Dogging, the latest craze in Europe, next YOUR BACK YARD!
R. Steve Walz
invented a new sex craze called "dogging" that mixes sex,
exhibitionism, mobs and the Internet.
Dogging combines technology with swinging, cruising and voyeurism.
To wit: Crowds big and small watch exhibitionist couples who've
met on the Net have sex in cars, and sometimes join in.
"Dogging is the broad term used to cover all the sexual outdoor
activities that go on," says the dogging FAQ at Melanies UK
Swingers, a popular dogging site. "This can be anything from
putting on a show from your car, to a gangbang on a picnic table."
Dogging appears to be popular and widespread, attracting heterosexual
couples and single men and women of all ages, income brackets
and backgrounds. Not surprisingly, however, dogging meets tend to
attract more men than women.
Dogging is most often practiced in cars at rural parks, lover's
lanes and superstore parking lots. The term dogging has a number
of suggested origins, but it probably refers to the "walking the
dog" excuse proffered to spouses for an evening's absence.
Dogging sessions are usually organized through the dozens of
dogging sites and message boards that have sprung up in the last
couple of years. Photos are exchanged and meetings arranged by
e-mail or mobile phone text message.
At the meet, cell phones and text messages are used to confirm
meeting places and, crucially, identities. Cameras and videophones
are increasingly used to record what goes on.
"Technology is vital and is the main driver (of the dogging
phenomenon)," said Richard Byrne, a lecturer at Harper Adams
University College in the United Kingdom who produced a survey
(PDF) last year that found dogging to be a widespread and growing
problem in Britain's country parks.
Dogging is so prevalent, 60 percent of U.K. country parks are
affected by it, Byrne's report estimated.
In addition, cases of sexually transmitted diseases in some
districts rose markedly last year, prompting health authorities
to post safe-sex warnings on dogging sites, according to the BBC.
One dogging group on Yahoo has 22,000 members.
Although dogging has been growing in popularity for the last
couple of years, it only reached the mainstream earlier this month
when soccer player Stan Collymore, one of Britain's most famous
athletes, admitted to attending numerous dogging meets. Naturally,
Collymore's confession sparked a storm of tabloid controversy.
Dogging is becoming so popular, or so notorious, that a trio of
music professionals this month released a single celebrating
dogging -- and an accompanying sexy video.
"Sex in public feels so right. Honk your horn. It's a dogger's
delight," go the lyrics to "Dogging," a new single produced by
URockers, a "collective of sexual anarchists born of the Internet,"
according to the group's site.
Members of the group claim to have met at a dogging meet. The
trio are all music professionals, including a nationally known DJ
and a high-profile producer who's worked with Kylie Minogue and
Robert Plant.
According to GRocker, the dogging scene attracts people of all
ages and backgrounds, but mostly middle-class, middle-aged
heterosexuals. There is also a sizeable contingent of hot rodders
involved, he said.
"The modified car scene has added to the interest too," GRocker
said. "Young people with custom cars meet in countryside public
spaces... which inevitably leads to them fooling around and
having sex in public. So there's a strong relationship between
kids with cars and swingers/doggers."
The scene also attracts technophiles. "I think mobiles and the
Web have made a massive difference. Women I know feel much safer,"
GRocker said. "(Technology makes) it easy to find out where to go
and what other folks are looking for. It's much easier to hook up
with the right people and check out if they are cool or not."
According to Byrne, meetings are organized through several online
exchanges, mainly half-a-dozen Yahoo groups, which form the
backbone of information exchange in the United Kingdom. He noted
there are also several dogging-oriented porn sites.
Byrne said video and camera phones are used to record meetings.
Byrne said he's seen people in the United States trying to set
up trans-Atlantic video links for "virtual dogging."
"(Doggers) appear to be from all age groups," said Byrne. "We
even came across someone who was 70. And they come from all sorts
of backgrounds: professional, manual, etc. I think the majority
though are in their late 30s to 50s age group."
But Byrne warned that dogging is not all fun and games. As well
as an increase in STDs, there are reports of sexual and physical
assaults, robberies and blackmail (as in Collymore's case: The
footballer was about to be the victim of a tabloid sting). There
are also incompatibilities between those who use country parks
during the day -- usually families and kids -- and those who use
them after dark.
Nonetheless, dogging appears to be catching on in other countries,
Byrne noted.
"Up until now it's been really the U.K., but it has spread to
Germany, France, Ireland," he said. "I think it is growing in
(the) U.S. and Canada."
--
Heh-heh!!
Steve
Jacques Michel
> Giving new meaning to the term "flash mob," the British have
> invented a new sex craze called "dogging" that mixes sex,
> exhibitionism, mobs and the Internet.
>
1: What does this have to do in a parenting newsgroup? Or are you
trying to warn parents not to walk through the parks with their kids
at night? ;-)
2: I hope you realise the contradiction between advocating a society
where people would find normal to practice sex in public and posting
about exhibitionism, where people do it for the thrill BECAUSE it is
not an "accepted" practice.
R. Steve Walz
>
> "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message news:<407B57...@armory.com>...
> > Giving new meaning to the term "flash mob," the British have
> > invented a new sex craze called "dogging" that mixes sex,
> > exhibitionism, mobs and the Internet.
> >
>
> 1: What does this have to do in a parenting newsgroup? Or are you
> trying to warn parents not to walk through the parks with their kids
> at night? ;-)
No, actually I'm trying to encourage them to!! More, I'm trying to
make them realize that this is their nature. I plant small seeds
in the mind that won't grow and bear fruit for a couple generations.
> 2: I hope you realise the contradiction between advocating a society
> where people would find normal to practice sex in public and posting
> about exhibitionism, where people do it for the thrill BECAUSE it is
> not an "accepted" practice.
-------------------------------------
Irrelevant, that which is exceptional is the most important part of
normal. Gang-bangs are actually the inherently preferred sex act for
our most social of species.
Steve
Jacques Michel
> Jacques Michel wrote:
> >
> > "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message news:<407B57...@armory.com>...
> > > Giving new meaning to the term "flash mob," the British have
> > > invented a new sex craze called "dogging" that mixes sex,
> > > exhibitionism, mobs and the Internet.
> > >
> >
> > 1: What does this have to do in a parenting newsgroup? Or are you
> > trying to warn parents not to walk through the parks with their kids
> > at night? ;-)
> ---------------------------------
> No, actually I'm trying to encourage them to!! More, I'm trying to
> make them realize that this is their nature. I plant small seeds
> in the mind that won't grow and bear fruit for a couple generations.
>
Another Freudian slip from the wonderful Richard Steven Walz. Indeed
they will not grow. Sad, sad Richard Steven Walz. What about doing
something more useful, like putting orgasm teaching movies on you web
pages as I already suggested?
>
> > 2: I hope you realise the contradiction between advocating a society
> > where people would find normal to practice sex in public and posting
> > about exhibitionism, where people do it for the thrill BECAUSE it is
> > not an "accepted" practice.
> -------------------------------------
> Irrelevant, that which is exceptional is the most important part of
> normal.
This sentence not understandable.
>Gang-bangs are actually the inherently preferred sex act for
> our most social of species.
Excuse me if I am ironic AGAIN, but I will not believe that sentence
without a proof.
R. Steve Walz
> > > > invented a new sex craze called "dogging" that mixes sex,
> > > > exhibitionism, mobs and the Internet.
> > >
> > > 1: What does this have to do in a parenting newsgroup? Or are you
> > > trying to warn parents not to walk through the parks with their kids
> > > at night? ;-)
> > ---------------------------------
> > No, actually I'm trying to encourage them to!! More, I'm trying to
> > make them realize that this is their nature. I plant small seeds
> > in the mind that won't grow and bear fruit for a couple generations.
>
> Another Freudian slip from the wonderful Richard Steven Walz.
Nope, quite intentional.
> Indeed they will not grow.
----------------
Wait and see!
> Sad, sad Richard Steven Walz. What about doing something more
> useful, like putting orgasm teaching movies on you web pages
> as I already suggested?
--------------------------
Not really interested.
> > > 2: I hope you realise the contradiction between advocating a society
> > > where people would find normal to practice sex in public and posting
> > > about exhibitionism, where people do it for the thrill BECAUSE it is
> > > not an "accepted" practice.
> > -------------------------------------
> > Irrelevant, that which is exceptional is the most important part of
> > normal.
>
> This sentence not understandable.
------------------------------
That's because you have no perspective on truth.
Many pardoxical things are true, however contradictory.
See below:
> >Gang-bangs are actually the inherently preferred sex act for
> > our most social of species.
>
> Excuse me if I am ironic AGAIN, but I will not believe that sentence
> without a proof.
------------------------------
Simple, here's a stuctural argument "proof" to start you out.
You should practice finding more supportive facts to support it
as an exercise, it will help you learn to think in this new manner.
The evidence is buried in our lore, our culture, our sense of the
profane, the nature of our taboos. The fact that is most GLARING,
to an open-minded analyst like me, is what an alien also might
note to be the most peculiar stark contradiction about western
human culture, namely:
If it was really our nature to obey these sexual taboos, then
they would never have had any need or cause to even be implemented!!
We'd obey them like instincts, automatically and unconsciously!
Being any other way wouldn't even be interesting to us!
BUT IT IS!!!!!!
You see:
If our nature was REALLY monogamous, NO one would EVER stray, if we
were NOT meant to have groupsex, we would have ZERO interest in it,
like other animals who obey their instincts without question!
In fact, it is EXACTLY the EXISTENCE of these taboos that actually
most forcefully PROVES that they SHOULD BE and are IN DESPERATE NEED
of being violated!!! Our reacting this way literally PROVES that
our REAL nature is systematically being OPPRESSED and that we SHOULD
FIGHT BACK!
This sounds odd, after all, who is it then who is oppressing us?
But a democracy is completely capable of making errors about what
everyone thinks everyone ELSE really wants so that a society can
literally oppress itself long after truly oppressive groups
have lost control of it.
Even our ridiculously self-contradictory and schizoid taboos on
"dirty" words in the media, while nearly everyone actually DELIGHTS
in using them as the very point of humor, IS OBVIOUSLY REALLY
NOTHING MORE THAN A PITIFULLY STIFLED CRY FOR HELP BY THE WHOLE
CULTURE *TO* ITSELF!!!
IF it were actually true that gangbangs were NOT our secret desire,
then the highly charged and PERSISTENTLY and UNDENIABLY ATTRACTIVE
legend of gangbangs and orgies and other taboos around groupsex
would have no interest for us humans, and the human penchant for
gossip around sexually more open situations would have NO cachet,
no allure at ALL!
But THEY DO, and it is PRECISELY because it is our secret wish, our
presently hidden and buried secret nature, our sexual nature which
people in recent history were deluded and brainwashed into trying
to run away from, and this was done by very twisted and greedy
controlling personalities who were severely damaged as children,
and who wished to enslave the rest of us to them, because their
personalites are fractured, and they are unable to really understand
and appreciate fellow-feeling, loyalty, equality, sharing, giving,
and the glory of group effort over adversity. Rightists, what some
mistakenly call "conservatives", more properly termed reactionaries,
are damaged sick children who were abused.
Steve
Jacques Michel
That explanation is not understandable either.
> Many pardoxical things are true, however contradictory.
> See below:
>
>
> > >Gang-bangs are actually the inherently preferred sex act for
> > > our most social of species.
> >
> > Excuse me if I am ironic AGAIN, but I will not believe that sentence
> > without a proof.
> ------------------------------
> Simple, here's a stuctural argument "proof" to start you out.
> You should practice finding more supportive facts to support it
> as an exercise, it will help you learn to think in this new manner.
>
> The evidence is buried in our lore, our culture, our sense of the
> profane, the nature of our taboos. The fact that is most GLARING,
> to an open-minded analyst like me, is what an alien also might
> note to be the most peculiar stark contradiction about western
> human culture, namely:
>
> If it was really our nature to obey these sexual taboos, then
> they would never have had any need or cause to even be implemented!!
>
> We'd obey them like instincts, automatically and unconsciously!
> Being any other way wouldn't even be interesting to us!
>
> BUT IT IS!!!!!!
>
> You see:
> If our nature was REALLY monogamous, NO one would EVER stray, if we
> were NOT meant to have groupsex, we would have ZERO interest in it,
> like other animals who obey their instincts without question!
>
1: There is quite a difference between "not monogamous" and gangbang.
2: You are just displacing the problem. I won't believe the majority
of the people secretly wish to gangbang either. So?
R. Steve Walz
Re-read it till you grasp it.
That which is exceptional is the most important part of normal.
-------------------------------
Monogamy and groupsex/gangbangs are endpoints of a line from
paranoia and ignorance to sanity and health.
> 2: You are just displacing the problem. I won't believe the majority
> of the people secretly wish to gangbang either. So?
----------------------------------
Then you're intentionally ignoring what would be obvious to any
alien or comedian. Every teenager of both sexes secretly wants
gangbangs, and the only boys who are afraid of them are those
who are terrified that they will lose some solitary monogamous
proprietary sexual access they wouldn't have because their penis
is too small, or girls who have been brainwashed with the antisexual
mindless "slut" shaming, or the lie that sexual giving leads to them
being stuck with chidlren and no support, which is entirely only a
political failure of the society.
This antisexuality by both sexes is merely paranoia born of this
climate of antisexuality and the artificial sexual scarcity that
occurs due to anti-nudity, being shamed into monogamous pairing
because one person keeps the shamed embarrasing secret nature of
sex better than many, and improper early social and sexual education
with one's play-group that should begin with child nude play and
anatomy lessons and then develop as a form of encouraged and open
genital play in later grade school, becoming a sexual affinity
group for group sex in middle school. In this culture everyone is
absolutely terrified that they won't get ANYBODY, and they settle
for one person just as soon as they accidentally find themselves
with one, until they can barely even stand the other person, and
never find out the truth that we learned in groupsex, that everyone
wants everyone else, and that "beauty" v "ugliness" is merely a
juddgment one makes from ignorance about sex and from the notion
of being forced to pick only one lifetime sex partner, rather than
for life enjoy the total variety from the angelic-looking person
to the pronouncedly erotic horse-faced person. There actually aren't
any ugly people, only unusual ones, and no one you'd refuse to have
sex with as long as you knew you would always have sex with everyone
else as well. In that atmosphere you can afford to be generous and
giving sexually all your life without concern.
Steve
Jacques Michel
> Jacques Michel wrote:
> >
(snip)
> Re-read it till you grasp it.
> That which is exceptional is the most important part of normal.
>
I don't see why I should repeat any of your sentences like a mantra. Explain.
>
> > > Many pardoxical things are true, however contradictory.
> > > See below:
> > >
> > > > >Gang-bangs are actually the inherently preferred sex act for
> > > > > our most social of species.
> > > >
> > > > Excuse me if I am ironic AGAIN, but I will not believe that sentence
> > > > without a proof.
> > > ------------------------------
(snip)
>
> > 2: You are just displacing the problem. I won't believe the majority
> > of the people secretly wish to gangbang either. So?
> ----------------------------------
> Then you're intentionally ignoring what would be obvious to any
> alien or comedian. Every teenager of both sexes secretly wants
> gangbangs
Circular argument. Try something else.
R. Steve Walz
>
> "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message news:<408081...@armory.com>...
> > Jacques Michel wrote:
> > >
> (snip)
> > Re-read it till you grasp it.
> > That which is exceptional is the most important part of normal.
>
> I don't see why I should repeat any of your sentences like a mantra. Explain.
Goodness...
It is the recognition that that which is regarded as exceptional
from within any paradigm, is in fact a key to the deeper grasp
of the defects of that paradigm.
> > > > Many pardoxical things are true, however contradictory.
> > > > See below:
> > > >
> > > > > >Gang-bangs are actually the inherently preferred sex act for
> > > > > > our most social of species.
> > > > >
> > > > > Excuse me if I am ironic AGAIN, but I will not believe that sentence
> > > > > without a proof.
> > > > ------------------------------
> (snip)
> >
> > > 2: You are just displacing the problem. I won't believe the > > > majority
> > > of the people secretly wish to gangbang either. So?
> > ----------------------------------
> > Then you're intentionally ignoring what would be obvious to any
> > alien or comedian. Every teenager of both sexes secretly wants
> > gangbangs
>
> Circular argument. Try something else.
---------------------------
A fact cannot BE a circular argument, the fact IS the Truth itself.
Are you just playing at this, using toss-off's to see what flies?
Get real.
That humans are EXTREMELY interested in the topic of groupsex or
gang-bangs is itself evidence that they have that as a secret desire.
If they had no secret interest in it then it would be impossible for
them to hold it as either sacred (secretly facinating) to them OR
profane.
