~ archived since 2018 ~

MGTOW and Abstinence

[deleted] · 2013-10-21T00:32:56+00:00

How many of you fellow MGTOWs abstain from sex? This means completely, as in conjunction with masturbation. Yes, how many of you completely abstain from any...

[deleted]

October 21, 2013

9 upvotes

/r/MGTOW

Archived from /r/MGTOW

r/MGTOW is a community for men going their own way by forging their own identities and paths to self-defined success; cutting through collective ideas of what a man is.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MGTOW archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	MGTOW and Abstinence
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	9
Comments	74
Date	October 21, 2013 12:32 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/1ovard/mgtow_and_abstinence/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/mgtow-and-abstinence.633203 https://theredarchive.com/post/633203

Comments

[–]Xlasingx7 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (65 children) | Copy Link

Something I can add, though not directly necessary to your question. Men are preconditioned physically and mentally to and for sex from the time we become sentient. Men do not need sex, per se, outside of the consideration, albeit, to the propagation of the species. It's rather a byproduct of the divisive pressure against the animal core instinct within all humans, focused on the male for monetary gains and simply put, power. This is consummate to the gynocentric societies, in which men have been brought up into to, no less, serve. This is coupled with brainwashing, i.e. humans, media, academia and hierarchy, which seems no less distinctly disingenuous to the role of a male throughout his lifetime, i.e. sex is continually encumbered upon the males brain for the purpose of control. I can say, since taking the red pill, to which now I consider myself a manufacturer of, I do not view women the same, to include sex, nor will I again. If something does manifest, it is controlled, though not a consideration of my time or thoughts.

Aside of religious reasons, etc., I see no need to abstain, except at the risk of your future and well being, which is paramount. Releasing yourself from sex as a topic within your thought spectrum would seem logical in allowing for more brain processing within the individual, which by and far, could allow for quite a bit more enrichment in your life, given the amount of time sex occupies mens thoughts, both current and post hence.

I know quite a few men, whom for no reason other than fear, whom abstain from sex, for the very reasons I've mentioned above, whether they consciously realize this or not. In my opinion, MGTOW is abstinence in more ways than just sex.

Good on you to bring this up.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (62 children) | Copy Link

I absolutely agree with you, a flawlessly written piece if I must add too. Now, I personally abstain to not only avoid being subject to the gynocentric system of society, but to also enrich myself as you said. However, abstinence does not simply make the mind less occupied by sex, oh no. Think about it like this; Biologically, as a male, you're only purpose is to inseminate an egg. Once that's done, you're dead. Now, all that energy that goes into the process of reproduction can be utilized with complete abstinence. I'm talking about controlling our reproductive power (yes, very funny), but it's true, men have reproductive power in the sheer vitality and strength of their essence (sperm). I know I may sound somewhat backward, but scientific data has shown that testosterone does indeed increase cognitive function (higher mathematical patterning ability). The number of studies regarding sperm and it's importance in the body are nil, but I think that may be due to the reasons you already listed (sex is used to control men). Moreover, throughout ancient history, sperm has been regarded as vital essence, and the waste of it, a tragedy. Regardless, I wanted to end off with the important point that male power is innate to his vital essence, if we conserve it, we experience what most would call "superpowers", such as increased strength, mental acuity, confidence, and the like.

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (53 children) | Copy Link

Biologically, as a male, you're only purpose is to inseminate an egg. Once that's done, you're dead.

Bullshit.

That's true of male spiders and certain other species where the young are "hatched" in large numbers and emerge almost fully formed and capable of independent living.

It is definitely NOT true of the species that have only a limited number of offspring and where the young have a significant period of infancy/childhood and adolescence.

Basically you've bought into the whole "feminist" bullshit myth that claims men/fathers are "unnecessary". In fact with humans, the opposite is true; it is women/mothers whose biological function is chiefly over birth, and almost entirely ends once the child is weaned. (And in fact, as children age, women/mothers are increasingly unable to handle the parenting, and often get more than a bit "unhinged" in the attempt. {See EDIT* at the end of this comment.})

But beyond that it is generally the male/father's role to provide, protect, and then train the children the rest of the way to adulthood.

