Philosophy Now Forum

lol "evolutionary designation"—I hope you aren't mangling your words deliberately!

"Unfit", dear moron, is an evolutionary designation describing genes that inhibit reproduction.

So an evolutionary biologist would not apply "unfit" to any gene that contributes to a successful mating strategy. That leaves you looking for a way to back down, Satty, but I expect you'll just resort to a stream of silly invective to cover your mistake, as usual

I have read that a clever guy increases his dating chances, because women love smarter men and women can be intimidated by men who are more intelligent than they are. A better than average IQ is a plus, but past a certain level of very high IQ there seems to be a lack of social savy and other personality quirks that are deterrents. If a particular woman places importantance on intelligence then it is a major attribute and nothing turns her on faster than being "corrected" by a man who she perceives to be more intelligent than she is. It can be used also as sexual dominance. Women are attracted to muscles for their own sake but are attracted to intelligence when it is used to dominate. Women find men attractive who can dominate both physically and mentally.

"Sigmas – the lone wolves are not leaders and will actively resist the attempt of others to draft them. the true Sigma’s withdrawal from the pack is not a reaction to the way he is treated, it is pure instinct". This would limit his choices and would he still be the pursuer or would the women have to pursue him. Would it be his aloofness, rather than his perceived intelligence and muscle that would lure women to him?

reasonvemotion wrote: Women find men attractive who can dominate both physically and mentally.

I find this is true...but there is a subtle difference in meaning of the word 'intelligence' that is important here. It has been my observation that young women of child bearing years often fool themselves into believing a man is more intelligent (or strong) that he really actually is. I think this is because the desire to have children is very intense and overrides her common sense. So she will be sexually attracted to a man that she superficially sees as someone who is more intelligent and strong. Sometimes she will even manipulate the situation and act dumber than she really is just to 'get the guy' and have her baby. I don't think this is a calculated move on her part though...as I don't think she understands what she is doing at the time. I just think sometimes the overwhelming desire to have a baby overrides her common sense during those child bearing years. Often times, after having her children, she will come out of the biological clock 'daze', and this is when she will see the truth of the matter...whether of not she choose a man who was more intelligent or stronger than she.

If he is not, the lack of respect for him is tremendous. She might begin to see him as a man child. Even if he is brilliant academically, she might notice that he lacks the ability to make certain judgments that will keep her and her children 'safe'. It is not enough that her man simply be intelligent or strong. It is imperative that he possesses those traits solely to the benefit of her and her children. If he does not she will fall out of love no matter how dominance or control he has over her.

I have seen it time and time again. If momma ain't happy...ain't nobody happy.

reasonvemotion wrote:I have read that a clever guy increases his dating chances, because women love smarter men and women can be intimidated by men who are more intelligent than they are. A better than average IQ is a plus, but past a certain level of very high IQ there seems to be a lack of social savy and other personality quirks that are deterrents. If a particular woman places importantance on intelligence then it is a major attribute and nothing turns her on faster than being "corrected" by a man who she perceives to be more intelligent than she is. It can be used also as sexual dominance. Women are attracted to muscles for their own sake but are attracted to intelligence when it is used to dominate. Women find men attractive who can dominate both physically and mentally.

Oh sweetie, you are so naive.

Women are attracted to what promises to provide them with resources; resources that will help them carry out their own sexual (gender) role, plus a stable, peaceful, environment, within which their children will have a higher chance of surviving.
That's why they are attracted to authority and donating males, whether this dominance is the product of muscle or intelligence is of secondary importance.

Also, little woman, sex, as an act, is a domination process.
The male penetrates the female's physical boundaries and inserts there an alien substance.

The female has had to evolve the mechanism to tolerate this, overcoming her predisposition to fight/flight.
All of femininity is this outcome from overcoming, tolerating, being submissive, accepting, fatalistic.
Consider how the female's body must be tricked, her natural autoimmune system, fooled, so as to accept the sperm and then gestate an organism which is half alien to her.

reasonvemotion wrote:"Sigmas – the lone wolves are not leaders and will actively resist the attempt of others to draft them. the true Sigma’s withdrawal from the pack is not a reaction to the way he is treated, it is pure instinct".