Steve
Jacques Michel
(snip)
> It is the recognition that that which is regarded as exceptional
> from within any paradigm, is in fact a key to the deeper grasp
> of the defects of that paradigm.
>
O.K. One needs to examine the extreme cases to better understand the
more "average" cases. Is that what you mean?
>
> > > > > Many pardoxical things are true, however contradictory.
> > > > > See below:
> > > > >
> > > > > > >Gang-bangs are actually the inherently preferred sex act for
> > > > > > > our most social of species.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Excuse me if I am ironic AGAIN, but I will not believe that sentence
> > > > > > without a proof.
> > > > > ------------------------------
> (snip)
>
> > > > 2: You are just displacing the problem. I won't believe the > > > majority
> > > > of the people secretly wish to gangbang either. So?
> > > ----------------------------------
> > > Then you're intentionally ignoring what would be obvious to any
> > > alien or comedian. Every teenager of both sexes secretly wants
> > > gangbangs
> >
> > Circular argument. Try something else.
> ---------------------------
> A fact cannot BE a circular argument, the fact IS the Truth itself.
>
Facts are easy to prove. Prove you facts. All you do is repeat "but
it's true". That's not scientific.
Example: fact is the earth is spherical. Proof is:
-go to the see and watch boats with binoculars, see them disappear the
top first
-go to other countries and record eigth of sun above the horizon
-take pictures from space.
You claim "everybody likes gangbangs". Proofs?
> Are you just playing at this, using toss-off's to see what flies?
> Get real.
>
> That humans are EXTREMELY interested in the topic of groupsex or
> gang-bangs is itself evidence that they have that as a secret desire.
>
Circular argument again. I don't believe a majority of people are
interested in gangbangs. You do nothing but repeat "yes humans are
interested, fascinated", etc.... Sorry, I don't believe you.
> If they had no secret interest in it then it would be impossible for
> them to hold it as either sacred (secretly facinating) to them OR
> profane.
>
Let me repeat: I don't believe you. I am not saying that you are right
or false, I am just saying that my experience with people has been
that I have never met anybody who seemed to be interested, so I don't
believe you. It's that simple. If I had met a dozen interested people,
I would believe you, but I have not.
I do know that some people are interested, or porn movies of gangbangs
would not sell. I doubt that MANY people are interested.
If that many people are interested, how come I have not met any?
Or do you mean that the people I know are interested but won't tell
ME? I find this hard to believe. Why wouldn't they tell me? I don't
bite. I am not a member of any fanatic religion. I publically display
affection to my spouse. I never, never, loathe promiscuity or any kind
of sexual activity. Why wouldn't they tell me?
Or do you mean they won't tell ANYBODY? That's ridiculous. If you are
interested in gangbangs, you HAVE to tell other people or you won't
find a gang.
Maybe you have met plenty of interested people. So what? That's only
anecdotical evidence. And maybe you attract such people, therefore
know more than average. And part of your problem is that you discount
anybody who is not interested, on the accound that he/she is
"repressed". That is not a scientific way to run statistics.
Other question: what percentage of the general population participates
in gangbangs (as opposed to just "being interested" without doing it)?
Do you have a figure?
R. Steve Walz
>
> "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message news:<4081EC...@armory.com>...
> (snip)
> > It is the recognition that that which is regarded as exceptional
> > from within any paradigm, is in fact a key to the deeper grasp
> > of the defects of that paradigm.
> >
>
> O.K. One needs to examine the extreme cases to better understand the
> more "average" cases. Is that what you mean?
No. That what a society deems exceptional is the deepest evidence of
its prejudices and stilted nature, which limitation is the most
proper core of all truly pertinent criticism OF that society.
> > > > > > Many pardoxical things are true, however contradictory.
> > > > > > See below:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Gang-bangs are actually the inherently preferred sex act for
> > > > > > > > our most social of species.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Excuse me if I am ironic AGAIN, but I will not believe that sentence
> > > > > > > without a proof.
> > > > > > ------------------------------
> > (snip)
> >
> > > > > 2: You are just displacing the problem. I won't believe the > > > majority
> > > > > of the people secretly wish to gangbang either. So?
> > > > ----------------------------------
> > > > Then you're intentionally ignoring what would be obvious to any
> > > > alien or comedian. Every teenager of both sexes secretly wants
> > > > gangbangs
> > >
> > > Circular argument. Try something else.
> > ---------------------------
> > A fact cannot BE a circular argument, the fact IS the Truth itself.
> >
>
> Facts are easy to prove. Prove you facts. All you do is repeat "but
> it's true". That's not scientific.
--------------------------------------
I don't bother to prove the obvious which everyone admits readily
in any setting when they are not being held to it in argument just
because at that moment they choose not to see the poignance of my
criticism.
> Example: fact is the earth is spherical. Proof is:
> -go to the see and watch boats with binoculars, see them disappear the
> top first
> -go to other countries and record eigth of sun above the horizon
> -take pictures from space.
>
> You claim "everybody likes gangbangs". Proofs?
--------------------------------
If they did not secretly they could not ever be so fascinated with
them that they find this notion scandalous. You would be incapable
of feeling stridency toward the issue, it wouldn't even SOUND like
something that was an argument to you. But IT DOES!
> > Are you just playing at this, using toss-off's to see what flies?
> > Get real.
> >
> > That humans are EXTREMELY interested in the topic of groupsex or
> > gang-bangs is itself evidence that they have that as a secret
> > desire.
>
> Circular argument again.
--------------------------
Of necessity.
That *IS* the way a society buries it's most poignant truth!
It posits the truth to be an impossibility that everyone AGREES
to deny is true, no matter what is presented to show it!
> I don't believe a majority of people are
> interested in gangbangs. You do nothing but repeat "yes humans are
> interested, fascinated", etc.... Sorry, I don't believe you.
-------------------------------
All such arguments will be of the form: "We're not REALLY all *THAT*
"green", even IF we are members of a class of "green" monkeys."
You will always argue a matter of perceptive degree, to which there
is no disproof, it being aesthetic choice of perception!! I'm asking
you to see what you have secretly agreed NOT to see, as a part of
your contract with your self-image as a species and a society!
Example: The MOST commonly viewed recreational material in western
society by BOTH sexes, in fact women MORE than men in sociological
studies of it, is porn, sex involving multiple partners together!
Porn titles are bought or rented MORE often than "FIRST RUN MOVIES"!
> > If they had no secret interest in it then it would be impossible for
> > them to hold it as either sacred (secretly facinating) to them OR
> > profane.
>
> Let me repeat: I don't believe you. I am not saying that you are right
> or false, I am just saying that my experience with people has been
> that I have never met anybody who seemed to be interested, so I don't
> believe you. It's that simple. If I had met a dozen interested people,
> I would believe you, but I have not.
--------------------------------
All you are doing is repeating what you believe people will admit to,
not what you ALL suspect each other secretly think if they admitted
it!
> I do know that some people are interested, or porn movies of gangbangs
> would not sell. I doubt that MANY people are interested.
>
> If that many people are interested, how come I have not met any?
-------------------------------------
Because they are braionwashed MORE THAN ANY OTHER SINGLE ITEM OF
FACT BY THEIR UPBRINGING NOT TO TELL OTHERS NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED!
> Or do you mean that the people I know are interested but won't tell
> ME? I find this hard to believe. Why wouldn't they tell me? I don't
> bite. I am not a member of any fanatic religion. I publically display
> affection to my spouse. I never, never, loathe promiscuity or any kind
> of sexual activity. Why wouldn't they tell me?
--------------------------------------
You are a member of the society that brainwashed and shamed them
against telling anyone what they really want except someone directly
involved, and you are taught that you will be shamed horribly for
asking for what you really want.
> Or do you mean they won't tell ANYBODY? That's ridiculous. If you are
> interested in gangbangs, you HAVE to tell other people or you won't
> find a gang.
----------------------------------
Of course not, but that IS what makes it very difficult and that is
what casues it to not be either as widespread as it would be, or as
well-known as it is and would be!
> Maybe you have met plenty of interested people. So what? That's only
> anecdotical evidence. And maybe you attract such people, therefore
> know more than average. And part of your problem is that you discount
> anybody who is not interested, on the accound that he/she is
> "repressed". That is not a scientific way to run statistics.
--------------------------------------
No, but then plain old statistical distribution of differing aesthetic
likes and dislikes is not what we're talking about, and instead the
situation is MUCH more subtle and MUCH more paradoxical!
Instead, we're talking about something is true of everyone, but
which the vast majority of us have been strictly taught to deny
absolutely, EVEN TO DISBELIEVE THEMSELVES EVEN THOUGH THEY SECRETLY
WISH FOR IT, until confronted with it directly when given the quite
comfortable opportunity to reveal it with select others who have
FIRST revealed it about THEMSELVS in private, AND who have asserted
most persuasively that it is ACTUALLY true of EVERYONE, and that
this MUCH BETTER explains human nature and all features of western
society than ANY PREVIOUS explanation that the newbies have EVER
HEARD!
This is EVEN MORE difficult than as joining some "underground wartime
resistance movement" without being taken for an incipient spy or some
agent provocateur or merely an opportunist liar. Also the precisely
suitable environment is NOT always easy to arrange, but notably to
our long experience now, when it IS done so, it invariably results in
the profound sexuo-political conversion of the new person or people.
Now this could NEVER be SO true as we have found it for SO MANY AND
WITHOUT FAIL, if it were NOT SECRETLY True of EVERYONE! NOR can I
magically just "prove" this class of Truth TO you, and for obvious
reasons!
In fact, a HUGE PART of the systematic OPPRESSION of this Truth is
done PRECISELY BY making people like YOU doubt people like ME!!!
Such is the nature of underground culture-war.
> Other question: what percentage of the general population participates
> in gangbangs (as opposed to just "being interested" without doing it)?
> Do you have a figure?
-----------------------------------
That number would be irrelevant, as I'm speaking of those who would
LIKE to if it didn't result in them being shamed, thrsatened, and
oppressed politically. THAT percentage is the vast majority, from
our statistically valid sampling by one-on-one conversion. People
could NOT be SO EASY to convert to it without this being so about
humans generally, as many of our experiences with these people are
essentially random. Even those who were too frightened to actually
do it with us, of which there are many, admitted readily to wishing
desperately that they could do it, and many returned to us later to
ask for re-involvement and clarification.
Steve
Jacques Michel
(snip)
> > I don't believe a majority of people are
> > interested in gangbangs. You do nothing but repeat "yes humans are
> > interested, fascinated", etc.... Sorry, I don't believe you.
> -------------------------------
> All such arguments will be of the form: "We're not REALLY all *THAT*
> "green", even IF we are members of a class of "green" monkeys."
> You will always argue a matter of perceptive degree, to which there
> is no disproof, it being aesthetic choice of perception!! I'm asking
> you to see what you have secretly agreed NOT to see, as a part of
> your contract with your self-image as a species and a society!
>
> Example: The MOST commonly viewed recreational material in western
> society by BOTH sexes, in fact women MORE than men in sociological
> studies of it, is porn, sex involving multiple partners together!
> Porn titles are bought or rented MORE often than "FIRST RUN MOVIES"!
>
That is just plain false. "Mainstream" movies (for the lack of a
better term) are rented more often than porn movies. Check the
figures, there is about 10 times more money made in renting mainstream
movies than porn.
Besides only a small proportion of porn movies are gangbangs.
> > Let me repeat: I don't believe you. I am not saying that you are right
> > or false, I am just saying that my experience with people has been
> > that I have never met anybody who seemed to be interested, so I don't
> > believe you. It's that simple. If I had met a dozen interested people,
> > I would believe you, but I have not.
> --------------------------------
> All you are doing is repeating what you believe people will admit to,
> not what you ALL suspect each other secretly think if they admitted
> it!
>
I don't suspect all other people secretely think anythink special.
That would be a sign of paranoia.
(snip)
>
> > Or do you mean they won't tell ANYBODY? That's ridiculous. If you are
> > interested in gangbangs, you HAVE to tell other people or you won't
> > find a gang.
> ----------------------------------
> Of course not, but that IS what makes it very difficult and that is
> what casues it to not be either as widespread as it would be, or as
> well-known as it is and would be!
>
It plain does not make sense to believe that. If somebody is
interested in group sex, there are clubs for doing it without your
neighbours knowing about it. Yet there are very, very few of those
clubs. If the desire was widespread, you would see many more.
Besides, and that is something you systematically ignore, those clubs
get about 10 times more male applications than female ones. Does not
fit in your theory either.
(snip)
>
> This is EVEN MORE difficult than as joining some "underground wartime
> resistance movement" without being taken for an incipient spy or some
> agent provocateur or merely an opportunist liar. Also the precisely
> suitable environment is NOT always easy to arrange, but notably to
> our long experience now, when it IS done so, it invariably results in
> the profound sexuo-political conversion of the new person or people.
>
So what did you do? You found a few women (have you convinced men
too?) that agreed to try group sex and found it enjoyable? How did you
find them? Hasn't it occured to you that the ones who agreed had to be
interested in the first place?
(snip)
> In fact, a HUGE PART of the systematic OPPRESSION of this Truth is
> done PRECISELY BY making people like YOU doubt people like ME!!!
>
I see: now it is my fault. OK, let me correct that error of mine.
Ladies, I am all for it. Please learn the way of the good orgasm.
Please try group sex. And for you, Steve: please do convince more
people to enjoy their sexuality better. And bring some here to explain
us how great it is, it will be much easier to convince people.
Because at present it is just you, Steve, and that hardly makes hordes
of people that have a desire for gangbangs.
And if I remember correctly, your last commune was more than 25 years
ago. That does not make you very convincing either.
>
> > Other question: what percentage of the general population participates
> > in gangbangs (as opposed to just "being interested" without doing it)?
> > Do you have a figure?
> -----------------------------------
> That number would be irrelevant, (snip)
That number is relevant, but you don't know it.
R. Steve Walz
>
> "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message news:<4082E3...@armory.com>...
>
> (snip)
> > > I don't believe a majority of people are
> > > interested in gangbangs. You do nothing but repeat "yes humans are
> > > interested, fascinated", etc.... Sorry, I don't believe you.
> > -------------------------------
> > All such arguments will be of the form: "We're not REALLY all *THAT*
> > "green", even IF we are members of a class of "green" monkeys."
> > You will always argue a matter of perceptive degree, to which there
> > is no disproof, it being aesthetic choice of perception!! I'm asking
> > you to see what you have secretly agreed NOT to see, as a part of
> > your contract with your self-image as a species and a society!
> >
> > Example: The MOST commonly viewed recreational material in western
> > society by BOTH sexes, in fact women MORE than men in sociological
> > studies of it, is porn, sex involving multiple partners together!
> > Porn titles are bought or rented MORE often than "FIRST RUN MOVIES"!
> >
>
> That is just plain false. "Mainstream" movies (for the lack of a
> better term) are rented more often than porn movies. Check the
> figures, there is about 10 times more money made in renting mainstream
> movies than porn.
Sure, but the specific titles of porn are rented far more
repetitiously than first-run non-porn movies. Even *I* was
surprised when I ran across that statistic from the video
industry.
> Besides only a small proportion of porn movies are gangbangs.
----------------------------------
Nope, it is THE most consistent porn theme, according to theses
on adult films written at major universities.
> > > Let me repeat: I don't believe you. I am not saying that you are right
> > > or false, I am just saying that my experience with people has been
> > > that I have never met anybody who seemed to be interested, so I don't
> > > believe you. It's that simple. If I had met a dozen interested people,
> > > I would believe you, but I have not.
> > --------------------------------
> > All you are doing is repeating what you believe people will admit to,
> > not what you ALL suspect each other secretly think if they admitted
> > it!
>
> I don't suspect all other people secretely think anythink special.
> That would be a sign of paranoia.
------------------------------------------
Denying that people think what you suspect they think from what you
think is what is actually paranoid! Why SHOULD they think so
differently than you do? They don't, you know, even though the
vested antisexual interests would have you believe this to shut
you up.
> > > Or do you mean they won't tell ANYBODY? That's ridiculous. If you are
> > > interested in gangbangs, you HAVE to tell other people or you won't
> > > find a gang.
> > ----------------------------------
> > Of course not, but that IS what makes it very difficult and that is
> > what causes it to not be either as widespread as it would be, or as
> > well-known as it is and would be!
>
> It plain does not make sense to believe that. If somebody is
> interested in group sex, there are clubs for doing it without your
> neighbours knowing about it. Yet there are very, very few of those
> clubs. If the desire was widespread, you would see many more.
