Men and Women
Alrah
attitude that makes generalisations between men and women and thier
observable behaviors. There are always exceptions to the rule - in
general men wink at me and only butch lesbians wink at me among the
women of my country, but there was the exception of a mexican
hetrosexual woman I got to know who also employed that behaviour. I
don't know how common that is in her culture though.
But just because there are exceptions to the rule, doesn't mean that
in general, general observations are invalid indicators. You just
have to watch out for the exceptions - and in general, the exceptions
have thier observable rules of behavior also. Human behavior is
rarely so random that it follows no pattern at all - even extreme
lateral thinkers have an observable pattern of behavior, and I find
that there *are* patterns that differentiate the genders beyond that
which are superficially subscibed by the fashions of a culture.
If we consider what is occult to be what is usually hidden, then
seeking an explanation for some of the more obscure behaviors of the
opposite sex falls under the catagory of occultism.
Just last year a very kind man gave me the whole expose on what
happens in a blokes trouser department. All of the 'arms over the
lap' and 'crossing the legs' thing was a revelations to me, and then
to my mother, and we had to readjust our thinking a bit... Not having
penis's and not having been told this stuff before made the subject
'occult knowledge' for us. And some of the things that women do,
arising from monthly hormone shifts (like changing the furniture
about) seem equally as obscure to some blokes.
So - in the interests of delving further into this occult mystery -
can we have a bit of an exchange, and attempt to explain what
behaviors we've never understood about the opposite sex?
Hopefully...
Alrah.
Tehiru
Certainly. My wife will ask me questions from time to time and seem
genuinely nonplussed by me selecting "option A" or "option B" without
further comment. When she is asked a similar question by me, there is
typically a longer answer that includes her reasoning and the
occasional anecdote that was a factor as well. This is occasionally a
sticking point for us; when I am given two options to choose from I
make a choice, while when my wife is given a choice she has been known
to inundate me with her reasoning. It genuinely bothers her that when
given a choice to make, I make it and it simply does not occur to me
to share the reasoning unless prompted. I am of the feeling that as
my wife is a more social creature (as women are by and large more
social creatures than men) this drive to explain reasoning is an
attempt to form consensus as an inherited survival trait.
mika
> In the past I've been pulled up, usually by Mika, for adopting an
> attitude that makes generalisations between men and women and thier
> observable behaviors.
The primary problem with you making generalizations is not that
generalizations are bad in general, but that *your* generalizations
are almost always wrong.
You, like most aspies, have a very poor ability to interpret the
meaning behind "observable behaviors". You observe, draw erronious
conclusions, then make generalizations, without ever considering that
your assumptions about what you observed are wrong.
Of course, you will likely deny this problem, because while you love
to extoll the wonders of having atypical neurology, you never ever
ever own up to the corresponding limitations.
> You just have to watch out for the exceptions
No. What you have to watch out for is making assumptions about
reality and assuming they are universally accurate.
> So - in the interests of delving further into this occult mystery -
> can we have a bit of an exchange, and attempt to explain what
> behaviors we've never understood about the opposite sex?
Before you try to tackle that mystery for yourself, have you even
begun to investigate what behaviors you've never understood in other
people in general, men or women? Have you read those books about
social behavior written for autistic people that Tom recommended to
you yet?
mika
Why would you assume that your behavior represents how all men
typically act, and her behavior represents how all women typically
act?
> I am of the feeling that as
> my wife is a more social creature (as women are by and large more
> social creatures than men) this drive to explain reasoning is an
> attempt to form consensus as an inherited survival trait.
Or perhaps it's because your wife grew up in an environment in which
she was consistently pressured to defend her choices and opinions, and
you grew up in an environment in which you were allowed to assert
yourself without justification.
Tehiru
> Why would you assume that your behavior represents how all men
> typically act, and her behavior represents how all women typically
> act?
I made no assumption that my behavior is representative of how all men
act. However, I do feel that the behavior of my wife (as described) is
representative of the behavior of most women. Of course there are
exceptions, but I feel that I have observed this trait I described in
my wife often enough in other women to put it forth as a
generalization.
> Or perhaps it's because your wife grew up in an environment in which
> she was consistently pressured to defend her choices and opinions, and
> you grew up in an environment in which you were allowed to assert
> yourself without justification.
Perhaps. That is why I submitted my observations for comment.
Alrah
>
> - Show quoted text -
Even amongst aspies this gender differential is observed, and we're
not known as the most sociable creature in society! lol.
I think it has to do with women *in general* having more connections
between the left and right brain hemispheres and so there is a greater
variety of interpretations from sensory feedback and that 'feeds in'
to the choices we make. *In general* women have a greater capacity
for 'intuition' - simply a greater capacity for left/right brain
processing, but this also means that men will observe the population
of women in general and find that a lot of women don't refine thier
rational side and thier apriori assumptions will be of no use to
them. Just as a bloke that hasn't refined his creative and lateral
thinking will find an excess of rationality hinders him.
I think in your case, if you'll allow me to get a little star trek
here, you could think of it as a marriage between a half vulcan man
and a half betazoid woman. :-)
I think the trust comes from the observable successes (or failures)
from each of your behaviours and how you manage the balance. If she's
forever telling you that 'such and such' will happen (or vise versa)
and the other partner is always ignoring advice that makes a
difference to you jointly - then regardless about how you feel about
self determination - you/she is going to piss the other partner off by
not following advice in a certain relevant sphere. And by 'sphere' it
could mean anything between how to handle the accountant or like how
to handle your aunt annie with an old grudge at xmas. :-)
Sometimes being able to make a quick rational yes/no choice is a good
thing - but at other times it can limit (jointly) your options, and
I'm guessing that this is what she's getting frustrated about. You
can observe outcomes without immediately understanding the way her
brain works... so don't prejudge and have a little trust while
remaining cautious and helpful? And be sensitive to the fact that
'timing' is often v. important to certain intuitive windows of
opportunity. If you spend most of the time trying to seek a rational
understanding until her intuitions are of no use (the bird has flow -
Kairos is no more), then you haven't won anything, and you aren't
utilizing her or appreciating the strengths she brings to your
partnership. A lot of men shoot themselves in the foot this way.
Alrah
Mika - you're like a musician who's just learned how to play scales
trying to 'teach' a prodigy. A prodigy can't be taught.
Go away.
Alrah
I don't believe that is the case. I've seen men in women dominated
families being called to account to the female mental outlook of thier
sisters and mother and aunties - answering according to perfectly male
rational viewpoints yet being required to justify their actions
according to wider female thinking. It's a preset of the brain, not
the culture.
The sort of thinking that Mika is espousing is rather old 60's stuff,
- the sort of stuff that thought you could raise a genetic male as a
female by sticking him in a dress and giving him dolls. In other
words - unbelievably stupid.
Erwin Hessle
> On 15 Dec, 21:39, mika <mika...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You, like most aspies, have a very poor ability to interpret the
> > meaning behind "observable behaviors". You observe, draw erronious
> > conclusions, then make generalizations, without ever considering that
> > your assumptions about what you observed are wrong.
>
> > Of course, you will likely deny this problem
>
> trying to 'teach' a prodigy.
"Scientists have produced evidence that self-awareness is a big
problem for people with autism." - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8407857.stm
Ladies and gentlemen, meet the living proof.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Alrah
> On Dec 15, 6:13 pm, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 15 Dec, 21:39, mika <mika...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You, like most aspies, have a very poor ability to interpret the
> > > meaning behind "observable behaviors". You observe, draw erronious
> > > conclusions, then make generalizations, without ever considering that
> > > your assumptions about what you observed are wrong.
>
> > > Of course, you will likely deny this problem
>
> > Mika - you're like a musician who's just learned how to play scales
> > trying to 'teach' a prodigy.
>
> "Scientists have produced evidence that self-awareness is a big
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, meet the living proof.
>
> Erwin Hessle, 8=3
I agree with this research Erwin, and can see how it nicely fits my
traits.
But read again, and you'll see no impairment in understand 'other
people'.
And to date there's been no research that charts how local as well as
global processing is involved in self-awareness. So while this study
is interesting for global processing issues, it really doesn't touch
the more complex dynamics of autism.
Have a nice day! :-)
Alrah
> "Scientists have produced evidence that self-awareness is a big
> problem for people with autism." -http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8407857.stm
ps - you'll also notice this was a study conducted on males
only? :-)))
Erwin Hessle
> On 15 Dec, 23:32, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 6:13 pm, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 15 Dec, 21:39, mika <mika...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > You, like most aspies, have a very poor ability to interpret the
> > > > meaning behind "observable behaviors". You observe, draw erronious
> > > > conclusions, then make generalizations, without ever considering that
> > > > your assumptions about what you observed are wrong.