Indeed..but you have not considered the option of rape, sweets.
One reason females are attracted to strong dominant males, the system being an abstraction of one, is that it protects them from unwanted sexual attentions; it offers them sexual choice, dear.
In return they are willing to give-in to the male's demands, servicing him and finding pleasure in being his minion, because in return the female gains sexual choice and she can then develop the guile of pretense, to be promiscuous right under the dominant male's nose.
Of course the system, being an abstraction, has no jealousy or possessiveness, because it cannot fertilize but relies on biological males whom have submitted to the system's memes (the system propagates itself not with genes but with memes).
This frees females form even the pretense of monogamy...and allows them to be just as promiscuous as they please...the system protecting them form the consequences.

Ergo, feminism ushers in the end of the family....primarily because it also benefits the system whose attempt to integrate heterogeneous populations within a stable, uniform environment, finds the family, dominated by a male, to be a barrier to this uniformity.

reasonvemotion wrote:This would limit his choices and would he still be the pursuer or would the women have to pursue him. Would it be his aloofness, rather than his perceived intelligence and muscle that would lure women to him?

Aloofness, what you might understand as "confidence" is attractive to females because it indicates, when it is real, power.
Need indicated dependence, weakness towards an object/objective...aloofness, indifference, to whatever level it is found indicated independence, power over the object/objective.

But you missed one or two more option for the "sigma", sweets.
He also acts as a free-radical and a casual inseminator...spreading his seed amongst the herd and then letting the "nice guy" raise it.

Or, he might splinter off and create his own group with its own ideals and principles and hierarchies.
In the wild when males are not integrated into the system by emasculating them, forcing them into these beta-male strategies, these males retreat to the periphery of a group's control - as with lions and lion prides.
There they bide their time, waiting for the dominant male - in this case the system of memes - to weaken.

The females will fight on the side of the dominant male, because they have an investment to protect, but once the decision is rendered they quickly and easily accept the new ruler, and quickly become loyal and submissive to him.
Female loyalty and love is fickle...one moment this the other that.
It has no depth no substance...pure instinct.

Females, the human kind, justify this by claiming a "change" or a "chemical differentiation" or a "falling out of love".

artisticsolution wrote:

reasonvemotion wrote: Women find men attractive who can dominate both physically and mentally.

I find this is true...but there is a subtle difference in meaning of the word 'intelligence' that is important here.

I agree except I don't know about the physical side but ok, I do like to feel 'protected' sometimes.

A minority of women are not looking for children and there is research that contraceptive pills taken to reduce the risk of pregnancy may actually lead these women to choose the different partners, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/ ... NTCMP=SRCH - choosing the safe, dependable nuturing type. There is follow-up research from 2011 supporting the theory also that when women do stop taking such pills, their taste in men can changes, moving more towards the more confident 'survival of the fittest' type - I will find the link and add it later.

Added - Relationship satisfaction and outcome in women who meet their partner while using oral contraception
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-t ... l-15262562
And the abstract http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... /1430.full

In other words human intervention in the form of "the contraceptive" or with the introduction of monogamy and its imposition via religion, morality, ans social pressures, is altering human behavior...just as human intervention upon bovines alters how cows behave, and upon wolves upon how dogs behave.

I its creating a simulation...an artificiality contained within the limits of human interventionist power and has no effect outside of its shady boundaries.
A cocooning effect within which reality is altered in accordance to human preferences, called ideals and ideas. The benefits are obvious but the costs?
See how human intervention upon nature leads to increasing pollution?
Well, what excuse do we have to claim that human intervention upon human nature has not and is not also propagating genetic pollution?

The beta-male due to his submission and total dependence upon the alpha-male, the institution, has now become the "ideal male", because his submission and servitude is rewards with access to resources. He can now cultivate his image, his hyper-masculine displays, while remain effete and feminine in his dispositions.

Females are torn, maturing from a youthful commitment to instinct and nature towards a more cynical, pragmatic settling for present limitations.
She is attracted to the dominant alpha-male, mentally and physically, but given the circumstances of declining masculinity and the limitations imposed upon her due to her upbringing and social and cultural conventions she settles for the socially ideal male...the effete more submissive, tolerant, civil, reliable type. The one who has internalized the alpha-male's - the system's - dominance and surrendered to it fully. He now becomes a representation of the abstraction.

You seem to be saying that the 'alpha male' has been or is in the process of being replaced by a type of male that is unnatural. I am saying that the "alpha male" is being exposed as a fraud and never did really exist in the first place. I think the idea we had in the past of the 'alpha male' was a superficial one.

