Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk --- I found your post hard to de-cypher, so I left it to last … and now I’ve run out of time. I will reply to you tomorrow. Apologies.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck --- You suggest that pornography can do good by freeing men from real women. Yes it does free men, but it makes them lesser men at the same time. So no, it doesn’t do good at all. I am trying to get men to engage with women, to be responsible for them -- the opposite of MGTOW. Again, when it makes a husband have less sex with his wife it is bad. Men become men partly by controlling women (as well as loving them, and being loved back).

I have lost the reference to the paper identifying masturbation’s failure to raise testosterone levels. I am sure I read it in ‘Human Ethology’, 1989, by Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, but I have now borrowed the book from three public libraries -- in the US, Singapore and England (it is expensive to buy) -- and yet I have been unable to find the reference again.

I am not sure what you mean by ‘eating shit’, in this context. Do you just mean people who don’t look on the humorous side of life? Do you mean me? I have to admit that I’m hopeless at telling jokes.

We really do have very different opinions about pornography. I’ve got my habit under control, now, but last year I masturbated sixteen hours a day for twelve days straight. That is pretty dehumanising. I can’t bear to think of our youth growing up like that.

duszek --- Oh dear, maybe I have got Skip’s and and Greta’s sex wrong? It was just an impression that grew up over time. Mind you, if they are men, they should not mind in the least, because they most probably subscribe to the idea that men and women are the same. It’s the women who know we are different, even as they persuade us men that we are all the same.

Yes, I agree men and women are equal on some parameters, despite all the differences. I think you are right that being decent is one of them. You are spot on that women like constructive criticism, though they deny it, and they also have no fear of criticising men. Just look at the feminists.

You say, ‘If you have something good to criticise please tell us.’ How about women? They are good, but need criticising much of the time. Is that what you meant?

Sir-Sister-of-Suck --- I’m sorry you find some of my opinions gross -- I very much appreciate you continuing to talk to me, even so. You mention someone called ‘Echo’. Who is he?

You say I have become more radical on the forum, as time passes. I reckon both my original posts were pretty contentious, but I think you are right about the way I have been posting more recently. Perhaps I should have started out showing my visiting card (see below)? It has worked well on the few occasions I have used it. I gave it to a policeman who arrested me in 1999. Three months later, when he arrested me again, he proudly brought my card out of his pocket to show me, and told me he was keeping it carefully. Please excuse me, but I am afraid that I’ve been in jail for 4-1/2 years, for repeatedly threatening to kill my wife (to protect our daughter from her)). This was at the time she was divorcing me. Anyway, here’s a modern version of the card:


The logo is meant to represent the manager-worker relationship in an office. I’m not saying a woman cannot be a boss -- just that I prefer male bosses. I am not alone: in the UK 5 out of 6 men prefer a male boss … and 5 out of 6 women do too! (Pitman Training survey, 1996). Professor Eugene Caruso found in the United States that both men and women job applicants were prepared to accept 22% less pay, to avoid working for a woman.

I too have some libertarian leanings (both my brother and I enjoyed reading Ayn Rand in the 70s), but I find their emphasis on the individual and de-emphasis on the community and civil society goes too far. I agree with the sociologist Irving Goffman who says that half of one’s ‘self’ resides in other people. If others don’t respect you, it is difficult to respect yourself. I guess I am doubling down on the importance of other people to the individual, as you say.


Website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/

"henry quirk --- I found your post hard to de-cypher, so I left it to last … and now I’ve run out of time. I will reply to you tomorrow. Apologies."

No worries: take your time.

#

"I enjoyed reading Ayn Rand in the 70s"

Try Max Stirner today.

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:16 amSir-Sister-of-Suck --- You suggest that pornography can do good by freeing men from real women. Yes it does free men, but it makes them lesser men at the same time. So no, it doesn’t do good at all. I am trying to get men to engage with women, to be responsible for them -- the opposite of MGTOW. Again, when it makes a husband have less sex with his wife it is bad. Men become men partly by controlling women (as well as loving them, and being loved back).

Well, I'm not sure if I think it 'frees men,' because I don't have this view that they need to be freed in the first place. It just seems apparent to me that it achieves a goal you have in mind with your own philosophy, which is fulfilling the desires of men.

So you don't just want them to not want sex anymore, you want them to want to have sex with their wives, and also make their wives do it. Do you realize why someone would say your views seem convoluted? I'm not saying they're necessarily inconsistent, but It's like a far stretch from the more intuitive and practical solutions. It seems like if we were to run a lot of this stuff through occam's razor, we could probably cut away some of this stuff to more easily achieve what you really want. But you insist on driving us towards a very specific society. Obviously, this isn't helping to relieve me of the thought that you really do want to socially engineer us.

I am not sure what you mean by ‘eating shit’, in this context. Do you just mean people who don’t look on the humorous side of life? Do you mean me? I have to admit that I’m hopeless at telling jokes.

