LustfulAngel Posts
Black Jesus JC wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
The female can choose to be morally devastated at her being raped and impregnated. Or, she can equally choose to see this child as a blessing(there have been some women who were strong enough to make this decision. Not only strong enough obviously as it pertains to the mental stress. But also as it pertains to society who would so gladly push her to put the baby under the gutter).Saying a rape victim should see a child that results from it as a blessing is one of the most disrespectful things i've heard. Raising a child is hard fucking work, both emotionally and financially. If a women who knows she does not have the money or time to take care of the child and happens to get raped,are you really going to tell her she should have the baby anyways?
I really hate the concept of: We have a terrible means of methods of dealing with a situation, I know, let's use a "what if" scenario to conjecture up an excuse that justifies said terrible means. It's not a permissible argument intellectually :D.
Why do rapes happen to begin with? That might be the more pressing question, and I think a great deal is again, due to social media. A social media that actively sexualizes the feminine, as well as a social rejection of the male who becomes depressed, sexually frustrated and ultimately a rapist.
We humans speak of a moral society, and rape is a sign of moral decay. That decay occurs, precisely because of excuses. You'll probably hate that I'm saying it, but it's an undeniable fact: Every rotting society has been filled with excuses. This one is no different, in it's decline.
Rape is certainly terrible, but no more or less terrible than the idea that we can sanctify a life over another. As humans, we really need to understand the cause and effect law. There was a cause(or causes), for the fundamental issue of rape to occur.
And those causes, are a large part of a social decay in the U.S. and in Western developing countries. Just as there's no excuse for rape, there's no excuse(except a medical one) for Abortion either.
And like I said: Hopefully 5-10 years from now, there won't be the medical excuse for abortion. Future generations will look back at this argument and laugh at how morally decay and bankrupt "developed countries" and their citizens were at the time.
kitten-in-heat wrote...
Regarding your thoughts and anger on abortion, I sincerely hope for your sake that scientists find a way to make it possible for men to become pregnant instead of women so then you can become pregnant all you want to save all the babies in danger of getting aborted! Wouldn't that be great and absolutely fitting for your ideals? You go, femininity-admiring male individual! :D
If that's what it takes, then so be it. I acknowledge the fact that pregnancies are a very painful, burdensome process even for the next 9-12 months(even longer, perhaps), this goes back to why it used to be so special for a masculine commitment to a female, and vice-versa the female waiting for that commitment. Because who'd sleep with a guy, and get pregnant with a guy's child knowing damn well he ain't gonna be there?
Well, now all women have to do is pull the plug on the pregnancy and so that commitment and the sacredness of one's pregnancy has become meaningless now.
HappyDia01 wrote...
There is a lot that I want to say about this post... However, you'll have to forgive me if my writing might seem a little "unclear", since I've just now returned from a very long trip.I'll start off by saying that I think you're absolutely wrong. First off, do you know any women? And secondly, do you know these women well? I find it amusing that you - a man - feel as though you have the jurisdiction to lay down the law on how you feel absolutely all of us should be. Even another woman can't say that her feelings are shared by every other woman occupying the earth, since that simply isn't true... Generalizations about our "inherent" feelings and qualities fall short of respecting us as dynamic human beings who can feel a number of ways about an infinite number of subjects. No two women will feel exactly the same way about everything - from their decisions about sex to something as simple as the way they'd like to dress.
I wouldn't be judging you if you limited your opinions to only what you desire in a significant other - that's your business, but to state that you feel that women who fall short of your ideal have been "corrupted" and fail to live up to their "true potential"... that's insane. Look, it's actually quite a wonderful idea that you think that sex shouldn't be independent of love, but to lay down that law for everyone? That's dictatorship. Everyone should be free to pursue their own happiness - it's in the fucking constitution - and not feel like they have to live up to an ideal set by a poor virgin who doesn't really know any of the women he wishes to oppress. It's fine if you daydream about becoming what you obviously consider the superior gender, but don't turn your personal fantasies into an irrational delusion. At the end of the day, man or woman, we're all individuals with different desires for ourselves. Nothing that you or anyone else says will change that independent spirit that God has granted us.
As for your commentary about men not being able to feel love as strongly as women do, you're fucking wrong. You just are - sorry. Half the reason why I feel like men might not be as obvious about their feelings is because society has hard-pressed them to not be so vocal about things like that in general. Just think about it. Any man who shows weakness is judged by his peers, and for most men love and romance is the ultimate vulnerability to any man's masculine persona.
Also, men and women might simply show love in different ways. In general, most people have a predominant "love style" that dictates how they express their affection for others. The five main ones that people focus on are these: Words of Affirmation, Quality Time, Receiving Gifts, Acts of Service, and Physical Touch. You might suggest that men give gifts or do chores to show their love, but women vocalize it more and express it by spending quality time with a partner. (I don't believe there is a specific style that aligns with one gender or the other, but I'm saying this in example.) That doesn't mean that the woman loves more then the man does, but only that they love in different ways. It is impossible to gauge the intensity of how one person feels over another.
I'll continue by using a more personal example. My boyfriend and I have been dating for almost three years. If you said that I obviously love him more then he loves me simply because I'm a woman and he's a man and women are capable of a higher degree of love then men are... I'd fucking slap you in the face, because that is ridiculous. If you were to say that I word my feelings more eloquently then he can though, I'd agree with you. I'm very capable of explaining how I feel. He isn't quite so good at that sort of thing. Does that mean he doesn't love me? Fuck no. It's just that he is much more tuned in to expressing that sort of thing through body language or doing nice things for me then writing fucking poetry about how my hair smells like dandelions. No big deal, it doesn't have an impact on how I digest and understand his love for me. I know that he feels the same way that I do. I simply don't think a quintessential, life-changing feeling like true love can be bound or restrained by something as ultimately unimportant like our mortal bodies. True love is spiritual and eternal; gender is a temporary thing that we'll soon shed upon death.