-------------------------------------------
That's a simplistic view, one that ignores the attempted mind control
by vested interests in the culture and that winds up being copied
without serious questioning by parents. You're trying to ignore all
mental and psychological subtleties and assume that whatever people
are doing, they are doing because they want to and prefer things this
way. In light of widespread human unhappiness, this is nonsense.
> Besides, and that is something you systematically ignore, those clubs
> get about 10 times more male applications than female ones. Does not
> fit in your theory either.
------------------------------
The degree to which girls, and later, women are shamed about their
sexuality is enormously greater than for men, who are more or less
encouraged. Again, this has nothing to do with their actual desires
or everyone would be deleriously happy.
> > This is EVEN MORE difficult than as joining some "underground wartime
> > resistance movement" without being taken for an incipient spy or some
> > agent provocateur or merely an opportunist liar. Also the precisely
> > suitable environment is NOT always easy to arrange, but notably to
> > our long experience now, when it IS done so, it invariably results in
> > the profound sexuo-political conversion of the new person or people.
>
> So what did you do? You found a few women (have you convinced men
> too?) that agreed to try group sex and found it enjoyable? How did you
> find them? Hasn't it occured to you that the ones who agreed had to be
> interested in the first place?
---------------------------------------
Self-selection was a suspicion of ours, and part of why we set about
asking 50 people among our circle of acquaintance who did NOT really
know about us, to have sex with us. After some time asking and simply
promoting it to them, all but one person wanted to and all but one
couple actually did. We found it amazing that the desire of normal
people ran that way ALSO, when we knew that others who talked about
liking it were "that way". It turns out that most people are simply
too afraid to ask, BUT are DYING to be asked by people they liked!
We were a well-liked couple, though not particularly gorgeous or
attractive, either, just charismatic.
> > In fact, a HUGE PART of the systematic OPPRESSION of this Truth is
> > done PRECISELY BY making people like YOU doubt people like ME!!!
>
> I see: now it is my fault. OK, let me correct that error of mine.
------------------
No, no, it is what society does to you, systematically brainwashing
you to reject things that folks like me say if they sound too much
like the things it has shamed you about.
> Ladies, I am all for it. Please learn the way of the good orgasm.
> Please try group sex. And for you, Steve: please do convince more
> people to enjoy their sexuality better. And bring some here to
> explain
> us how great it is, it will be much easier to convince people.
-----------------------------
Hee, you're being facetious, but actually that IS what needs to be
done!
> Because at present it is just you, Steve,
--------------------
Here, maybe, but not everywhere, or *I'd* NEVER get laid, and I DO!
> and that hardly makes hordes
> of people that have a desire for gangbangs.
-----------------------------
They do so secretly no matter WHAT you say.
They don't NEED to be "made" to, they know they do.
Every women wants to be ravished by multiple men who
do her just the way she wants, and every man wants
to just be able to fuck without total responsibility
for one woman's sexual satisfaction, and to see her
sated by as many men as she wants. These are both the
constant human waking dream, and the night fantasy.
They have wished for this freedom all their lives.
> And if I remember correctly, your last commune was more than 25 years
> ago. That does not make you very convincing either.
--------------------------------------
I thought I had explained this to you? We ended communes because of
problematic pressures from outside the movement, society seemed to
persist in trying to destroy any group-living situation at that time.
This is not precisely so anymore, but might become a problem again
if a groupsex tribe began announcing themselves and proselytizing.
We also realized that what we wanted was tribal sex, and that for
that, group living was not precisely needed, that we could meet at
each other's homes for sex and supper whenever we wished to, and we
did that for decades after that. Both of us STILL do this within our
respective groups of friends.
> > > Other question: what percentage of the general population participates
> > > in gangbangs (as opposed to just "being interested" without doing it)?
> > > Do you have a figure?
> > -----------------------------------
> > That number would be irrelevant, as I'm speaking of those who would
> > LIKE to if it didn't result in them being shamed, thrsatened, and
> > oppressed politically. THAT percentage is the vast majority, from
> > our statistically valid sampling by one-on-one conversion. People
> > could NOT be SO EASY to convert to it without this being so about
> > humans generally, as many of our experiences with these people are
> > essentially random. Even those who were too frightened to actually
> > do it with us, of which there are many, admitted readily to wishing
> > desperately that they could do it, and many returned to us later to
> > ask for re-involvement and clarification.
>
> That number is relevant, but you don't know it.
-----------------------
No, it isn't.
Steve
Jacques Michel
> Jacques Michel wrote:
> >
(major snips)
> > > > Let me repeat: I don't believe you. I am not saying that you are right
> > > > or false, I am just saying that my experience with people has been
> > > > that I have never met anybody who seemed to be interested, so I don't
> > > > believe you. It's that simple. If I had met a dozen interested people,
> > > > I would believe you, but I have not.
> > > --------------------------------
> > > All you are doing is repeating what you believe people will admit to,
> > > not what you ALL suspect each other secretly think if they admitted
> > > it!
> >
> > I don't suspect all other people secretely think anythink special.
> > That would be a sign of paranoia.
> ------------------------------------------
> Denying that people think what you suspect they think from what you
> think is what is actually paranoid! Why SHOULD they think so
> differently than you do? They don't, you know, even though the
> vested antisexual interests would have you believe this to shut
> you up.
>
Well, I did not suspect people thought differently as I did until
yesterday, but I just discovered that I have Asperger's syndrome so I
am making a major change of opinion. I do think differently than other
people. This also explains why I have asked strange questions here and
in other newsgroups, up to the point of being accused of trolling, and
I apologise for it.
As to our discussion, I will simply leave it as that, because I am not
able to judge wether your theory makes any sense in pratical life or
not. I am not able to process body language or facial expressions. In
the particular case of sexual cues, this means I will not be conscious
of them, except when they are expressed verbally. And people do not
give this kind of signal verbally, so I can't be aware of their
willingness or unwillingness, excitation, arousal, disgust, outrage,
etc.
The world around me could either be full of people dying to have sex
with me or disgusted and seeing me as a pervert, I would not know.
Obviously, this disability prevents me from relating to your theory
beyond a pure theorical understanding. So I think it best not to
pursue the point.
I will stop posting in this newsgroup and move to alt.support.autism
which is more adapted to my condition.
Christopher Weeks
> That is just plain false. "Mainstream" movies (for the lack of a
> better term) are rented more often than porn movies. Check the
> figures, there is about 10 times more money made in renting mainstream
> movies than porn.
It sounds like you have access to real data. Can you use that data to
confirm or deny Steve's more refined stance?
> Besides only a small proportion of porn movies are gangbangs.
I guess there might be a definition thing going on here. I mean, there
are movies where ten guys screw one woman that are billed as gangbangs.
If that's what we're saying, it seems clear from reviewing the
material on offer that it is a substantial chunk, but clearly a
minority. On the other hand, I think that every single piece of video
porn that I've seen committed to tape or DVD has included smaller-scale
group sex: threesomes, partner exchange, etc. I'm not expert, but it
certainly seems very, very common.
> It plain does not make sense to believe that. If somebody is
> interested in group sex, there are clubs for doing it without your
> neighbours knowing about it. Yet there are very, very few of those
> clubs. If the desire was widespread, you would see many more.
>
> Besides, and that is something you systematically ignore, those clubs
> get about 10 times more male applications than female ones. Does not
> fit in your theory either.
It sounds to me like it fits his theory perfectly. Women are more
deeply shamed about this particular subject and so they reject their
latent interest with more vigor. I think Steve's making perfect sense
when he points out that taboo is a sign of interest.
Chris
Jacques Michel
> Jacques Michel wrote:
> > That is just plain false. "Mainstream" movies (for the lack of a
> > better term) are rented more often than porn movies. Check the
> > figures, there is about 10 times more money made in renting mainstream
> > movies than porn.
>
> It sounds like you have access to real data. Can you use that data to
> confirm or deny Steve's more refined stance?
>
It is difficult to find data on the porn industry using a search
engine, because each time I type "porn" I get about 10 billions hits,
but this site was cited to me:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/porn_business_030128.html
and the figure cited is $10 billions for porn, worldwide. Figures for
the regular movie industry can be found on e.g. imdb.com and are 4
times higher ($40 billions) for the US alone and I am not sure whether
that figure includes the TV movies and series. Video makes more than
half that figure. So indeed it is not 10 times (sorry, I was carried
away), but at least 2 times (depending on the figures for the non-US
movie industry). Still, mainstream is bigger.
> > Besides only a small proportion of porn movies are gangbangs.
>
> I guess there might be a definition thing going on here. I mean, there
> are movies where ten guys screw one woman that are billed as gangbangs.
> If that's what we're saying, it seems clear from reviewing the
> material on offer that it is a substantial chunk, but clearly a
> minority. On the other hand, I think that every single piece of video
> porn that I've seen committed to tape or DVD has included smaller-scale
> group sex: threesomes, partner exchange, etc. I'm not expert, but it
> certainly seems very, very common.
>
Oh. OK.
Still, I am not sure that this fits in Steve theory. We had a specific
discussion about "swingers" where he said that exchanging partner was
not what he meant. I understand he advocates that humanity wants to
practice sex in front of others. Is THIS practice common in porn
movies?
> > It plain does not make sense to believe that. If somebody is
> > interested in group sex, there are clubs for doing it without your
> > neighbours knowing about it. Yet there are very, very few of those
> > clubs. If the desire was widespread, you would see many more.
> >
> > Besides, and that is something you systematically ignore, those clubs
> > get about 10 times more male applications than female ones. Does not
> > fit in your theory either.
>
> It sounds to me like it fits his theory perfectly. Women are more
> deeply shamed about this particular subject and so they reject their
> latent interest with more vigor. I think Steve's making perfect sense
> when he points out that taboo is a sign of interest.
>
I won't comment on that. As I explained in the other post, I am not
really capable to understand other people's feelings. If I had the
possibility to break a taboo without getting caught, I would do it. So
I reasoned that, since those clubs keep it secret, women did not go to
them because they did not want this type of sex. Now I understand that
you tell me that other people may feel unable to break a taboo, even
if they will not get caught. I don't know about that, I'm not like
that.
Christopher Weeks
> It is difficult to find data on the porn industry using a search
> engine, because each time I type "porn" I get about 10 billions hits,
I bet!
> So indeed it is not 10 times (sorry, I was carried
> away), but at least 2 times (depending on the figures for the non-US
> movie industry). Still, mainstream is bigger.
Let's grant you ten times. Given the whole world and extrapolation,
that seems reasonable. So the next thing to consider is the number of
titles that are and are not explicitly sexual. If, and I have no idea
of actual numbers, the number of non-porn movies is ten times the number
of porn movies, then we see that the revenue generated per title is the
same. If the ratio is greater, then the revenue per porn title is
actually greater than the similar figure for non-porn films. Right?
> Still, I am not sure that this fits in Steve theory. We had a specific
> discussion about "swingers" where he said that exchanging partner was
> not what he meant.
I don't either. Steve?
> I understand he advocates that humanity wants to
> practice sex in front of others. Is THIS practice common in porn
> movies?
I guess it depends on what you mean. group sex is sort-of inherently in
front of others. And films are made with large crews at hand. There
are certainly specific titles that demonstrate sex in public --
sometimes simulated and sometimes with genuinely shocked accidental
participants. But it doesn't seem to be a big market segment.
>>It sounds to me like it fits his theory perfectly. Women are more
>>deeply shamed about this particular subject and so they reject their
>>latent interest with more vigor. I think Steve's making perfect sense
>>when he points out that taboo is a sign of interest.
>
> I won't comment on that. As I explained in the other post, I am not
> really capable to understand other people's feelings. If I had the
> possibility to break a taboo without getting caught, I would do it.
But not if you've bought in to the taboo. Then you might be afraid of
actually engaging in the taboo activity. Or really believe that the
behavior is icky, bad, immoral, wicked, naughty, or antisocial -- even
while you hold the societal fascination with the very taboo. You can't
think of anything like that?
I think that way about eating human flesh. I mean, I can imagine any
number of circumstances where you might come across a portion of human
meat in a moral way. Even if that happened, I would be squicked at the
prospect of eating the meat. (Not to mention that I'm a vegetarian, but
I can divorce myself from that ideology for purposes of the thought
exercise.)
Another issue is the perceived risk of being caught as compared to the
surety of not being caught. You note that you'd engage in taboo
behavior if you wouldn't get caught. But how can you know?
> So
> I reasoned that, since those clubs keep it secret, women did not go to
> them because they did not want this type of sex.
Even if they have the introspection to realize that they do, they might
not trust the security of the situation. I have known several people to
engage in taboo behavior while on trips "out of town" where they have a
much greater assurance of avoiding detection by their peers.
Chris
Jacques Michel
> Jacques Michel wrote:
>
> > It is difficult to find data on the porn industry using a search
> > engine, because each time I type "porn" I get about 10 billions hits,
>
> I bet!
>
> > So indeed it is not 10 times (sorry, I was carried
> > away), but at least 2 times (depending on the figures for the non-US
> > movie industry). Still, mainstream is bigger.
>
> Let's grant you ten times. Given the whole world and extrapolation,
> that seems reasonable. So the next thing to consider is the number of
> titles that are and are not explicitly sexual. If, and I have no idea
> of actual numbers, the number of non-porn movies is ten times the number
> of porn movies, then we see that the revenue generated per title is the
> same. If the ratio is greater, then the revenue per porn title is
> actually greater than the similar figure for non-porn films. Right?
>
Uh? We are not interested in the revenue per title, we are interested
on the amount of money people spend on porn versus other
entertainment. The idea was to use it as an indicator of interest in
sex versus interest in other activities.
BTW: the amount of revenue per title is VERY likely to be much smaller
for porn than for mainstream movies. Titles are mainly rented, not
shown in theater, they tend to have a short life, they are much
cheaper to produce, etc... And yes, the consequence is also true:
there are more porn movies produced in a given year than mainstream
movies, check the imdb for info. Note that the imdb will only report
"adult movies" if you register and only lists a fraction of those
(mainly US ones) while they tend to be much more exhaustive for
mainstream movies.
But this is not the question. If the porn industry spends 4 times less
money making movies (whatever the number of movies is), it means that
the population as a whole spends 4 times less money on porn than on
other entertainment. Money in, money out, simple.
Now that could either mean:
- people in average watch on porn title in 4 movies or
- only a fourth of the people watch porn or
- anything in between.
And this only if we suppose that people who rent porn do not rent 10
movies at a time (like somebody I know, because he fast-forward
through them).
In any case, I don't know the answer.
The next question is: "why don't more people watch porn? / why don't
they watch it more often?". I thought they were not interested. Steve
appears to think they are interested, but repressed. I don't know that
answer either.
> > Still, I am not sure that this fits in Steve theory. We had a specific
> > discussion about "swingers" where he said that exchanging partner was
> > not what he meant.
>
> I don't either. Steve?
>
> > I understand he advocates that humanity wants to
> > practice sex in front of others. Is THIS practice common in porn
> > movies?
>
> I guess it depends on what you mean. group sex is sort-of inherently in
> front of others. And films are made with large crews at hand. There
> are certainly specific titles that demonstrate sex in public --
> sometimes simulated and sometimes with genuinely shocked accidental
> participants. But it doesn't seem to be a big market segment.
>
Try reading the archives of rec.arts.movies.erotica. The big market
segment is when the spectator sees one or two women having sex and can
imagine himself in place of the male.
> >>It sounds to me like it fits his theory perfectly. Women are more
> >>deeply shamed about this particular subject and so they reject their
> >>latent interest with more vigor. I think Steve's making perfect sense
> >>when he points out that taboo is a sign of interest.
> >
> > I won't comment on that. As I explained in the other post, I am not
> > really capable to understand other people's feelings. If I had the
> > possibility to break a taboo without getting caught, I would do it.
>
> But not if you've bought in to the taboo. Then you might be afraid of
> actually engaging in the taboo activity. Or really believe that the
> behavior is icky, bad, immoral, wicked, naughty, or antisocial -- even
> while you hold the societal fascination with the very taboo. You can't
> think of anything like that?
>
No, I can't. If I try to think logically and in a detached way, I can
consider that some people may act this way, but I still find it
puzzling. May I suggest you read about Asperger's syndrome to
undertand my condition?
> I think that way about eating human flesh. I mean, I can imagine any
> number of circumstances where you might come across a portion of human
> meat in a moral way. Even if that happened, I would be squicked at the
> prospect of eating the meat. (Not to mention that I'm a vegetarian, but
> I can divorce myself from that ideology for purposes of the thought
> exercise.)
>
I am not a vegetarian and I could eat human flesh.