>
> > > > Of course, you will likely deny this problem
>
> > > Mika - you're like a musician who's just learned how to play scales
> > > trying to 'teach' a prodigy.
>
> > "Scientists have produced evidence that self-awareness is a big
> > problem for people with autism." -http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8407857.stm
>
> > Ladies and gentlemen, meet the living proof.
>
> > Erwin Hessle, 8=3
>
> I agree with this research Erwin, and can see how it nicely fits my
> traits.
>
> But read again, and you'll see no impairment in understand 'other
> people'.
But you *will* see an impairment in understanding how you're not a
"prodigy" in doing that. The evidence that you're inept in
understanding other people is exactly what Mika said it was - your
long and distinguished history on this newsgroup of making a complete
pig's ear of doing that.
Further proof of the truth of this research is shown by the fact that
you completely missed the point I was making about you.
How...expected.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
We only have your word for it that you're not one. And, given your
demonstrated lack of self-awareness, I'm not sure how much credence to
give that word, in this case.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Alrah
> On 15 Dec, 23:32, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote:
Perhaps I'll break it down for you... it's a very complex issue after
all :-)
Autistic people shouldn't be able to read or write, according to brain
scans because we process language in a different area of the brain to
Neurotypicals. So look at the NT area and compare it to an autistic
and you'll find a deficit. But hey - we still read and write like
you. :P Infact - as we draw our letters our handwriting is usually a
bit more legible. Likewise, a blind autistic prodigy shouldn't be
able to play georgous symphonies that transport his audience if brain
scans were correct and the area of the brain managing that was the
same as the NT brain, and hadn't been shifted to the area of the brain
that would usually handle vision.
And this is where local processing rather than bog standard NT global
processing comes in.
Now I know that Autism speaks is recieving billions of dollars by
parading it's stupid and alarming images of brain damaged children to
the masses to try and prove all autism is an illness that needs to be
'cured' or tested for at birth so that all autistic babies can be
aborted, and they are funding most of the research these days... but
really! Are all blacks subhuman and all Jews greedy as well? Because
it's on that level these days. You have no idea...
mika
> On 15 Dec, 21:39, mika wrote:
>
> > Before you try to tackle that mystery for yourself, have you even
> > begun to investigate what behaviors you've never understood in other
> > people in general, men or women? Have you read those books about
> > social behavior written for autistic people that Tom recommended to
> > you yet?
>
> Mika - you're like a musician who's just learned how to play scales
> trying to 'teach' a prodigy. A prodigy can't be taught.
We all know you can't be taught, but it's not because you're some kind
of prodigy.
So, apparently, no, you haven't read any of those books. Surprise
surprise.
> Go away.
Nope. Fucking deal with it.
mika
>
>
> The sort of thinking that Mika is espousing is
You have absolutely no clue as to what "sort of thinking" I'm
"espousing", as demonstrated by your consistent, repeated
misinterpretations of my posts.
I obviously struck a nerve with you when I accurately stated how you
love to extoll the wonders of having atypical neurology, yet you never
ever ever own up to the corresponding limitations. You are absolutely
terrified of facing and accepting your own limitations.
Alrah
Well it sure is rivalled by your own long and disreputable history as
a brittle and haughty man driven by an insane urge to distance
yourself from other human beings, even on a newsgroup, through the
desire not to feel, and to blunt hurt. And the evidence is backed up
by your thelemic instructions - and usually a man that displays your
pattern of behavior has suffered some type of abuse in his past.
That's a *general* observation btw. And it's not made by me, but by
most reputable psychologists.
> Further proof of the truth of this research is shown by the fact that
> you completely missed the point I was making about you.
> How...expected.
lol. If only one person in a hundred were able to see the colour
blue, then they'd all level this type of accusation.
Do you understand what local processing is? Are you at all qualified
or educated enough to discuss this beyond a simple news report?
I doubt it.
>
> Erwin Hessle, 8=3- Hide quoted text -
Alrah
Lol. I've often posted on the limitations of being an aspie in a
social first NT world.
Whereas you have never considered how you are limited by your own
brain function, have you? Would you like to now? Or are you arrogant
enough to believe that your neurotype is superior in all respects... a
bit like whites thought they were to blacks, Nazi's to Jew's etc. etc.
etc. ad nausum.
Alrah
Typical... that little projection indicates a certain insecurity
regarding your gender identity. Something aforesaid psychologists
would see as a trait.
Tehiru
> > I obviously struck a nerve with you when I accurately stated how you
> > love to extoll the wonders of having atypical neurology, yet you never
> > ever ever own up to the corresponding limitations. You are absolutely
> > terrified of facing and accepting your own limitations.
Actually, I was wondering if you would clarify local vs. global
processing. I'm at work so I would rather have the basic idea as
compared to going out and doing research when I should really be doing
something work-related! (chuckle)
Erwin Hessle
Not "human beings" - just dimwitted lunatics like you and credulous
woowoo merchants. Also like you, come to think of it. As we've
examined before, I'm not sure you even qualify as a "human being" -
there's too much missing in the brain department.
> even on a newsgroup, through the
> desire not to feel, and to blunt hurt. And the evidence is backed up
> by your thelemic instructions - and usually a man that displays your
> pattern of behavior has suffered some type of abuse in his past.
Well, there's the third piece of evidence of your ineptitude in
detecting "pattern[s] of behaviour" in about as many minutes, then.
Quelle surprise!
> > Further proof of the truth of this research is shown by the fact that
> > you completely missed the point I was making about you.
> > How...expected.
>
> lol. If only one person in a hundred were able to see the colour
> blue, then they'd all level this type of accusation.
Yet we wouldn't expect those other 99 to claim to be "prodigies" in
seeing the colour blue, would we now?
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
Sure, knock yourself out. I'll just go and feed my fire while you
jabber inanely to yourself.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
Fourth piece of evidence of your ineptitude. You're on a
roll ,tonight!
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Alrah
In general (lol) terms - it's processing of fine detail that global
processing would usually screen out. It means sensory
hypersensitivity is common. Just imagine you've dropped a daily dose
of acid that removed your usual 'filter' and you're somewhere close,
but with the brain area's being rearranged to handle it most of the
time but needing more down time because the cpu's gettings more data
and get's too 'hot' - causing overload or shutdown.
Alrah
> Fourth piece of evidence
No - I think we all know that you've left a 10 year history of
'evidence' behind you.
People don't turn into 'Erwin Hessle's' for no reason. But keep on
with the smoke screen - it won't help you be a happier person but do
what thou wilt, and all that...
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Man-being veiled in Woman-form.
Glory and worship in the highest,
Thou Dove, mankind that deifiest,
Being that race, most royally run
To spring sunshine through winter storm.
Glory and worship be to Thee,
Sap of the world-ash, wonder-tree!
Glory to Thee from Gilded Tomb!
Glory to Thee from Waiting Womb!
Glory to Thee from earth unploughed!
Glory to Thee from virgin vowed!
Glory to Thee, true Unity
Of the Eternal Trinity!
Glory to Thee, thou sire and dam
And self of I am that I am!
Glory to Thee, beyond all term,
Thy spring of sperm, thy seed and germ!
Glory to Thee, eternal Sun,
Thou One in Three, Thou Three in One!
Glory and worship be to Thee,
Sap of the world-ash, wonder-tree!
--
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky/files/sf_anthem.mp3
Erwin Hessle
> On 16 Dec, 00:49, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote:
>
> > Fourth piece of evidence
>
> No
Yes.
> I think we all know that you've left a 10 year history of
> 'evidence' behind you.
I sure have. Unfortunately for you, it just isn't the evidence you
wish it was. That's life, for you.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Alrah
> On Dec 15, 8:00 pm, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 16 Dec, 00:49, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote:
>
> > > Fourth piece of evidence
>
> > No
>
> Yes.
>
> > I think we all know that you've left a 10 year history of
> > 'evidence' behind you.
>
> I sure have.
:-)
That was an elementary mistake. G'night Watson.
Erwin Hessle
That's why I called you out on it so quickly. You make lots of
mistakes like that.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Tom
>
> Autistic people shouldn't be able to read or write, according to brain
> scans because we process language in a different area of the brain to
> Neurotypicals.
Which brain scans are you referring to? This isn't in the same
category with "according to current theories of aerodynamics bees
shouldn't be able to fly", is it? The category is "claims made by
people who don't know what they're talking about".
> Now I know that Autism speaks is recieving billions of dollars
"Billions of dollars". No. That's not true either. According to
their 2008 annual report, Autism Speaks raised $70 million. That's
seven tenths of one percent of a billion.
http://www.autismspeaks.org/docs/Autism_Speaks_Annual_Report_2008.pdf
> by
> parading it's stupid and alarming images of brain damaged children to
> the masses to try and prove all autism is an illness that needs to be
> 'cured' or tested for at birth so that all autistic babies can be
> aborted,
All this bullshit just because they are saying that autism is a
disability with causes and treatments and you'd rather flatter
yourself into thinking you're homo superior.