"Laying down the law on how all of you should be?" I find that's quite a heavy and incorrect charge. For, after all what I point out is nothing more than ideals and qualities that the feminine outlined. I believe these ideals and qualities are also the highest spiritual level a woman can reach. For the feminine to have simply thrown them away, and worse yet to accuse me of spiritually locking them in a cage they've longed to break free from is quite depressing.
Does that mean the feminine never looked at themselves the way they wanted males to look at them? That the way that men in general look at the feminine now, is the way the feminine desired it all along? Generalizations exist because we logically cannot personally know everyone, but we can observe the world around us and make judgments, or if you prefer, form opinions about the world around us.
I experienced first-hand, through my parents what this new world has done to the feminine. Because of this "free and independent world" for the feminine, I don't know my father. It took years for my younger brother and sister to find their fathers(Yes, we were fathered by three different men. I'm sure we were quite happy with that. **sarcasm**).
Infact, it was this feminist world that made my mother say that raising me at her young age(19) was too much of a burden for her and handed her off to my grandmother. She was right, ultimately, but still how sad is it that a biological mother and her son has virtually no connection whatsoever?
My grandmother's story is more tragic, abuse, followed by abusing herself as a result of that abuse. She wasn't spiritually, ethically or happy in anyway period in this "ideal" of a world. She was only truly happy upon raising me and having me as her son.
These two women in my family lost their feminine qualities and for what exactly? Tell me, through their struggles, abuse and a loss of sense of connection what exactly did they gain? Riches? Not really, we're strictly middle class. Love? Hilarious, I don't think my mother's been with anyone longer than a few years. And my grandmother, she's a very kind and sweet woman, but she has so little belief in herself that she doesn't show the strength and independence to find a man truly befitting for her.
Did the feminine gain equality? Supposing they did, is it worth the sacrifice of a woman's child?(Abortion)? If you have to sacrifice your child, or feel like having the "right" to sacrifice your child is in any way whatsoever some sort of 'equality', then the feminine has already lost it's battle for equality. Because you're looking at your own life, and the life of your child as just a "thing."
Intellectually, I don't think the feminine has gained anything, I think you've lost everything and gained, maybe a material ideal that isn't anywhere close to reality.
I feel apologetic, if you feel as though I've insulted your relationship, Dia, and in no way did I deny the idea and expression of a male's love. But rather, among us males, and if you don't wish to be a hypocrite then as a man I can say this about my fellow gender: Our expression of our love is rather lacking. It used to be a sense of devotion, and a sense of protectiveness of the feminine spirit.
Now the feminine(just look at Loli as an excellent example) has accursed this powerful expression, and along with this attack on a male's feelings, the male just decided it wasn't worth it and placed the same value on the feminine that the feminine has now placed upon itself, or the lack of value.
I don't even blame them, with every attack upon me, I wonder if it's even worth it to defend the feminine? If love can become artificial, then why should I treat it as anything other than artificial?
If the feminine has no morals or ideals, then why should I treat women as a human being with morals and ideals? I'm not going to uphold the higher moral ground if I'm going to be attacked like this: If this "world" is the feminine ideal, I'll leave it be. I'll find a woman for me, live our lives together and leave it be. If the world reforms, great, if not, I've no regrets. The idea of reform was rejected, I was rejected. My rejection, means consequently my lack of effort from this point forward.
say what! wrote...
Maxiart wrote...
I agree on you on the part of valuing women, and that sadly, many men don't really do that. However, you kill all your beautiful words with your last line, by making romanticism into a tool for getting laid. It makes everything before it come across as hypocrisy.
I already responded to Maxiart's post, a few posts above and I'll reiterate: I was not making romanticism into a tool for getting laid. I was, certainly in a wrong fashion trying to dumb romanticism down to the lowest common denominator.
That was a mistake, one I'll freely admit and retract and edit.
Lollikittie wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
Isn't the expression of love, a woman's highest form of expression? Mind you, any person(IE:Male) could express love, but we just don't do it as well. Rightly, or wrongly, we protect that which is valuable to us. We want to feel dependable, have good paying jobs and such. But generally speaking, we don't emotionally express ourselves as well.
I believe love is the highest force and emotion to express, period. I don't believe that either gender is particularly better at love.. I mean, love is something you feel and do. I think.. I just think that as more rational creatures, Men might not be able to process it or articulate something that.. irrational and powerful.
Still... I don't know that this force is strictly a woman thing. Tenderness can be expressed by anyone, at any time.
If love is the sacred feminine, however... then how is the Feminist movement killing it? Do you mean to imply that the more morally flexible a woman is [I.e. engaging in casual sex] that she somehow becomes less capable of showing love?
Firstly, I wanna thank the guy for his post. I didn't want to take away my admittedly, off-topic response to his questioning of my support for a Light-like system. And at the same time, Ms.Loli your questions deserve far more attention as a result of this thread. Basically, I didn't wanna double-post and that post was already as large as I wanted it to be lol.
I don't consider engaging in casual sex to be morally flexible for a woman, before, sex was romanticised(even in female novels, written by females.) As something very sacred to women. To share that moment of intimacy, with your body, with just about anyone is not morally flexible.
And if such an act, such as prostitution is necessary for a woman to survive in our western culture, we have to seriously question what we're doing with the economy and with the health of our young women and as potential fathers, what of our daughters?
Prostitution should be outlawed, not by decree but by virtue of the fact that once we get a healthy, flowing, working economy for women they'll go flock to those jobs outright and make their body sacred again.
I believe the Feminist Movement would have been a much more powerful movement had it focused on the inherent rights of females. You want to enjoy the same kind of 'casual' behavior as a male, but men themselves do not wish to act 'casually' on a daily basis. Our 'casual behavior'(IE: Our sexual nature) should ideally be shared with a loved one.
