‘Men’ have to do , ‘women’ just ‘are’

Actualism
21

The irony is women are just as misogynistic as men. I saw a study on the word “slut” on twitter and women were using it as much as men.

Competition amongst women.

Yet, somehow, in a twist of cunning, women are painted as the “fairer” sex. Kinder, gentler, more loving.

I am really riffing on being less valuable to nature. It’s like a “get out of jail” free card.

What bee hive ever cared that one worker drone didn’t return to the hive?

It’s mass panic if the queen is in trouble.

I can, however, buzz off into the sunset, enjoy the flowers and never come back.

Nothing like a good breakfast of facts to make this all a bit easier.

22

It’s really breaking down the belief in the “nuclear family”.

The equality of a ‘man’ and a ‘woman’.

The illusion of monogamy, where what is there is convenient liaison.

Maybe that’s part of the reoccurring fantasy I have of being father to a daughter. One which brought immediate peace on a few occasions.

I feel the intrinsic value of the female, and my highest ‘blind nature’ achievement would be to have created nature’s most valuable asset.

Like a rod for my back, I psychically strive for what nature “wants”.

23
24

@Kiman

We may as well have the rest of this discussion here.

By your own account, you don’t need to work.

Yet, you work because it is required for a future spouse that you give her “security”.

This security you are seeking to obtain, is in a system you regard as a zero sum game. Worse than that even.

So, to spark some ideas for you; How does it feel to be groomed as a drone in a system without conscience for a security which can be in an instant; worthless?

I see your desire to make profit as an offset for the boredom (resentment) of working as rebellion.

You don’t want to be there, you don’t have to be there, but you believe you must.

Spot the investigation point. :rofl:

25

Yes, women can be very judgemental of each other. My daughters are still young and not teenagers yet and I can already see the beginnings of bullying and pressure within their friend circles. When they are older they will be judged on the sexual choices they make, fashion choices, make up choices and who knows what else. It is that area that makes me uncomfortable because I don’t know the outcome and can’t predict, I can only support them and encourage their independence.

It goes back to what @Sonyaxx had said on the other thread when talking about shame in sexuality about the labels women fear around having sex for the pleasure of it (paraphrasing here sorry). It is not an easy thing to navigate for women, all of these social rules and expectations followed by judgements, some that can cost them their livelihoods or lives at times in certain places and certain cultures.

I used to like the subversive choice to reject women, try and pretend like I didn’t want them and had no interest or value in them. Really it was because I hated the power they had over me. A guy could call me an “ugly bastard” and I wouldn’t give a damn but if a woman says it, it will play on my mind for days and weeks.

I don’t like that I try and pretend and project to my wife that I have no sexual interest in other women when we both no it is bullshit. Yet I will still find myself sometimes behaving this way on auto-pilot. Like I have said, I am my own PR/spin doctor, ensuring the perception of sonofbob is socially respectable.

When in reality, if I was confident and attractive enough I would have never ended up in a monogamous relationship.

2 Likes
26

Also just to riff on this idea a bit:

Why go for someone who wants you to have a job even when you have enough money not to work?

Why not…

  • go for someone who would be satisfied with the money available without any more work?
  • go for someone who already supports themselves and would want to continue doing so
  • go for someone who wants and likes to work and you pool your resources together?

Etc… is a big world out there. You don’t have to follow the stereotypical tropes

3 Likes
27

Which reflects the program that blind nature hands us, irrespective of our capability to fulfill it.

It’s not that a monogamous relationship is “wrong”, it’s rather that it’s the best of a bad situation for the majority of people.

Being programmed by blind nature to seek out the very best to reproduce with, and being otherwise incapable via the genetic inheritance we are born with to fulfill that desire, we are left with an uneasy compromise.

Monogamy evolved to provide the socially best solution, without removing the blind instinct.

Nature is a master of pasting over fixes, without changing the previous condition.

@son_of_bob , you were talking about something this in the science discussion.

The raw primal drive to mate with “the best” hasn’t been deleted because it still works, some of the time. The subsequent adaptions, like religion and monogamy, also work, more of the time.

Ironically, the later adaptation specifically vilified the previous one, without deleting it.

The virtue of monogamy is in direct contradiction to the previous model.

Hence the cognitive dissonance. The emotional confusion.

There is nothing wrong with monogamy. One can easily make a case for it being the superior situation (stable social identity) There is nothing wrong with polygamy/ polygyny, one could also make a solid case for it (superior genetic health).

One can only wonder what an actually free world would look like. Would people choose to continue the human species?

28

Yes, I agree. What is interesting for us feeling beings is that we really believe there is this “relationship”…this tangible connection between us and the other.
We try to have that connection with the other affective identity.

[Respondent № 88]: “A comparison between a relationship with love and a relationship with ‘actual freedom’, would be appreciated”.

• [Richard]: “Okay … first and foremost I am assuming you mean the word in a way more or less similar to this:

• relationship (n.): a connection, an association, spec. an emotional (esp. sexual) association between two people. ~ (Oxford English Dictionary).

RIchard: As a relationship is specifically described as being an emotional association between two people – as in an affective connection, union, bond (as in ‘the bonds of friendship’) or tie (as in ‘family ties’) – it confuses the issue somewhat to call being together monogamously with another, when actually free from the human condition, “a relationship” … indeed, in the first edition of ‘Richard’s Journal’, where I used that very word (albeit as a modern-day substitute for the word ‘marriage’), it caused enough confusion for some readers as to occasion my replacement of it with the term ‘an association’ when preparing the second edition.

Having said all that … there actually is no comparison between a relationship (either with or without love) and an association where there is an actual freedom from the human condition because the former, being within the human condition, is essentially an association with another identity whereas the latter is an association with another flesh and blood body.

I have often wondered this, finding myself exploring the “what ifs” but ultimately until it is experientially the case we won’t know. Everything about actual freedom, I realise now is experiential and not the hypothetical. You have a similar tendency to me to want to play out these what ifs. If only I was as good at getting to felicitous states as I was at exploring what ifs.

29

We can both leverage the “what if” tendency down to this moment.

What if I was thoroughly enjoying this moment of being alive?:blush:

31

Lots of great discussion in this taped dialogue, relevant to this topic.