Lynn wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:

reasonvemotion wrote: Women find men attractive who can dominate both physically and mentally.

I find this is true...but there is a subtle difference in meaning of the word 'intelligence' that is important here.

I agree except I don't know about the physical side but ok, I do like to feel 'protected' sometimes.

A minority of women are not looking for children and there is research that contraceptive pills taken to reduce the risk of pregnancy may actually lead these women to choose the different partners, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/ ... NTCMP=SRCH - choosing the safe, dependable nuturing type. There is follow-up research from 2011 supporting the theory also that when women do stop taking such pills, their taste in men can changes, moving more towards the more confident 'survival of the fittest' type - I will find the link and add it later.

Hi Lynn,

Thanks for the links. Sorry I did not get into physical strength...as I think that is more superficial attraction. Just because we 'feel' a certain way...doesn't mean it is the 'truth' of the matter. Sure, for a moment one might 'feel' safe in the arms of a macho male...but when one finds the safety they felt was all an illusion when the 'protector' is in the arms of another he would 'protect' above them (for the night) I think the protection 'feeling' is shown to be an illusion. Where is the protection when the protector can switch 'alliances' in the blink of an eye?

ArtstyFarstsy wrote:You seem to be saying that the 'alpha male' has been or is in the process of being replaced by a type of male that is unnatural.

I'm saying that the masculine has been abstracted into the concept of an institution, taking on forms like King, Pope, President, CEO just as resources have been abstracted into money, and quality has been abstracted into encoded quantities, numerical symbols.
Anyone can be a representative of government and president...in essence being a face of the real power which is the institution itself.
I will not get into how this can be a ruse...delving into conspiracy theories and how entire populations can be eradicated or subdued with this methodology, because this thread is not about this...but I am going to say this:
A female is destiny...a means toward an end for a male., A male represents a bloodline, a genetic inheritance.
Once you degrade the male, disconnect him from his past (another word for past is nature) and take away his females whoa re now totally dedicated and submissive towards the institution, you've pretty much destroyed a lineage, a historical past.

Here's a hint:
In Christian dogma, despite the lip-service given to family values, the message is not only anti-nature but anti-family.
Jesus tells his potential disciples that if they cannot disconnect form their fathers and mothers, their past, then they cannot be his followers...and God tests Abraham's loyalty to him, above all else, including his won father and the bloodline he represented, by telling him to slaughter his own son...the next generation of his own bloodline.
Christianity and its secular branch, humanism, are distinctly anti-nature..they are nihilistic.

God is the alpha and the omega...all other associations, designation,s identifications are to be eliminated and forgotten. Man is to totally submit to His alpha-male status...he being father and son and everything in between.
see how readily females give into this alpha-God? See how easily the less self-conscious, or those with less of an identity readily run to this "new beginning"...this "born again" status where their bloodlines, their genes, are left behind?
Now it has taken no the secular form of State...it culminates in Communism but then recedes to a more subtle, sophisticated form of mind-control and husbandry which we call Modernity.
It is also called: New Age or progressiveness, or liberalism or secular humanism....essentially its a discrediting of all the past, nature being the sum of all nurturing...a tearing off of identity and identification as the pagans worshiped it.

A mind is stripped of all natural designations: male/female, race, baptized as "human" and then given a definition of what this means. It usually consists of a generalization associated with sexual reproduction which is the species: now your identity is nothing more than an association with ALL, with the abstraction of humanity.
Nationality is an intermediate stage.
A mind stripped of all natural identifications will grab unto the first substitute it is offered. This is what baptism symbolizes...the washing away of the past, which is now called "sin".

ArtstyFarstsy wrote:I am saying that the "alpha male" is being exposed as a fraud and never did really exist in the first place. I think the idea we had in the past of the 'alpha male' was a superficial one.

I'm glad you are parroting the modern mythologies so brilliantly, moron.

A quick look at the tele and a documentary or primates might contradict your delusions.
Try watching a documentary of mammalian social structures by first taking your head out of your asshole and without the rosy-colored glasses your mum gave you and your friends share as a fashionable trend.

Alpha, you imbeciles, simply designates an ephemeral dominance over a group.
Such is natural selection...sorry I didn't actually invent it...but I also refuse to ignore it when it is right in front of me and to nod my head to the stupidities you imbeciles comfort yourselves with.