Men can articulate that feeling, sadly if only in possessiveness. Call me a demon if you wish, but I believe you, the female, who has the inherent right and privilege bestowed upon you to be able to give birth with a significant other when you so choose, shouldn't simply throw it away. Or proclaim that you have sanctity over another's life(The fetus).
I'll soften my position slightly: Just as there's medical marijuana, I can concur to the idea of medical abortion. But only up until we can find a way to resolve the issue of 'endangered pregancies.'(IE: Where the mother is at risk.) As well as, of course, dealing with the trauma of rape.
I still feel as though if I were a woman, dealing with that trauma I couldn't let my trauma and what affected me, affect the life in me. For better or worse, he's my child and I would give birth to him. But that's a moral stance, that any person can decide to take or not take and it wouldn't make the person good or evil. It'd just make her human.
Black Jesus JC wrote...
I'm assuming my response to this will not change the OP's mind on it, but i feel like i need to say something about this.LustfulAngel wrote...
Crimes that threaten the rights of the people to live in peace. Crimes such as murder, theft, etc. Assault, rape. Can you imagine if these otherwise low-life scum were treated to a quick and swift jury, and possibly capital punishment? No more five minutes of fame, no more thinking that a "low-level crime" is actually acceptable.
You see, a serial killer is someone who has placed no value whatsoever on life. Which is why Near was wrong when he called Light a serial killer, Light placed value on humanity itself, the future of the planet. He placed such a high value on it, that he was willing to sacrifice himself for the higher purpose.
I place absolute value on the feminine, which is why I'm willing to go to extremes to protect it, as well as admire it. Of course, if the feminine themselves no longer place value on themselves, my value also disappears with it.
So for the first, and last time, please don't compare me to low-life, retarded scum bags who have no value in themselves, much less others.
The world is not black and white. For example,a parent may steal a few groceries from a rich house to support his or her family, and there was a recent case where a father accidentally killed a guy who he found molesting his daughter. There is a reason why we have a legal/justice system, for cases like this where the grey's of morality start to show and it isn't so easy to assign terms like "low life scum."
I'm not saying that system is perfect, but what you are suggesting isn't any better. In certain cases i could support the death penalty but it sounds like what you are advocating is a blanket punishment for all crimes regardless of context. Also, earlier in this topic you mention glorifying violence as disgusting but you mention abhorring people who don't live up to your standards and basing a legal system around a fictional character who killed anyone who committed a crime without even getting a little context to said crimes.And you get offended when people say you come off like a serial killer.
And as for the general thrust of this topic, i don't think anyone should have to act a certain way because of gender roles, and i don't make a habit of telling other people what to do with there genitals. You are trying to push the idea that your opinion of how men and woman should behave are fact,when it is anything but.
"No basis"? It's heavily implied that all of Light's targets were already in prison, or heavily suspected of doing the crime(IE:They were guilty, but were on the 'justice system' process. IE, did you know it took 8 months, EIGHT long months of Loughner's guilty plea? The American taxpayer paid eight months in taxes for a decision that should've taken minutes.)
Our Justice system is heavily flawed where in the prosecutors only care about making the state looking good, a defense lawyer gets the opportunity to make hundreds of thousands(Hey, I'm not saying it's wrong, it's his profession but god is it disgusting.) And of course, there's always the chance(more and more probable) that a guy either gets free or avoids the worst possible punishment(a plea).
And the Jury? Let's just say I don't have faith in my countrymen, this is a country after all that hasn't legitmately exercised it's right to vote(IE: You CAN pick someone other than Romney or Obama, will they? Heavily doubtful) in the last 30 or so years. Think I have confidence in their ability to discern right from wrong or to make proper judgment of a situation? No, I don't.
And more than anything, our justice system utterly and completely fails at the one thing that's needed: A show of force, so much as implying that actions have negative consequences. The plea agreements negate any kind of sense of justice. Now, he's still "being sentenced", but that sentence can be heavily lightened.
Take Michael Vick as an example, he committed a felony, but because we humans somehow valued the life of an animal as less than a Human Being, Michael Vick got far less in prison than say you and I would have. Ah, privilege and class at it's best.
Light wouldn't have cared whether Vick was an NFL player or a guy on the street, as far as he would've been concerned, Vick committed murder. Now, Vick is actually an example of someone who reformed and fits your case more than mine, and I'm proud of him for that. But how many 'Vick's' are there? How many actually reform from their time in federal prison? So very few the number is minimal.
We need a radical system like what Light was trying to create, in the six years of Light's Era, the world's wars had stopped and most crimes also ceased. I remember an argument, that that was because of the 'fear' of dying and once said fear was removed they would(as they did in the epilouge) return to their degenerative selves.
That would have been true initially, but in the end you cannot live a life forever in fear. That is to say, actually leading a good morale life would have been embedded in the heart of the said person and no longer through fear, but he actually enjoys living this way. We don't like to say it, but I will: We humans are exactly the same as the animal kingdom, we're mammals. Let's not put ourselves on some pedestal.
The difference, is that we can exercise judgment in thought and we can organize the chaos of our kingdom, as opposed to the animals who are strictly limited to reacting. Somehow, however, we have become animals who only react. We react to crime, with more crime. Violence with more violence, and we don't make the morally difficult decisions needed for our species to survive.
Light made the morally difficult decisions, he threw away the initial value of morality to pursue a greater form of morality. The morality that crime itself is utterly unacceptable, and the idea of plea deals and the idea of "five minutes of fame", should just fade from this world altogether. Unless, of course you want this repetitive, self-destructive death of human beings to continue.
Lollikittie wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
What I'm referring to is that for every man, when he finds the woman of his dreams, that he falls in love with, is his most sacred partner. The one he can trust the most, the one he can confide in the most. The same is true, BTW for Lesbian partners.(And one can say for gay men as well, but it's in my belief even as a bisexual that only a woman has these strong intimate qualities.)