There are those in the "deaf community" who demand that their children
be born deaf because they are deaf, even though there is a way to give
their children fully-functioning hearing. Lots of people choose the
familiarity of their disability rather than face the responsibility of
ability.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmtLOQKeDs8
"There's just no pleasing some people."
Erwin Hessle
> On Dec 15, 4:20 pm, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Now I know that Autism speaks is recieving billions of dollars
>
> "Billions of dollars". No. That's not true either. According to
> their 2008 annual report, Autism Speaks raised $70 million. That's
> seven tenths of one percent of a billion.
It's actually seven percent of a billion, but a fraction nonetheless.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Tom
Fortunately, my point wasn't just a decimal point.
Meltdarok
> In the past I've been pulled up, usually by Mika, for adopting an
> attitude that makes generalisations between men and women and thier
> observable behaviors. There are always exceptions to the rule - in
> general men wink at me and only butch lesbians wink at me among the
> women of my country, but there was the exception of a mexican
> hetrosexual woman I got to know who also employed that behaviour. I
> don't know how common that is in her culture though.
>
> But just because there are exceptions to the rule, doesn't mean that
> in general, general observations are invalid indicators. You just
> have to watch out for the exceptions - and in general, the exceptions
> have thier observable rules of behavior also.
> So - in the interests of delving further into this occult mystery -
> can we have a bit of an exchange, and attempt to explain what
> behaviors we've never understood about the opposite sex?
>
You have a penis.
> Hopefully...
>
> Alrah.
>
>
>
Meltdarok
> On Dec 15, 1:45 pm, mika<mika...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why would you assume that your behavior represents how all men
>> typically act, and her behavior represents how all women typically
>> act?
>
> I made no assumption that my behavior is representative of how all men
> act. However, I do feel that the behavior of my wife (as described) is
> representative of the behavior of most women. Of course there are
> exceptions, but I feel that I have observed this trait I described in
> my wife often enough in other women to put it forth as a
> generalization.
>
>> Or perhaps it's because your wife grew up in an environment in which
>> she was consistently pressured to defend her choices and opinions, and
>> you grew up in an environment in which you were allowed to assert
>> yourself without justification.
>
> Perhaps. That is why I submitted my observations for comment.
That women are bitches?
Meltdarok
You're too insecure to stand on your own merit, but must take what you
want to believe is *absolutely* *no* *contest* to your ego--and brag how
superior you are to that shot in the ground. Come on-- spout *more*
verbiage "newbie."
Meltdarok
*AH*Ha* Your *fucking* jealous that someone else might be *happy*!
(on this Usenet message-board that is your dank socialization crypt)
Meltdarok
LOL 0[:D
Meltdarok
> On 12/15/2009 8:00 PM, Alrah wrote:
>> On 16 Dec, 00:49, Erwin Hessle<er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Fourth piece of evidence
>>
>> No - I think we all know that you've left a 10 year history of
>> 'evidence' behind you.
>>
>> People don't turn into 'Erwin Hessle's' for no reason. But keep on
>> with the smoke screen - it won't help you be a happier person but do
>> what thou wilt, and all that...
>>
>
> (on this Usenet message-board that is your dank socialization crypt)
Oh-oh! I almost forgot! He's gonna hack me just like he hacked CERN!
Tehiru
Where did you get that?
Tehiru
> You're too insecure to stand on your own merit, but must take what you
> want to believe is *absolutely* *no* *contest* to your ego--and brag how
> superior you are to that shot in the ground. Come on-- spout *more*
> verbiage "newbie."
Are you insulting Alrah, Mika or myself?
mika
>
> > So - in the interests of delving further into this occult mystery -
> > can we have a bit of an exchange, and attempt to explain what
> > behaviors we've never understood about the opposite sex?
>
> You have a penis.
I've always wondered what it would be like to have a penis. Seems
like it would be fun.
Tehiru
> I've always wondered what it would be like to have a penis. Seems
> like it would be fun.
Loads. We can pee for distance, but sprinkle on the bottom of the
seat. We can ejaculate for distance to, but the woman is always the
gatekeeper with the magic "no". Throw out the macho attitude, women
have the power of sex (aside from rapists). Men just try to convince
themselves they do.
mika
>
> usually a man that displays your
> pattern of behavior has suffered some type of abuse in his past.
> most reputable psychologists.
There may be reputable psychologists who associate a particular
pattern of behavior with a history of some type of abuse, however,
your belief that Erwin is displaying that behavior directly supports
what I told you above - you have a very poor ability to interpret
"observable behavior". You observe then draw erroneous conclusions,
Meltdarok
Maybe so, but if you're not having children, what's the diff?
Erwin Hessle
Either you lack creativity, or this is just faux-feminist "new man"
horseshit. Men can and do say "no" to women just as easily and
probably just as frequently as women say "no" to men. If women saying
"no" to you from time to time makes you think they have all the
"power", then there's something wrong with your brain. If you
suggested a game of pool to a buddy and he said "no", would you start
babbling on about how he has the "power of pool", and that you somehow
have less power in the gaming department than he does? I hope not.
Women have sexual needs just like men do, you know. In the real world,
where people have healthy and normal relationships, sex is something
that's done *together* when mutually desired - it's not something that
one partner doles out as a special favour because they have the
"power" to do so, and if this is what your relationships are like then
you have issues. This, and your comment about "the macho attitude",
makes me suspect that you're one of these fellows who never quite got
over high school, and puts women up on a pedestal to justify his
security and adequacy problems.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Tom
You can write your name in the snow, for one.
Erwin Hessle
Now see, until reading this comment, I'd have thought that you'd be
the kind of girl who'd have a drawer full of the things.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Tom
... So the girl says: "With one of these I can get as many of those
as I want."
Erwin Hessle
You can engage in the illegal sport of cockfighting, for two.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Absorbed
> On Dec 15, 1:15 pm, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 15, 12:43 pm, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> In the past I've been pulled up, usually by Mika, for adopting an
>>> attitude that makes generalisations between men and women and thier
>>> observable behaviors. There are always exceptions to the rule - in
>>> general men wink at me and only butch lesbians wink at me among the
>>> women of my country, but there was the exception of a mexican
>>> hetrosexual woman I got to know who also employed that behaviour. I
>>> don't know how common that is in her culture though.
>>> But just because there are exceptions to the rule, doesn't mean that
>>> in general, general observations are invalid indicators. You just
>>> have to watch out for the exceptions - and in general, the exceptions
>>> rarely so random that it follows no pattern at all - even extreme
>>> lateral thinkers have an observable pattern of behavior, and I find
>>> that there *are* patterns that differentiate the genders beyond that
>>> which are superficially subscibed by the fashions of a culture.
>>> If we consider what is occult to be what is usually hidden, then
>>> seeking an explanation for some of the more obscure behaviors of the
>>> opposite sex falls under the catagory of occultism.
>>> Just last year a very kind man gave me the whole expose on what
>>> happens in a blokes trouser department. All of the 'arms over the
>>> lap' and 'crossing the legs' thing was a revelations to me, and then
>>> to my mother, and we had to readjust our thinking a bit... Not having
>>> penis's and not having been told this stuff before made the subject
>>> 'occult knowledge' for us. And some of the things that women do,
>>> arising from monthly hormone shifts (like changing the furniture
>>> about) seem equally as obscure to some blokes.
>>> So - in the interests of delving further into this occult mystery -
>>> can we have a bit of an exchange, and attempt to explain what
>>> behaviors we've never understood about the opposite sex?
>>> Alrah.
>> Certainly. My wife will ask me questions from time to time and seem
>> genuinely nonplussed by me selecting "option A" or "option B" without
>> further comment. When she is asked a similar question by me, there is
>> typically a longer answer that includes her reasoning and the
>> occasional anecdote that was a factor as well. This is occasionally a
>> sticking point for us; when I am given two options to choose from I
>> make a choice, while when my wife is given a choice she has been known
>> to inundate me with her reasoning. It genuinely bothers her that when
>> given a choice to make, I make it and it simply does not occur to me
>> to share the reasoning unless prompted.
> Why would you assume that your behavior represents how all men
> typically act, and her behavior represents how all women typically
> act?
>
>> my wife is a more social creature (as women are by and large more
>> social creatures than men) this drive to explain reasoning is an
>> attempt to form consensus as an inherited survival trait.
>
> Or perhaps it's because your wife grew up in an environment in which
> she was consistently pressured to defend her choices and opinions, and
> you grew up in an environment in which you were allowed to assert
> yourself without justification.
I've been told that The Sexual Paradox by Susan Pinker (Steven's wife, I
believe) gives a good account of the differences of the sexes, although
I've not yet read it myself.