> Another issue is the perceived risk of being caught as compared to the
> surety of not being caught. You note that you'd engage in taboo
> behavior if you wouldn't get caught. But how can you know?
>
Risk analysis?
> > So
> > I reasoned that, since those clubs keep it secret, women did not go to
> > them because they did not want this type of sex.
>
> Even if they have the introspection to realize that they do, they might
> not trust the security of the situation. I have known several people to
> engage in taboo behavior while on trips "out of town" where they have a
> much greater assurance of avoiding detection by their peers.
>
Indeed. But that is still not the question. If risk was the only
problem, you would see a booming travel industry, and still plenty of
swingers' clubs. Each one catering for the population of a distant
city, but still plenty...
R. Steve Walz
Hmmm, Aspergers, interesting. I usually get along with those types,
even though not one myself.
> As to our discussion, I will simply leave it as that, because I am not
> able to judge wether your theory makes any sense in pratical life or
> not. I am not able to process body language or facial expressions. In
> the particular case of sexual cues, this means I will not be conscious
> of them, except when they are expressed verbally. And people do not
> give this kind of signal verbally, so I can't be aware of their
> willingness or unwillingness, excitation, arousal, disgust, outrage,
> etc.
------------------------------
Sure, you don't notice them, whereas I think it's all an act people
are taught to use to get their way irrationally.
> The world around me could either be full of people dying to have sex
> with me or disgusted and seeing me as a pervert, I would not know.
> Obviously, this disability prevents me from relating to your theory
> beyond a pure theorical understanding. So I think it best not to
> pursue the point.
--------------------------------
Why?
> I will stop posting in this newsgroup and move to alt.support.autism
> which is more adapted to my condition.
--------------------------------
Naw, don't fall off the world for that, I know lots of Aspergers,
and they do fine in email/post because everything has to be explicitly
expressed, not guesswork, and they do well at that kind of analysis.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> Jacques Michel wrote:
> > That is just plain false. "Mainstream" movies (for the lack of a
> > better term) are rented more often than porn movies. Check the
> > figures, there is about 10 times more money made in renting mainstream
> > movies than porn.
>
> It sounds like you have access to real data. Can you use that data to
> confirm or deny Steve's more refined stance?
>
> > Besides only a small proportion of porn movies are gangbangs.
>
> I guess there might be a definition thing going on here. I mean, there
> are movies where ten guys screw one woman that are billed as gangbangs.
> If that's what we're saying, it seems clear from reviewing the
> material on offer that it is a substantial chunk, but clearly a
> minority. On the other hand, I think that every single piece of video
> porn that I've seen committed to tape or DVD has included smaller-scale
> group sex: threesomes, partner exchange, etc. I'm not expert, but it
> certainly seems very, very common.
Yup.
> > It plain does not make sense to believe that. If somebody is
> > interested in group sex, there are clubs for doing it without your
> > neighbours knowing about it. Yet there are very, very few of those
> > clubs. If the desire was widespread, you would see many more.
> >
> > Besides, and that is something you systematically ignore, those clubs
> > get about 10 times more male applications than female ones. Does not
> > fit in your theory either.
>
> It sounds to me like it fits his theory perfectly. Women are more
> deeply shamed about this particular subject and so they reject their
> latent interest with more vigor. I think Steve's making perfect sense
> when he points out that taboo is a sign of interest.
> Chris
----------------
Yup.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> Christopher Weeks <clw...@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:<9250812c3a968bc3...@news.teranews.com>...
> > Jacques Michel wrote:
> > > That is just plain false. "Mainstream" movies (for the lack of a
> > > better term) are rented more often than porn movies. Check the
> > > figures, there is about 10 times more money made in renting mainstream
> > > movies than porn.
> >
> > It sounds like you have access to real data. Can you use that data to
> > confirm or deny Steve's more refined stance?
> >
>
> It is difficult to find data on the porn industry using a search
> engine, because each time I type "porn" I get about 10 billions hits,
> but this site was cited to me:
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/porn_business_030128.html
> and the figure cited is $10 billions for porn, worldwide. Figures for
> the regular movie industry can be found on e.g. imdb.com and are 4
> times higher ($40 billions) for the US alone and I am not sure whether
> that figure includes the TV movies and series.
It does. And that make's my point.
> Video makes more than
> half that figure. So indeed it is not 10 times (sorry, I was carried
> away), but at least 2 times (depending on the figures for the non-US
> movie industry). Still, mainstream is bigger.
-------------------------
And less meaningful.
> > > Besides only a small proportion of porn movies are gangbangs.
> >
> > I guess there might be a definition thing going on here. I mean, there
> > are movies where ten guys screw one woman that are billed as gangbangs.
> > If that's what we're saying, it seems clear from reviewing the
> > material on offer that it is a substantial chunk, but clearly a
> > minority. On the other hand, I think that every single piece of video
> > porn that I've seen committed to tape or DVD has included smaller-scale
> > group sex: threesomes, partner exchange, etc. I'm not expert, but it
> > certainly seems very, very common.
> >
>
> Oh. OK.
>
> Still, I am not sure that this fits in Steve theory. We had a specific
> discussion about "swingers" where he said that exchanging partner was
> not what he meant. I understand he advocates that humanity wants to
> practice sex in front of others. Is THIS practice common in porn
> movies?
---------------------
Isn't that WHAT PORN *IS*???????
> > > It plain does not make sense to believe that. If somebody is
> > > interested in group sex, there are clubs for doing it without your
> > > neighbours knowing about it. Yet there are very, very few of those
> > > clubs. If the desire was widespread, you would see many more.
> > >
> > > Besides, and that is something you systematically ignore, those clubs
> > > get about 10 times more male applications than female ones. Does not
> > > fit in your theory either.
> >
> > It sounds to me like it fits his theory perfectly. Women are more
> > deeply shamed about this particular subject and so they reject their
> > latent interest with more vigor. I think Steve's making perfect sense
> > when he points out that taboo is a sign of interest.
> >
>
> I won't comment on that. As I explained in the other post, I am not
> really capable to understand other people's feelings.
---------------
I wouldn't count on that. The assertions about Aspergers by overly-
emotional sorts of folks ring hollow, like they dislike Aspergers
folk more because they ARE logical and reason-based, RATHER than
irrational and reactive like most socially brainwashed people!
> If I had the
> possibility to break a taboo without getting caught, I would do it.
---------------
Bingo!
> So
> I reasoned that, since those clubs keep it secret, women did not go to
> them because they did not want this type of sex. Now I understand that
> you tell me that other people may feel unable to break a taboo, even
> if they will not get caught. I don't know about that, I'm not like
> that.
---------------------------------
I'm not either, because I'm SANE! So are Asperger's folk, in some very
interesting ways!
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> Jacques Michel wrote:
>
> > It is difficult to find data on the porn industry using a search
> > engine, because each time I type "porn" I get about 10 billions hits,
>
> I bet!
>
> > So indeed it is not 10 times (sorry, I was carried
> > away), but at least 2 times (depending on the figures for the non-US
> > movie industry). Still, mainstream is bigger.
>
> Let's grant you ten times. Given the whole world and extrapolation,
> that seems reasonable. So the next thing to consider is the number of
> titles that are and are not explicitly sexual. If, and I have no idea
> of actual numbers, the number of non-porn movies is ten times the number
> of porn movies, then we see that the revenue generated per title is the
> same. If the ratio is greater, then the revenue per porn title is
> actually greater than the similar figure for non-porn films. Right?
>
> > Still, I am not sure that this fits in Steve theory. We had a specific
> > discussion about "swingers" where he said that exchanging partner was
> > not what he meant.
>
> I don't either. Steve?
"Swapping" is just some form of retroactive fuck-dating, it isn't
group sex and doesn't require of the person any socially meaningful
psycho-sexual growth to manage it.
> > I understand he advocates that humanity wants to
> > practice sex in front of others. Is THIS practice common in porn
> > movies?
>
> I guess it depends on what you mean. group sex is sort-of inherently in
> front of others. And films are made with large crews at hand. There
> are certainly specific titles that demonstrate sex in public --
> sometimes simulated and sometimes with genuinely shocked accidental
> participants. But it doesn't seem to be a big market segment.
------------------
Upon an unsuspecting public isn't specifically important, though I'd
love to see it!
> >>It sounds to me like it fits his theory perfectly. Women are more
> >>deeply shamed about this particular subject and so they reject their
> >>latent interest with more vigor. I think Steve's making perfect sense
> >>when he points out that taboo is a sign of interest.
> >
> > I won't comment on that. As I explained in the other post, I am not
> > really capable to understand other people's feelings. If I had the
> > possibility to break a taboo without getting caught, I would do it.
>
> But not if you've bought in to the taboo. Then you might be afraid of
> actually engaging in the taboo activity. Or really believe that the
> behavior is icky, bad, immoral, wicked, naughty, or antisocial -- even
> while you hold the societal fascination with the very taboo. You can't
> think of anything like that?
>
> I think that way about eating human flesh. I mean, I can imagine any
> number of circumstances where you might come across a portion of human
> meat in a moral way. Even if that happened, I would be squicked at the
> prospect of eating the meat. (Not to mention that I'm a vegetarian, but
> I can divorce myself from that ideology for purposes of the thought
> exercise.)
------------------------
Sure, but sex isn't anything like eating human flesh. Sex is something
we should have noproblem with in groups, like our near animal relations.
> Another issue is the perceived risk of being caught as compared to the
> surety of not being caught. You note that you'd engage in taboo
> behavior if you wouldn't get caught. But how can you know?
---------------------------
No, you can't "get caught" in groupsex, I've never heard of it.
It's not illegal anywhere I know of.
> > So
> > I reasoned that, since those clubs keep it secret, women did not go to
> > them because they did not want this type of sex.
>
> Even if they have the introspection to realize that they do, they might
> not trust the security of the situation. I have known several people to
> engage in taboo behavior while on trips "out of town" where they have a
> much greater assurance of avoiding detection by their peers.
>
> Chris
-------------------------
Sure, but people who are afraid of that don't usually even bother
trying group sex! Group sex takes a moral belief in it. This interest
can form on the spot from desire, or be in advance.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
Other entertainment is a huge field!
> Now that could either mean:
> - people in average watch on porn title in 4 movies or
> - only a fourth of the people watch porn or
> - anything in between.
>
> And this only if we suppose that people who rent porn do not rent 10
> movies at a time (like somebody I know, because he fast-forward
> through them).
>
> In any case, I don't know the answer.
>
> The next question is: "why don't more people watch porn? / why don't
> they watch it more often?". I thought they were not interested. Steve
> appears to think they are interested, but repressed. I don't know that
> answer either.
---------------
I do. The repression out there is enormous, and I'm used to dealing
with it and propagandizing against it realtime.
-------------------
Most educated Americans know of it, and know some of you interesting
geeks!
> > I think that way about eating human flesh. I mean, I can imagine any
> > number of circumstances where you might come across a portion of human
> > meat in a moral way. Even if that happened, I would be squicked at the
> > prospect of eating the meat. (Not to mention that I'm a vegetarian, but
> > I can divorce myself from that ideology for purposes of the thought
> > exercise.)
> >
>
> I am not a vegetarian and I could eat human flesh.
>
> > Another issue is the perceived risk of being caught as compared to the
> > surety of not being caught. You note that you'd engage in taboo
> > behavior if you wouldn't get caught. But how can you know?
> >
>
> Risk analysis?
>
> > > So
> > > I reasoned that, since those clubs keep it secret, women did not go to
> > > them because they did not want this type of sex.
> >
> > Even if they have the introspection to realize that they do, they might
> > not trust the security of the situation. I have known several people to
> > engage in taboo behavior while on trips "out of town" where they have a
> > much greater assurance of avoiding detection by their peers.
> >
>
> Indeed. But that is still not the question. If risk was the only
> problem, you would see a booming travel industry, and still plenty of
> swingers' clubs. Each one catering for the population of a distant
> city, but still plenty...
------------------------------------
Never heard of Mazatlan, Cancun and the Mexican beaches, South Beach,
Fort Laudedale, spring break, girls gone wild, road trip movie themes,
the thing is that the evidence of what people like is buried even in
the scads of mainstream movies with "tit"illation and entendre and
bouncing boobies. What people really want is hidden in plain sight,
and it is as big as a rhinocerous, and is DENIED!
Steve
Jacques Michel
> Jacques Michel wrote:
> >
(snip)
>
> > with me or disgusted and seeing me as a pervert, I would not know.
> > Obviously, this disability prevents me from relating to your theory
> > beyond a pure theorical understanding. So I think it best not to
> > pursue the point.
> --------------------------------
> Why?
>
Because I can't prove or disprove your theory.
>
> > I will stop posting in this newsgroup and move to alt.support.autism
> > which is more adapted to my condition.
> --------------------------------
> Naw, don't fall off the world for that
You're not the world, Steve.
Jacques Michel
> Never heard of Mazatlan, Cancun and the Mexican beaches, South Beach,
> Fort Laudedale, spring break, girls gone wild, road trip movie themes,
> the thing is that the evidence of what people like is buried even in
> the scads of mainstream movies with "tit"illation and entendre and
> bouncing boobies. What people really want is hidden in plain sight,
> and it is as big as a rhinocerous, and is DENIED!
>
No, I had not heard of Mazatlan, Cancun and the Mexican beaches, South
Beach, Fort Lauderdale, spring break, etc... A short research has
taught me those are, how can I say?, "Students parties", but I can't
judge whether the advertised level of sex is real or exagerated,
because I never attended a such party.
Interestingly, the European equivalent appears to be Ibiza. I've never
been there either, but I understand the Island is mainly flooded by
English people. Maybe the idea of student orgies is linked to the
English language? That does not sound really believable.
Jacques Michel
(snip)
> I'm not either, because I'm SANE!
Let me tell you once and for all: you are NOT sane. Anybody posting
the same story again and again for 11 years CANNOT be sane.
And I am not even discussing whether the theory is valid or not. Let's
take the example of your ex-wife and kids. Apparently they are also
convinced that your theory is true. Yet, they don't post it over and
over. They are sane, you are not.
In the lack of other evidence and formal pychiatric training, I would
tend to assume obsessive-compulsive disorder. But as far as I care,
you can carry on posting here till the end of your life, it's just
electrons.
Christopher Weeks
>>surety of not being caught. You note that you'd engage in taboo
>>behavior if you wouldn't get caught. But how can you know?
>
> ---------------------------
> No, you can't "get caught" in groupsex, I've never heard of it.
> It's not illegal anywhere I know of.
I didn't mean caught by the law. I meant found out at all. I am
personally acquainted with a person who fell into an orgy in college and
was highly uncomfortable about many of his friends knowing what had
happened.
Chris
Christopher Weeks
> And I am not even discussing whether the theory is valid or not. Let's
> take the example of your ex-wife and kids. Apparently they are also
> convinced that your theory is true. Yet, they don't post it over and
> over. They are sane, you are not.
>
> In the lack of other evidence and formal pychiatric training, I would
> tend to assume obsessive-compulsive disorder. But as far as I care,
> you can carry on posting here till the end of your life, it's just
> electrons.
The fact that he's engaged in this form of outreach does not equal insanity.
Chris
R. Steve Walz
>
> "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message news:<40864B...@armory.com>...
> > Jacques Michel wrote:
> > >
> (snip)
> >
> > > The world around me could either be full of people dying to have sex
> > > with me or disgusted and seeing me as a pervert, I would not know.
> > > Obviously, this disability prevents me from relating to your theory
> > > beyond a pure theorical understanding. So I think it best not to
> > > pursue the point.
> > --------------------------------
> > Why?
>
> Because I can't prove or disprove your theory.
Actually you could, but you're not as brave as I am.
> > > I will stop posting in this newsgroup and move to alt.support.autism
> > > which is more adapted to my condition.
> > --------------------------------
> > Naw, don't fall off the world for that
>
> You're not the world, Steve.
-------------------------
That's not what *I* meant.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message news:<40864F...@armory.com>...
>
> > Never heard of Mazatlan, Cancun and the Mexican beaches, South Beach,
> > Fort Laudedale, spring break, girls gone wild, road trip movie themes,
> > the thing is that the evidence of what people like is buried even in
> > the scads of mainstream movies with "tit"illation and entendre and
> > bouncing boobies. What people really want is hidden in plain sight,
> > and it is as big as a rhinocerous, and is DENIED!
> >
>
> No, I had not heard of Mazatlan, Cancun and the Mexican beaches, South
> Beach, Fort Lauderdale, spring break, etc... A short research has
> taught me those are, how can I say?, "Students parties", but I can't
> judge whether the advertised level of sex is real or exagerated,
> because I never attended a such party.
