Philosophy Now Forum

UNDER_STAND THIS JESUS --->> I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK.

..I don't even remember posting in this thread...per that being a post from MAY.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 7:49 am UNDER_STAND THIS JESUS --->> I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK.

..I don't even remember posting in this thread...per that being a post from MAY.

Oh shit that was from may haha. I didn't even notice, I was reading this shit like it happened overnight.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 8:07 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 7:49 am UNDER_STAND THIS JESUS --->> I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK.

..I don't even remember posting in this thread...per that being a post from MAY.

Oh shit that was from may haha. I didn't even notice, I was reading this shit like it happened overnight.

Well, I suppose I will forgive you Jesus. <-- there's a sentence I never thought I'd type.

Did you know that on the UK government website for social security claims there is a provision of around 140 quid for each wife that you have in a polygamous marriage?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 9:12 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 8:07 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 7:49 am UNDER_STAND THIS JESUS --->> I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK.

..I don't even remember posting in this thread...per that being a post from MAY.

Oh shit that was from may haha. I didn't even notice, I was reading this shit like it happened overnight.

Well, I suppose I will forgive you Jesus. <-- there's a sentence I never thought I'd type.

Did you know that on the UK government website for social security claims there is a provision of around 140 quid for each wife that you have in a polygamous marriage?

Seems reasonable, want to be my wife?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 9:13 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 9:12 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 8:07 am

Oh shit that was from may haha. I didn't even notice, I was reading this shit like it happened overnight.

Well, I suppose I will forgive you Jesus. <-- there's a sentence I never thought I'd type.

Did you know that on the UK government website for social security claims there is a provision of around 140 quid for each wife that you have in a polygamous marriage?

Seems reasonable, want to be my wife?

Sure, so long as you're a woman and your current wife is hot.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 9:17 am Sure, so long as you're a woman and your current wife is hot.

Just 3 hot wives with cocks, living under one roof. This is the Full House spin-off I've always wanted.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 9:21 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 9:17 am Sure, so long as you're a woman and your current wife is hot.

Just 3 hot wives with cocks, living under one roof. This is the Full House spin-off I've always wanted.

It's been a while since I've played badminton, but so long as you ladies are game, then it's GAME ON!

godelian wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:36 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:28 am But what too few women figure out is that dating is a buyer's market, not a seller's market.

Their market power depends on what market it is about:

Well, for the "seller," it's about securing commitment and resources. It's pretty clear that the aim of these 30-something women is either permanent singlehood (rare, but then they would have nothing to complain about), or more plausibly, commitment from a man they regard as high-value...usually because he is attractive and replete with the resources for potential family.

However, in the casual sex market, even ugly/old women have more market power than average men. In other words, the casual sex market is very bad for men. Unless he is very handsome, it is a bad idea for a man to hunt for casual sex for free.

It's a bad idea for anybody, actually. Nobody actually wins at the casual-sex game, because the only possible gains are immediate and the medium-to-long term results are (definitionally) not available at all.

In the relationships market, however, average men have a much better position than average women. The same average woman who can reject an average man out of hand in the casual sex market, will in turn be rejected out of hand by exactly the same average man in the relationships market.

The average woman does not want the average man. These 30-somethings all assume a high-value man should still be competing for a committed relationship with them, even though they've burned up many of the assets that high-value men value. Women are keyed to "marrying-up," meaning to securing a man who can improve their resources and social standing, somebody they regard as above them, not merely "average."

The "average" man has either to wait until the women grow desperate and out-of-options, or "marry-down." Women do not readily condescend to accept a permanent commitment to a partner they regard as bringing less to the equation than they see themselves as bringing -- and they have been told, by our Feminist social ethos -- that what they are bringing is always very high. But it's not. After 30, it's considerably less than they brought at 25, even if they don't like that thought. The "buyer" is less interested in the damaged and diminished "goods" they now have to offer. But an "average" man might be willing to settle, if he believes the gains are still reasonable; no high-value man needs to accept the loss, and so they don't.