Alrah
>
> - Show quoted text -
There's was a good review of it from 'The Times' last year. It raises
some interesting questions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
May 8th, 2008:
The glass ceiling in women's heads, by Camilla Cavendish.
In my dwindling band of friends who are still combining work and
motherhood, there is a common fear. It is fear of promotion. Few say
it, few even acknowledge it to themselves. These women are in their
thirties, educated, in good jobs. But the next move up the career
ladder - or at least the conventional career ladder - seems to produce
in them a secret dread.
I realised this recently when one friend, who has been wanting more
responsibility for ages, ducked a planned meeting with her boss. “I
think I'm OK where I am,” she said. “Why risk climbing up another
notch?” Only a few days later yet another friend turned down a job
offer that most of the men she consulted said she'd be crazy to
reject. This has become a familiar pattern. We mothers hold a steady
course, fearing that any deviation will send our households veering
out of control. While most of the men we know have their feet clamped
hard on the career accelerator, their eyes in almost permanent
rotation between the conquests ahead and the rear-view mirror.
“If you were to predict the future on the basis of school
achievement,” says Susan Pinker, in her new book The Sexual Paradox,
“the world would be a matriarchy.” Women are powering ahead of men in
education. As graduates, many are earning more than their male peers.
But by their mid-thirties they stick in the middle ranks or drop out
altogether, while men who may have much more erratic educational
histories are excelling. This trend is most pronounced among the most
gifted women, many of whom have bosses or husbands who urge them to
aim high. And it is not just a motherhood issue: educated women
without children are also not choosing the same paths, in the same
numbers, as educated men. As Pinker puts it: “Even with all the
barriers stripped away, they don't behave like male clones.”
Why? Pinker believes that the answers are mainly biological. It is not
lack of ability or opportunity that prevents so many women from
reaching boardrooms and the upper echelons of science, she says,
(although she does not claim that discrimination has been abolished).
It is because women are wired in the womb to want different things.
Baby boys are more exposed to testosterone, which drives them to be
daring and aggressive. Baby girls are doused in oestrogen, which helps
them to empathise. This makes women by nature resistant to investing
all their energies, single-mindedly, in one thing. It makes them less
extreme. Women tend to seek “inherent meaning” in their jobs, whereas
men tend to seek domination.
Parents like me, who have failed to tempt their children away from
gender-stereotyped toys, may nod at this. Some people will see it as
an outrageous attack on equality - as I would have done in my feminist
twenties. But it is really an argument for a better understanding of
why some women dislike roles that are defined by male ambitions.
Pinker asks why we think of the male as the standard model and the
female as a version with a few optional features. All the high-powered
women she interviews are happier for having left their top jobs. In
different ways they explain that society impelled them towards the
male model, but that it didn't quite fit.
The book is a powerful portrayal of men, too. Pinker realised that in
20 years of clinical practice most of the troubled children she had
seen were boys. She discovered that some of the most fragile boys,
with obsessive interests or an extreme appetite for risk, had become
surprisingly successful in later life. Some of the men who have driven
the world forward have (like my distant relative Henry Cavendish, in
whose scientific discoveries I have always taken a nonsensical pride)
been loners almost incapable of communicating - not attributes to
which most women aspire.
This book in fact gives powerful support to Larry Summers' remarks
that produced rage on the Harvard campus two years ago. He was the
first President of Harvard to suffer a no-confidence vote, for having
the temerity to suggest that there are fewer female geniuses than men
and fewer women prepared to devote crazy hours to a single topic.
The book raises intriguing questions. If Pinker is right, then women
who have the luxury of making career choices may actually increase,
not decrease, the sexual division of labour. That is certainly what
happened in kibbutzes that were studied over four generations, where
all choices were freely available to men and women but where, in each
generation, men chose to do progressively less childcare and women
less construction work.
What does that mean for our current notions of equality? If women
choose not to be corporate CEOs, does it matter? How can we find ways
to better value what they do decide to do? If women really are more
wired for empathy, this also raises questions about what policies are
really “family-friendly”. Pinker cites potentially devastating
evidence, from one Ivy League university, that male professors use
parental leave to do research, while female professors use it to care
for children.
He returns with a book, and she with a backlog. So greater equality in
family policy could paradoxically discriminate against women.
To me, this book comes as a relief. I have never felt that diatribes
about discrimination chimed with my personal experience, although it
does with some of my friends. I have never bought the idea that women
aren't competitive: we are. But I see so many able women who are fed
up with the idea that the only real progress has to be perpetual
upward motion. There's a time for that, but it should be in our own
time.
Alrah
> On Dec 16, 12:12 am, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 9:08 pm, mika <mika...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I've always wondered what it would be like to have a penis. Seems
> > > like it would be fun.
>
> > Loads. We can pee for distance, but sprinkle on the bottom of the
> > seat. We can ejaculate for distance to, but the woman is always the
> > gatekeeper with the magic "no". Throw out the macho attitude, women
> > have the power of sex (aside from rapists). Men just try to convince
> > themselves they do.
>
> Either you lack creativity, or this is just faux-feminist "new man"
> horseshit. Men can and do say "no" to women just as easily and
> probably just as frequently as women say "no" to men.
Men can and do say no to women... but in 20 years of fucking I can
count on one hand the times that's arose... (or more literally -
hasn't).
When that has happened the blokes always looked a bit crestfallen and
started to offer excuses - which of course I've stressed to them
wasn't neccessary and been supportive of his right to say no. Still -
on those rare occaisions, you can see it troubling them afterwards, so
there does seem to be some type of taboo or inhibition or - I don't
know - there's something about saying 'no' that most blokes aren't
comfortable with, even when it's fine with thier women.
I'd like to know why that is, actually - so I'm glad you brought it up.
Miguel Alberto
counterclockwise. The iron in the cytochromes of every female cell are
polarized clockwise.
Facing each other, these counterclockwise and clockwise motions are
confluent, the peaceful flow. Everything seeks confluency. You will
notice that if you shake up a bottle of water the bubbles soon
undifferentiate back into the water. That's the natural way, the easy
way.
Males are the way they are from this world being primarily male. After
the Big Bang, matter and antimatter cancelled, but there was more matter
than antimatter. The cancellation was unbalanced.
The Big Bang having sprung from the singularity of a Black Hole, in what
were new dimensions, the singularity was of the finite size of Planck's
volume allowing imbalance to get through.
The imbalance was the proportion of matter to antimatter, from the past
world of that Black Hole, so that there was more matter than antimatter,
and our world was male.
Females are soft and passive from having been able to settle down into
the soft and passive higher frequencies. For example, the higher
frequencies of green, blue, and violet are milder than the red, orange,
and yellow of the low frequencies.
It's like a ball bouncing down. First the impacts are hard and
infrequent. Then as the ball settles down it bounces more often and
softer. Also, if you touch two glass bottles together you will hear a
rising tone, a rising frequency of sound, as they settle together.
You will hear that higher frequencies in quantum physics are more
energetic. What it is is that more energy is allowed to be released in
the higher frequencies. The lower frequencies hold pent up potential
energy.
If you have any questions feel free to ask. But, WebTV is going out of
business. They no longer make new WebTV boxes, they're not upgrading,
and other new transmissions are interfering with WebTV every day, so, I
may not be able to answer someday.
Alrah
> If you have any questions feel free to ask. But, WebTV is going out of
> business. They no longer make new WebTV boxes, they're not upgrading,
> and other new transmissions are interfering with WebTV every day, so, I
> may not be able to answer someday.
Ok Miguel - I'd like to know why men find it difficult to refuse a
woman - to say 'no' to sex.
bassos
>"Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
>news:6f9e642b-c5f2-452d...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
You can engage in the dutch word of the year 2008; Swaffelen.
The gay version of that might indeed be cockfighting, so guess still two.
bassos
"Miguel Alberto" <gell...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:19436-4B2...@storefull-3112.bay.webtv.net...
> The iron in the cytochromes of every male cell are polarized
> counterclockwise. The iron in the cytochromes of every female cell are
> polarized clockwise.
I almost feel tempted enough to look it up.
> Facing each other, these counterclockwise and clockwise motions are
> confluent, the peaceful flow. Everything seeks confluency. You will
> notice that if you shake up a bottle of water the bubbles soon
> undifferentiate back into the water. That's the natural way, the easy
> way.
Well, before one learns easy one will never learn true will.
(it is paraphrasing myself, i just love doing that, it brings out the
self-importance in me)
> Males are the way they are from this world being primarily male.
Well, before the testosteron takes over and creates male organs, it is the
same.
If anything, males should be jealous of the size difference between the x
and y in this tale.
Or is this a case of less is more ?
> After the Big Bang, matter and antimatter cancelled, but there was more
> matter
> than antimatter. The cancellation was unbalanced.
I hereby endorse watching the show : the big bang theory.