It's fairly real. The sad part is that lots of kids who want to get
laid only know how to get drunk, they're too scared to ask for sex.
> Interestingly, the European equivalent appears to be Ibiza. I've never
> been there either, but I understand the Island is mainly flooded by
> English people. Maybe the idea of student orgies is linked to the
> English language? That does not sound really believable.
-------------------------
The English are the most sexually repressed in the EU. They don't
have any good nude beaches. The rest know they can stay home and
fuck, or go to the Riviera.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message news:<40864C...@armory.com>...
> (snip)
> > I'm not either, because I'm SANE!
>
> Let me tell you once and for all: you are NOT sane. Anybody posting
> the same story again and again for 11 years CANNOT be sane.
?? Why not, I'm at LEAST internally consistent, unlike others.
> And I am not even discussing whether the theory is valid or not. Let's
> take the example of your ex-wife and kids. Apparently they are also
> convinced that your theory is true. Yet, they don't post it over and
> over. They are sane, you are not.
-------------------------------
They don't bother. They sort of leave that to me, they're more private
people, and my ex has a different circle of friends. Not everyone LIKES
wasting their time on Usenet! If THAT'S all you mean by me being
insane, well, you may have a small point anyway.
> In the lack of other evidence and formal pychiatric training, I would
> tend to assume obsessive-compulsive disorder. But as far as I care,
> you can carry on posting here till the end of your life, it's just
> electrons.
---------------------------------------
I will automate it at some point. ;->
Steve
R. Steve Walz
That's because he's the wrong person, and has the wrong friends.
Steve
Jacques Michel
Trying to convince people of what you believe is sane. Using a method
that obviously does not work for 11 years straight is not.
And don't get me started on Steve's writing patterns, the way he will
deny any fact not related to his pet theory, his latent agressivity or
his refusal to use any external references.
Note that the fact that Steve has some personality disorder does not
make his theory false. I personaly believe it has some strong points.
R. Steve Walz
>
> Christopher Weeks <clw...@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:<ba17e4149ba2f0e2...@news.teranews.com>...
> > Jacques Michel wrote:
> >
> > > And I am not even discussing whether the theory is valid or not. Let's
> > > take the example of your ex-wife and kids. Apparently they are also
> > > convinced that your theory is true. Yet, they don't post it over and
> > > over. They are sane, you are not.
> > >
> > > In the lack of other evidence and formal pychiatric training, I would
> > > tend to assume obsessive-compulsive disorder. But as far as I care,
> > > you can carry on posting here till the end of your life, it's just
> > > electrons.
> >
> > The fact that he's engaged in this form of outreach does not equal insanity.
> >
> >
>
> Trying to convince people of what you believe is sane. Using a method
> that obviously does not work for 11 years straight is not.
The assumptionon the table is that it "doesn't work". I contest that,
as I have hundreds of emails from people who have been quite friendly
toward my way of thinking that give me comfort.
Therefore, I cannot be "insane".
> And don't get me started on Steve's writing patterns, the way he will
> deny any fact not related to his pet theory, his latent agressivity or
> his refusal to use any external references.
------------------------
I discovered many years ago that no fact, when presented on Usenet,
will go unchallenged witheringly by falsehood and dishonesty. The
very nature of ant-Truth implies dishonesty, which is why that occurs.
It is therefore impossible to cite any external reference and be
persuasive, because phony facts will be contrived to the purpose of
defeating it. I resolved to find the essence of what persuades me or
anyone to believe as they do, and to present that instead, without
a reliance upon scarcely useful facts. That is the structural method
of argument, arguing from first and most basic principles via
thought-experiments, and leaving the statistical proofs to another
arena.
> Note that the fact that Steve has some personality disorder
------------------
Your amateur diagnostic is both fraudulent and erroneous.
> does not make his theory false.
> I personaly believe it has some strong points.
---------------------------
Uh-huh.
Steve
Christopher Weeks
> that obviously does not work for 11 years straight is not.
It has worked. I don't know about the hundreds of fans he has. But I
do know of one family who knew that they were doing things wrong and
were touched deeply by Steve's philosophy. Mine.
It took a few months for me to stop wanting to stave his head in with an
axe, It took another six or eight for me to really process his stance.
That was about four years ago. (If you cared enough, you could watch
my transformation on Google's archives in this very newsgroup -- though
back then we actually talked about kids. I guess that's all moved over
to misc.kids now?) And while I don't fight the fight on Usenet the way
he does, I have carried his message to others in person.
I'm primarily talking about child-rearing though I have also found many
of his points on sexuality and socialism to be compelling.
And I actually prefer the structural argumentative form he uses, while
getting tired of reading how everyone is a shit-mouthed fundy xtian
bigot :-) It is something that _everyone_ can actually think about and
work through. When you appeal to statistics and collected data, you're
admitting inherent errors.
Chris
Jacques Michel
> Jacques Michel wrote:
> >
(snip)
>
> > been there either, but I understand the Island is mainly flooded by
> > English people. Maybe the idea of student orgies is linked to the
> > English language? That does not sound really believable.
> -------------------------
> The English are the most sexually repressed in the EU. They don't
> have any good nude beaches. The rest know they can stay home and
> fuck, or go to the Riviera.
>
There are few nude beaches on the Riviera and the place is not exactly
an orgy either. I know, I lived there.
Anyway, maybe the English are not more repressed, but simply more
sensitive to group pressure, including for their "leisure" activities.
Another thing I can't relate to (group pressure) because of my
condition, so I won't comment on that either.
Jacques Michel
> > Trying to convince people of what you believe is sane. Using a method
> > that obviously does not work for 11 years straight is not.
>
> It has worked. I don't know about the hundreds of fans he has. But I
> do know of one family who knew that they were doing things wrong and
> were touched deeply by Steve's philosophy. Mine.
>
Ah. OK, point taken.
> It took a few months for me to stop wanting to stave his head in with an
> axe, It took another six or eight for me to really process his stance.
> That was about four years ago. (If you cared enough, you could watch
> my transformation on Google's archives in this very newsgroup -- though
> back then we actually talked about kids. I guess that's all moved over
> to misc.kids now?)
I tried that but was unable to watch the transformation. The fact that
you changed E-mail around 2001 and kept 2 addresses in parallel did
not help. Or are those 2 persons different ones?
Can you please describe your present opinion and lifestyle? What did
Steve change?
> And while I don't fight the fight on Usenet the way
> he does, I have carried his message to others in person.
>
> I'm primarily talking about child-rearing though I have also found many
> of his points on sexuality and socialism to be compelling.
>
Many points is not "all points" and my feeling is that Steve is not
content unless one has surrendered on ALL points ;-) What are the
points you don't agree with?
Jacques Michel
> Jacques Michel wrote:
> >
> > Christopher Weeks <clw...@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:<ba17e4149ba2f0e2...@news.teranews.com>...
> > > Jacques Michel wrote:
> > >
> > > > And I am not even discussing whether the theory is valid or not. Let's
> > > > take the example of your ex-wife and kids. Apparently they are also
> > > > convinced that your theory is true. Yet, they don't post it over and
> > > > over. They are sane, you are not.
> > > >
> > > > In the lack of other evidence and formal pychiatric training, I would
> > > > tend to assume obsessive-compulsive disorder. But as far as I care,
> > > > you can carry on posting here till the end of your life, it's just
> > > > electrons.
> > >
> > > The fact that he's engaged in this form of outreach does not equal insanity.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Trying to convince people of what you believe is sane. Using a method
> > that obviously does not work for 11 years straight is not.
> ------------------
> The assumptionon the table is that it "doesn't work". I contest that,
> as I have hundreds of emails from people who have been quite friendly
> toward my way of thinking that give me comfort.
>
> Therefore, I cannot be "insane".
>
OK. Christopher has stated he had been convinced, so I am really to
believe you. Point taken.
>
> > And don't get me started on Steve's writing patterns, the way he will
> > deny any fact not related to his pet theory, his latent agressivity or
> > his refusal to use any external references.
> ------------------------
> I discovered many years ago that no fact, when presented on Usenet,
> will go unchallenged witheringly by falsehood and dishonesty. The
> very nature of ant-Truth implies dishonesty, which is why that occurs.
> It is therefore impossible to cite any external reference and be
> persuasive, because phony facts will be contrived to the purpose of
> defeating it. I resolved to find the essence of what persuades me or
> anyone to believe as they do, and to present that instead, without
> a reliance upon scarcely useful facts. That is the structural method
> of argument, arguing from first and most basic principles via
> thought-experiments, and leaving the statistical proofs to another
> arena.
>
This is not the way you will convince me. Sorry.
>
> > Note that the fact that Steve has some personality disorder
> ------------------
> Your amateur diagnostic is both fraudulent and erroneous.
>
It is not a diagnostic, it is what I think. Or thought, see above.
>
> > does not make his theory false.
> > I personaly believe it has some strong points.
> ---------------------------
> Uh-huh.
Uh-huh?
R. Steve Walz
It is a time-honored method since the ancient Greek logicians.
You are ignoring the vast problems with deciding from selected
phony evidence presentations.
> > > Note that the fact that Steve has some personality disorder
> > ------------------
> > Your amateur diagnostic is both fraudulent and erroneous.
>
> It is not a diagnostic, it is what I think. Or thought, see above.
--------------------------------------
Merely "thinking" is not the way to obtain Truth. You must subject
it to the tests of logical proposition and syllogism.
> > > does not make his theory false.
> > > I personaly believe it has some strong points.
> > ---------------------------
> > Uh-huh.
>
> Uh-huh?
-------------------------------
It amuses me when people try to claim they believe in only part of
what I say, because there are no such separable pieces to my system
of thought, since it all comes out of a logical whole that is entirely
internally self-consistent and self-reinforcing in every direction
or else I would never have come to believe it!
In other words, for people to claim they can dissect what I believe
means only that they didn't actually understand it, nor do they
understand how to legitimately evaluate it as a logical whole.
Thus my sarcastic: "Uh-huh."
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message news:<408729...@armory.com>...
> > Jacques Michel wrote:
> > >
> (snip)
> >
> > > Interestingly, the European equivalent appears to be Ibiza. I've never
> > > been there either, but I understand the Island is mainly flooded by
> > > English people. Maybe the idea of student orgies is linked to the
> > > English language? That does not sound really believable.
> > -------------------------
> > The English are the most sexually repressed in the EU. They don't
> > have any good nude beaches. The rest know they can stay home and
> > fuck, or go to the Riviera.
> >
>
> There are few nude beaches on the Riviera and the place is not exactly
> an orgy either. I know, I lived there.
>
> Anyway, maybe the English are not more repressed, but simply more
> sensitive to group pressure, including for their "leisure" activities.
Only people who have been horribly shamed early are subject to group
pressure.
So it's their religion, they are where the Puritans got all the
antisexual crap, the Prebyterian Scots and Catholic Irish and the
various pleasure-denial sects that were permitted after Henry VIII
tossed out the priests. The rest of Europe grew out of that catholic
shit together, but the nutcakes in England are really wildly
antihumane.
> Another thing I can't relate to (group pressure) because of my
> condition, so I won't comment on that either.
----------------------------
It is understandable intellectually, I'm not subject to it because
I'm logical, and you're not because your self is built differently
than the rest, but we can understand it in theory just fine.
Steve
Jacques Michel
> Jacques Michel wrote:
> >
> > "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message news:<40879B...@armory.com>...
(snip)
> > > I resolved to find the essence of what persuades me or
> > > anyone to believe as they do, and to present that instead, without
> > > a reliance upon scarcely useful facts. That is the structural method
> > > of argument, arguing from first and most basic principles via
> > > thought-experiments, and leaving the statistical proofs to another
> > > arena.
> > >
> >
> > This is not the way you will convince me. Sorry.
> ----------------------------
> It is a time-honored method since the ancient Greek logicians.
> You are ignoring the vast problems with deciding from selected
> phony evidence presentations.
>
This methods can only proves self-consistency, no more. If the
premises are flawed, the theory can still be consistent, but not
adapted to the problem.
(snip)
> It amuses me when people try to claim they believe in only part of
> what I say, because there are no such separable pieces to my system
> of thought, since it all comes out of a logical whole that is entirely
> internally self-consistent and self-reinforcing in every direction
Your theory is neither self-consistent, nor consistent with the
enourmous body of anthropological evidence available.
> or else I would never have come to believe it!
>
Uh-uh. Now it's MY turn to be amused.
Christopher Weeks
> I tried that but was unable to watch the transformation. The fact that
> you changed E-mail around 2001 and kept 2 addresses in parallel did
> not help. Or are those 2 persons different ones?
I was probably posting from an eclipse.net account and a bms.com
account. There would have been a concurrent eclipse.net account that
was my wife, Cathy. Prior to those, it would have been missouri.edu
accounts, so it depends on when exactly you mean. In any case, I didn't
really expect you to look it but, but that's very thorough of you.
> Can you please describe your present opinion and lifestyle? What did
> Steve change?
I was a typically dictatorial parent for the first three or four years
of my son's life. And I knew it was wrong, but didn't know what was
right. The truth -- that he is my peer, that I owe him and he does not
owe me, and that what I've signed up for as a parent is to take as much
time as it takes to do it right (even if that's all the time I have,
sometimes), is so obvious now that it's hard to see why I didn't just
figure it out on my own. I'm pretty bright, and yet I did not. My kids
are every bit my equal in rights. And I do not perfectly implement
Steve's stances. e.g. I keep thinking we really should pack up our
dishes and get a single specific set for each family member. I am
afraid at how unwilling my son, who is now nine, is to do _any_ work
around the house. I suspect it's because we've always done everything
for him when he's quite capable.
I am ashamed to say that prior to this transformation I even struck
Garrett on occasion and used the threat of such treatment more often.
It has been several years since those times and I believe that that past
still colors our relationship in a way that it never will with my
daughter, Kivi.
> Many points is not "all points" and my feeling is that Steve is not
> content unless one has surrendered on ALL points ;-) What are the
> points you don't agree with?
It's actually more like this: I'm not in a position to test all of his
groupsex theory. I am contractually bound to a monogamous relationship.
However, I'm sure that I am polyamorous by nature. I can't know that
everyone is (the way he says), having not been exposed to very many
people living polyamorously. I have only one small set of friends, who
since we moved different ways after college, live 2500 miles from me
now, who are a part of a poly circle. But even for them, groupsex is rare.
Regarding communism, everything he says speaks to my heart, but my mind
mistrusts that it could be implemented well. And the horrors that he
describes to bring about his utopia in which free expression is not a
right, etc. scares the shit out of me. I'm not sure that the ends
justify the means and he is. I have a hard time extrapolating a
homogenous 1500 year old communistic success to modern days without
wondering if such a comparison is fraught with peril.
So I don't exactly disagree, I'm just not convinced. And he hasn't been
badgering me for years, so I'm not sure what you mean about his being
discontent until you surrender all points.
Chris
Jacques Michel
> Jacques Michel wrote:
>
> > I tried that but was unable to watch the transformation. The fact that
> > you changed E-mail around 2001 and kept 2 addresses in parallel did
> > not help. Or are those 2 persons different ones?
>
> I was probably posting from an eclipse.net account and a bms.com
> account. There would have been a concurrent eclipse.net account that
> was my wife, Cathy. Prior to those, it would have been missouri.edu
> accounts, so it depends on when exactly you mean. In any case, I didn't
> really expect you to look it but, but that's very thorough of you.
>
I am a very thorough person... ;-)
> > Can you please describe your present opinion and lifestyle? What did
> > Steve change?
>
> I was a typically dictatorial parent for the first three or four years
> of my son's life. And I knew it was wrong, but didn't know what was
> right. The truth -- that he is my peer, that I owe him and he does not
> owe me, and that what I've signed up for as a parent is to take as much
> time as it takes to do it right (even if that's all the time I have,
> sometimes), is so obvious now that it's hard to see why I didn't just
> figure it out on my own. I'm pretty bright, and yet I did not. My kids
> are every bit my equal in rights. And I do not perfectly implement
> Steve's stances. e.g. I keep thinking we really should pack up our
> dishes and get a single specific set for each family member. I am
> afraid at how unwilling my son, who is now nine, is to do _any_ work
> around the house. I suspect it's because we've always done everything
> for him when he's quite capable.
>
> I am ashamed to say that prior to this transformation I even struck
> Garrett on occasion and used the threat of such treatment more often.
> It has been several years since those times and I believe that that past
> still colors our relationship in a way that it never will with my
> daughter, Kivi.
>
OK. There again I only agree on part of Steve's theory as well. My
kids are my egals, yet somebody has to make sure things are organised.
As it usually ends up being me, I can be somewhat dictatorial at
times.