-------------------
What's interesting about this...

Bitch1 to Bitch2 wrote:Thanks for the links. Sorry I did not get into physical strength...as I think that is more superficial attraction. Just because we 'feel' a certain way...doesn't mean it is the 'truth' of the matter. Sure, for a moment one might 'feel' safe in the arms of a macho male...but when one finds the safety they felt was all an illusion when the 'protector' is in the arms of another he would 'protect' above them (for the night) I think the protection 'feeling' is shown to be an illusion. Where is the protection when the protector can switch 'alliances' in the blink of an eye?

...is that both of you are comfortably in the arms of the only dominant male you will accept, the state with its multiple arms of police, judiciary, armed forces, corporations etc.

You never liberated yourselves, dumb bitches...you simply got rid of the middle-man, the representation...because he is no longer necessary.
Now you can serve and service the true "alpha" directly with no biological inferior symbol in-between.

The real alpha-male, making all biological males beta-males, is the State....the institution.
It exploits you, it protects you from rape and the superior strength and intelligence of biological males, it offers you meaning, impregnates you with its seed, the meme....you call them your principles, ideals, beliefs and values. All it asks in return is total submission, loyalty and service.

Males are no longer providers nor protectors, since both roles are taken over by institutions, which can be represented by females, males, fags, or even children. Does not matter really.
Technology, ironically a byproduct of male-on-male competitiveness, has made male attributes obsolete...forcing males to adapt by becoming more feminine; surrogate mothers....relegating all relationships to that of lesbianism or homosexuality.
Two girls raising nice automatons.

Now a female can go to a bar with her tits and ass showing, expressing her sexuality, and no male can touch her, expressing his sexuality, as she is encases in a noetic umbrella of Big Brother.
Masculinity and his natural advantages are deemed unwanted, criminal. Now a male must seduce a female as a female used to seduce a male: with looks, make-up, shaking his ass, wealth which he acquires by servicing the system.
See how wonderfully that works out?

She feels safe, because the police are around the corner...and if he leaves her after a one night stand she can claim he raped her, and if he leaves her with child she can bleed him dry economically with the support of the State...that'll teach him a lesson, no?
There's no consequence to a females weakness and stupidity...she's got the pill and the courts and the police to save her from herself and her poor judgments.
She need not ever grow up.
Not even her sexual choices matter anymore; her role as genetic filter has been surpassed. She is now only mimetic filter.
She can have a child with a down syndrome male or a n***** or a cripple and it does not matter. The system will make sure the child will not suffer any repercussions due to his inherited inferiority. The system will not allow any consequences to affect the child which are derived from natural determinants. All the system cares about is that the child be raised in accordance with its principles (the State IS the parent, the biological parents are mere representations of it's abstraction); raised to to be a good servile citizen and it, the State, will rewards the child for it.
All is leveled down and all value judgments based no systemic values.

Sex loses all value because it has no severity.
Any female can now birth a stupid fuck and nothing will come of it, if the child is reared to be a servile dependent mind.
In nature the female had to be careful with whom she copulated and what kind of traits this male had....this does not matter, as much, in modernity. Appearances, beauty, race, sex...area ll "superficial", in other words insignificant to the institution which only cares about its own propagation through memes. If the mind born is receptive, submissive, tolerant, it will serve as a conduit to propagate the institutional memes.

So, she can be as slutty and stupid as she likes...she can even mouth-off and slap a man in the face. He can only reciprocate by going to the police himself...so they are all equalized as bitches.
His superior size, intellect creativity does not matter...he is the equal to a child or a woman. All he can do is behave as a child or a woman would.

By the way:
Intelligence is symmetry of mind, brain symmetry....beauty is symmetry of body, form.
Both are powerful aphrodisiacs...particularly for females.
Symmetry = Order.
Order is a masculine trait.

Their difference is that beauty represents an inherited superiority of genes, whereas intelligence is the result of an inferiority which forces a do-or-die adaptation.
The cycle repeats. Dominance leads to decadence and atrophying and so on and so forth.

Satyr wrote: So, she can be as slutty and stupid as she likes...she can even mouth-off and slap a man in the face.

And you don't like this?!? Cmon...you know you love it!

Feminism is a combined ideology of egalitarianism, liberalism, and judaism.