(endorsements are easy)
> The Big Bang having sprung from the singularity of a Black Hole, in what
> were new dimensions, the singularity was of the finite size of Planck's
> volume allowing imbalance to get through.
A black hole and the true singularity are not the same thing.
In the beginning there where not 4 elementary forces.
So if the number of elementary forces increases, would we discover a fifth
one soon ?
> The imbalance was the proportion of matter to antimatter, from the past
> world of that Black Hole, so that there was more matter than antimatter,
> and our world was male.
What do you reference with our world ?
> Females are soft and passive from having been able to settle down into
> the soft and passive higher frequencies.
Heh.
You display an awful lack of experience with women.
Big strong men crying at the sight of a needle vs an average woman, just
experiencing it as one more uncomfortable aspect of living.
If training is anything, a monthly assault from your body would seem to
alter the experience of pain.
(giving birth does also produce endorphins to ease the pain, but the 'level'
of that pain is most likely unimaginable to men)
> For example, the higher frequencies of green, blue, and violet are milder
> than the red, orange,
> and yellow of the low frequencies.
Mix 'em up.
> It's like a ball bouncing down. First the impacts are hard and
> infrequent. Then as the ball settles down it bounces more often and
> softer.
Shout whispers.
> Also, if you touch two glass bottles together you will hear a
> rising tone, a rising frequency of sound, as they settle together.
High, low, if you stretch them enough they are exactly the same.
> You will hear that higher frequencies in quantum physics are more
> energetic. What it is is that more energy is allowed to be released in
> the higher frequencies. The lower frequencies hold pent up potential
> energy.
Heh, nice one.
Move therefore.
> If you have any questions feel free to ask.
What is the difference between a quark ?
(to be fair, i do not really know any suitable answer myself, yet :P)
(it's spin, it's come uppance, it's directional preference, it's
adaptibility to change, the bar on deep space 9, so many options)
Alrah
I wonder why that student was Swaffelen the Taj Mahal? Lovely
sounding word though. Just rolls across the tongue.
bassos
"Alrah" <alrah-...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48b918eb-e994-49ea...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Swaffeling (?) as an englified verb.
It is supposed to be swinging the glorious expression of man against the
face of a woman.
I can imagine the attraction some fetish peeps might then have with swinging
against all sorts of things.
And then ofcourse Erwin's cockfighting example as a battle of Swaffeling.
It seems all so clear now.
Lalalalalala.
land.
welcome.
Alrah
> The gay version of that might indeed be cockfighting, so guess still two.
What... you think Erwin is a bitchy type of queen? *ponders this*
It's an interesting alternative explanation for him... *switches off
the bizarro image of Erwin in silk suspenders*
Alrah
> "Alrah" <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:48b918eb-e994-49ea...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 16 Dec, 12:07, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
> >> >"Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:6f9e642b-c5f2-452d...@e20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Dec 16, 2:28 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Dec 15, 10:39 pm, Meltdarok <meltda...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On 12/16/2009 12:08 AM, mika wrote:
>
> >> >> > > I've always wondered what it would be like to have a penis. Seems
> >> >> > > like it would be fun.
>
> >> >> > Maybe so, but if you're not having children, what's the diff?
>
> >> >> You can write your name in the snow, for one.
> >> > You can engage in the illegal sport of cockfighting, for two.
>
> >> You can engage in the dutch word of the year 2008; Swaffelen.
> >> The gay version of that might indeed be cockfighting, so guess still two.
>
> > I wonder why that student was Swaffelen the Taj Mahal? Lovely
> > sounding word though. Just rolls across the tongue.
>
> Swaffeling (?) as an englified verb.
> It is supposed to be swinging the glorious expression of man against the
> face of a woman.
Oh - right! *brief memory interlude*
lolololol
> I can imagine the attraction some fetish peeps might then have with swinging
> against all sorts of things.
>
> And then ofcourse Erwin's cockfighting example as a battle of Swaffeling.
>
> It seems all so clear now.
>
> Lalalalalala.
> land.
>
> welcome.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is Mercury retrograde yet Bassos?
bassos
> Is Mercury retrograde yet Bassos?
Not by a long shot.
Alrah
> > "Alrah" <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:c35aa8d9-1700-45a9...@n31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
> > Is Mercury retrograde yet Bassos?
>
> Not by a long shot.
Good. :-)
Capricorn is enough without a Mercury retrograde. Think I'll go
swimming tomorrow. A bit of bouncing about in the water seems called
for.
Alrah
> On 16 Dec, 13:50, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
> > > "Alrah" <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:c35aa8d9-1700-45a9...@n31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
> > > Is Mercury retrograde yet Bassos?
>
> > Not by a long shot.
Hmm. Moon conjunct Pluto later I see. *sod that!*
Erwin Hessle
It's probably because you have a history of being with weak, fucked-
up, insecure men. Note carefully that I was talking about normal and
healthy and, by implication, sane relationships. As I'm sure you'll
agree, yours probably don't fall into this category.
The complete inability to make accurate observations of behaviour that
we've already established you have likely provides the rest of the
explanation for your confusion.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Miguel Alberto
that's in the low frequency region of the spectrum, to attain the peace
of the confluent flow, and to undifferentiate more, to lessen our
consciousness.
Some will say we're selfish this way, but, the original Greek for "deny
self" in the Bible, is "anaesthestho auton" which literally means
"cancel self", and, you cannot cancel anything without the opposite
polarities.
Our urge to satisfy self in the opposite polarities is actually the urge
to cancel self. It is the self that hurts. "I hurt therefore I am".
Women have less of a need from, being in a male world ("universe"), and
thereby, being in the low voltage, more peaceful, region of the
spectrum.
Women usually don't have the scarcity principle tempting them. Rather,
they have the inverse function of the scarcity principle, "familiarity
breeds contempt".
Alrah
Some of them were, while others were the polar opposite. I've
probably dumped a few too many good men for thier own good though.
Very few men are able to match my strength or are libertarian enough
to give me the sort of freedom that's a fundemental neccessity to my
character.
> Note carefully that I was talking about normal and
> healthy and, by implication, sane relationships. As I'm sure you'll
> agree, yours probably don't fall into this category.
I doubt you know much about that kind of relationship from first hand
experience, so it's probably a waste of time discussing it with you.
> The complete inability to make accurate observations of behaviour that
> we've already established you have likely provides the rest of the
> explanation for your confusion.
Do you think I'm the only woman whose observed this? Don't be silly.
Robert Scott Martin
Miguel Alberto <gell...@webtv.net> wrote:
>Some will say we're selfish this way, but, the original Greek for "deny
>self" in the Bible, is "anaesthestho auton" which literally means
>"cancel self", and, you cannot cancel anything without the opposite
>polarities.
How does this play into the autoimmune roots of "spontaneous" holotropic
breathing? Much of this is an allergic ("allos ergein," the work of the
other) response, as opposed to the neutralization of self. What does it
mean if it's the other who moves first?
Alrah
Interesting way of looking at it. :-)
Alrah
> In article <4406-4B28F92E-3...@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net>,
>
> Miguel Alberto <gellie...@webtv.net> wrote:
> >Some will say we're selfish this way, but, the original Greek for "deny
> >self" in the Bible, is "anaesthestho auton" which literally means
> >"cancel self", and, you cannot cancel anything without the opposite
> >polarities.
>
> How does this play into the autoimmune roots of "spontaneous" holotropic
> breathing? Much of this is an allergic ("allos ergein," the work of the
> other) response, as opposed to the neutralization of self. What does it
> mean if it's the other who moves first?
... it's a good day today? :-)
Erwin Hessle
The divergence of your self-image from the reality of your self is so
vast that it's hilarious. Go back and read that article again, because
you're just going to make people laugh out loud at you coming out with
this sort of garbage.
On the other hand, though, is that why you abandoned your children?
Because you thought they couldn't "give [you] the sort of freedom
that's a fundemental neccessity to [your] character"?
> > Note carefully that I was talking about normal and
> > healthy and, by implication, sane relationships. As I'm sure you'll
> > agree, yours probably don't fall into this category.
>
> I doubt you know much about that kind of relationship from first hand
> experience, so it's probably a waste of time discussing it with you.
Based on actual real-life experience, as opposed to the kind of
imaginary experience that you like to talk about, it probably is a
waste of time for you to discuss pretty much anything with me, just
not for the reasons you wish it was. It's pretty well known here that
you're as close as makes any difference to being completely unable to
meaningfully process any kind of information at all.
> > The complete inability to make accurate observations of behaviour that
> > we've already established you have likely provides the rest of the
> > explanation for your confusion.
>
> Do you think I'm the only woman whose observed this? Don't be silly.
See? You can't even read. I specifically told you that you likely
*haven't* observed this, since you are so inept at accurately
observing behaviour.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Meltdarok
I'm sure she could too, with practice.