> > Many points is not "all points" and my feeling is that Steve is not
> > content unless one has surrendered on ALL points ;-) What are the
> > points you don't agree with?
>
> It's actually more like this: I'm not in a position to test all of his
> groupsex theory. I am contractually bound to a monogamous relationship.
> However, I'm sure that I am polyamorous by nature.
Uh-uh. So you're polyamorous and your wife is not? Tssk, tssk, tssk.
This is almost a proof that Steve is wrong, isn't it?
> I can't know that
> everyone is (the way he says), having not been exposed to very many
> people living polyamorously. I have only one small set of friends, who
> since we moved different ways after college, live 2500 miles from me
> now, who are a part of a poly circle. But even for them, groupsex is rare.
>
> Regarding communism, everything he says speaks to my heart, but my mind
> mistrusts that it could be implemented well. And the horrors that he
> describes to bring about his utopia in which free expression is not a
> right, etc. scares the shit out of me. I'm not sure that the ends
> justify the means and he is. I have a hard time extrapolating a
> homogenous 1500 year old communistic success to modern days without
> wondering if such a comparison is fraught with peril.
>
Indeed. I am visceraly against any theory that proposes to kill
massive amounts of people to be implemented. Besides, killing many
people does not work.
> So I don't exactly disagree, I'm just not convinced. And he hasn't been
> badgering me for years, so I'm not sure what you mean about his being
> discontent until you surrender all points.
>
We'll see what he has to respond to that.
Christopher Weeks
> OK. There again I only agree on part of Steve's theory as well. My
> kids are my egals, yet somebody has to make sure things are organised.
> As it usually ends up being me, I can be somewhat dictatorial at
> times.
Has to make sure things are organized? Why must someone? Which things?
Organized how? I organize things too, but that sounds like something
that _could_ be completely reasonable or _could_ be very, very controlling.
> Uh-uh. So you're polyamorous and your wife is not? Tssk, tssk, tssk.
> This is almost a proof that Steve is wrong, isn't it?
In a word, no. It doesn't speak to the fact that my wife _may be_ in
denial about her innermost desires, which is Steve's stance, I think.
She was raised in a fairly sexually liberal (by the most common
standards, not Steve's, or even mine) household, but I think without
specific pointed deprogramming, we can't avoid the messages that society
sends out to us.
> Indeed. I am visceraly against any theory that proposes to kill
> massive amounts of people to be implemented. Besides, killing many
> people does not work.
Well, I think that killing many people _does_ work for some things. I'm
just not sure those things are worth it.
Chris
Jacques Michel
> Jacques Michel wrote:
>
> > OK. There again I only agree on part of Steve's theory as well. My
> > kids are my egals, yet somebody has to make sure things are organised.
> > As it usually ends up being me, I can be somewhat dictatorial at
> > times.
>
> Has to make sure things are organized? Why must someone? Which things?
> Organized how? I organize things too, but that sounds like something
> that _could_ be completely reasonable or _could_ be very, very controlling.
>
A familly is a group of people. Any group of people sometimes needs to
make some tasks together, or to share tasks between them. This
requires some organisation, if only to make sure everybody knows about
the tasks. Organisation is work. So somebody has to do it.
> > Uh-uh. So you're polyamorous and your wife is not? Tssk, tssk, tssk.
> > This is almost a proof that Steve is wrong, isn't it?
>
> In a word, no. It doesn't speak to the fact that my wife _may be_ in
> denial about her innermost desires, which is Steve's stance, I think.
> She was raised in a fairly sexually liberal (by the most common
> standards, not Steve's, or even mine) household, but I think without
> specific pointed deprogramming, we can't avoid the messages that society
> sends out to us.
>
So why not "deprogram" her?
> > Indeed. I am visceraly against any theory that proposes to kill
> > massive amounts of people to be implemented. Besides, killing many
> > people does not work.
>
> Well, I think that killing many people _does_ work for some things. I'm
> just not sure those things are worth it.
>
There are many historical examples of massive killing. There is none
where it achived its objective. Massive killing de facto transform any
society in a police state and the ressentment against the killing soon
directs itself against the theory that required the killing in the
first place.
R. Steve Walz
> > > > anyone to believe as they do, and to present that instead, without
> > > > a reliance upon scarcely useful facts. That is the structural method
> > > > of argument, arguing from first and most basic principles via
> > > > thought-experiments, and leaving the statistical proofs to another
> > > > arena.
> > >
> > > This is not the way you will convince me. Sorry.
> > ----------------------------
> > It is a time-honored method since the ancient Greek logicians.
> > You are ignoring the vast problems with deciding from selected
> > phony evidence presentations.
>
> This methods can only proves self-consistency, no more.
And my premise IS PRECISELY that self-consistency in this Universe
is ONLY possible with the body of the Truth, and that ALL Evil will
inevitably be inconsistent! If this is NOT true, then you had better
give up on this Life and this Universe entirely, because in THAT
case, you'll never be able to tell what is a Lie, and what is the
Truth! It will be all nothing more than aesthetic opinion.
> If the
> premises are flawed, the theory can still be consistent, but not
> adapted to the problem.
------------------------
Nope. Such a thing has to exist as a portion of the Universe, and
obey its Laws.
> > It amuses me when people try to claim they believe in only part of
> > what I say, because there are no such separable pieces to my system
> > of thought, since it all comes out of a logical whole that is entirely
> > internally self-consistent and self-reinforcing in every direction
>
> Your theory is neither self-consistent, nor consistent with the
> enourmous body of anthropological evidence available.
---------------------------------
You'll find that you just told a lie and can't support that.
No Truth is based on the whole of "anthropological evidence",
since much of it is flawed in method and analysis.
The Truth, when you realize it, will only be supported by the
portion of anthropological conclusion that happens to have been
correct. The Truth does NOT have to explain people's errors or
biases in much of what they misunderstand and misstate.
> > or else I would never have come to believe it!
>
> Uh-uh. Now it's MY turn to be amused.
-----------------------------------
It is the Truth, however funny you find my recursive logic.
Positing that no one can be right about anything will merely
result in an obvious falsehood, because then YOU can't be.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> Jacques Michel wrote:
>
> > Steve change?
>
> I was a typically dictatorial parent for the first three or four years
> of my son's life. And I knew it was wrong, but didn't know what was
> right. The truth -- that he is my peer, that I owe him and he does not
> owe me, and that what I've signed up for as a parent is to take as much
> time as it takes to do it right (even if that's all the time I have,
> sometimes), is so obvious now that it's hard to see why I didn't just
> figure it out on my own. I'm pretty bright, and yet I did not. My kids
> are every bit my equal in rights. And I do not perfectly implement
> Steve's stances. e.g. I keep thinking we really should pack up our
> dishes and get a single specific set for each family member. I am
> afraid at how unwilling my son, who is now nine, is to do _any_ work
> around the house. I suspect it's because we've always done everything
> for him when he's quite capable.
>
> I am ashamed to say that prior to this transformation I even struck
> Garrett on occasion and used the threat of such treatment more often.
> It has been several years since those times and I believe that that past
> still colors our relationship in a way that it never will with my
> daughter, Kivi.
Have you tried admitting your errors and expressing your desire never
to repeat that? Have you revealed that your "rules" for your behavior
toward them have changed. Or do you fear revealing your rules for
yourself to them?
> > Many points is not "all points" and my feeling is that Steve is not
> > content unless one has surrendered on ALL points ;-)
-----------------
The Whole Truth is One Body, it is not separable because each Truth
of the Body of Truth emerges from the One Same overall analysis of
our Human Nature.
> > What are the
> > points you don't agree with?
>
> It's actually more like this: I'm not in a position to test all of
> his groupsex theory. I am contractually bound to a monogamous > relationship.
------------------
No you're not.
Marriages are a contract at will, subject to termination by
either party at any time.
> However, I'm sure that I am polyamorous by nature. I can't know
> that everyone is (the way he says), having not been exposed to
> very many people living polyamorously.
------------------
I'd know that everyone is actually groupsexual (polyamorous is a
cop-out, people don't need to be in love to fuck for fun) even if I
had never met a single other person who claimed to be, because the
evidence of what we must be is in our mind, in each of our desires,
the simple fact that we can communicate those ideas and argue the
same feelings reveal that we are governed by the same dynamics and
that any who claim not to be are simply lying for some defective
ulterior purpose.
> I have only one small set of friends, who
> since we moved different ways after college, live 2500 miles from me
> now, who are a part of a poly circle. But even for them, groupsex is rare.
-----------------------------
Lots of polyamorists have the defect of shame and guilt and this is
evidenced in their choice to CALL it "Polyamory", because that notion
requires "Love" to justify sex (thus to obviate shame and guilt),
when fun is entirely sufficient to justify sex, and Love is something
other entirely, it is the character to be loyal to a supportive
group.
> Regarding communism, everything he says speaks to my heart, but my mind
> mistrusts that it could be implemented well. And the horrors that he
> describes to bring about his utopia in which free expression is not a
> right, etc. scares the shit out of me.
--------------------
Only expression of the Truth is a right, all else is fraud and
deception. There is no real "right" to lie or defraud.
Nor is there a right to disrupt society by demonstrations, which
is merely an effort to bully the majority and usurp power in an
illegitimate fashion. There is the right to communicate and persuade,
but not by disruption of the normal function of the public space.
Actually, anyone who disrupts society should be killed immediately.
We have many ignorant and ridiculous notions about what "rights"
are that make no sense upon examination.
> I'm not sure that the ends justify the means and he is.
--------------------------
The means are justified if they do indeed result in the desired Ends!
In fact, that a successful result Sanctifies any means to achieve
them.
> I have a hard time extrapolating a
> homogenous 1500 year old communistic success to modern days without
> wondering if such a comparison is fraught with peril.
------------------------------
I don't require any previous incidence of communism to justify it.
Why do you? I know nothing about the Hopi EXCEPT that they were an
established communism, nor do we know much of the details except
their success for a long period.
Our survival and existence as pre-historic people proves and requires
that we were bands who cooperated by voluntary adherence to group
edict, or we never could have survived without technology and use of
petroleum. We are simply too fragile, too weak, not fleet of foot or
strong, nor thickly hided, sharp toothed, nor any of the things that
would be required for an individual to survive so that our species
survived.
Our ONLY speciel ability to achieve the success that we did was as
a group, one willing to do things together that were entirely against
our individual biological reflexes, which is the key reason that our
instincts are now evolved to be so weak as to be nearly non-existent.
We required this kind of plasticity of behavior so that the group
could control our efforts and motivations. We literally share a mind
and reality in common because of it. Those who could not be controlled
by the needs of the group were ejected or ostracized from the group,
and usually died without its protection in the times prior to easy
fire-making (which is actually fairly recent) and also prior to more
advanced weapons. A human alone is simply not formidable enough to
repel determined predators.
> So I don't exactly disagree, I'm just not convinced. And he hasn't been
> badgering me for years, so I'm not sure what you mean about his being
> discontent until you surrender all points.
>
> Chris
-----------------
It is the Truth. All of it, or none of it. Decide.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
> > > Steve change?
> >
> > I was a typically dictatorial parent for the first three or four years
> > of my son's life. And I knew it was wrong, but didn't know what was
> > right. The truth -- that he is my peer, that I owe him and he does not
> > owe me, and that what I've signed up for as a parent is to take as much
> > time as it takes to do it right (even if that's all the time I have,
> > sometimes), is so obvious now that it's hard to see why I didn't just
> > figure it out on my own. I'm pretty bright, and yet I did not. My kids
> > are every bit my equal in rights. And I do not perfectly implement
> > Steve's stances. e.g. I keep thinking we really should pack up our
> > dishes and get a single specific set for each family member. I am
> > afraid at how unwilling my son, who is now nine, is to do _any_ work
> > around the house. I suspect it's because we've always done everything
> > for him when he's quite capable.
> >
> > I am ashamed to say that prior to this transformation I even struck
> > Garrett on occasion and used the threat of such treatment more often.
> > It has been several years since those times and I believe that that past
> > still colors our relationship in a way that it never will with my
> > daughter, Kivi.
> >
>
> OK. There again I only agree on part of Steve's theory as well. My
> kids are my egals, yet somebody has to make sure things are organised.
> As it usually ends up being me, I can be somewhat dictatorial at
> times.
That's merely abusive.
> > > Many points is not "all points" and my feeling is that Steve is not
> > > content unless one has surrendered on ALL points ;-) What are the
> > > points you don't agree with?
> >
> > It's actually more like this: I'm not in a position to test all of his
> > groupsex theory. I am contractually bound to a monogamous relationship.
> > However, I'm sure that I am polyamorous by nature.
>
> Uh-uh. So you're polyamorous and your wife is not? Tssk, tssk, tssk.
> This is almost a proof that Steve is wrong, isn't it?
-----------------------------
No. People lie about their nature for many reasons involving shame
and guilt imposed on them in their abuse as children by their parents
and society, causing them to deny their true secret nature.
> > I can't know that
> > everyone is (the way he says), having not been exposed to very many
> > people living polyamorously. I have only one small set of friends, who
> > since we moved different ways after college, live 2500 miles from me
> > now, who are a part of a poly circle. But even for them, groupsex is rare.
> >
> > Regarding communism, everything he says speaks to my heart, but my mind
> > mistrusts that it could be implemented well. And the horrors that he
> > describes to bring about his utopia in which free expression is not a
> > right, etc. scares the shit out of me. I'm not sure that the ends
> > justify the means and he is. I have a hard time extrapolating a
> > homogenous 1500 year old communistic success to modern days without
> > wondering if such a comparison is fraught with peril.
>
> Indeed. I am visceraly against any theory that proposes to kill
> massive amounts of people to be implemented. Besides, killing many
> people does not work.
--------------------------------
Of course it does, that is why it is done so often.
> > So I don't exactly disagree, I'm just not convinced. And he hasn't been
> > badgering me for years, so I'm not sure what you mean about his being
> > discontent until you surrender all points.
> >
>
> We'll see what he has to respond to that.
---------------------------------
The Truth is the Truth.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> Christopher Weeks <clw...@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:<dc7ff4f2c6d18c2e...@news.teranews.com>...
> > Jacques Michel wrote:
> >
> > > OK. There again I only agree on part of Steve's theory as well. My
> > > kids are my egals, yet somebody has to make sure things are organised.
> > > As it usually ends up being me, I can be somewhat dictatorial at
> > > times.
> >
> > Has to make sure things are organized? Why must someone? Which things?
> > Organized how? I organize things too, but that sounds like something
> > that _could_ be completely reasonable or _could_ be very, very controlling.
> >
>
> A familly is a group of people. Any group of people sometimes needs to
> make some tasks together, or to share tasks between them. This
> requires some organisation, if only to make sure everybody knows about
> the tasks. Organisation is work. So somebody has to do it.
Much that authoritarians say "has to be done", doesn't. They assert
it merely to exert control, which is their pathology.
> > > Uh-uh. So you're polyamorous and your wife is not? Tssk, tssk, tssk.
> > > This is almost a proof that Steve is wrong, isn't it?
> >
> > In a word, no. It doesn't speak to the fact that my wife _may be_ in
> > denial about her innermost desires, which is Steve's stance, I think.
> > She was raised in a fairly sexually liberal (by the most common
> > standards, not Steve's, or even mine) household, but I think without
> > specific pointed deprogramming, we can't avoid the messages that society
> > sends out to us.
>
> So why not "deprogram" her?
---------------------------------
If it could be done without winding up in a gun-fight with others,
it would indeed be the right thing to do. It's in the Future.
> > > Indeed. I am visceraly against any theory that proposes to kill
> > > massive amounts of people to be implemented. Besides, killing many
> > > people does not work.
> >
> > Well, I think that killing many people _does_ work for some things. I'm
> > just not sure those things are worth it.
-------------------------------
It can be used for anything. Many of them wrong.
But the right things are worth it.
> There are many historical examples of massive killing. There is none
> where it achived its objective.
---------------------------
Dresden, Berlin, Frankfurt, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, of course it works.
> Massive killing de facto transform any
> society in a police state and the ressentment against the killing soon
> directs itself against the theory that required the killing in the
> first place.
------------------------------------
Not all police states are bad. McArthur trasnsformed the Japanese
from superstitious emperor worshippers to a modern nation by making
everyone go only where they were supposed to for five years under
penalty ofexecution, and West Germany was under Allied martial law
for 8 YEARS! Evil CAN INDEED be rooted out by martial law and
executions!
Steve
Jacques Michel
(snip)
> > > So I don't exactly disagree, I'm just not convinced. And he hasn't been
> > > badgering me for years, so I'm not sure what you mean about his being
> > > discontent until you surrender all points.