Feminism is the belief that "harming" women, children, and cripples, in any way, is illegal. Not only is it illegal, but to even think about doing so, or espousing an opinion on a philosophy forum such as this one, is met with staunch opposition and hatred. Feminism begins with hypocrisy. Females, children, and cripples are protected (by whom?), but males are not. Males are expendable, and even expected to die in mass (war) should such wars take place. And they do, often. This is nationalism, the last barrier to any type of global humanism or utopian egalitarianism. Judaeo-Christian values, working together within their own prophetic theology, is the fundamental driving force to this "New World Order". Zionists representing such values, half-jews, half-christians by genealogy, are commonly referred to and known as the "Illuminati".

Feminism is a lie.

Feminism cannot claim equality (egalitarianism) without privileging women, children, and cripples over men. Men are not equal with women. Feminism is actually about separating the genders apart, further, and making men and women more unequal, not less. There are consequences of feminism, yet to be seen by the world at large. The spread of Islam, a strictly masculine and virulent religion, is one of the consequences of feminism. It is "blowback" in a religious sense. The more Zionists promote and force feministic values throughout the world, under the threat of violence and "regime change", the more an ideology such as Islam will rise to meet it. You can see the extreme parallels between the two. Liberalism is all about "protecting women's rights". In Islam, there are absolutely no "women's rights". These ideologies will clash. This will cause a world war, a holy war, a crusade.

Feminism rules out the masculine nature of men. Under feminism, thinking of raping or killing women, or children, is absolutely "evil". Feminism is a morality. Feminism is a religion, specifically, an extension of judaism. Women and children are absolutely protected from all "harm, bad, evil". Hypocritically, men are not. This creates a hypocrisy within the ideology of feminism. Children are protected by the ideology, but what about when a boy matures into a teenager, and then into a man? Young boys and sons, lose their protection, by age. The transition of boy into man, into manhood, is a process of losing innate privilege. A boy is protected. A man is not.

This is why we see "man-children", such as "mickthinks, Chaz Wyman, Forgedinhell, Arising_UK.."

Man-children are also known as "beta males". These inferior males, genetic pollution as Satyr puts it, are this way for a clear reason. That reason is, these males subconsciously recognize their protected status, as boys, and resist the idea of becoming "man". Man is an identity to be shamed, hated, met with resistance, ridiculed, slandered, even killed in many circumstances. To be man, or to become man, is simply evil. Why? Because feminism causes this reaction. You could even say, that feminism is a reaction to mankind, and the inherent "evil" within mankind.

To undo feminism, and negate this vicious, reactionary, idealistic ideology, you would need to become open-minded about raping and killing women and children. This is the fundamental barrier of feminism, the absolute protection it offers. This is memetic. Beta-males, and genetic feces, will never question this prospect or accept it. This is why beta-males and man-children act as they do. Going against "laws", both man-made and divine laws, is forbidden. And what is law garnered by the state and institution? It is feminism.

Feminism is the law. You may not question it. It is the premise of this "philosophy" forum. You may not think outside of its boundaries. You may not doubt it.

Feminism is the New God. You may never, under any circumstance, rape or kill women and children. This is absolute. This is the premise, blindly accepted by its followers, and compelled by its memes as ideology.

This is where almost none, can think beyond the premise.


Why do women and children have this absolute protection, but not men?

Why don't men have such laws, protecting us?

Why aren't men favored over women and children?

Why don't men have equal value, or more value, than women and children?


Nobody on this forum, except perhaps Satyr, can answer such questions. Everybody else here is a zombie, a mental midget, brain dead, and a make a mockery of the practice called "philosophy". I would never expect an answer to these questions, or an answer worth listening to, here in this forum. The premises are already established. Feminism is God.

[quote="Baudrillard, Jean""]• Whereas representation tries to absorb simulation by interpreting it as false representation, simulation envelops the whole edifice of representation as itself a simulacrum. This would be the successive phases of the image: –it is the reflection of a basic reality–it masks and perverts a basic reality–it masks the absence of a basic reality –it bears no relation to any reality whatever; it is its own pure simulacrum. In the first case, the image is a good appearance–the representation is of the order of sacrament. In the second, it is an evil appearance–of the order of malefice. In the third, it plays at being an appearance–it is of the order of sorcery. In the fourth, it is no longer in the order of appearance at all, but of simulation.