Alrah
Aha. I wondered when you would resort to that as your last stand
tactic.
I appreciated your bloodletting on that issue last year after the fact
Erwin. I didn't like it. But after all - hidden hurt is just poison
to the psyche, and a bit of blood letting - out with the puss until
the blood runs clean is ultimately theraputic. So you aren't getting
anywhere with that tactic now. But you're still trying to trying to
justify your brittleness and hauter with weak 'they asked for it'
excuses. Looking back at your career, most times there was no nobler
motive involved in your bloodletting than the desire to blunt hurt,
switch off feeling, and get the satsfaction of feeling your teeth into
someone. That's why your tactics were so blunt and so...
unobservant. It's almost as if your intellect goes glassy eyed. You
weren't letting your feelings inform you in any respect. You've been
switching them off.
I see you. And I think you want me to. Behind the obfusticating
behavior, I don't think you've been entirely sitting on your
backside. I think you've moved on...somewhat. That you know yourself
pretty well - so what I want to know is.... what useful purpose is
there in playing old routines out here that you've largely abandoned
in your real life?
Did you leave something unresolved Magister?
> > > Note carefully that I was talking about normal and
> > > healthy and, by implication, sane relationships. As I'm sure you'll
> > > agree, yours probably don't fall into this category.
>
> > I doubt you know much about that kind of relationship from first hand
> > experience, so it's probably a waste of time discussing it with you.
>
> Based on actual real-life experience, as opposed to the kind of
> imaginary experience that you like to talk about, it probably is a
> waste of time for you to discuss pretty much anything with me, just
> not for the reasons you wish it was. It's pretty well known here that
> you're as close as makes any difference to being completely unable to
> meaningfully process any kind of information at all.
>
> > > The complete inability to make accurate observations of behaviour that
> > > we've already established you have likely provides the rest of the
> > > explanation for your confusion.
>
> > Do you think I'm the only woman whose observed this? Don't be silly.
>
> See? You can't even read. I specifically told you that you likely
> *haven't* observed this, since you are so inept at accurately
> observing behaviour.
>
> Erwin Hessle, 8=3- Hide quoted text -
Erwin Hessle
> On 16 Dec, 16:07, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 16, 10:25 am, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Some of them were, while others were the polar opposite. I've
> > > probably dumped a few too many good men for thier own good though.
> > > Very few men are able to match my strength or are libertarian enough
> > > to give me the sort of freedom that's a fundemental neccessity to my
> > > character.
>
> > The divergence of your self-image from the reality of your self is so
> > vast that it's hilarious. Go back and read that article again, because
> > you're just going to make people laugh out loud at you coming out with
> > this sort of garbage.
>
> > On the other hand, though, is that why you abandoned your children?
> > Because you thought they couldn't "give [you] the sort of freedom
> > that's a fundemental neccessity to [your] character"?
>
> Aha. I wondered when you would resort to that as your last stand
> tactic.
Time will shortly reveal to you that it's a long way from being a
"last stand" tactic.
> So you aren't getting
> anywhere with that tactic now.
The evidence is against you on that one.
> I see you.
No, you don't.
> And I think you want me to.
That's because you're an insane, gibbering, bag lady who absolutely
refuses to accept the obvious truth that her role on this newsgroup is
that of village idiot.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Alrah
>
> - Show quoted text -
lol
38 year old women who can still pass as 21 through genetic inheritance
are never 'bag ladies'. And I don't accept you limiting me with
stupid labels when you have shown you don't understand me in the
slightest. I passed as 'normal' with camoflague - aping NT's for
years until I was finally discovered through my daughter.
Intelligence learns to camoflague, especially with women. In all that
time I *passed* as NT - through my intelligence and my capacity for
observation and most of all - through my reflective capability for
mimicry. I can be the most superb actor. It's not unknown amongst
us. But in observing the rest of the 99% of humanity, there has been
little time to - understand myself, and as a magister, my mask is
always alipping into reflections.
You stand wherever you like! Some things on this newsroup are real.
Some people are... only cowards hide behind masks.... so....
...why the pose Erwin?
Even when you let a mask go then people will invent one for you.
lol.
Erwin Hessle
Um, what?
> And I don't accept you limiting me with
> stupid labels when you have shown you don't understand me in the
> slightest.
*You* don't even understand you in the slightest. Quite what business
you think you have suggesting how well other people understand you is
anyone's guess. How many times are we going to have to go over this?
Each additional time provides more and more evidence for the premise.
> I passed as 'normal' with camoflague
You can't even pass as "normal" on a newsgroup. It's no accident that
everyone laughs at you here, you know.
> I can be the most superb actor.
No, you can't. Try acting like something other than a complete and
hopeless idiot on this newsgroup for a few days, and you'll see what I
mean.
> But in observing the rest of the 99% of humanity, there has been
> little time to - understand myself, and as a magister, my mask is
> always alipping into reflections.
Bwaaahahahaha! My goodness, those researchers sure got it right this
time. Tell us again how it took you a couple of hours on an afternoon
to "understand the mysteries of the Abyss", because that was one of
your better ones.
> You stand wherever you like!
Yes, I do.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Alrah
> On Dec 16, 12:02 pm, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Um, what?
*shrug* You want photographs? *bored* Everyone wants to know how I
do it. Look like a kid - and there's the blokes that think they can
get thier heebeejeebees off on asserting masculine authority on a
woman so much younger... Oh how I love to puncture that illusion and
make them pay for thier bullshit when they eventually realise that I'm
not kidding and I really am 38, and am quite prepared to put thier
balls through a mincer for what they had in mind... lololol.
mika
> On Dec 16, 2:28 am, Tom wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 10:39 pm, Meltdarok wrote:
> > > On 12/16/2009 12:08 AM, mika wrote:
>
> > > > I've always wondered what it would be like to have a penis. Seems
> > > > like it would be fun.
>
? What does not having children have to do with the difference between
having an innie and an outie?
> > You can write your name in the snow, for one.
>
> You can engage in the illegal sport of cockfighting, for two.
You can pee while still fully clothed, for three. I'm probably most
envious of that one - makes hiking & camping so much easier.
Erwin Hessle
> On 16 Dec, 17:16, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 16, 12:02 pm, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Um, what?
>
> *shrug* You want photographs?
Nope.
> Everyone wants to know how I
> do it.
I don't.
> Look like a kid
Well, at least the face matches the brain, although to be fair that's
doing a disservice to kids all around the globe.
> - and there's the blokes that think they can
> get thier heebeejeebees off on asserting masculine authority on a
> woman so much younger... Oh how I love to puncture that illusion and
> make them pay for thier bullshit when they eventually realise that I'm
> not kidding and I really am 38, and am quite prepared to put thier
> balls through a mincer for what they had in mind... lololol.
That's great for you. Now, when you're done with your hilariously
transparent little abuse-victim fantasies, you can go back and rewrite
your original sentence in English. How amusingly typical of you to
make the elementary mistake of thinking I was interested in you
instead of in highlighting your characteristic gibberish. Your lack of
insight in the face of overwhelming evidence is astonishing, or at
least it would be to anyone who's not familiar with your lack of basic
mental and perceptive faculties.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
mika
> On Dec 15, 11:29 pm, Erwin Hessle wrote:
> > On Dec 16, 12:08 am, mika wrote:
>
> > > I've always wondered what it would be like to have a penis. Seems
> > > like it would be fun.
>
> > the kind of girl who'd have a drawer full of the things.
Ah, yes, I have many, but I don't have one. It's a paradox.
> ... So the girl says: "With one of these I can get as many of those
> as I want."
I'm assuming that's the punchline, but what is the lead-in?
Alrah
*shrug*
Normal men can only visualise a normal relationship with a normal
woman, and not a weird one that looks 20 years younger, or acts
without consideration for social mores and conventions when the mood
takes her.
Never mind - *goes off to listen to her musica*
Alrah
Um. Pull your knicks down, squat and aim? 2 minutes after you can
pull things up. What's to be envious of? *puzzled*
Alrah
Well - as all you'll ever get to respond to is on the page, neither of
us will be able to see if you are as unthinking as all the other males
I've ever known.
So it will remain a mystery for you that you'll never solve except by
illusionary self-gratification... like wanking over a cookie.
x
D e A.
Meltdarok
> On Dec 15, 11:39 pm, Erwin Hessle wrote:
>> On Dec 16, 2:28 am, Tom wrote:
>>> On Dec 15, 10:39 pm, Meltdarok wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2009 12:08 AM, mika wrote:
>>
>>>>> I've always wondered what it would be like to have a penis. Seems
>>>>> like it would be fun.
>>
>>>> Maybe so, but if you're not having children, what's the diff?
>
> ? What does not having children have to do with the difference between
> having an innie and an outie?