> > >
> >
> > We'll see what he has to respond to that.
> ---------------------------------
> The Truth is the Truth.
> Steve
We have seen. Christopher, please just check the 4 posts he wrote
today in this thread. I'll just repost my opinion: Steve, your theory
is neither self-consistent, nor consistent with the enourmous body of
anthropological evidence available. I don't think it is useful to add
anything beyond that, since Steve is not interested in my opinion (or
in anyone's opinion for that matter).
As to you, Christopher, take care and try to use common sense with
your family. It's the best one can do.
R. Steve Walz
>
> "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message news:<4089E9...@armory.com>...
> > Jacques Michel wrote:
> > >
> > > Christopher Weeks <clw...@eclipse.net> wrote in message
>
> (snip)
> > > > So I don't exactly disagree, I'm just not convinced. And he hasn't been
> > > > badgering me for years, so I'm not sure what you mean about his being
> > > > discontent until you surrender all points.
> > > >
> > >
> > > We'll see what he has to respond to that.
> > ---------------------------------
> > The Truth is the Truth.
> > Steve
>
> We have seen. Christopher, please just check the 4 posts he wrote
> today in this thread. I'll just repost my opinion: Steve, your theory
> is neither self-consistent,
Sure it is, you can't say how it is not without me correcting your
obvious errors and mere postures that don't argue from logic.
> nor consistent with the enourmous body of
> anthropological evidence available.
-----------------
It's consistent with MUCH anthropological data, the rest is simply
misconstrued or misacquired.
> I don't think it is useful to add
> anything beyond that, since Steve is not interested in my opinion (or
> in anyone's opinion for that matter).
-------------------
Right, opinion is merely some notion of whether you LIKE a certain
Truth or not, and not at ALL whether it is rational.
> As to you, Christopher, take care and try to use common sense with
> your family. It's the best one can do.
---------------------
Common sense is... common, that is, not advanced or exceptional, in
fact it is backward. It's the shit that USUALLY passes wrongly for
good sense!
Steve
Christopher Weeks
> Have you tried admitting your errors and expressing your desire never
> to repeat that? Have you revealed that your "rules" for your behavior
> toward them have changed. Or do you fear revealing your rules for
> yourself to them?
Oh yes! Absolutely. I speak of my shame openly. My son knows that he
has nothing to fear at least on one level. I can only hope that with
more time our relationship will be fully repaired. And my daughter
knows only the coercion that I simply don't see any way around for
dealing with a two year old. I guess it's predicated on force (I do
pick her up and go after lengthy bargaining doesn't work), but never
violence.
>>It's actually more like this: I'm not in a position to test all of
>>his groupsex theory. I am contractually bound to a monogamous > relationship.
>
> ------------------
> No you're not.
> Marriages are a contract at will, subject to termination by
> either party at any time.
Yeah, sure. I didn't mean I was enslaved. I meant that I take that
condition of my contract seriously and I don't want to dissolve the
contract.
> Lots of polyamorists have the defect of shame and guilt and this is
> evidenced in their choice to CALL it "Polyamory", because that notion
> requires "Love" to justify sex (thus to obviate shame and guilt),
> when fun is entirely sufficient to justify sex, and Love is something
> other entirely, it is the character to be loyal to a supportive
> group.
The folks I know assert that sex is a kind of love. My experience
suggests that sex and love are related, in that I've tended to fall in
love with women that I screwed, even when I didn't want much of a
relationship. I _think_ they mean essentially the same thing you do.
> Only expression of the Truth is a right, all else is fraud and
> deception. There is no real "right" to lie or defraud.
I can accept that people might not know the truth and advocate untruth
and have it be with the best of intent. I'm uncomfortable with a death
penalty for making mistakes.
> I don't require any previous incidence of communism to justify it.
> Why do you? I know nothing about the Hopi EXCEPT that they were an
> established communism, nor do we know much of the details except
> their success for a long period.
>
> Our survival and existence as pre-historic people proves and requires
> that we were bands who cooperated by voluntary adherence to group
> edict, or we never could have survived without technology and use of
> petroleum. We are simply too fragile, too weak, not fleet of foot or
> strong, nor thickly hided, sharp toothed, nor any of the things that
> would be required for an individual to survive so that our species
> survived.
I agree, and yet, none of this means that we can make a successful
globe-spanning communist village. We might be genetically programmed to
exist in communal villages of 100 where we actually know everyone. But
that same programming might fail when we don't know everyone. That
appears to me, to be a very likely reality.
> It is the Truth. All of it, or none of it. Decide.
I'm still deciding if I think that. And this points to the essence of
another (perhaps the primary) problem I have about your stances and
communications. Even if you are completely correct about everything,
you belittle and seem willing to punish people for not being as smart as
you. That's pretty fucked up.
Chris
Christopher Weeks
>>>kids are my egals, yet somebody has to make sure things are organised.
>>>As it usually ends up being me, I can be somewhat dictatorial at
>>>times.
>>
>>Has to make sure things are organized? Why must someone? Which things?
>> Organized how? I organize things too, but that sounds like something
>>that _could_ be completely reasonable or _could_ be very, very controlling.
>
> A familly is a group of people. Any group of people sometimes needs to
> make some tasks together, or to share tasks between them. This
> requires some organisation, if only to make sure everybody knows about
> the tasks. Organisation is work. So somebody has to do it.
But do you pick what your kids do toward these shared tasks? If so, how
is that equal? Do your kids get to organize your labor hours?
> So why not "deprogram" her?
I don't consider that my right beyond simple discussion.
Chris
Jacques Michel
> Jacques Michel wrote:
> >
> > "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message news:<4089E9...@armory.com>...
> > > Jacques Michel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Christopher Weeks <clw...@eclipse.net> wrote in message
> >
> > (snip)
> > > > > So I don't exactly disagree, I'm just not convinced. And he hasn't been
> > > > > badgering me for years, so I'm not sure what you mean about his being
> > > > > discontent until you surrender all points.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We'll see what he has to respond to that.
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > The Truth is the Truth.
> > > Steve
> >
> > We have seen. Christopher, please just check the 4 posts he wrote
> > today in this thread. I'll just repost my opinion: Steve, your theory
> > is neither self-consistent,
> --------------
> Sure it is, you can't say how it is not without me correcting your
> obvious errors and mere postures that don't argue from logic.
>
I have not explained what inconsistencies I am thinking about, neither
what anthropological evidence I am thinking about. Why would I do it?
You are totally impervious to logic or rationnal arguments...
>
> > nor consistent with the enourmous body of
> > anthropological evidence available.
> -----------------
> It's consistent with MUCH anthropological data, the rest is simply
> misconstrued or misacquired.
>
...like here. What you are saying is: we keep the data that agrees
with out theory and ignore the rest. This was the method used to prove
that the earth was flat.
>
> > I don't think it is useful to add
> > anything beyond that, since Steve is not interested in my opinion (or
> > in anyone's opinion for that matter).
> -------------------
> Right, opinion is merely some notion of whether you LIKE a certain
> Truth or not, and not at ALL whether it is rational.
>
Correction: since Steve is not interested in anything anyone would say
that does not 100% agree with what he calls his "truth". I thought you
would have understood.
> > As to you, Christopher, take care and try to use common sense with
> > your family. It's the best one can do.
> ---------------------
> Common sense is... common, that is, not advanced or exceptional, in
> fact it is backward. It's the shit that USUALLY passes wrongly for
> good sense!
>
Who said "common sense is not that common"?
Anyway, Steve, I am just not interested in arguing with you. You
provoked me to think and do some research on matters I knew little
about and for this I am thankfull. But the more I learned, the less
convincing your arguments became and the more I realised how out of
touch with reality you are. So out of touch that you will never come
back, and I do not feel compelled to try.
R. Steve Walz
9/11 happens when we don't think they are, and it only gets worse
until we DO, once again! Eliminating the enemy ends war. All else
is a bloody truce with Evil that must be dealt with later on.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > Have you tried admitting your errors and expressing your desire never
> > to repeat that? Have you revealed that your "rules" for your behavior
> > toward them have changed. Or do you fear revealing your rules for
> > yourself to them?
>
> Oh yes! Absolutely. I speak of my shame openly. My son knows that he
> has nothing to fear at least on one level. I can only hope that with
> more time our relationship will be fully repaired. And my daughter
> knows only the coercion that I simply don't see any way around for
> dealing with a two year old. I guess it's predicated on force (I do
> pick her up and go after lengthy bargaining doesn't work), but never
> violence.
>
> >>It's actually more like this: I'm not in a position to test all of
> >>his groupsex theory. I am contractually bound to a monogamous > relationship.
> > ------------------
> > No you're not.
> > Marriages are a contract at will, subject to termination by
> > either party at any time.
>
> Yeah, sure. I didn't mean I was enslaved. I meant that I take that
> condition of my contract seriously and I don't want to dissolve the
> contract.
Then you're enslaved by her ignorance.
> > Lots of polyamorists have the defect of shame and guilt and this is
> > evidenced in their choice to CALL it "Polyamory", because that notion
> > requires "Love" to justify sex (thus to obviate shame and guilt),
> > when fun is entirely sufficient to justify sex, and Love is something
> > other entirely, it is the character to be loyal to a supportive
> > group.
>
> The folks I know assert that sex is a kind of love. My experience
> suggests that sex and love are related, in that I've tended to fall in
> love with women that I screwed, even when I didn't want much of a
> relationship. I _think_ they mean essentially the same thing you do.
----------------------------
The way I do sex, sex is love, the way others do it, it may not be.
A sane person is not capable of doing it as other than love, but an
insane person is. When you are like me, you will love everyone you
have sex with, and have sex with everyone you love.
> > Only expression of the Truth is a right, all else is fraud and
> > deception. There is no real "right" to lie or defraud.
>
> I can accept that people might not know the truth and advocate untruth
> and have it be with the best of intent. I'm uncomfortable with a death
> penalty for making mistakes.
---------------------------------
Nothing I propose a death penalty for is a mistake, it is an evil
deed the person merely hoped to get away with, and once they know
it carries that penalty they will never do it again unless they
are the heart of Evil.
> > I don't require any previous incidence of communism to justify it.
> > Why do you? I know nothing about the Hopi EXCEPT that they were an
> > established communism, nor do we know much of the details except
> > their success for a long period.
> >
> > Our survival and existence as pre-historic people proves and requires
> > that we were bands who cooperated by voluntary adherence to group
> > edict, or we never could have survived without technology and use of
> > petroleum. We are simply too fragile, too weak, not fleet of foot or
> > strong, nor thickly hided, sharp toothed, nor any of the things that
> > would be required for an individual to survive so that our species
> > survived.
>
> I agree, and yet, none of this means that we can make a successful
> globe-spanning communist village.
----------------
We evolved in tribes, not in nations. Humans don't actually fathom
anything else, they aren't actually capable. Nations are phony, no
one understands them. We can demand, however, in perfectly good
conscience, that everyone everywhere be treated as if they were
in everyone's tribe, and we can punish any deviation from that.
This is the universal intent of good laws and listed rights.
> We might be genetically programmed to
> exist in communal villages of 100 where we actually know everyone. But
> that same programming might fail when we don't know everyone. That
> appears to me, to be a very likely reality.
------------------------
We can demand that everyone who does not act inimically be accepted
into our tribe, just as we expect to be accepted into anyone else's
tribe when we are away from home. That IS understandable and WAS a
consistent part of pre-historic human tribalism, the fossil record
shows enormous evidence of extensive trade throughout hundreds of
tribes. Quit pretending that decent behavior and demanding it of
everyone is not somehow reasonable!! The only reason we have thieves
is because we haven't previously been able to catch them. We made
the mistake of ejecting psychopaths from our tribe, hopefully to die,
and instead, as Europe and everywhere became more crowded, they simply
masqueraded as travelers and became roving bands of thieves, later
the "nobility" of Europe, after they started bullying people into
calling them "Nobles"!! They enslaved the tribes by conquering them
one at a time, burning them out with hoods and horses at night, and
then pretending to "rescue" (enslave) the survivors by day!! You
found yourself working for them in return for "protection" in their
keeps and stockades, later castles. You wound up enslaved!! SERFS!!
Then they claimed to OWN EVERYTHING! ALL the LAND! That is the
origin of western society and capitalism. It is and was Evil Theft.
> > It is the Truth. All of it, or none of it. Decide.
>
> I'm still deciding if I think that. And this points to the essence of
> another (perhaps the primary) problem I have about your stances and
> communications. Even if you are completely correct about everything,
> you belittle and seem willing to punish people for not being as smart > as you. That's pretty fucked up.
> Chris
---------------------
I don't want money or power, and I do get annoyed, that's all you
perceive. Do I think I'm superior? Sure. Do I like it? No, it's
very lonely. I would gladly prefer everyone know what I know.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The Truth is the Truth.
> > > > Steve
> > >
> > > We have seen. Christopher, please just check the 4 posts he wrote
> > > today in this thread. I'll just repost my opinion: Steve, your theory
> > > is neither self-consistent,
> > --------------
> > Sure it is, you can't say how it is not without me correcting your
> > obvious errors and mere postures that don't argue from logic.
>
> I have not explained what inconsistencies I am thinking about, neither
> what anthropological evidence I am thinking about. Why would I do it?
> You are totally impervious to logic or rationnal arguments...
You're making it waaay too complicated, this argument is in public.
Why don't you just take it a step at a time and tell me what you
want to say, and then I respond to it, and then you, etc.??
Now take a deep breath.
> > > nor consistent with the enourmous body of
> > > anthropological evidence available.
> > -----------------
> > It's consistent with MUCH anthropological data, the rest is simply
> > misconstrued or misacquired.
>
> ...like here. What you are saying is: we keep the data that agrees
> with out theory and ignore the rest. This was the method used to prove
> that the earth was flat.
------------------------------------
Nope, that never happened, I'm a physicist.
The Greeks knew the earth was round, only a few European hillbillies
didn't know it.
Each factoid that supports Human Nature as I insist it is has
the quality of being merely another notation about the capacity of
peoples to be and act differently than they do in this culture.
Thus it proves that Human Nature CAN indeed be as I say it is!!
The other factoids that don't do so are merely more examples of
how people can be Wrong about Human Nature, exactly as I say that
THIS culture is Wrong.
To show that my version of Human Nature is both real, and the best,
all I have to show is that it is possibly so, and that only requires
agreeable anthropolgical anecdotes to my Truth.
And then all that is needed is to demonstrate the arguable assertion
that there are good reasons why people will LIKE it better than what
they have NOW!!!
A better culture than what we have now CAN INDEED be assembled
from spare parts that are shown to be human behaviors SOMEWHERE,
and which can also be ones that people will LIKE!
IF you lock a hundred naked people together in a pitch dark room,
they will sooner or later give up and have sex and enjoy it.
> > > I don't think it is useful to add
> > > anything beyond that, since Steve is not interested in my opinion (or
> > > in anyone's opinion for that matter).
> > -------------------
> > Right, opinion is merely some notion of whether you LIKE a certain
> > Truth or not, and not at ALL whether it is rational.
>
> Correction: since Steve is not interested in anything anyone would say
> that does not 100% agree with what he calls his "truth". I thought you
> would have understood.
------------------------
Oh I'm VERY interested, in taking it apart.
> > > As to you, Christopher, take care and try to use common sense with
> > > your family. It's the best one can do.
> > ---------------------
> > Common sense is... common, that is, not advanced or exceptional, in
> > fact it is backward. It's the shit that USUALLY passes wrongly for
> > good sense!
> >
>
> Who said "common sense is not that common"?
>
> Anyway, Steve, I am just not interested in arguing with you. You
> provoked me to think and do some research on matters I knew little
> about and for this I am thankfull. But the more I learned, the less
> convincing your arguments became and the more I realised how out of
> touch with reality you are. So out of touch that you will never come
> back, and I do not feel compelled to try.
-------------------------
I figure that when you have had enough of something you don't like,
that you will go away. I have yet to see that.
Steve
Jacques Michel
> Why don't you just take it a step at a time and tell me what you
> want to say, and then I respond to it, and then you, etc.??
>
Because I use google and can read 11 years of your old posts.
> The other factoids that don't do so are merely more examples of
> how people can be Wrong about Human Nature, exactly as I say that
> THIS culture is Wrong.
>
This is one of the points we agree on.
> To show that my version of Human Nature is both real, and the best,
> all I have to show is that it is possibly so, and that only requires
> agreeable anthropolgical anecdotes to my Truth.
>
And this is where we do not agree. The fact that the present culture
is wrong does not make your construct a better one. Or even possible.