• Abstraction today is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality; a hyperreal. The territory no longer precedes the map, nor survives it. Henceforth, it is the map that precedes the territory – PRECESSION OF SIMULACRUM–it is the map that engenders the territory and if we were to revive the fable today, it would be the territory whose shreds are slowly rotting across the map, whose vestiges subsist here and there, in the deserts which are no longer those of the Empire, but our own. The desert of the real itself.

• Like dreams, statistics are a form of wish fulfillment.

• The great person is ahead of their time, the smart make something out of it, and the blockhead, sets themselves against it.

• What you have to do is enter the fiction of America, enter America as fiction. It is, indeed, on this fictive basis that it dominates the world.

• The liberated man is not the one who is freed in his ideal reality, his inner truth, or his transparency; he is the man who changes spaces, who circulates, who changes sex, clothes, and habits according to fashion, rather than morality, and who changes opinions not as his conscience dictates but in response to opinion polls.

• The absence of things from themselves, the fact that they do not take place though they appear to do so, the fact that everything withdraws behind its own appearance and is, therefore, never identical with itself, is the material illusion of the world, And, deep down, this remains the great riddle, the enigma which fills us with dread and from which we protect ourselves with the formal illusion of truth.

• Were it not for appearances, the world would be a perfect crime, that is, a crime without a criminal, without victim and without a motive. And the truth would forever have withdrawn from it and its secret would never be revealed, for want of any clues [traces] being left behind. But the fact is that the crime is never perfect, for the world betrays itself by appearances, which are the clues to its nonexistence, the traces of the continuity of the nothing. For the nothing itself – the continuity of the nothing – leaves traces. And that is the way the world betrays its secret. That is the way it allows itself to be sensed, while at the same time hiding away behind appearances.

• Doomed to our own image, our own identity, our own “look”, and having become our own object of care, desire and suffering, we have grown indifferent to everything else. And secretly desperate at that indifference, and envious of every form of passion, originality or destiny. Any passion whatever is an affront to the general indifference. Anyone who, by his passion, unmasks how indifferent, pusillanimous or half-hearted you are, who, by the force of his presence of his suffering, unmasks how little reality you have, must be exterminated. There you have the other resuscitated, the enemy at last re-embodied, to be subjugated or destroyed.

• In this same way, on the pretext of unconditional respect for life (what could be more politically correct?), we have heard the following humanitarian profession of faith pronounced: no idea in the world is worth killing for (nor, doubtless, worth dying for). No human being deserves to be killed for anything whatsoever. A final acknowledgment of insignificance: both of ideas and of people. This statement, which actually seeks to show the greatest respect for life, attests only to a contempt and an indifference for ideas and for life. Worse than the desire to destroy life is this refusal to risk it – nothing being worth the rouble of being sacrificed. This is truly the worse offence, the worse affront possible. It is the fundamental proposition of nihilism.

• The futility of everything that comes to us from the media is the inescapable consequence of the absolute inability of that particular stage to remain silent. Music, commercial breaks, news flashes, adverts, news broadcasts, movies, presenters—there is no alternative but to fill the screen; otherwise there would be an irremediable void.... That’s why the slightest technical hitch, the slightest slip on the part of the presenter becomes so exciting, for it reveals the depth of the emptiness squinting out at us through this little window.

• The whole gestural system of work was also obscene, in sharp contrast to the miniaturized and abstract gestural system of control to which it has now been reduced. The world of the objects of old seems like a theatre of cruelty and instinctual drives in comparison with the formal neutrality and prophylactic 'whiteness' of our perfect functional objects. Thus the handle of the flatiron gradually diminishes as it undergoes 'contouring' - the term is typical in its superficiality and abstractness; increasingly it suggests the very absence of gesture, and carried to its logical extreme this handle will no longer be manual - merely manipulable. At that point, the perfecting of the form will have relegated man to a pure contemplation of his power.

• We will live in this world, which for us has all the disquieting strangeness of the desert and of the simulacrum, with all the veracity of living phantoms, of wandering and simulating animals that capital, that the death of capital has made of us—because the desert of cities is equal to the desert of sand—the jungle of signs is equal to that of the forests—the vertigo of simulacra is equal to that of nature—only the vertiginous seduction of a dying system remains, in which work buries work, in which value buries value—leaving a virgin, sacred space without pathways, continuous as Bataille wished it, where only the wind lifts the sand, where only the wind watches over the sand.