>
OMG! I shudder to think of passing a 7 pounder *Ouch*-- not to mention
a breech!
>>> You can write your name in the snow, for one.
>>
>> You can engage in the illegal sport of cockfighting, for two.
>
> You can pee while still fully clothed, for three. I'm probably most
> envious of that one - makes hiking& camping so much easier.
--
meltdarok
The careless mind makes problems where
there actually aren't any.
Then it struggles to change the world,
and not the mind itself.
mika
Of course you're puzzled. You don't even understand the difference
between "still fully clothed" and "pull your knicks down". Hell,
maybe you're so frigid that there is no difference.
mika
>
> Well - as all you'll ever get to respond to is on the page, neither of
> us will be able to see if you are as unthinking as all the other males
> I've ever known.
All the males you've ever known are unthinking?
How... pathetic. Sadder still, you've even chosen to fuck some of
them. Why in the world would a woman sleep with an unthinking man?
Oh, right... desperation, low self-esteem, fear...
> So it will remain a mystery for you that you'll never solve except by
> illusionary self-gratification... like wanking over a cookie.
Wanking is not illusionary, precisely the opposite - it's as real as
it gets. Especially wanking over my cookie. Add it to the list of
things you just don't understand, poor girl.
Tehiru
> Women have sexual needs just like men do, you know. In the real world,
> where people have healthy and normal relationships, sex is something
> that's done *together* when mutually desired - it's not something that
> one partner doles out as a special favour because they have the
> "power" to do so, and if this is what your relationships are like then
> you have issues. This, and your comment about "the macho attitude",
> makes me suspect that you're one of these fellows who never quite got
> over high school, and puts women up on a pedestal to justify his
> security and adequacy problems.
>
> Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Not at all Erwin. In my experience, security and adequacy problems are
typically compensated for by continual bluster.
Erwin Hessle
> On Dec 15, 11:28 pm, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote:
>
> > Women have sexual needs just like men do, you know. In the real world,
> > where people have healthy and normal relationships, sex is something
> > that's done *together* when mutually desired - it's not something that
> > one partner doles out as a special favour because they have the
> > "power" to do so, and if this is what your relationships are like then
> > you have issues. This, and your comment about "the macho attitude",
> > makes me suspect that you're one of these fellows who never quite got
> > over high school, and puts women up on a pedestal to justify his
> > security and adequacy problems.
>
> > Erwin Hessle, 8=3
>
> Not at all Erwin.
Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?
> In my experience, security and adequacy problems are
> typically compensated for by continual bluster.
Based on your contributions to this newsgroup to date, I don't think
your experience counts for much.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
Close. One of us knows already. I'll give you a hint - it isn't you.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Miguel Alberto
(holotropic) stimulation, but, the following words in the verse, "Take
up you cross and follow me", do.
No one knew then that Jesus would be crucified. Jesus, being God,
certainly would have known. The cross was a symbol of muscarinic
stimulation. "Take up your cross" could represent using any holotropic
technique.
Crucifixion forces holotropic breathing to the extent that the horrible
perinatal matrix three is soon entered. There, I always body switched
backward and forward in time, suffering the sufferings of each body I
was in.
Even the good times were ruined by no sleep, and the distress of knowing
what could happen. I left a body to another body every time the body I
was in slept or died.
In this way Jesus body switched into the bodies of everyone who ever did
or ever will exist. "If you have done it to the least of these you have
done it to me". He is in you and me. He is in those homeless people out
there, one at a time, etc.
You see, you live a time in one body, and switch to another body back in
time, repeatedly, so that you can be in everyone in a room at onece. I
had little control over the situation, in fact, it was out of control.
The Enochian letters represent the necessary subsystems of all living
systems. But, there are two Enochian letters that represent subsystems
of all things, Fam, entropy ("Deny [cancel] self") and Gizga, entropy
production rate ("Take up your cross and follow me").
Miguel Alberto
The letters of the Enochian alphabet have names that don't
correspond to their sounds. These names refer to universal subsystems of
living systems. The Mayan calendrical hieroglyphics also correspond to
these.
The six figures of the dice are represented by . , U , | , O , X , and
=, and the 21 combinations of these correspond to these following
correspondences.
Starting with Itza in the middle we have Don, the Decider, corresponding
to the amino acid
Alanine and represented by a circle on a curve.
Imix, Drun, Distributor, Glycine, parallel on dot
Ik, Ceph, Memory, Aspartic Acid, two lines in the form of a check mark.
Akbal, Graph, Encoder, Tryptophan, |X.
Kun, Un, Extruder, Hydroxyproline, .. .
Chachuan, Fam, Entropy, Methionine, =X, like an hour glass.
Cimi, Orth, Supporter, Tyrosine, = U.
Oc, Tal, Producer, Threonine, o in O.
Lamat, Vau, Internal Transducer, Valine, XX.
Muluc, Gon, Output Transducer, Glutamine, OX
Manic, Pe, Ingestor, Lysine, O= like a bee.
Chuen, Ged, Storage, Phenylalanine, UX.
Eb, Med, Channel & Net, Asparagine, III.
Ben, Gizga, Entropy Production Rate, Cystine, a dot on a line.
Ix, Ur, Reproducer, Proline, U|.
Men, Mals, Decoder, Serine, = on =.
Kib, Veh, Motor, Histidine, U with a dot in it.
Caban, Pal, Boundary, Glutamic Acid, a dot on an X.
Eznab, Nahath, Input Transducer, Leucine, UU.
Cuac, Ger, Associator, Isoleucine, O with a dot in it.
Ahau, Gal, Converter, Arginine, O with | in it.
Alrah
> On Dec 16, 10:45 am, Alrah wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well - as all you'll ever get to respond to is on the page, neither of
> > us will be able to see if you are as unthinking as all the other males
> > I've ever known.
>
> All the males you've ever known are unthinking?
>
> How... pathetic. Sadder still, you've even chosen to fuck some of
> them. Why in the world would a woman sleep with an unthinking man?
> Oh, right... desperation, low self-esteem, fear...
>
> > So it will remain a mystery for you that you'll never solve except by
> > illusionary self-gratification... like wanking over a cookie.
>
> Wanking is not illusionary, precisely the opposite - it's as real as
> it gets.
*raises eyebrow*
The physical act may be, but you have to engage the imagination or
memory also - otherwise you'd never bring yourself off. The images
that go through the imagination are definately illusionary and not 'as
real as it gets'. Not unless your having a mutual wank with someone
over the astral, or have a webcam set up, or....
> Especially wanking over my cookie.
Oh. American expression is it? How inappropriate - a small crunchy
morsel. *rolls eyes*
bassos
"Miguel Alberto" <gell...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17096-4B2...@storefull-3113.bay.webtv.net...
> Here are some Enochian correspondences.
>
> The letters of the Enochian alphabet have names that don't
> correspond to their sounds. These names refer to universal subsystems of
> living systems. The Mayan calendrical hieroglyphics also correspond to
> these.
>
> The six figures of the dice are represented by . , U , | , O , X , and
> =, and the 21 combinations of these correspond to these following
> correspondences.
All languages return to dutch.
> Starting with Itza in the middle we have Don, the Decider, corresponding
> to the amino acid
> Alanine and represented by a circle on a curve.
>
> Imix
Eemix.
> Ik
Ick.
(means i in dutch)
> Akbal
Ackbal.
(probably derived from gehaktbal)
> Kun
something like the sound from the french word for 1 (eun) prefixed by kh.
(in amsterdamnese; en het verschil tussen kennen kannen kunnen we niet;
absorbed, how ambiguous would ambiguous dutch be ?)
Seems sufficient.
The trick is to lure without overkill
bassos
"Alrah" <alrah-...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45318e08-ffde-4380...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On 16 Dec, 19:46, mika <mika...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 10:45 am, Alrah wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well - as all you'll ever get to respond to is on the page, neither of
> > us will be able to see if you are as unthinking as all the other males
> > I've ever known.
>
> All the males you've ever known are unthinking?
>
> How... pathetic. Sadder still, you've even chosen to fuck some of
> them. Why in the world would a woman sleep with an unthinking man?
> Oh, right... desperation, low self-esteem, fear...
I did fuck some, in my perception, unthinking women.
Did not detract from the experience at all.
Besides, you complaining about free sex seems weird.
> > So it will remain a mystery for you that you'll never solve except by
> > illusionary self-gratification... like wanking over a cookie.
>
> Wanking is not illusionary, precisely the opposite - it's as real as
> it gets.
****
*raises eyebrow*
The physical act may be, but you have to engage the imagination or
memory also - otherwise you'd never bring yourself off.
****
There is nothing needed besides physical stimulation for a male.
(btw, that is true for women aswell)
Women need to relax to be able to enjoy, men need to relax to prolong the
enjoyment.