> And then all that is needed is to demonstrate the arguable assertion
> that there are good reasons why people will LIKE it better than what
> they have NOW!!!
>
> A better culture than what we have now CAN INDEED be assembled
> from spare parts that are shown to be human behaviors SOMEWHERE,
> and which can also be ones that people will LIKE!
>
> IF you lock a hundred naked people together in a pitch dark room,
> they will sooner or later give up and have sex and enjoy it.
>
Try it.
> > Anyway, Steve, I am just not interested in arguing with you. You
> > provoked me to think and do some research on matters I knew little
> > about and for this I am thankfull. But the more I learned, the less
> > convincing your arguments became and the more I realised how out of
> > touch with reality you are. So out of touch that you will never come
> > back, and I do not feel compelled to try.
> -------------------------
> I figure that when you have had enough of something you don't like,
> that you will go away. I have yet to see that.
That's a deal.
Jacques Michel
> Jacques Michel wrote:
>
> >>>kids are my egals, yet somebody has to make sure things are organised.
> >>>As it usually ends up being me, I can be somewhat dictatorial at
> >>>times.
> >>
> >>Has to make sure things are organized? Why must someone? Which things?
> >> Organized how? I organize things too, but that sounds like something
> >>that _could_ be completely reasonable or _could_ be very, very controlling.
> >
> > A familly is a group of people. Any group of people sometimes needs to
> > make some tasks together, or to share tasks between them. This
> > requires some organisation, if only to make sure everybody knows about
> > the tasks. Organisation is work. So somebody has to do it.
>
> But do you pick what your kids do toward these shared tasks?
Most of the time, the choice is self obvious, because the age
difference makes children unable to do certain tasks. Daily example:
cooking. Adults can deal with buying the groceries (although my oldest
is becoming old enough to be capable of doing so) and tasks that are a
bit dangerous (e.g. frying or boiling), children pick what is left
amongst laying the table, simpler cooking tasks, etc... OTOH, if they
want to do a particular task that I believe is unsuited to their age,
they can still try under adult supervision. Sometimes, they prove that
they can do the task indeed and that is fine.
> If so, how is that equal?
Sometimes the kids do organise things, too. I don't really understand
the problem.
> Do your kids get to organize your labor hours?
No. I don't organise those myself either. Neither do I organise their
school hours, or the times at which shops are open (no shop is open 24
hours a day where I live, it is prohibited by local law). Or the time
at which the sun rise and sets. Those are external constraints.
>
> > So why not "deprogram" her?
>
> I don't consider that my right beyond simple discussion.
>
OK. Maybe the word "deprogram" is badly chosen, it sounds too
negative. Why not teaching her to enjoy her sexuality in such a full
manner that she will like to have sex with other men?
R. Steve Walz
>
> "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in message news:<408AFA...@armory.com>...
>
> > Why don't you just take it a step at a time and tell me what you
> > want to say, and then I respond to it, and then you, etc.??
>
> Because I use google and can read 11 years of your old posts.
And so you don't want to respond to any of it?
> > The other factoids that don't do so are merely more examples of
> > how people can be Wrong about Human Nature, exactly as I say that
> > THIS culture is Wrong.
>
> This is one of the points we agree on.
>
> > To show that my version of Human Nature is both real, and the best,
> > all I have to show is that it is possibly so, and that only requires
> > agreeable anthropolgical anecdotes to my Truth.
>
> And this is where we do not agree. The fact that the present culture
> is wrong does not make your construct a better one. Or even possible.
--------------------------------
It's mere existence does not or any idiot could say that to justify
anything, but the simple fact that the features of this society I
would change happen to be evil, and the features I would add are
both pleasing, fairer, and an improvement, coulpled with the factoids
that other cultures of our species have incorporated each of them
elsewhere and elsewhen, is sufficient to show I'm right.
> > And then all that is needed is to demonstrate the arguable assertion
> > that there are good reasons why people will LIKE it better than what
> > they have NOW!!!
> >
> > A better culture than what we have now CAN INDEED be assembled
> > from spare parts that are shown to be human behaviors SOMEWHERE,
> > and which can also be ones that people will LIKE!
> >
> > IF you lock a hundred naked people together in a pitch dark room,
> > they will sooner or later give up and have sex and enjoy it.
>
> Try it.
--------------
I did! Not 100, but 23. Works great!
> > > Anyway, Steve, I am just not interested in arguing with you. You
> > > provoked me to think and do some research on matters I knew little
> > > about and for this I am thankfull. But the more I learned, the less
> > > convincing your arguments became and the more I realised how out of
> > > touch with reality you are. So out of touch that you will never come
> > > back, and I do not feel compelled to try.
> > -------------------------
> > I figure that when you have had enough of something you don't like,
> > that you will go away. I have yet to see that.
>
> That's a deal.
----------------
Yuh-huh.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> Most of the time, the choice is self obvious, because the age
> difference makes children unable to do certain tasks. Daily example:
> cooking. Adults can deal with buying the groceries (although my oldest
> is becoming old enough to be capable of doing so) and tasks that are a
> bit dangerous (e.g. frying or boiling), children pick what is left
> amongst laying the table, simpler cooking tasks, etc... OTOH, if they
> want to do a particular task that I believe is unsuited to their age,
> they can still try under adult supervision. Sometimes, they prove that
> they can do the task indeed and that is fine.
And that you're merely posturing.
> > If so, how is that equal?
>
> Sometimes the kids do organise things, too. I don't really understand
> the problem.
-------------------------------
Uh-huh.
> > Do your kids get to organize your labor hours?
>
> No. I don't organise those myself either. Neither do I organise their
> school hours, or the times at which shops are open (no shop is open 24
> hours a day where I live, it is prohibited by local law). Or the time
> at which the sun rise and sets. Those are external constraints.
----------------------
Posturing.
> > > So why not "deprogram" her?
> >
> > I don't consider that my right beyond simple discussion.
>
> OK. Maybe the word "deprogram" is badly chosen, it sounds too
> negative. Why not teaching her to enjoy her sexuality in such a full
> manner that she will like to have sex with other men?
--------------------------
Why not simply approve her secret desires without her having to dare
to mention them when they are quite conspicuously never discussed.
The source of most oppression is the failure to discuss a topic,
implying by omission that it is shameful. I am ever shocked to
hear that couples go decades never mentioning their most secret
desires to one another, whom they would enjoy fucking, what they
most prefer sexually, even more trivial things than that, for fear
some imagined offence of the other must somehow accrue.
Myself, I greatly enjoyed my wife enjoying her birthday gangbang
from a number of our male friends, I was kissing her while they
pleasured her every other part, her mouth virtually turned to
butter, and feeling her response in her breath was miraculous.
Steve
Christopher Weeks
> I don't want money or power, and I do get annoyed, that's all you
> perceive. Do I think I'm superior? Sure. Do I like it? No, it's
> very lonely. I would gladly prefer everyone know what I know.
I believe that. I enough smarter than average to know what you mean.
But I think that your getting annoyed greatly harms your message.
It also places understanding what the common man is capable of out of
your reach. How would you know what individuals are capable of
understanding? And if they're not capable of understanding The Truth,
how can it be right to harm them for it? You might answer pragmatism
and point to the end justifying the means. But how great will the world
be if you must kill literally 99.9% of the population?
In another time (when I was questioning the drain on the commune by
loafers and nincompoops) you asserted that we must assume everyone is
doing their best. But you don't assume that about your usenet peers
when you're annoyed. You assume that people are purposely lying and
cheating. Just like those shamed into preserving their virginity, I
think most of the people you abuse really believe, if wrongheadedly,
that they are trying to make the world a better place.
Chris
Christopher Weeks
>>But do you pick what your kids do toward these shared tasks?
>
> Most of the time, the choice is self obvious...children pick what is left
> amongst laying the table, simpler cooking tasks, etc...
What if they choose to read a book instead?
>> Do your kids get to organize your labor hours?
>
> No. I don't organise those myself either.
You don't organize your labor?
>>>So why not "deprogram" her?
>>
>>I don't consider that my right beyond simple discussion.
>
> OK. Maybe the word "deprogram" is badly chosen, it sounds too
> negative. Why not teaching her to enjoy her sexuality in such a full
> manner that she will like to have sex with other men?
What can I do more than suggest opportunities?
Chris
Christopher Weeks
>>To show that my version of Human Nature is both real, and the best,
>>all I have to show is that it is possibly so, and that only requires
>>agreeable anthropolgical anecdotes to my Truth.
>
> And this is where we do not agree. The fact that the present culture
> is wrong does not make your construct a better one. Or even possible.
He explicated his point more fully below that part of the note. If he
can show the elements of society that he favors have worked in other
social contexts and we can reasonably agree that people would be happier
under those constructs, is it better?
Chris
Jacques Michel
> Jacques Michel wrote:
>
> >>But do you pick what your kids do toward these shared tasks?
> >
> > Most of the time, the choice is self obvious...children pick what is left
> > amongst laying the table, simpler cooking tasks, etc...
>
> What if they choose to read a book instead?
I said in the beginning that I can get dictatorial. In this particular
case, I usually make clear that the likely consequence of their
attitude is that we will not be able to eat and will all get hungry.
;-)
>
>
> >> Do your kids get to organize your labor hours?
> >
> > No. I don't organise those myself either.
>
> You don't organize your labor?
>
I can't choose the hours.
> >>>So why not "deprogram" her?
> >>
> >>I don't consider that my right beyond simple discussion.
> >
> > OK. Maybe the word "deprogram" is badly chosen, it sounds too
> > negative. Why not teaching her to enjoy her sexuality in such a full
> > manner that she will like to have sex with other men?
>
> What can I do more than suggest opportunities?
>
I don't know your wife. Maybe get one of these "orgasm" videos from
Betty Dodson?
Jacques Michel
We can't know, because by changing a few elements we may bring
unsuspected problems. Especially when those "elements" are
non-trivial. Besides Steve only tells of the social context where his
"elements" work and carefully ignores whatever part of history which
does not suit his needs. For example, he supposes that we went
straight from (hypothetically) free-fucking hunter gatherers tribes to
European feodality, ignoring small things like, let me see... the
Roman Empire. Funny thing is the Roman Empire had extremely "tolerant"
views on sexuality (to the point of many parts of Pompei being
unsuited to young children...). You may also want to learn why and
when those views changed, it is quite interesting and shows that a
society that is open to sexuality can turn into a society that
represses it.
BTW: there were no free-fucking hunter gatherers tribes, of course.
R. Steve Walz
>
> R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > I don't want money or power, and I do get annoyed, that's all you
> > perceive. Do I think I'm superior? Sure. Do I like it? No, it's
> > very lonely. I would gladly prefer everyone know what I know.
>
> I believe that. I enough smarter than average to know what you mean.
> But I think that your getting annoyed greatly harms your message.
I believe in saying what I think. I believe that I must surely do
my cause a disservice, and myself and my audience a disservice by
anything other than the absolute truth.
> It also places understanding what the common man is capable of out of
> your reach. How would you know what individuals are capable of
> understanding?
---------------------
If I were always polite, don't you think I would be even MORE subject
to NOT KNOWING WHAT the hell people actually are and what they think
and feel and want!??? They have been brainwashed all their LIVES to
keep what they really feel from EVERYONE who is POLITE!!!!!
> And if they're not capable of understanding The Truth,
> how can it be right to harm them for it?
-------------------
Why, to prevent them from harming people who are good, of course.
People who do evil because of ignorance still do evil.
> You might answer pragmatism and point to the end justifying
> the means.
------------------
Good people have the right to eliminate the bad people, because the
good are the victims of the evil that the bad people do. That is the
reason.
> But how great will the world
> be if you must kill literally 99.9% of the population?
----------------------------
That's ridiculous. The vast majority of people can be made to do
anything if you threaten their lives even slightly. And most of
them would like tosee a change of that sort anyway! And then when
they find out how much better their lives would be under the system
I promote, you wouldn't be able to EVER talk them out of it, they'd
have a home free and clear, no fear of eviction, ever, guaranteed
medical care, retirement, and utilities, and training and amployment
for the asking and buying power amplified by the new productive
contribution of the labor of the formerly rich and spoiled and
indolent parasites, as well as those who are now employed keeping
books for the rich who could be making more consumer products if
their time was better used. We have a society in which only about
25% of the people actually make everything we use and do all
essential services. The rest of our labors are very misapplied
keeping track of what the poor own the rich, clerking, bookkeeping,
banking, investment functionaries, sales people, jobs that, in any
fair and equal society in which we all have a right to products,
don't actually have to be done anymore AT ALL! People can check
thselves out at the grocery store, simply scanning and listing
what they take and sign electronically for it and the computers
can keep track and determine whether someone took more than their
share, and can send them anote about it to take less next time.
All you need is a security guard or two. And people don't need
a bill from the power company, just put a meter on their house
that tells them whether they are ahead or behind their share for
the month, gives them a slop account for seasonal or exceptional
use, and then warns them when consumption is over and finally
turns them off for the rest of the month if they go too far over!
And telecom should be free, it actually costs too little to meter
even now.
> In another time (when I was questioning the drain on the commune by
> loafers and nincompoops) you asserted that we must assume everyone is
> doing their best.
-----------------
No, we must assume that their peer workers and the People can judge
them if they don't and fire them down to nastier jobs if they won't
do their share according to their peers. If they finally just won't
cooperate and do any work then we must starve them. But we MUST pay
them EQUALLY PER HOUR if we believe they are doing their share,
period. We have NO right to judge the KIND of job they do as less
"important" if WE want THEM to KEEP doing it!!
> But you don't assume that about your usenet peers
> when you're annoyed. You assume that people are purposely lying and
> cheating.
------------
They are. That's what people do when they are flustered and offended
but can't explain quite why precisely because their reason for being
so is entirely defective.
> Just like those shamed into preserving their virginity, I
> think most of the people you abuse really believe, if wrongheadedly,
> that they are trying to make the world a better place.
> Chris
--------------------------------
No, they know it won't deep in their heart, they know how it makes
them feel even if they are calling that feeling something stupidly
noble. On the inside of everyone's eyelids in the moments they aren't
running their mouth, they dream of a better world, and they admit to
themselves that the shit they do to others, to their families, to
others in their world, just isn't what they think they should do,
but they keep doing evil because they don't see how they can just
stop and leave themselves disadvantaged without others doing the
same. If someone were to force everyone else, however.....
Steve
R. Steve Walz
Take a stand against anything but the best life you can get.
Refuse to leave her behind, and to go forward without her to
prove it.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> Christopher Weeks <clw...@eclipse.net> wrote:
>
> > > And this is where we do not agree. The fact that the present culture
> > > is wrong does not make your construct a better one. Or even possible.
> >
> > He explicated his point more fully below that part of the note. If he
> > can show the elements of society that he favors have worked in other
> > social contexts and we can reasonably agree that people would be happier
> > under those constructs, is it better?
>
> We can't know, because by changing a few elements we may bring
> unsuspected problems.
Is that the best you can do to try to forstall changes in society
that look to be beneficial? Would that have been enough to keep
slavery, for instance, to keep women in bondage, to keep
child-labor, to keep feudalism or the divine right of kings? How
far back will you take us, Mister Shit-Ass-Backward?
> Especially when those "elements" are non-trivial.
--------------
ALL important changes in society had BETTER be NON-TRIVIAL!!
> Besides Steve only tells of the social context where his
> "elements" work and carefully ignores whatever part of history which
> does not suit his needs. For example, he supposes that we went
> straight from (hypothetically) free-fucking hunter gatherers tribes to
> European feodality, ignoring small things like, let me see... the
> Roman Empire.
----------------
The Roman Empire was something most Europeans never ever even saw!!
> Funny thing is the Roman Empire had extremely "tolerant"
> views on sexuality (to the point of many parts of Pompei being
> unsuited to young children...).
----------------
Not back then it wasn't, and now only Fundy Bigot Americans like
you seem screwed up about it!
> You may also want to learn why and when those views changed,
--------------------------
Fairly recently and as the last gasp of feudalism desperately trying
to drag everyone back to the Dark Ages.
> it is quite interesting and shows that a
> society that is open to sexuality can turn into a society that
> represses it.
-------------------------
It shows that a sick sect of Greek antisexuals can spread their
poison through selling it to the nobility to control their slaves!
The history of Europe ALSO SEEMS to show that a Roman democracy can
turn into the most vicious cruel feudalism on earth too, wanna pusue
THAT one, HMMMMM????? Bullshit. Change without examination, or by
a privileged minority is fraudulent!
> BTW: there were no free-fucking hunter gatherers tribes, of course.
-------------------------
Not true at all. Several exist now in Brazil, two fully documented.
The Canela come to mind, for one.
Steve