• The transition from signs which dissimulate something to signs which dissimulate that there is nothing, marks the decisive turning point. The first implies a theology of truth and secrecy (to which the notion of ideology still belongs). The second inaugurates an age of simulacra and simulation, in which there is no longer any God to recognize His own, nor any last judgment to separate truth from false, the real from its artificial resurrection, since everything is already dead and risen in advance.

• When the real is no longer what it was, nostalgia assumes its full meaning. There is a plethora of myths of origin and of signs of reality - a plethora of truth, of secondary objectivity, and authenticity.

• It is the real, and not the map, whose vestiges persist here and there in the deserts that are no longer those of the Empire, but ours. The desert of the real itself.

• It no longer needs to be rational, because it no longer measures itself against either an ideal or negative instance. It is no longer anything but operational. In fact, it is no longer really the real, because no imaginary envelops it anymore. It is a hyperreal, produced from a radiating synthesis of combinatory models in a hyperspace without atmosphere.

• All societies end up wearing masks.

• Smile and others will smile back. Smile to show how transparent, how candid you are. Smile if you have nothing to say. Most of all, do not hide the fact you have nothing to say nor your total indifference to others. Let this emptiness, this profound indifference shine out spontaneously in your smile.

• One has never said better how much "humanism", "normality", "quality of life" were nothing but the vicissitudes of profitability.

• This country is without hope. Even its garbage is clean, its trade lubricated, its traffic pacified. The latent, the lacteal, the lethal - life is so liquid, the signs and messages are so liquid, the bodies and the cars are so fluid, the hair so blond, and the soft technologies so luxuriant, that a European dreams of death and murder, of suicide motels, of orgies and cannibalism to counteract the perfection of the ocean, of the light, of that insane ease of life, to counteract the hyperreality of everything here.

• The obscenity of our culture resides in the confusion of desire and its equivalent materialized in the image; not only for sexual desire, but the desire for knowledge and its equivalent materialized in ”information,” the desire for fantasy and tis equivalent materialized in the Disneylands of the world, the desire for space and tis equivalent programmed into vacation itineraries, the desire for paly and its equivalent programmed into private telematics. It is this promiscuity the ubiquity of images, this viral contamination of things by images, which are the fatal characteristics of our culture. And this knows no bounds, because unlike sexed animal species protected by a kind of internal regulatory system, images cannot be prevented from proliferating indefinitely, since they do not breed organically and know neither sex nor death.

• This is the only scale by which we can measure our present situation. By dint of meaning, information, and transparence our societies have passed beyond the limit point, that of permanent ecstasy: the ecstasy of the social (the masses), the body (obesity), sex (obscenity), violence (terror), and information (simulation). If, in fact, the era of transgression has ended, it is that things themselves have transgressed their own limits. If one can no longer reconcile things with their essence, it is because they have mocked and surpassed their own definition. They have become more social than the social (the masses), fatter than fat (obesity), more violent than the violent (terror), more sexual than sex (porn), more real than the real (simulation), more beautiful than the beautiful (fashion).

• One thing is for certain: if it is absurd for the subject to become object, then it is equally inconsequent to dream that the object can become subject. This is, however, what is maintained by the science and conscience of the Western world.

• From a biological, genetic and cybernetic point of view, we are all mutants. Now, for mutants there can no longer be any Last Judgment, or the resurrection of the body, for what body will be resurrected? It will have changed formula, chromosomes, it will have been programmed according to other motor and mental variables, it will no longer have any claim on its own image.[/quote]

Oh, and Atthet I know who you are.
I can tell with the slight variants in your interpretation of my views which become problematic.


In Baudrillard, we see this exploration of the simulation and how it is now becoming confused with the real. the real, nature, having been buried and pushed to the periphery of our consciousness, just as for an institutionalized mind, a prisoner in a jail, who has forgotten the smell of grass and the taste of fresh air because his 'reality' is contained within man-made structures.
The reference point is on longer nature, our past, but an interpretation of it discovered through acceptable authorities or art which imitates art.

The recyclable of symbols - we see it in modern pop-music and modern pop movies and art in general. A repetition of the same themes, inspired by the previous repetition, in an endless recycling of the desirable, the ideal, "real'.