I reference to a woman's natural ability to care for others, the love and affection a woman naturally gives out to people close to her is unmatched. The ideal and vision of women becoming world leaders, was in the hopes that that love would be more widespread.
The Sacred Feminine, is a respect for all that which is feminine. It's a respect for womanhood, at her most beautiful, sacred and endearing.
So.. so what you're saying is the sacred feminine is not about a woman's self expression but a woman expressing love? Is this more pertinent to maternal love? It seems you like to focus on the giving aspect...
Isn't the expression of love, a woman's highest form of expression? Mind you, any person(IE:Male) could express love, but we just don't do it as well. Rightly, or wrongly, we protect that which is valuable to us. We want to feel dependable, have good paying jobs and such. But generally speaking, we don't emotionally express ourselves as well.
It can be pertinent to maternal love, but it's also external. Simply put, I don't want to be attracted to a woman, mainly by her body alone. We humans might place an initial value on how the opposite sex looks, but from there on, a woman's personality, her habits and hobbies these are all things I want to know about her.
The Sacred Feminine, is no more or less than admiring the wonderful qualities of womanhood, and believing the Feminine deserves no less than respect, admiration for all of her wonderful qualities.
And if I'm to leave no doubt, this of course, also includes the work force. A woman that's hardworking and earnest is certainly a woman of great quality. However, the toll of being both a working citizen in society and potentially a mother is much too hard a toll to ask to put on a woman.
Heck, replace the word 'mother' with one's HS/College life, and all of the crazies that go on and I'm sure you'll admit there have been pretty tiring days. Ideally, a man can reduce as much of that stress as possible.
Lollikittie wrote...
You speak so passionately and I want to understand why.What exactly do you mean when you say 'The Sacred Feminine'.
If it is not in fact, a set standard of beauty and behavior... then what is it?
If you truly want me to believe that you love and respect women, and that you do not wish to oppress them or deprive them of essential liberties... what is this intangible force in women that you are constantly referring to?
Please be as concise as possible.
What I'm referring to is that for every man, when he finds the woman of his dreams, that he falls in love with, is his most sacred partner. The one he can trust the most, the one he can confide in the most. The same is true, BTW for Lesbian partners.(And one can say for gay men as well, but it's in my belief even as a bisexual that only a woman has these strong intimate qualities.)
I reference to a woman's natural ability to care for others, the love and affection a woman naturally gives out to people close to her is unmatched. The ideal and vision of women becoming world leaders, was in the hopes that that love would be more widespread.
The Sacred Feminine, is a respect for all that which is feminine. It's a respect for womanhood, at her most beautiful, sacred and endearing. Sexual? Hardly, and only then when the woman has accepted the male as her sacred lover.
Maxiart wrote...
I agree on you on the part of valuing women, and that sadly, many men don't really do that. However, you kill all your beautiful words with your last line, by making romanticism into a tool for getting laid. It makes everything before it come across as hypocrisy.
I didn't make it a tool for getting laid, in my original post I tried(albeit, miserably) to relate romantism to the lowest common denominator. Maybe that was a mistake in the original post.
Lollikittie wrote...
Look.. the bottom line is this.Women are changing and evolving and growing whether you think they should or not. It's happening and it simply will not stop.
You can cling to the ideals of a by-gone era all you want, but it won't make a difference. We will continue to fight and march and picket and use hair dye and make our own choices and get tattoos and wear boyish clothes because that's who we are.
Each woman wants to be herself and show what that means to the world in her own unique way. That is what true beauty is, not the ideal of delicacy. True beauty is self-acceptance, and the only person that can decide what her true self is, is the woman herself.
The moment you accept that is the moment you once more become capable of loving a woman.
Because as you should be most acutely aware of by now, you can't love someone without first truly accepting who they are, even if it is something completely different from what you want them to be.
When have I ever denied a woman's right to self-expression? Would I have made this post if I believed otherwise? The only thing I've ever denied, and the thing I believe as men we have a responsibility to do, is to make you don't degrade your own image.
No, that doesn't mean I particularly care whether or not you dress like a tomboy. I'll once again say it, a woman theoretically holds her trust and her body above all else and supposedly she wants to take actual care of it.
We shouldn't have an economic situation then, that forces a woman to sell her body off, nor a media that actually encourages it. And very equally, we shouldn't allow hypocritical murder to take place under the guise of a "right to one's own body".
Believe me Lolikittie, I accept the feminine. I accept it so much that I'm trying right here to defend it, even as there are females who sadly seem ready to throw it all away. There was once a dating site that I once read that said in effect, we men are prone to trying too hard and too much.
Well then, I'll start trying too little. I won't care whatsoever about the state of the feminine. As you ask for, I won't defend it. Nor will I love it. I will only love and defend myself.
Firstbornnyc wrote...
ok im going to put it like this.if i steal a car or break into a house and go to prison there i can have time to reflect and reform and when i get out i can teach my family and others the error of there ways.
or a young lady because of being molested and abused as a child turns to prostitution to take care of herself.
is prostition wrong? yes
should she be punished? yes
is she a bad person who should be hated? no
my point is life is not so black and white that you can put people in a box labeled criminal, or a box labeled good citizen and just kill off all the criminals because just like the victims the criminals are people too, people who made bad choices but they still are human and should be treated like human beings.
once a person commits a crime they dont become some inhuman demon and they shouldnt be treated like that, that kind of attitude is taking the easy way out.
I don't believe the young lady should be "punished" in the case of prostitution. I don't consider prostitution a "crime" as it doesn't violate any rights. It violates the woman's own sense of beauty and her sense of self, but further punishment is not going to make her realize that fact.
A prostitute, such as the case you proclaimed before needs mental help and treatment, not to be condemned by the wolves. The 'ideal' is for reform of the theft, or the person who commits arson, but let's get serious: They had such a warped perception, as to not value another's property or another person in the first place.