I was just saying that when I watch a really fucked up porno, it doesn't make me act more socially awkward - it actually helps me realize the absurdity of human culture. I can see how it would, I think I could even relate to it before, but then my perspective changed to have a more jocular view of things. To me, the fact that there are people out there who enjoy 'scat porn' is funny and makes people less scary to deal with.

Plus, it makes me happy to know that there are people with sicker fetishes out there than me.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck --- I’m sorry you find some of my opinions gross -- I very much appreciate you continuing to talk to me, even so.

Yeah, in spite of our pretty heavy disagreement, you're not at the point where I wouldn't talk to you. Like whenever someone comes onto this forum trying to advocate or defend actual pedophilia, that is not a person I will even entertain. Or someone who calls you a 'retard' every 8th character.

You mention someone called ‘Echo’. Who is he?

Oh I gave the wrong name; I meant SpheresOfBalance.

Please excuse me, but I am afraid that I’ve been in jail for 4-1/2 years, for repeatedly threatening to kill my wife (to protect our daughter from her)). This was at the time she was divorcing me.

I was not aware of this.

henry quirk --- Replying to your 16th August post about ‘self’, addiction, and your coach gun. Wow!, this one’s a hard one too. I suppose it is a minor miracle that we can talk at all -- you an America ‘almost libertarian’ and me a British ‘almost communitarian’. If we met in the flesh we would be too polite to discuss what we are discussing here. I hope you don’t mind but I am going to introduce myself to make up for all the pleasantries we would exchange if we were face-to-face. Don’t feel any need to return the favour, it’s just that I will feel more comfortable if I get a few things off my chest.

I am a 72-year-old retired oilfield engineer, divorced in 1999 by my Chinese wife, and I am on a crusade against women ...  not to get rid of them, you understand, but to control them, once in a while. For the first 50 years of my life I can almost claim to have been a playboy, I had such an easy time; but since then I have had 20 years of misery: divorce, prison, mental hospital and depression. Since 1974 we lived in Malaysia, Singapore, America, and then back to England via Singapore again. In 1985 I stopped watching television, which gave me three or four hours every evening for researching the 'man-woman problem', as Nietzsche calls it. I have a son and daughter, but they refuse to have any contact, just like my ex-wife.

But now I am much better, so the last thing I am seeking is pity or indeed even sympathy -- I don’t need it. Here’s a photo of me all dressed up in my ‘male champion’ sweatshirt, just setting out for a 2009 conference on IQ in Madrid (in a slightly manic state!).


Right, I hope none of that embarrasses you? I now feel the tension is lowered between us so I can listen to you more attentively.

I agree self-ownership has to come before bravery, but I don’t think the one guarantees the other. A Buddhist monk owns himself very securely, but might not be at all brave. I don’t feel this is an important point I’m trying to make, so I won’t elaborate further. You say:

Asking the male in thrall to vagina to buck up is as useless as asking the one in thrall to heroin to rejigger his relationship to the poison.

I was a feminist until 1992, and it took me about a year to transition to being a male champion. So I accept I was ‘in thrall to vagina’ until then, and taking a year to come off the drug is a bit like coming off heroine, I guess. I also agree with several of you additional ‘addictions’ (as you might expect, I don’t want to get rid of ‘will of community’). But I dream that a message instructing men how to deal with women in public and at home could go viral on the internet, so that in a matter of months every man can cure himself. I know, it is more of a fantasy than dream … but I live in hope.

I agree that men fail to make good relationships with women because they haven’t grown up properly. I hate to say this, in case there are any feminists around, but the women are behaving naturally already -- it is men who need to change, and re-adopt some of those ancient ways … and reassert control, occasionally.

Your coach gun. I used to have a 12-bore shotgun, but I didn’t use it much (a few pheasants and a pigeon or two), so I did not form a strong attachment. It sounds as if you get a huge amount of pleasure out of yours. Sorry to be thick, but I am not sure of the moral of your story: is your relationship with the gun a stand-in for man’s relationship with woman? That relationship being a living thing that needs nurturing, practice and exercise? Tell me if I have followed you.


Website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/

It sounds as if you had a hard time with your wife and now you are waging a one-man crusade against all women. Patriarchal societies are generally miserable sort of places--often theocracies. Power never sits well with humans which is why we have elections and laws to protect ourselves from ourselves--not perfect, but a lot better than the alternative. They say you can tell how enlightened a society is by how the women are treated (women and 'gays').

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:46 am
Dalek Prime --- It’s all very well for you to say your argument technique is to, ‘growl and stop talking until they go away’, but what if you need them to do something? In this circumstance, going silent is a bit like sulking -- something I did far too much of in my own marriage. I think your solution only works when they are bothering you. If you are trying to bother them, a more constructive strategy is required.

