10-02-2017, 12:00 AM
rosygyro wrote:
Le_Regard wrote:
rosygyro wrote:
You just gotta understand that underpinning the world IS the masculine known.
There are plenty of females who perpetuate the masculine known, plenty of males also.
The issues with the human habitual assemblage point are the reason our civilisation is tearing itself apart.
No, I don't. Calling it "the male known" is exactly what people are complaining about when they complain about "the patriarchy".
YOU need to understand that other assemblage points exist in your world, you shift them as much as they shift you, and a system of more or less consistent rules for communicating and getting along are what we call a "civilization".
If i were to call it the female known and the male unknown it would mean a different thing and would not be as relative
to the collective habitual position.
According to whom?
i am not that interested in personal assemblages as they run at tangents to the collective need.
calling it the female unknown lends itself more to sexually respecting the female as an "unknown"
and calling it the male known lends itself to self evaluation, or a much easier tackling of one polarity of the sexual as
the material tonal.
So you admit your choice isn't based on "seeing" or anything, but a moral choice. Why do you think the female sexuality is the one that needs more respect, and the male sexuality is the one that needs more self-evaluation? It sounds like your just bleeting along with the other sheep "2 legs good, 3 legs baaaaad!" Since all the other sheep are also respecting female sexuality more, doesn't that mean it's the male sexuality that is in need of more respect?
Look at the evidence -
How does society treat a woman who grinds up against or grabs a man's crotch at a nightclub without permission? What about a man who does that to a woman?
How does society feel about female circumcision versus male circumcision?
How seriously is male rape taken? How about female rape?
It's pretty obvious that if you're going by the evidence it would be male sexuality you'd be trying to get more respected, but if you want to let everyone else know you're a good boy who holds the same values as them and aren't really concerned with evidence than keep doing it the way you are.
we can drag it back to the basic phallic symbol as the male known
and just appreciate that millions of phallic symbols have been created over the millions of years
and that if these phallus had done the job they were supposed to
that our world would have no issues regarding sexuality and time.
A lot of those so called phallic symbols are highly questionable. Take the Washington monument for example. Is your penis composed of 4 flat sides joined together at sharp angles? Does the top of it resemble a pyramid? Feminidiots like to point to everything that's longer than it is wide as proof of the worship of male genitalia, but their arguments are, as always, highly dubious at best. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" - Bill Clinton.
Likewise, if we always looked at the world with a sufficiently focused paranoia of female genitals we could point to any doorway or monuments like the Arch de Triumph as symbolic of female genitalia. One feminist author I read did exactly that, stating that's why we should venerate the Arch de Triumph and disregard all those phallic symbols like the Washington monument. Because feminism is about equality or something like that.
the male known or the phallus can exist as a physical object
Female genitalia is also a physical object.
wheras the female unknown is wholly positioned in the female.
we can tackle a stone, wood or ice or even symbolic phallus without it being a direct
attempt to effect an individual or indeed any organic part of man.
Indeed, I can walk through an archway or put on a pair of gloves without it being an attempt to effect an individual or indeed any organic part of woman either.
the same cannot be said of the unknown
and forebearance as such exists.
"The nagual does not look up to anyone's sexuality, nor does he/she look down on anyone's sexuality." - Captain Kirk, (from the animated series, episode 5 "More Trouble, More Tribbles")
Le_Regard wrote:
rosygyro wrote:
You just gotta understand that underpinning the world IS the masculine known.
There are plenty of females who perpetuate the masculine known, plenty of males also.
The issues with the human habitual assemblage point are the reason our civilisation is tearing itself apart.
No, I don't. Calling it "the male known" is exactly what people are complaining about when they complain about "the patriarchy".
YOU need to understand that other assemblage points exist in your world, you shift them as much as they shift you, and a system of more or less consistent rules for communicating and getting along are what we call a "civilization".
If i were to call it the female known and the male unknown it would mean a different thing and would not be as relative
to the collective habitual position.
According to whom?
i am not that interested in personal assemblages as they run at tangents to the collective need.
calling it the female unknown lends itself more to sexually respecting the female as an "unknown"
and calling it the male known lends itself to self evaluation, or a much easier tackling of one polarity of the sexual as
the material tonal.
So you admit your choice isn't based on "seeing" or anything, but a moral choice. Why do you think the female sexuality is the one that needs more respect, and the male sexuality is the one that needs more self-evaluation? It sounds like your just bleeting along with the other sheep "2 legs good, 3 legs baaaaad!" Since all the other sheep are also respecting female sexuality more, doesn't that mean it's the male sexuality that is in need of more respect?
Look at the evidence -
How does society treat a woman who grinds up against or grabs a man's crotch at a nightclub without permission? What about a man who does that to a woman?
How does society feel about female circumcision versus male circumcision?
How seriously is male rape taken? How about female rape?
It's pretty obvious that if you're going by the evidence it would be male sexuality you'd be trying to get more respected, but if you want to let everyone else know you're a good boy who holds the same values as them and aren't really concerned with evidence than keep doing it the way you are.
we can drag it back to the basic phallic symbol as the male known
and just appreciate that millions of phallic symbols have been created over the millions of years
and that if these phallus had done the job they were supposed to
that our world would have no issues regarding sexuality and time.
A lot of those so called phallic symbols are highly questionable. Take the Washington monument for example. Is your penis composed of 4 flat sides joined together at sharp angles? Does the top of it resemble a pyramid? Feminidiots like to point to everything that's longer than it is wide as proof of the worship of male genitalia, but their arguments are, as always, highly dubious at best. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" - Bill Clinton.
Likewise, if we always looked at the world with a sufficiently focused paranoia of female genitals we could point to any doorway or monuments like the Arch de Triumph as symbolic of female genitalia. One feminist author I read did exactly that, stating that's why we should venerate the Arch de Triumph and disregard all those phallic symbols like the Washington monument. Because feminism is about equality or something like that.
the male known or the phallus can exist as a physical object
Female genitalia is also a physical object.
wheras the female unknown is wholly positioned in the female.
we can tackle a stone, wood or ice or even symbolic phallus without it being a direct
attempt to effect an individual or indeed any organic part of man.
Indeed, I can walk through an archway or put on a pair of gloves without it being an attempt to effect an individual or indeed any organic part of woman either.
the same cannot be said of the unknown
and forebearance as such exists.
"The nagual does not look up to anyone's sexuality, nor does he/she look down on anyone's sexuality." - Captain Kirk, (from the animated series, episode 5 "More Trouble, More Tribbles")