The likelihood of reform, especially amongst a bunch of other criminals whose lives consist of eating, maybe fighting or working out at best in America's god awful prison system is utterly unlikely.
The best way to treat a disease is to treat the actual cause, not the symptoms. Improving the economy: Step one. Virtually eliminating the criminals from public sight: Step two.
Firstbornnyc wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
Firstbornnyc wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
Firstbornnyc wrote...
thats the difference between us I dont spurn or hate people because i dont agree with there life choice,nothing positive can come from that type of attitude, I dont agree with prostitution but i dont hate prostitutes, i dont agree with dealing drugs but i dont hate the drug dealer because when you hate you cant teach, how do you know that you are not in a position to turn that particular persons life around by your example. but if you walk around bitter and angry at the world, your not going to acomplish anything but staying bitter and angry, and good luck finding a woman to walk down that path with you.when i compared you to Jim Jones i had a feeling (and i still do) that its a correct assumption and not just with Jones, do some research on cults and there teaching and see if they dont line up with your words in this thread...
like I said Jim Jones didnt start off as a mass murderer.
You're comparing me to a serial killer, I think we're done 'discussing'.
if thats how you want to take it but I guarantee im not the only one.
There's only one 'serial killer', or serial killing mentality that I ever supported and that's Light Yagami from Death Note.
If the fetus is an absolutely valuable life, the criminal, the degenerate is a 'life' not worth living, nor does this human being appreciate life any more. The justice system is utterly ineffective at dealing with this threat to humanity and the only thing we've ever done is say: "Tough shit".
I'd love to liberalize the Death Penalty so as to enact a virtual death note. Now, there's actual consequences for actions.
and who decides these "criminals" are not worth living? and what crimes are deserving of a death penalty?and you would love to personally liberalize the death penalty? see you say things like that and get offended when i compare you to cult leaders and serial killers?your making your own case, like I said do some research if anything it will give you a fresh prospective on your way of thinking.
Crimes that threaten the rights of the people to live in peace. Crimes such as murder, theft, etc. Assault, rape. Can you imagine if these otherwise low-life scum were treated to a quick and swift jury, and possibly capital punishment? No more five minutes of fame, no more thinking that a "low-level crime" is actually acceptable.
You see, a serial killer is someone who has placed no value whatsoever on life. Which is why Near was wrong when he called Light a serial killer, Light placed value on humanity itself, the future of the planet. He placed such a high value on it, that he was willing to sacrifice himself for the higher purpose.
I place absolute value on the feminine, which is why I'm willing to go to extremes to protect it, as well as admire it. Of course, if the feminine themselves no longer place value on themselves, my value also disappears with it.
So for the first, and last time, please don't compare me to low-life, retarded scum bags who have no value in themselves, much less others.
Firstbornnyc wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
Firstbornnyc wrote...
thats the difference between us I dont spurn or hate people because i dont agree with there life choice,nothing positive can come from that type of attitude, I dont agree with prostitution but i dont hate prostitutes, i dont agree with dealing drugs but i dont hate the drug dealer because when you hate you cant teach, how do you know that you are not in a position to turn that particular persons life around by your example. but if you walk around bitter and angry at the world, your not going to acomplish anything but staying bitter and angry, and good luck finding a woman to walk down that path with you.when i compared you to Jim Jones i had a feeling (and i still do) that its a correct assumption and not just with Jones, do some research on cults and there teaching and see if they dont line up with your words in this thread...
like I said Jim Jones didnt start off as a mass murderer.
You're comparing me to a serial killer, I think we're done 'discussing'.
if thats how you want to take it but I guarantee im not the only one.
There's only one 'serial killer', or serial killing mentality that I ever supported and that's Light Yagami from Death Note.
If the fetus is an absolutely valuable life, the criminal, the degenerate is a 'life' not worth living, nor does this human being appreciate life any more. The justice system is utterly ineffective at dealing with this threat to humanity and the only thing we've ever done is say: "Tough shit".
I'd love to liberalize the Death Penalty so as to enact a virtual death note. Now, there's actual consequences for actions.
Firstbornnyc wrote...
thats the difference between us I dont spurn or hate people because i dont agree with there life choice,nothing positive can come from that type of attitude, I dont agree with prostitution but i dont hate prostitutes, i dont agree with dealing drugs but i dont hate the drug dealer because when you hate you cant teach, how do you know that you are not in a position to turn that particular persons life around by your example. but if you walk around bitter and angry at the world, your not going to acomplish anything but staying bitter and angry, and good luck finding a woman to walk down that path with you.when i compared you to Jim Jones i had a feeling (and i still do) that its a correct assumption and not just with Jones, do some research on cults and there teaching and see if they dont line up with your words in this thread...
like I said Jim Jones didnt start off as a mass murderer.
You're comparing me to a serial killer, I think we're done 'discussing'.
Firstbornnyc wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
Firstbornnyc wrote...
see thats where you mess up at you say a woman should uphold these "proper values" but who picks these values? you? and you go on to say things like "the natural beauty she was meant to be" and "representing herself as she should". which is fine but what happens when the way a women is representing herself doesnt match up with the values you would have women have?you said it yourself you would cut them out of your life (which is a fucked up way of thinking in itself just because a person doesnt believe in your beliefs and values doesnt mean that they arent good people).
but what if the person in question turns out to be your wife or daughter or son, what if they develop there own way of wanting to be treated or wanting to treat others?
let me put it like this is my daughter wants to sell shoes,strip, or be a astroPhysicist. she can count on having me being in her corner even if i dont agree with her life choice daddy always has her back.
You're "in her corner", yet you're not actually going to commit to these actions, or help her herself engage in these actions because you don't agree with them. And please don't say that you would, because that's hypocritical.
Here's the thing: *I* never picked these values, these are the values that females once held highly(or in this case, supposedly held highly.)Scratch that, these are values society once held highly.