Sucking on a clitoris is pretty much always delicate :)
Alrah
> "Alrah" <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:45318e08-ffde-4380...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On 16 Dec, 19:46, mika <mika...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 16, 10:45 am, Alrah wrote:
>
> > > Well - as all you'll ever get to respond to is on the page, neither of
> > > us will be able to see if you are as unthinking as all the other males
> > > I've ever known.
>
> > All the males you've ever known are unthinking?
>
> > How... pathetic. Sadder still, you've even chosen to fuck some of
> > them. Why in the world would a woman sleep with an unthinking man?
> > Oh, right... desperation, low self-esteem, fear...
>
> I did fuck some, in my perception, unthinking women.
> Did not detract from the experience at all.
And it depends on how much blood is required - women liking the larger
organ - and this depriving the brain of oxygen. It's very funny
watching a well endowed horney man try to engage his brain to have a
conversation with you, and it's always impressive when they can...form
a reasonable intelligent sentence, even if it's a bit scripted. :-)))
> Besides, you complaining about free sex seems weird.
>
> > > So it will remain a mystery for you that you'll never solve except by
> > > illusionary self-gratification... like wanking over a cookie.
>
> > Wanking is not illusionary, precisely the opposite - it's as real as
> > it gets.
>
> ****
> *raises eyebrow*
>
> The physical act may be, but you have to engage the imagination or
> memory also - otherwise you'd never bring yourself off.
> ****
>
> There is nothing needed besides physical stimulation for a male.
> (btw, that is true for women aswell)
I suppose so, but it will take all day and be pretty lack luster - not
worth the bother. You might as well save up those energies for
something else.
> Women need to relax to be able to enjoy, men need to relax to prolong the
> enjoyment.
*Attentively listens to the Dutch guy, as he should know*
> Sucking on a clitoris is pretty much always delicate :)
Cocks are different depending on circumcision or not.
mika
>
> The physical act may be, but you have to engage the imagination or
> memory also - otherwise you'd never bring yourself off. The images
> that go through the imagination are definately illusionary and not 'as
> real as it gets'. Not unless your having a mutual wank with someone
> over the astral, or have a webcam set up, or....
Physically getting oneself off is "definitely illusionary" but "having
a mutual wank with someone over the astral" is not?
Your brain is a big mess.
> > Especially wanking over my cookie.
>
> Oh. American expression is it?
Actually, it comes from american jazz culture, just like muffin, pie,
jelly roll, and an assortment of other words used to describe a
woman's tasty treat.
> How inappropriate - a small crunchy morsel. *rolls eyes*
Your cookie is small and crunchy? How sad.
bassos
> On 17 Dec, 16:06, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> "Alrah" <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:45318e08-ffde-4380...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> On 16 Dec, 19:46, mika <mika...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 16, 10:45 am, Alrah wrote:
>>
>> > > Well - as all you'll ever get to respond to is on the page, neither
>> > > of
>> > > us will be able to see if you are as unthinking as all the other
>> > > males
>> > > I've ever known.
>>
>> > All the males you've ever known are unthinking?
>>
>> > How... pathetic. Sadder still, you've even chosen to fuck some of
>> > them. Why in the world would a woman sleep with an unthinking man?
>> > Oh, right... desperation, low self-esteem, fear...
>>
>> I did fuck some, in my perception, unthinking women.
>> Did not detract from the experience at all.
>
> And it depends on how much blood is required - women liking the larger
> organ - and this depriving the brain of oxygen.
It is bullshit.
Women like getting fucked for (apparantly, old research) 40 minutes.
Most likely at least stimulated as long.
(pre-heat the oven)
It can be short-circuited by sucking on the clit, but, it is somewhat like
cheating.
> It's very funny watching a well endowed horney man try to engage his brain
> to have a
> conversation with you, and it's always impressive when they can...form
> a reasonable intelligent sentence, even if it's a bit scripted. :-)))
Well, simply laugh at his manhood and you are pretty likely to regain a
conscious man.
>> Besides, you complaining about free sex seems weird.
>>
>> > > So it will remain a mystery for you that you'll never solve except by
>> > > illusionary self-gratification... like wanking over a cookie.
>>
>> > Wanking is not illusionary, precisely the opposite - it's as real as
>> > it gets.
>>
>> ****
>> *raises eyebrow*
>>
>> The physical act may be, but you have to engage the imagination or
>> memory also - otherwise you'd never bring yourself off.
>> ****
>>
>> There is nothing needed besides physical stimulation for a male.
>> (btw, that is true for women aswell)
>
> I suppose so, but it will take all day and be pretty lack luster - not
> worth the bother. You might as well save up those energies for
> something else.
You are soo wrong.
Orgasm 1 (onset orgasm kinda) is easy.
It is about riding the waves.
And there us men have it far more difficult than you women.
Once you are relaxed enough to go, you can go on and on.
Men have to balance between active and passive.
Too active and ejaculation.
Too passive and brake in the fun.
(hint; use brake in the fun, it is far more reliable)
>> Women need to relax to be able to enjoy, men need to relax to prolong the
>> enjoyment.
>
> *Attentively listens to the Dutch guy, as he should know*
>
>> Sucking on a clitoris is pretty much always delicate :)
>
> Cocks are different depending on circumcision or not.
Indeed.
Circumcised men have less feeling in their dicks.
As i understand it, loads of non-jewish americans are circumcised.
It would be funny if it was not so sad.
I will rub my foreskin for you unlucky circumcised almost men out there.
Alrah
> On Dec 17, 7:52 am, Alrah wrote:
>
>
>
> > The physical act may be, but you have to engage the imagination or
> > memory also - otherwise you'd never bring yourself off. The images
> > that go through the imagination are definately illusionary and not 'as
> > real as it gets'. Not unless your having a mutual wank with someone
> > over the astral, or have a webcam set up, or....
>
> Physically getting oneself off is "definitely illusionary" but "having
> a mutual wank with someone over the astral" is not?
Not what I said. American reading comprehension...hmmm.
> Your brain is a big mess.
>
> > > Especially wanking over my cookie.
>
> > Oh. American expression is it?
>
> Actually, it comes from american jazz culture, just like muffin, pie,
> jelly roll, and an assortment of other words used to describe a
> woman's tasty treat.
>
> > How inappropriate - a small crunchy morsel. *rolls eyes*
>
> Your cookie is small and crunchy? How sad.
No... english women are biscuits, american women like you have
'cookies' and possibly - pretzels. On which your presidents choke
on. To be a good 'biscuit' isn't a sexual reference in England
however. :-)))))
Alrah
Lol. There are times when it's simply unavoidable. Like displays of
Swaffelen.
> >> Besides, you complaining about free sex seems weird.
>
> >> > > So it will remain a mystery for you that you'll never solve except by
> >> > > illusionary self-gratification... like wanking over a cookie.
>
> >> > Wanking is not illusionary, precisely the opposite - it's as real as
> >> > it gets.
>
> >> ****
> >> *raises eyebrow*
>
> >> The physical act may be, but you have to engage the imagination or
> >> memory also - otherwise you'd never bring yourself off.
> >> ****
>
> >> There is nothing needed besides physical stimulation for a male.
> >> (btw, that is true for women aswell)
>
> > I suppose so, but it will take all day and be pretty lack luster - not
> > worth the bother. You might as well save up those energies for
> > something else.
>
> You are soo wrong.
>
> Orgasm 1 (onset orgasm kinda) is easy.
>
> It is about riding the waves.
>
> And there us men have it far more difficult than you women.
>
> Once you are relaxed enough to go, you can go on and on.
>
> Men have to balance between active and passive.
Why do you think that's different for a woman? T'isn't.
> Too active and ejaculation.
> Too passive and brake in the fun.
> (hint; use brake in the fun, it is far more reliable)
>
> >> Women need to relax to be able to enjoy, men need to relax to prolong the
> >> enjoyment.
>
> > *Attentively listens to the Dutch guy, as he should know*
>
> >> Sucking on a clitoris is pretty much always delicate :)
>
> > Cocks are different depending on circumcision or not.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Circumcised men have less feeling in their dicks.
>
> As i understand it, loads of non-jewish americans are circumcised.
*blinks*
Why?
> It would be funny if it was not so sad.
They make up for it in other ways. Circumcised lovers tend to be more
bouncy and aerobic. That can be fun too.
> I will rub my foreskin for you unlucky circumcised almost men out there.
That's genuine brotherly love for you ;-)
bassos
***
Lol. There are times when it's simply unavoidable. Like displays of
Swaffelen.
***
Suck the marrow out of life, do not choke on the bone.
Tehiru
> Normal men can only visualise a normal relationship with a normal
> woman, and not a weird one that looks 20 years younger, or acts
> without consideration for social mores and conventions when the mood
> takes her.
That's a bold statement, even setting aside the notion of what
"normal" is.