In the escort sex market,...

Yeah, but again: in this "market" there is no problem for the 30-something woman. If "escort" opportunities are all she wants, she can disregard the relative value of the man in question, and she is waving commitment automatically. Marriage is not the aim. She'll take anything that gives her some immediate pecuniary gains. It's simply prostitution, not the marriage market.

But I think what we're talking about is what the 30-somethings want to secure for themselves, which is the commitment of a high-value man for the purposes of relationship and family, are we not? Having "sowed their wild oats," they're now expecting to step back and reap the benefits of being high-value women -- i.e., a partner they still regard as above them, with more resources and assets and the potential for commitment and fatherhood.

Hhmmm... so when the tip top highest "value" man marries the best looking 25 year old woman on the planet, what does he have 5 years later? A "30-something woman"? What about 15 years later? Gasp, a 40-something woman?

"or more plausibly, commitment from a man they regard as high-value...usually because he is attractive and replete with the resources for potential family."

Those aren't real women. Those are modern female upright nest building primates that want to do boring shit like buy starter homes, have kids and use reward points to buy scented soap baskets but you're not allowed to actually use the soap.

Here's a real girl.

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxZ_YDaYUCyG ... gwtwxtLpuG

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:57 pm The "average" man has either to wait until the women grow desperate and out-of-options

She will most likely divorce him after a while.

I have just read an article in which a woman explains what the problem is. She had the problem at 18 but she would have the same problem at 30, only worse.

https://www.businessinsider.com/married ... rce-2024-7

I got married at 18 to my boyfriend of 6 months to help pay for college. It was the worst decision I ever made.

No one asked me if I was in love or if this was what I really wanted. It just made sense — financially.

She does not recognize the true nature of marriage, at the core of which financial-tension relief is being exchanged for sexual-tension relief. The worst western misconception about marriage is that it would primarily be about infatuation.

Due to my wifely obligations, invitations to parties naturally became scarce throughout college. My husband also expected me to be home by a certain time.

My college experience was unlike that of my peers, leaving me to feel isolated while in college.

the complete loss of my autonomy

Wanting more freedom

She misses out on jumping from cock to cock on the cock carousel. The other girls are doing it. What she doesn't see, is how it ultimately makes them feel used and depressed.

I voiced my opinions on where money should go and began pursuing my passions.

Modern women are naive and unrealistic about money. That is why most of them are in debt. They expect that they will find a man who will clean up the financial mess. She already has a husband, and he does the opposite. He tries to prevent the mess from arising in the first place. If you do that for decades in a row, you will often become wealthy. She doesn't want to make the effort. She wants to wait at the finish line for someone who has done so already.

Instead, my husband recognized my growing independence and tried to bring me down.

I just wanted to have a life on my own terms.

He is pushing back at her slumbering promiscuity and her financial profligacy. He has no choice in that regard. Otherwise, she will bring down both of them.

while I'm still sad about the split, I know it was best for both of us.

Well, it is definitely better for him.

She will end up alone.

The older she gets, the older the man that she will try to haul in, and the more likely that he will detect her problems at a very early stage. Does he really want more than a one-night stand with a promiscuous hoe that only dreams of "passionately" throwing his money out of the window?

With age, she will grow only more promiscuous and only more profligate, while her "standards" will keep going up, while at the same time, she will be bringing less and less to the table.

What else is she bringing to the table besides a growing debt and a growing body count?

She is so incredibly much the typical modern woman, the kind of which the West is so exceedingly well endowed.

godelian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:06 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 12:57 pm The "average" man has either to wait until the women grow desperate and out-of-options

She will most likely divorce him after a while.

Yes, very likely, statistically.

She does not recognize the true nature of marriage, at the core of which financial-tension relief is being exchanged for sexual-tension relief.

I think it ought to be about much more than that.