I argue for nothing more than a return to those values that society once held highly, feminine beauty that females once held. And I reserve the right to my own tolerance for what I want and what I don't want in my household, or what I would want in a relationship partner.
And I reserve the right to raise my child, in the expectations that I believe a child should be raised by. I will reduplicate the kind of parenthood my grandmother raised me in, that has made me a H.S. Graduate and a college student at university.
And in doing so, hopefully my daughter, my children will experience the same if not better results.
no i wont go to a strip club and strip but at the same time i dont hold contempt for strippers. remember that extra step i said you take thats it right there. not only do you disagree but you take it a step further and add contempt even if you dont know the person. i might be wrong again but it seems like you say "well i know how they live there lives so thats enough for me to spurn them. which is wrong.
and society has changed nowadays women like men can pick there own values and decide the way they wish to be treated they dont need men or society to dictate to them what a real woman or a real man is.
They 'can' pick their own values and decide the way they wish to be treated. Doesn't mean I accept it, or even for that matter want to see it. This is where I agree with Socrates who states "All evil is ignorance."
The women who strip, or perform sexual acts for money act in ignorance, believing that they can't perform any other function in life. Hey, ignorance is bliss and at the eye of the beholder. But when said ignorance results in STD'S, when it results in the even more ignorant claim of "right to choose"(IE: I have the right to engage in capital murder), that's where the line's drawn.
And do I despise such people? I abhor them They have no value for themselves, their peers or even their own child in the case of birth. And then they give excuses to justify their self-damaging ignorance.
It's like someone who sees the corruption of the political system and then goes "It's the best we've got." It's corrupt and it's harming you, why are you just standing there drooling like an idiot? Do something!
Firstbornnyc wrote...
see thats where you mess up at you say a woman should uphold these "proper values" but who picks these values? you? and you go on to say things like "the natural beauty she was meant to be" and "representing herself as she should". which is fine but what happens when the way a women is representing herself doesnt match up with the values you would have women have?you said it yourself you would cut them out of your life (which is a fucked up way of thinking in itself just because a person doesnt believe in your beliefs and values doesnt mean that they arent good people).
but what if the person in question turns out to be your wife or daughter or son, what if they develop there own way of wanting to be treated or wanting to treat others?
let me put it like this is my daughter wants to sell shoes,strip, or be a astroPhysicist. she can count on having me being in her corner even if i dont agree with her life choice daddy always has her back.
You're "in her corner", yet you're not actually going to commit to these actions, or help her herself engage in these actions because you don't agree with them. And please don't say that you would, because that's hypocritical.
Here's the thing: *I* never picked these values, these are the values that females once held highly(or in this case, supposedly held highly.)Scratch that, these are values society once held highly.
I argue for nothing more than a return to those values that society once held highly, feminine beauty that females once held. And I reserve the right to my own tolerance for what I want and what I don't want in my household, or what I would want in a relationship partner.
And I reserve the right to raise my child, in the expectations that I believe a child should be raised by. I will reduplicate the kind of parenthood my grandmother raised me in, that has made me a H.S. Graduate and a college student at university.
And in doing so, hopefully my daughter, my children will experience the same if not better results.
animefreak_usa wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
My "personal feelings on what I believe women should act or be"? These are not my feelings, this is rather the ideal of the femininity of a woman. Nor have I ever spoken of the "happy housewife concept", I've spoken of the self-respect a woman should have for herself and her body. A self-respect she should also have for her amazing qualities and talents.
Sound like a personal feeling and ideal.
I said that my own sense of value and self worth was a *part* of it, have we now reached the point where we're going to stretch my arguments in justification? People can justify things as long as they want, just know that that justification doesn't make it any more or less valid.
The Protagonist wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
Your reading vocabulary needs work, no offense. Where, once did I say I viewed sex as an "ultimate negative"? Quite to the contrary and this is the last time I will be stating it: I find sex to be the ultimate proof of love, the highest form of love a female can express to a male and vice versa. I've seen my own parents(my mother and grandmother) pursue this "happiness" that you speak of, and neither of them today are happy for it. For that happiness, I don't know my own biological father.Calling that happiness is so sick, it's devoid of rationality. My future daughter will grow up having expectations for herself, and for the man she eventually trusts with her body and soul. She'll know that her father won't allow her to merely sell her body of, nor will he allow her boyfriend to use her as his sexual ginny pig. She'll always be treated with respect, she'll be loved.
She just won't see this filthy world of yours. She'll thank me, that unlike those women carrying STD'S and diseases, that she has a loving family with a husband and children of her own.
You might not of said it, but you treat it as such. Also, "no offense", but you're pathetically delusional. Also, why is it the woman's body that is her most treasured object? Oh god, not her - I don't know - MIND or PERSONALITY or something to that extent? You so want to leash up women and tell them "Bad, bad women!" whenever they do something that isn't in your realm of acceptance. We're not dogs. We are human beings with the right to do what we want with ourselves. No one else can dictate another person's moral code or sense of dignity for them. What might make you uncomfortable does not necessarily make someone else uncomfortable. We might see ourselves as being unable to do ____ or ____ without feeling as though we've compromised ourselves, but perhaps for another person those things are different. Unless the woman herself feels degraded, how can you say that she has been? You cannot dictate these things to another person without inherently compromising their own identity.
Sexuality in and of itself is not "filthy" nor are our natural bodies engaging in sexual activity therefore "wrong". These are the ideas of someone who wants to oppress the natural inclinations of others as though acting upon them is disgusting when it is not in the least. Those who pursue sex - casually or otherwise - can respect themselves by testing for those diseases, wearing condoms, and talking with their sex partners about other means of keeping themselves safe. Just because someone doesn't strictly align their sexual activity in the parameters of an exclusive relationship doesn't mean they are always reckless about it - if anything, showing these considerations for themselves and their partners shows a huge amount of respect for both parties involved.
