Tuesday, 28 May 2013

Pook #29 - On The Nature of Sexuality

Diesel, I used to think the same about women at one point. But I cannot walk away from a riddle. And what better riddle is there but woman? It ended up blossoming into studying sexuality itself, and how it transcends the sex act itself. You will find it in art, business, politics, society in general.

Oddly, I could never define woman. Nothing was there. Was Weineger correct? The more time progressed, the more it became clear to me that I was trying to define a mirror. In my mind, it seemed I posted an article on femininity but it ends up being on masculinity instead! The more I looked into the core of woman, the more I saw the spirit of man.

Women seem more like a touchstone, who streaks men and see if they are gold or not. How many men had their lives transformed by not obtaining the love of a woman they wanted? And they were transformed not in the sexual way, but into something more. Almost every biography I've seen of world changing men always contain the fact that they fell in love with a woman and did not get her. Washington, Adams, Dante (he turns Beautrice into heaven in his immortal epic), Beethoven, practically all poets, practically all famous generals, etc. It is as if these guys saw their own wimpish worthless reflections in the women they sought, and changed their ways. I believe it was Kierkegaard who says, "It is true that behind every great man there is a woman. But it is always the woman he DID NOT marry."

A theme of Shakespeare is that when his characters condemn, they condemn themselves. If you look for this in real life, it becomes quite fun. It is amazing how many people condemn themselves! A poster on this board who rages relentlessly against AFCs... probably still is an AFC at heart. The anti-social hermit who says, "Those people clowning around do not understand life" condemns himself.

If you combine these two, you will get reflections of people. The Nice Guy who sees the woman as angelic and pure, he himself is innocent and 'angelic'. The guy that sees women as machiavelli creatures is often himself a machiavelli creature. The guy that sees women as b*tches is himself acting like one. The guy who sees woman as a playtoy is, himself, merely a playtoy. And the guy who sees women as only things to screw is, himself, merely a thing whose purpose is to screw. It's fascinating (to me) to see this everywhere. One thing that seems more clear: man and woman are not two but one. Perhaps there is more truth than we realize in the ancient phrase of 'the two as one flesh' (rather than the modern view of two atomized individuals in a legal contract).

In the end, the joke is probably on us. We're trying post/rationalize what should be natural. This site (including its sister ones) seem more and more ridiculous to me. Guys who think they are 'men' because they get women (which are insanely easy to get anyway) are like Don Quixotes who think they are knights because they caught windmills.

Women are emotional not because they are stupid but because they play Nature's role. Imagine if we men gave birth! Why, in delivery we would bite our lip, think that we ought to 'be a man', and not scream (which is a shame since screaming assists in the birth). A man knows that it is right for him to shoulder and conquer pain, not unleash it on others. If Man was pregnant, he would kill the child through his own being. The woman screams, talks, blabblers, unleashes her feelings, which is necessary for her to carry the child to and through delivery. It is also noticable that children gather around the mother, they seem to relate to her better. But when the children turn to adults, they gather around the man (as he shows the example to live by).

QUOTE: "CHICKS GET OFF ON POWER. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY GO FOR THE JOCKS AND THE DUDES WITH THE DEFINED PECS AND SIXPACKS, AND NOT SOME FLABBY, TERRIBLE-POETRY-SPOUTING LOSER LIKE YOU? POWER, BABY."

This is absolutely NOT true. Even when I was scrawny, I still scored chicks with my poetry. But it wasn't my poetry, it was my imagination that reeled them in. Musicians also get laid.

Women go for rich guys and strong guys because of self-survival (wouldn't you marry a woman with millions?). Women are more attracted to imagination than to power. They are only attracted to power in a survival way. They may marry the politician but will sleep with the artist down the road.

There was this guy who was REALLY maxed out physically, so much so that he almost got on Baywatch. The girls nicknamed him 'heaven'. And so enters Pook. This guy saw me with the girls and RUSHED OVER to try to peel them away. It was like I was taking away his source of his ego. Talk about pathetic.