When I need them to do something, I simply ask. Otherwise, I growl.

"I suppose it is a minor miracle that we can talk at all -- you an America ‘almost libertarian’ and me a British ‘almost communitarian’."

Nah, reasonable folks can get along (till they don't).

#

"If we met in the flesh we would be too polite to discuss what we are discussing here."

Nuthin' in this thread is particularly controversial or startling. I can't see why this topic couldn't be tackled face-to-face.

#

"I hope none of that embarrasses you?"

Nope.

#

"I agree self-ownership has to come before bravery, but I don’t think the one guarantees the other. A Buddhist monk owns himself very securely"

I disagree. Seems to me the monk is 'owned' by Buddhism.

#

"I am not sure of the moral of your story"

Yeah, it was late when I wrote that...I was tired and wordy.

Simply: If a man is his first, best, property then he needs to remain proficient in the use of that property. Mind, soul, body all need exercising, use, maintenance, safeguarding. Capabilities and limitations must be known and capitalized on or compensated for. What I'm talkin' about is a man's relationship to or with himself.

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:16 am
You say, ‘If you have something good to criticise please tell us.’ How about women? They are good, but need criticising much of the time. Is that what you meant?

I meant and I still do that women want to improve so suggestions about how they can achieve it are welcome.
Especially if they are formulated in good English.

And if the criticism is unfair we can survive and grow more tough.

vegetariantaxidermy --- You said:

It sounds as if you had a hard time with your wife and now you are waging a one-man crusade against all women.

Spot on, but I think my crusade is rational and justified. I love women, but I think men are being too lax with them, as I was -- never correcting their bad behaviour. Women are very quick to correct male misbehaviour -- in fact they are always going on about the patriarchy and men’s brutality in the past -- so it is disastrous of men not to return the favour.

Patriarchal societies are generally miserable sort of places--often theocracies.

I agree again, except that I say ‘societies where men have too much power’, rather than ‘patriarchy’. I think ‘patriarchy’ is a recoverable term for men, describing a society where men and women are in balance, with men leading, women following.

Power never sits well with humans which is why we have elections and laws to protect ourselves from ourselves--not perfect, but a lot better than the alternative.

Again I agree. Where we disagree is our assessment of the current situation: you think men are in control and are ruining the world; I think men have given up, women have not taken over, and so the market is in control, as I said in the essay. I think it is because no-one is in control (the market simply represents all our selfish desires) that the world is being ruined.

They say you can tell how enlightened a society is by how the women are treated (women and 'gays')

.
The word ‘enlightened’ has a sexist bias. An ‘enlightened society’ is one where, as you say, women have more freedom. It does not say anything about men’s freedom. In fact, since there is only so much social freedom to go round, an increase in women’s freedom necessarily involves a reduction in men’s freedom. So much for the Enlightenment! It is this sexist process that has brought about our current imbalance, where women have too much influence, even though they are not ruling.

Dalek Prime --- You say, “When I need them to do something, I simply ask. Otherwise, I growl.”.

If ALL you do is ask, then you are forever beholden to their judgement of whether they should or shouldn’t do what you ask. I’m saying that occasionally, when you are sure you are right, you need to TELL a woman what to do. I know it sounds barbarian, but I don’t think even in barbarian times men were truly confident to do it right. They generally had to get angry first, which is a very bad solution.

henry quirk --- You say that “Nuthin' in this thread is particularly controversial or startling”, but I find people start to raise an eyebrow when I talk of men needing to control women more. When first meeting someone in polite conversation I find it very difficult to bring it up. Maybe you find it easy?

Not sure now, about the Buddhist monk. Most of the religious priests I meet seem pretty self-possessed (mainly Christians, of course). They also seem averagely brave, however, so I guess I need to take back what I said.

I agree with all you say about a man owning his self, except I insist that half that self exists in other people’s minds. All those capabilities you mention don’t properly exist until their existence has been proved to others by exercising them with others.

Duszek --- You ask how women can improve. I believe you are doing a pretty good job already -- women are behaving naturally while men are behaving unnaturally -- so it is men who need to change. The feminists (who are just extreme women) are behaving badly, granted, but this is only because men are not stopping them: the feminists are maligning men (subconsciously) in order to taunt them into action to control them. Unfortunately, much of the taunting is being done by men themselves, as they try to do what they imagine women want. Far from confronting women who are misbehaving, most men are trying to appease them instead. Like voluntary single mothers. It is wrong to be kind to someone who is behaving badly.

So, it’s no good asking women in general to stop taunting men -- that would be taking pity on men, which would further weaken them -- but a small number of women are already speaking out on men’s behalf. I think you could afford to do a bit more of this, while allowing the feminists to represent the majority. Janice Fiamengo, Karen Straughan, and Janet Bloomfield are doing magnificent work in this area.