Edit: The fact that both me and Firstbornnyc made comments alluding to your treatment of women as liken to how people treat their pets should tell you a great deal about how wrong you are to dictate your ideals onto others.
I don't see that, if having casual sex could in any way be respectful I would've long ago done it. But having casual sex isn't respectful to my heart, nor is it respectful to the female. Because the truth of the matter is: I don't love her, I don't even necessarily like her. Indeed, if you care so much about your rights you should be disgusted with casual sex because it puts an emphasis entirely and only on your body.
When a woman treats her body with respect, so not as to sleep with a man for monetary gain, or for a one night stand, she's also showing the wonderful qualities of her mind and personality. Of course, you will say that this is only my opinion.
I think of it as a fact,a woman can't degenerate themselves and treat themselves like a sex toy, all the meanwhile highlighting their mind, intelligence, etc. There isn't anyone who'll be casually interested in that.
People dictate their opinions to others all the time, in the form of laws, in the form of public opinion. Our whole world is nothing but opinion. There, however is opinion based upon a higher moral, ethic and value sense and opinion that is quite the opposite.
However, degeneracy and morality cannot co-exist. That is to say, the immoral behavior of a 'liberal' female and that of a conservative mind set cannot go together. I will not allow my daughter to mingle herself with this 'liberal' crowd. It would be the worst betrayal I could give her. Considering that this liberalism is free and virtually more open than values are, even if I should raise her to be a fine woman, she'll eventually come to know this hell hole eventually.
However, by raising her properly I would have given her the tools to make the right decisions. And if she makes the wrong ones? By then, she's an adult and really she's no longer my concern. So that should be no problem for you right?
Firstbornnyc wrote...
self respect is all well and good, but you take it a step further and say "if women arent living there life like this then they have no self respect", "if men arent treating women like this then they have no self respect". You interject too much of your own personal beliefs of what a good woman, and a good man is. and i might be wrong but from the way you come off it seems that if a man or woman deviates from this value system that you set up then they are no longer respectable people, like "my wife or daughter shouldnt do this or this because of MY high standards they should do this and this". if thats how you run your household than you dont have a wife and daughter you have a couple of houscats and god forbid one of them "pees on the rug".you might not actually be the type of person you are coming off as in the thread at least i hope not because im hearing Jim Jones all in your posts.
I can't believe you equated me to a massive serial killer, for wanting to uphold the proper values a man and woman should have. A male allowing his woman to grow, to express herself and be the natural beauty she was meant to be. And a female, respecting her body, mind and soul and representing herself as she should.
If a man can't respect a female in that way, or if a man can't respect himself without trying to look like some "thug", and if a female cannot value herself. Then damn right, they aren't really that respectable.
I might "deal" with them, as it pertains to our social lives(IE:If we're co-workers), but I'd separate myself from such people as much as reasonably possible, because we don't have the same expectations for each other.
The Protagonist wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
The Protagonist wrote...
The so-called woman that you describe above isn't anything more or less then a man-made ideal. It is disgusting that even in this day and age women are still expected to be pure-hearted symbols of virginity for a man to conquer and "protect"... Why do we require your protection? Isn't it much better to foster strong women who are able to protect and depend upon themselves? A woman who makes decisions for herself - sexual or otherwise - for whatever reason (money included) is not degrading herself. She is simply considering her options and forging her own way. How can you judge a woman you don't know for choosing to do something you don't understand? Just because you are a man - historically chosen as the dominant gender - does not mean you're obligated to look after the "weaker" and more "gentle" sex or that we are obligated to take your supposed protection. Instead of sitting behind your computer romanticizing an old-fashioned ideal, why don't you get to know REAL women with REAL personalities who make choices for THEMSELVES? And when you do (god willing) meet with one of these women, don't you dare press your own moral convictions against her. What gives you the right? The right of decent expectation. I'm not about to sit here, and allow a would-be significant other, or even myself allow for our own degeneration. Again, that is never 'equality' or 'libertation'.(Though, you mistakenly think it is.) In fact, I find it utterly deplorable and sad that a woman feels she would have to give up her body and soul for monetary purposes. That isn't forging your own way, that's taking the worst of all options, sacrificing everything and then later, attempting to justify yourself.
Yes, your diatribe along with Lolikittie's is little more than justification for that, which any decent minded person would consider to be incorrect. You see, to me, my wife is someone to whom I will love eternally and should I be blessed with a daughter, she is someone to whom I will protect eternally, as a father and as a man with conviction.
If you want a whore of a man who has so little expectation of you, there are plenty of them out there, that's given you this 'liberation' and 'equality'. But my expectations of my wife are her eloquence, her beauty and her natural self-respect for herself. I wish to groom my daughter in a nice, secure home setting where she can grow to form her own feelings, convictions and date a man who will treat her all the same.
Neither my wife, nor my daughter will grow to see this disgusting world, and the lack of expectations that come with it. I hold myself, and those around me to a higher standard.
Yeah, YOUR higher standard. I'm not surprised you've never had a real relationship (or perhaps an online one? excuse me while I laugh~), since you so obviously fail to understand that humanity is free to choose what they will and to do what they like as long as it doesn't impose upon another person's own freedom. Along with this, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and to exercise these differences. The fact that you are unwilling to budge on the fact that others are "degrading" themselves seems laughable - how so? Just because you - a virgin - believes sex to be an ultimately negative thing doesn't mean that others feel the same as you do. A woman who owns up and accepts her own pleasure irregardless of romance (if she so chooses) isn't degrading herself. She is pursuing her own happiness within her own rights. A woman who lives bound by others' expectations to be pure and supposedly noble is degrading herself by not being free to explore her own options and her own choice. Someone might live a "pure" lifestyle, but if it is not what they truly want then they're forsaking their own soul more-so then someone who chooses to do what they please even if it is supposedly a dirty deed to you. Luckily, nobody here is bound by your desires! I truly feel sorry for your future daughter - she will grow up resenting herself and her sexuality, will live in a persecuted environment where she feels slut-shamed and unable to make her own choices without being morally isolated by those who should love her for who she is and embrace her freedom - and yes, liberation.