In fact, there are many kinds of benefits and liabilities exchanged in choosing a marriage partner. But there's definitely a kind of jostling for roles, with the prospect of security, peace and children involved, in addition to whatever pecuniary or sexual benefits each is aiming to achieve. It's a complex negotiation, if done right. It involves things like having a common life-mission or set of values, agreeing on how to create a stable home, settling how finances will be protected and distributed, negotiating the mutuality of physical relations, settling the metaphysical issues regarding the instruction of the children, and arranging inter-family dynamics, as well as the inclusion of the new potential partner into each other's social circle more broadly...and more.

As a very broad generality, though, the woman's chief concerns may well tend to constellate more around security issues, stability and emotional affinity, and the man's around issues like respect, companionability and physical love. That means the "gravitation" within their negotiations often pulls in somewhat different directions. Neither is going to end up with exactly what he/she anticipates, which is why an ongoing spirit of negotiation is always necessary, as well.

She is so incredibly much the typical modern woman, the kind of which the West is so exceedingly well endowed.

Perhaps not the most apt word choice.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 4:33 am [I think it ought to be about much more than that.

A marriage goes through ups and downs. During a down, it is often the only thing that keeps it together.

Well, outside the West it works like that. Until a century ago, it also worked like that in the West.

Nowadays, in the West, the divorce judge will routinely rule that she can stop providing you with anything at all but you must still continue to provide financial-tension relief.

From there on, it effectively becomes something for nothing.

In the West, this practice has led to a pretty much complete distrust of not just marriage but of all the laws in the West.

It is one of the reasons why I have converted to Islam. It is part of an insurance policy. If they bring their friends to enforce their bullshit laws, I will bring mine. Conflict with the West is inevitable.

godelian wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 5:48 am Nowadays, in the West, the divorce judge will routinely rule that she can stop providing you with anything at all but you must still continue to provide financial-tension relief. From there on, it effectively becomes something for nothing.

Well, there's no question the law favours the woman over the man in divorce proceedings, to an absurd excess. However, when two people have created children, the care of the children ought to be the primary imperative. The adults have made their decisions, bad or good...and it's the children who become the true victims of the antipathy between their parents. So courts ought to favour the interests of children, not of either the man or the woman.

It is one of the reasons why I have converted to Islam.

I find those Western men who are attracted to Islam are overreacting. To throw over all spiritual trust to an organization the legacy of which is pretty much composed of conquest, murder, gross authoritarianism, and abuse of women and children may be understandable for an angry, frustrated man who feels weakened and humiliated by a Western system that is corrupted and biased against him. But it gives way too much over to an institution that is utterly unworthy of metaphysical fidelity. The man gains an angry cadre of supporters (the Islamists), but he loses his own soul to a death-cult driven by hatred -- a bad bargain, to be sure.

I've always thought that the truly strong man is not the aggressive one, but the one who has so much power he always knows he does not need to overreact and become militant or hateful. His self-possession is stable, and his aggressive potentials are measured according to the level of actual threat, and harnessed in the interest of a larger metaphysical good toward which he is personally directed. He can take a hit, and give a hit; but he never lashes out in rage or frustration, does not need militant language, and never overreacts or counter-reacts.

I don't see any of that spirit in Islam. If I can speak frankly, I would have to say that I find it a weak man's religion, precisely because its responses are so vicious and excessive. A spirit of nervous vulnerability underwrites all their rhetoric and social displays, and they cannot find any space for self-control, for mercy or for love.

In a sense, they've let the spiteful women win. They've let the injustices perpetrated against them turn them into bad, resentful, vicious men. And that means that everything the women have alleged against them has become true, even if it wasn't before. That seems to me a very bad, counterproductive way (if somewhat understandable, emotionally) to deal with a personal injustice.

"I've always thought that the truly strong man is not the aggressive one, but the one who has so much power he always knows he does not need to overreact and become militant or hateful. His self-possession is stable, and his aggressive potentials are measured according to the level of actual threat, and harnessed in the interest of a larger metaphysical good toward which he is personally directed. He can take a hit, and give a hit; but he never lashes out in rage or frustration, does not need militant language, and never overreacts or counter-reacts."

U just described Obi Wan Kenobi.