawn to those who are more fluid and flaunt their difference. Radicals seduce socially as well as sexually; groups form around them, their style is wildly imitated, an entire court or crowd will fall in love with them. According to Freud, the human libido is essentially bisexual; most people are in some way attracted to people of their own sex, but social constraints (varying with culture and historical period) repress these impulses.The Radical represents a release from such constraints. In several of Shakespeare's plays, a young girl (back then, the female roles in the theater were actually played by male actors) has to go into disguise and dresses up as a boy, eliciting all kinds of sexual interest from men, who later are delighted to find out that the boy is actually a girl. (Think, for example, of Rosalind in As You Like It.)

Entertainers such as Josephine Baker (known as the Chocolate Dandy) and Marlene Dietrich would dress up as men in their acts,making themselves wildly popular—among men(Yet... because the majority of women wear pants, it's not a big deal anymore and you actually have to try harder now). Meanwhile the slightly feminized male, the pretty boy, has always been seductive to women. Elvis Presley had feminine features (the face, the hips), wore frilly pink shirts and eye makeup, and attracted the attention of women early on. The filmmaker Kenneth Anger said of Mick Jagger that it was "a bisexual charm which constituted an important part of the attraction he had over young girls . . . and which acted upon their unconscious."In Western culture for centuries, in fact, feminine beauty has been far more fetishized than male beauty, so it is understandable that a feminine-looking face like that of Justin Beiber would have more seductive power than that of Mitt Romney.
MachineMuse's avatar

Friendly Lunatic

Christ the Holy Son
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son


Pretty much, yes.


That's pretty selfish, but I've been exploring that aspect of myself lately...


Oh?

Think of me as your personal....

Ayn Rand.

*bats eyelashes*

No, but really, feminism is a good thing and it has improved on the freedom of everyone to be themselves rather than stuffing an increasingly broad set of identities into a pair of norms.
That's horrible for the true Individual because considering the fact that there is no norm to break from... The individual can't shine because everybody is an "individual"

We should never complain about most people's slavish conformity for it offers untold possibilities of power and seduction to those who are up for a few risks(True Individuals). Radicals have existed in all ages and cultures (Alcibiades in ancient Greece, Korechika in late-tenth-century Japan), and wherever they have gone they have thrived on the conformist role playing of others. The Radical displays a true and radical difference from other people, a difference of appearance and manner. Since most of us are secretly oppressed by our lack of freedom, we are drawn to those who are more fluid and flaunt their difference. Radicals seduce socially as well as sexually; groups form around them, their style is wildly imitated, an entire court or crowd will fall in love with them. According to Freud, the human libido is essentially bisexual; most people are in some way attracted to people of their own sex, but social constraints (varying with culture and historical period) repress these impulses.The Radical represents a release from such constraints. In several of Shakespeare's plays, a young girl (back then, the female roles in the theater were actually played by male actors) has to go into disguise and dresses up as a boy, eliciting all kinds of sexual interest from men, who later are delighted to find out that the boy is actually a girl. (Think, for example, of Rosalind in As You Like It.)

Entertainers such as Josephine Baker (known as the Chocolate Dandy) and Marlene Dietrich would dress up as men in their acts,making themselves wildly popular—among men(Yet... because the majority of women wear pants, it's not a big deal anymore and you actually have to try harder now). Meanwhile the slightly feminized male, the pretty boy, has always been seductive to women. Elvis Presley had feminine features (the face, the hips), wore frilly pink shirts and eye makeup, and attracted the attention of women early on. The filmmaker Kenneth Anger said of Mick Jagger that it was "a bisexual charm which constituted an important part of the attraction he had over young girls . . . and which acted upon their unconscious."In Western culture for centuries, in fact, feminine beauty has been far more fetishized than male beauty, so it is understandable that a feminine-looking face like that of Justin Beiber would have more seductive power than that of Mitt Romney.

What's the benefit of letting the individual shine when it's at the expense of everyone else?
IronySandwich
Ah! So it's FEMINISM that turns women into 2nd class citizens!

Here I was thinking that it mostly had a lot to do with them being considered property by most "traditional" cultures for millennia, rather than a movement to reverse this which has only really existed in any substantial way in the past century but is still somehow retroactively responsible. Silly me.


A woman had less Freedom in the past and people tend to conform to the standard they are given.

Like...

Men wearing pants. Women wearing skirts.

120 years ago if a woman wore pants and was confident about it, she'd be charming as hell!

Now because most women wear pants....

A woman can't be special anymore by simply wearing pants. She can't use conformity to her advantage.

Unless she starts wearing skirts now...Right?