Finally, since nobody else is thinking along these lines (trying to get men to discipline women more) you could support me! Not financially -- I have enough money to get by, thank you -- but by providing moral support. It’s a little lonely here, having no-one of a like mind in contact with me, and I would love to receive an email from you (duncan_butlin1@mac.com) -- just supposing you came to agree with me. It would also be tremendous if you could persuade your husband to do so too. If you are not sure if you want to go that far, please visit my website (below) where there are instructions for him. It is probably more important that women visit the site -- so they can give their men their approval -- but it is men who must modify their behaviour, so it is all written to them.

My website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/

"Maybe you find it easy?"

Pretty much, yeah.

#

"All those capabilities you mention don’t properly exist until their existence has been proved to others by exercising them with others."

Some thngs are taught and once learned essentially negate the teacher.

Some things are internal and must be drawn out and, once revealed, negate the mentor.

Some things require no teacher, no mentor.

So, do women need and want a good spanking, then? Before the domestic abuse charges?

Arguing is a no-win situation for a man. When you lose you lose, and when you win you lose. If it's important to do, then just do and don't argue, but it has to be really important, and it's much easier to claim ignorance after doing because no pre-debate happened, which you would have lost anyway.

Afterwards when ruminating on what happened, the benefits of wifely gratitude when hubby accepts defeat and offers the victory in a domestic squabble situation will invariably outweigh whatever was trying to be won.

henry quirk --- I am very impressed you can discuss men disciplining women so openly. Do you do anything special, or are you simply relaxed and open about it?

You say: “Some things are taught and once learned essentially negate the teacher.
Some things are internal and must be drawn out and, once revealed, negate the mentor.
Some things require no teacher, no mentor.”

I suppose you are talking about capabilities that are for doing things, and I think I agree with you, but I was thinking about capabilities of character and personality -- bravery, politeness, friendliness -- which need constant maintenance and practice with others to keep them a reality. I guess I used the wrong word … not sure what the right word is.

Can you suggest ways I can improve my writing so it is easier to understand?

Dalek Prime --- You asked: “So, do women need and want a good spanking, then? Before the domestic abuse charges?”

That is a very, very difficult question for me -- I have been struggling with it for over ten years. Here’s my various comments, to see if I can work out an answer. I never spanked my wife to punish her -- I only did it for her sexual pleasure, because she asked me to and really enjoyed it. I think now that if I HAD spanked her to discipline her, once or twice in our marriage, she would not have divorced me. We had some pretty tough confrontations which were never resolved. A husband should forcibly restrain his wife, if she is physically attacking him -- particularly if she is using a weapon (in which case he has to be brave and risk injury to disarm her) -- and then hold her tightly until she calms down. If he is sure he is in the right, I think a man should try spanking his wife before seeking outside help like a marriage councillor or divorce.

That having been said, in a happy marriage a man should normally be disciplining his wife at a far lower level -- tone of voice, posture, telling off, etc. -- just as she should be disciplining him, in a similar manner. A single, playful slap on the bum is probably about as far as it ought to go -- which she can return in kind. The key question: should a man who gets sexual pleasure out of spanking his wife, spank her for less serious matters than threats of divorce, etc.? In other words, can spanking be a regular event in a normal, well-balanced marriage? Only if he can get her prior agreement, I believe.

Walker --- I am glad you agree that men are in dire straits when it comes to arguing rationally with their wives. But you are avoiding the issue: it’s not when you want to do something yourself that the problem arises, it is when you want her to do something for you. Come out to diner with you, for example, when she’s feeling like staying at home.

If you are sure that it is her turn to give-in to you (and you suspect she knows it), an argument would normally ensue. Rather than argue, there is a little-known approach that takes advantage of what I call her female submission reflex. If you quietly tell her to get dressed, in the fewest possible words, and with the least emotion possible in you voice, nine times out of ten she will give in. For anecdotal support of this idea, please see this report concerning my lodger, Mandie (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... 2I3NzZiOTg). In other words the man does not have to give in all of the time -- just most!


My website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/

"or are you simply relaxed and open about it?"

Mostly: I don't care enough about what other folks think of me to self-censor.

#

"Can you suggest ways I can improve my writing so it is easier to understand?"

Write less, write tighter, eliminate the extraneous.

You're good, but you can get to the meat faster.

henry quirk --- Wow!, an instant reply. Thank you so much for the compliment -- it has made my day. Thanks also for the advice -- I will try to follow it. In my grand essay, ‘Talking Truthfully’ (only half-completed), I recognise the common adage, “it’s rude to stare”, but say that, for men, it is completely wrong. My advice for a man on the street is to stare for as long as he can, at woman, man, girl, boy, infant -- until they meet his eye or look away. How does that strike you? I do it all the time and get lots of smiles and salutations in return. I don’t think it works for women.

My website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/