Women sincerely want the best life they can get and choose the man who best supplies that. The 'power' guys either of physical strength or income or even influence are placed in the 'self survival' slot (women look around the room and wonder what income these guys are going to make...). But women also want to do more than survive; they want to laugh and make the fatal mistake of romance by trying to make it last forever. The muscian, the artist, the (good) poet, all have a command of imagination and adds to her life in that way. Women think they deserve the best life possible and will seek it... through you.

*

QUOTE:  "But I can't really feel guilty for wanting to bone a lot of girls, I don't think my views on women reflect badly on me at all. I'm just honest with myself and with the caliber of woman that is out there. If I were to meet a women that inspired me on all levels, then yeah, I'd probably change my toon. However, I can't say that I am holding my breath for that day, and in the meantime, I sure as hell will not continue to live like a monk, while pursuing some Quijote-an quest for the perfect woman. I take what is presented to me in the course of my life."

Hey Diesel! I'm not saying you, or anyone, should feel guilty about how you view women. Men and women agree on one thing: they both distrust women.

QUOTE: "I have a bit of a romantic notion that one day I will meet a girl that will knock my socks off... but so far that hasn't happened yet."

I think after a while, Nature says, "This will not do. Therefore, I will place internal pressure in you to desire the LTR, to marry, to have kids." In time, the Savage Bull doth bare the yoke.

QUOTE: "2. However, your point on the imagination... you say that chicks don't get off on the power. Here I will continue to disagree."

No, they DO get off on power. But they get off on other things then that too. How can that jobless starving artist be with that hottie? He is dreamy.

When I was going to be a lawyer, chicks loved that. They see lawyers as a type of power (when in truth, there are millions of lawyers crawling around who still end up poor. Being a lawyer won't make you wealthy). They don't see that, they see only the IMAGE.

If they get the impression that I am goal-less college wise, career wise, that my only sense is to pursue my passion, artistic or otherwise, they get off on that too! It is almost like they imagine in their head, "This guy will be adventurous" and they want to be a part of that life.

But if you are some boring Nice Guy who just wants to get some basic job and rot, rot, rot, rot through life, they will turn to you only as a last resort. Women want to be winners in life just as well as we do. When they are married, when they meet other couples, the women will examine each others' husbands. Who got the Great Catch and who didn't? Who won and who got the loser?

QUOTE: "Isn't your premise of the control over the imagination but another manifestation of power? If you can control and capture a girl's imagination, it sounds like just another form of power a man can wield over a woman."

I'll do a post on this.

QUOTE: "3. About the women wanting the best life they can get and choosing the guy who can best give it to them. ....

This is definitely not true. Women make incredibly stupid choices when choosing whom they marry, for what seem to be an infinite number of reasons that defy explanation (since each situation is unique).. This, to me, accounts for the incredibly high divorce rate in this country."

Heh, who said women judged men rationally? In HER mind, that loser is not a loser. He is a spontaneous exciting person who adds to her DULL life. Women will have anything: happiness, saddness, horror, fear, joy, laughter, but they will not tolerate one thing: BOREDOM. They may even see the loser for what he is. They then think, "I will turn this guy around. He will become successful because of ME!" This stupid female vanity lets women marry the loser despite everyone's advice to the contrary.

QUOTE: "If what you say is true, then how come people divorce so much?"

Excessive expectations.

Everyone believes they are super special. Women in the 18-26 year bracket have these HUGE expectations that no man can fulfill! They get married at, say, twenty two. After a couple of years, they get BORED and/or realize that marriage is not some magical process of transcendence. She sees other women her age out having fun but she is stuck with responsibilities. Oh, if she could only shrug off the husband and be single again!

Unhealthy romance: the pursuit of the lover.

Healthy romance: the presence of the lover.

It is almost a cult to many of these women (and some men!). These excessive expectations contains neither the friendship or civility that makes marriage successful. It fulfills the way a drug fulfills, requiring new infusions to sustain the high. We've raised their romanticism so much that its taken to be a personal and cultural panacea, a solve for everything. But not one thing solves everything. So they suffer the permanent disappointment of these excessive expectations. Twenty years of affection, caring, friendship, the small favors husbands and wives do for each other, is seen as 'boring' to these cultists. But in my opinion, it is far more and greater than their stupid expectations.

An obituary ought to be written. It'll be its tombstone when we bury this out of control romanticism for good.

Previous Pook Index Next

No comments:

Post a Comment