Wrong!

A skirt isn't as edgy as wearing pants would've been in the early Victorian age for a woman so she can't fight the turgid slick of conformity with which they seek to smother her glory with.
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son


Pretty much, yes.


That's pretty selfish, but I've been exploring that aspect of myself lately...


Oh?

Think of me as your personal....

Ayn Rand.

*bats eyelashes*

No, but really, feminism is a good thing and it has improved on the freedom of everyone to be themselves rather than stuffing an increasingly broad set of identities into a pair of norms.
That's horrible for the true Individual because considering the fact that there is no norm to break from... The individual can't shine because everybody is an "individual"

We should never complain about most people's slavish conformity for it offers untold possibilities of power and seduction to those who are up for a few risks(True Individuals). Radicals have existed in all ages and cultures (Alcibiades in ancient Greece, Korechika in late-tenth-century Japan), and wherever they have gone they have thrived on the conformist role playing of others. The Radical displays a true and radical difference from other people, a difference of appearance and manner. Since most of us are secretly oppressed by our lack of freedom, we are drawn to those who are more fluid and flaunt their difference. Radicals seduce socially as well as sexually; groups form around them, their style is wildly imitated, an entire court or crowd will fall in love with them. According to Freud, the human libido is essentially bisexual; most people are in some way attracted to people of their own sex, but social constraints (varying with culture and historical period) repress these impulses.The Radical represents a release from such constraints. In several of Shakespeare's plays, a young girl (back then, the female roles in the theater were actually played by male actors) has to go into disguise and dresses up as a boy, eliciting all kinds of sexual interest from men, who later are delighted to find out that the boy is actually a girl. (Think, for example, of Rosalind in As You Like It.)

Entertainers such as Josephine Baker (known as the Chocolate Dandy) and Marlene Dietrich would dress up as men in their acts,making themselves wildly popular—among men(Yet... because the majority of women wear pants, it's not a big deal anymore and you actually have to try harder now). Meanwhile the slightly feminized male, the pretty boy, has always been seductive to women. Elvis Presley had feminine features (the face, the hips), wore frilly pink shirts and eye makeup, and attracted the attention of women early on. The filmmaker Kenneth Anger said of Mick Jagger that it was "a bisexual charm which constituted an important part of the attraction he had over young girls . . . and which acted upon their unconscious."In Western culture for centuries, in fact, feminine beauty has been far more fetishized than male beauty, so it is understandable that a feminine-looking face like that of Justin Beiber would have more seductive power than that of Mitt Romney.

What's the benefit of letting the individual shine when it's at the expense of everyone else?
Expense of everyone else???

LOL!!!! Tuts, you just made my day. People crave to be around "Radicals" or "Special People"

It validates their egos.

In fact, check out this video.





Desirability is a social illusion. Its source is less what you say or do, or any kind of boasting or self-advertisement, than the sense that other people desire you. To turn your targets' interest into something deeper, into desire, you must make them see you as a person whom others cherish and covet. Desire is both imitative(we like what others like) and competitive (we want to take away from others what they have). As children, we wanted to monopolize the attention of a parent, to draw it away from other siblings. This sense of rivalry pervadeshuman desire, repeating throughout our lives. Make people compete foryour attention, make them see you as sought after by everyone else. Theaura of desirability will envelop you.Your admirers can be friends or even suitors. Call it the harem effect. Pauline Bonaparte, sister of Napoleon, raised her value in men's eyes by always having a group of worshipful men around her at balls and parties. If she went for a walk, it was never with one man, always with two or three. Perhaps these men were simply friends, or even just props and hangers-on ;the sight of them was enough to suggest that she was prized and desired, a woman worth fighting over. Andy Warhol, too, surrounded himself with the most glamorous, interesting people he could find. To be part of his inner circle meant that you were desirable as well. By placing himself in the middle but keeping himself aloof from it all, he made everyone compete for his attention. He stirred people's desire to possess him by holding back. Practices like these not only stimulate competitive desires, they take aim at people's prime weakness: their vanity and self-esteem.

It makes us feel good being inside of the inner circle of "Special People"
Christ the Holy Son
IronySandwich
Ah! So it's FEMINISM that turns women into 2nd class citizens!

Here I was thinking that it mostly had a lot to do with them being considered property by most "traditional" cultures for millennia, rather than a movement to reverse this which has only really existed in any substantial way in the past century but is still somehow retroactively responsible. Silly me.


A woman had less Freedom in the past and people tend to conform to the standard they are given.

Like...

Men wearing pants. Women wearing skirts.