Your reading vocabulary needs work, no offense. Where, once did I say I viewed sex as an "ultimate negative"? Quite to the contrary and this is the last time I will be stating it: I find sex to be the ultimate proof of love, the highest form of love a female can express to a male and vice versa. I've seen my own parents(my mother and grandmother) pursue this "happiness" that you speak of, and neither of them today are happy for it. For that happiness, I don't know my own biological father.
Calling that happiness is so sick, it's devoid of rationality. My future daughter will grow up having expectations for herself, and for the man she eventually trusts with her body and soul. She'll know that her father won't allow her to merely sell her body of, nor will he allow her boyfriend to use her as his sexual ginny pig. She'll always be treated with respect, she'll be loved.
She just won't see this filthy world of yours. She'll thank me, that unlike those women carrying STD'S and diseases, that she has a loving family with a husband and children of her own.
Firstbornnyc wrote...
lmao!!! the OPs posts just scream cult leader,it basically breaks down like this."women shouldnt be in this box right hear that box is evil and wrong, they belong in this box over hear this is the nice safe protective box"
The cult of self-respect, gee, don't I wish? If we had a cult of self-respect for all human beings we'd get somewhere.
The Protagonist wrote...
The so-called woman that you describe above isn't anything more or less then a man-made ideal. It is disgusting that even in this day and age women are still expected to be pure-hearted symbols of virginity for a man to conquer and "protect"... Why do we require your protection? Isn't it much better to foster strong women who are able to protect and depend upon themselves? A woman who makes decisions for herself - sexual or otherwise - for whatever reason (money included) is not degrading herself. She is simply considering her options and forging her own way. How can you judge a woman you don't know for choosing to do something you don't understand? Just because you are a man - historically chosen as the dominant gender - does not mean you're obligated to look after the "weaker" and more "gentle" sex or that we are obligated to take your supposed protection. Instead of sitting behind your computer romanticizing an old-fashioned ideal, why don't you get to know REAL women with REAL personalities who make choices for THEMSELVES? And when you do (god willing) meet with one of these women, don't you dare press your own moral convictions against her. What gives you the right? The right of decent expectation. I'm not about to sit here, and allow a would-be significant other, or even myself allow for our own degeneration. Again, that is never 'equality' or 'libertation'.(Though, you mistakenly think it is.) In fact, I find it utterly deplorable and sad that a woman feels she would have to give up her body and soul for monetary purposes. That isn't forging your own way, that's taking the worst of all options, sacrificing everything and then later, attempting to justify yourself.
Yes, your diatribe along with Lolikittie's is little more than justification for that, which any decent minded person would consider to be incorrect. You see, to me, my wife is someone to whom I will love eternally and should I be blessed with a daughter, she is someone to whom I will protect eternally, as a father and as a man with conviction.
If you want a whore of a man who has so little expectation of you, there are plenty of them out there, that's given you this 'liberation' and 'equality'. But my expectations of my wife are her eloquence, her beauty and her natural self-respect for herself. I wish to groom my daughter in a nice, secure home setting where she can grow to form her own feelings, convictions and date a man who will treat her all the same.
Neither my wife, nor my daughter will grow to see this disgusting world, and the lack of expectations that come with it. I hold myself, and those around me to a higher standard.
animefreak_usa wrote...
But your boasting your personal feeling and morals of what you belief women should act or be. The pure idea of femininity is a falsehood. The pure honor of a woman morals doesn't work. The happy housewife is a invalid concept. Like the old wise tale of virginity until marriage and obeying thou husband until death. Maybe my faith make me feel this way. Both men and women are equal in my faith since the early 8th century. I have a weird view on gender roles and shit like that.My "personal feelings on what I believe women should act or be"? These are not my feelings, this is rather the ideal of the femininity of a woman. Nor have I ever spoken of the "happy housewife concept", I've spoken of the self-respect a woman should have for herself and her body. A self-respect she should also have for her amazing qualities and talents.
It amazes me, how I feel like I've posted the same thing over and over again and people fail to comprehend it: I'm not opposed to the actions of any one person, be they a male or a female. I'm opposed to the actions that disgrace the feminine(or even, yes the male.)
Gangs, drugs, glorying sex and violence is that part of "manhood" that can only be seen as disgusting, and they shouldn't be acknowledged as males. Yet, they are acknowledged as such.
This new "era", has brought about equality only in the sense that it has eliminated the very notion of self-respect. Through degenerational behaviors, the men and women of this era have fallen quite short of what used to be considered our highest qualities.
I'm sorry if I don't feel as though equality has been had, or that a woman has been 'liberated' in any sense of the word. She's only been cursed through a mirage of equality. Her liberation came at the expense of anything she once held dear.
But then, like I said earlier: That's supposing the feminine ideal was something they ever held dear in the first place. And if not, then I should hope there isn't a call for a reversal of degenerative treatment. That is to say: Don't ask to be treated in a respectful, elegant manner when the female herself, doesn't see herself in that light.
artcellrox wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
This is gold, honestly? Sex is separate from love? You couldn't be more mistaken, why do we long for it more than anything else? Because it feels good? Why does it feel good? Because we have a significant other there with us. Yes. As simple as that. And you don't need a significant other to feel good. That's why some people are fine with masturbation. I won't deny that, with a significant other, it might feel even better, but to think sex NEEDS emotional attachment and connection in this day and age is just silly. You're acting a lot like how I was when I was a child.
Lust and love aren't mutually exclusive, but lust is not a subset of love. It can exist on its own, and many are fine with that.
Lust can and in fact does exist on it's own. But it's very hallow and eventually, it comes to depress you. At least, it has come to depress me and it has made me think about how I treat myself in terms of looking at sex and women.