And yes, when one takes into consideration all of the above then to the indoctrinated sheep who is brainwashed and complacent and totally immersed in the simulation - living in The Matrix, to borrow that pop-culture metaphor - anyone living outside of its premises and illusions and artifices would be a monster, a .....sociopath.
But this is Beyond Good and Evil and into a new kind of morality....new but older than this simulation. it is a return to man's identity, and to a more pagan perspective.

Paganism being the European man's original spirituality before the infection of nihilism, deliverer on a platter of shame and guilt and inversions took over his soul...in Rome.

Women may choose a man, who can give her financial security, but that does not necessarily mean she will stay with him. In today's society, divorce is way out for a certain type of female, to gain a portion of the man's wealth. A woman can divorce him and set up her own safe environment and be free to have sex with her who ever she chooses without the constraints of marriage. Some women enter into marriage as "means to end" for them," financial freedom". So you could say "marriage is for idiots and poor people. Divorce is easy for a woman. It is not hard for a woman to navigate a divorce and gain a percentage of the man's wealth, which in turn gives her independence and power. The man becomes obsolete as the woman has no further need of him, as a provider. She has her child and the means to survive on her own.

"Is this woman conniving (at worst) or survival (at best)."

The "seven year itch" is not entirely a myth.
It is based on a natural necessity.
It takes around seven years to raise a human child from a helpless infant to a young boy capable of some independent thinking and survival.

Marriage is a human fabrication, as monogamy is never voluntary and always forced upon the individual either due to social and cultural circumstances or by personal failings or by necessity.
Marriage was invented as a cap on human promiscuity.
It dependent upon first taking away female sexual power, her power of choice; a female's natural ability to choose by whom she will be fertilized and by how to sue the promise of being fertilized as a method of ensuring her well-being and her offspring survival.
It also took away male sexual promiscuity although it was enforced to a lesser extent due to the natural role of a male, who does not suffer the risks or the costs a female does due to his sexual behavior.
This method was meant to integrate as many males within the system as possible, making them investors in its stability, during historical times when male muscle and intellect was essential to the group's competitiveness with other groups. It was a way of integration them into a cohesive disciplines group with little to no internal sexual competitions and strife.

Of course this monogamy rule also integrated female into the group, but this was less important given that even a below average in attractiveness female - attraction being an indication of her fertility and her genetic health - can easily find a male to give her attention and to fertilize her.
So, this rule integrated the females who were infertile or so homely and genetically unfit that under normal, natural, circumstances no male would give them a second look.

All this is no longer necessary because man has discovered due to his growing experience with farming animals and with mass mind-control and manipulation, and with the advent of more sophisticated technologies.
Not only are not males needed as protectors and providers, but they are not needed as soldiers, leaders, authorities.
The state has taken over this role and with technology communal knowledge, specialization, information overload, and established techniques, substitute what males did best.

Even creativity is limited to making money or feeding a communal need. The male creative genius is now tied to a shared benefit and incurs upon itself little to no benefit if it cannot sell its creative genius.
He becomes a seducer of the masses completely dependent upon their decree.

"The main organ of sexual pleasure for the man is the same organ of reproduction, the penis. For women, the sex-equivalent of the penis is the clitoris. In terms of typical male pleasure, the vagina does seem to be the corresponding organ to the penis. But, in point of anatomical fact as well as many women's experience the vagina is of relatively little importance for a woman's sexual pleasure. The very nature of heterosexual activity was entirely male-centered and silenced the clitoris and deprived women the full realization of women centred eroticisism. Heterosexual men, had less trouble when they were brought up to believe, that the question of sexual satisfaction is not one that could arise for a woman at all. Our entire culture has in effect been blind to biological facts absolutely central to the nature of what passes for the natural side of human being. The nature conditions of sexual pleasure had been distorted to androcentric solipsism, the equation of male experience with human experence". Women overall today are informed and liberated to ask for and if necessary, show the man how to give her pleasure. If a man lays with a woman today, it is her choice ,(albeit for her sexual need or she has a hidden agenda to gain from it) and not necessarily due to the ploys of a man. If one was to base the assumption on everything stems from sex, this change in human behavior would have huge ramifications on the concept of man and woman. Overall, for a woman, this is a vast improvement from the days of being taught to tolerate the perceived brutality of man's penetration of her "unwilling" body? It is every woman's right to enjoy sex, without being labelled, whore or slut.