120 years ago if a woman wore pants and was confident about it, she'd be charming as hell!

Now because most women wear pants....

A woman can't be special anymore by simply wearing pants. She can't use conformity to her advantage.

Unless she starts wearing skirts now...Right?

Wrong!

A skirt isn't as edgy as wearing pants would've been in the early Victorian age for a woman so she can't fight the turgid slick of conformity with which they seek to smother her glory with.

This is why sophomore sociologists shouldn't post on the internet.

I could go into what's wrong with your posts in detail, but that would be tedious and frankly I doubt your even half as willing to listen as you are to lecture. So I will instead reply with a link to a relevant comic.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2713#comic
IronySandwich
Christ the Holy Son
IronySandwich
Ah! So it's FEMINISM that turns women into 2nd class citizens!

Here I was thinking that it mostly had a lot to do with them being considered property by most "traditional" cultures for millennia, rather than a movement to reverse this which has only really existed in any substantial way in the past century but is still somehow retroactively responsible. Silly me.


A woman had less Freedom in the past and people tend to conform to the standard they are given.

Like...

Men wearing pants. Women wearing skirts.

120 years ago if a woman wore pants and was confident about it, she'd be charming as hell!

Now because most women wear pants....

A woman can't be special anymore by simply wearing pants. She can't use conformity to her advantage.

Unless she starts wearing skirts now...Right?

Wrong!

A skirt isn't as edgy as wearing pants would've been in the early Victorian age for a woman so she can't fight the turgid slick of conformity with which they seek to smother her glory with.

This is why sophomore sociologists shouldn't post on the internet.

I could go into what's wrong with your posts in detail, but that would be tedious and frankly I doubt your even half as willing to listen as you are to lecture. So I will instead reply with a link to a relevant comic.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2713#comic


I don't get it.
MachineMuse's avatar

Friendly Lunatic

Christ the Holy Son
It makes us feel good being inside of the inner circle of "Special People"

Ugh. It pains me to admit I'm already kind of doing this subconsciously.

One issue I find is that people whose self-esteem is too low won't be swayed by it, because they won't think they're worthy of hanging out with someone like me. Those people are increasing lately. And further, what about spite and bitterness? Sometimes to get what you want you have to be accommodating.
Christ the Holy Son
IronySandwich
Christ the Holy Son
IronySandwich
Ah! So it's FEMINISM that turns women into 2nd class citizens!

Here I was thinking that it mostly had a lot to do with them being considered property by most "traditional" cultures for millennia, rather than a movement to reverse this which has only really existed in any substantial way in the past century but is still somehow retroactively responsible. Silly me.


A woman had less Freedom in the past and people tend to conform to the standard they are given.

Like...

Men wearing pants. Women wearing skirts.

120 years ago if a woman wore pants and was confident about it, she'd be charming as hell!

Now because most women wear pants....

A woman can't be special anymore by simply wearing pants. She can't use conformity to her advantage.

Unless she starts wearing skirts now...Right?

Wrong!

A skirt isn't as edgy as wearing pants would've been in the early Victorian age for a woman so she can't fight the turgid slick of conformity with which they seek to smother her glory with.

This is why sophomore sociologists shouldn't post on the internet.

I could go into what's wrong with your posts in detail, but that would be tedious and frankly I doubt your even half as willing to listen as you are to lecture. So I will instead reply with a link to a relevant comic.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2713#comic


I don't get it.

I didn't expect you to. I am, however, somewhat surprised that you just came out and admitted it rather than posting a long winded speech trying to disguise your non-understanding. There may be hope for you yet.
e-Claire rc1
Christ the Holy Son
It makes us feel good being inside of the inner circle of "Special People"

Ugh. It pains me to admit I'm already kind of doing this subconsciously.

One issue I find is that people whose self-esteem is too low won't be swayed by it, because they won't think they're worthy of hanging out with someone like me. Those people are increasing lately. And further, what about spite and bitterness? Sometimes to get what you want you have to be accommodating.



A person who holds back can stimulate a particularly deep hatred. Valerie Solanas was a young woman who fell under Andy Warhol's spell. She had written a play that amused him, and she was given the impression he might turn it into a film. She imagined becoming a celebrity. She also got involved in the feminist movement, and when, in June 1968, it dawned on her that Warhol was toying with her, she directed her growing rage at men on him and shot him three times, nearly killing him. People who hold back may stimulate feelings that are not so much erotic as intellectual, less passion and more fascination. The hatred they can stir up is all the more insidious and dangerous, for it may not be counterbalanced by a deep love. They must realize the limits of the game, and the disturbing effects they can have on less stable people.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games