In a society that is properly RUN by the men/fathers, then that is NOT a means of "controlling" men -- rather it is the means by which MEN traditionally controlled & guided society.

And it is the inversion/subversion of that -- flipping it on it's head and GUTTING men from authority -- which is why our current society has "gone off the rails" and become "emotion" based rather than "reason & logic" based (with politicians pandering to and manipulating women & treating everyone like children: the modern "state" of perpetual fear/crisis).

One of the reasons why so many "adults" these days (male and female) act as and remain ignorant & irresponsible "children" is that the FULL role of the father (that dreaded "patriarch") has been slowly reduced by absence (out of the home work, if not complete removal from the home & child's life) -- and then more recently usurped by the state (compulsory state schooling, state "control" of child-support monies, no-fault/no-reason divorce & disenfranchisment of fathers, VAWA, etc).

Probably THE primary reason I am (and plan to remain) MGTOW is that I refuse to bring children into existence in a society where the STATE and WOMEN (especially the modern western bitch-harpies) usurp and destroy the absolutely critical role of fathers.

If I ever move to another country where the role of the father is still given it's rightful place and respect ... then I will entirely reconsider marriage & children.

* EDIT:

This is supported both by what I have seen personally (in children of "woman-led" marriages/households) as well as by others (Cf a quote from a recent Dalrock article:

…you’d be quite surprised just how many women find child rearing to being psychologically difficult, to the point of involuntary psychiatric disease. One of the things that “blew me away” when I starting working as a family physician is the significant toll on psychiatric health that children bring, especially to women.

And I think this can also be said to be supported by data on things like ADD, ADHD, and ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder -- aka "unruly kid"), which are FAR more prevalent in single-mother households (and thus one of the reasons such diagnoses have become increasingly prevalent overall -- it parallels the rise of the single-mom & feminist-led households -- as does also the increasing pervasiveness of things like Prozac and other anti-psychotics to the mothers) the women are simply SO unable to "parent" the children, that their only alternative is to place the blame on the child, to label the kids as "brain-diseased", and to control their behavior via powerful "zombifying" pharmaceuticals.

I would further note as evidence to the effectiveness of MEN -- that in my personal experience working with a teen/youth group for over half a decade back in the 1990's -- as a MAN given charge over an entire GROUP of purportedly "unruly preteen & teenage boys" (initially 10 boys {ages 12-14} and eventually over 2 dozen {aged 10 to 19} -- the initial group being a cohort spanning 3 years/grades of similar-aged boys from a number of families {and an age group in which there were ZERO girls} in a small church community -- said group which had managed to "take the piss" out of ALL of the women and various "mangina" teachers in the church, such that no one else would agree to teach them) -- including several whom the mothers (either single or with partly-absentee fathers) claimed to be "at wits end" about and who they had been pushed to have medicated...

Anyway -- as even just a ~30+ year old MAN -- I was able to not only command almost instant respect from this group of supposedly "unmanageable" boys, but within mere weeks (and with a minimal amount of discipline, seldom even having to raise my voice -- no "drill instructor" antics were needed) I had them eating out of my proverbial hand (they would not only be attentive during classes, but even voluntarily stayed and wanted the classes to continue after the bell had rung -- at which time I often gained extra students in the form of boys who were in older & younger age groups -- they were so "starved" for male leadership that they willingly came and quietly joined their brothers & friends class!).

Plus, whenever/wherever I was present with any of them (the venue or presence of parents/peers didn't seem to matter) I was invariably able to stop & "correct" whining or other misbehavior with as little as a stare and stern look on my face and/or a mere slight "no" shake of my head; and within less than a year I was able to even pull the group of boys together and direct their actions as a group with mere hand signals from across a large room filled with other people. Said discipline & influence even extended (partially) into their home & school lives (especially the boys whose homes I had previously visited personally). It also seemed to "flow" -- almost via some psychic/unspoken "peer influence/emulation" -- to the various other children (older and younger, girls AND boys) in the church, even including just "friends" that happened to be present at some outside activity or event.

And remember these included the SAME boys that their mothers and teachers (both in the church and in their various schools) had labeled as "uncontrollable" to the point that they were contemplating using prescription meds on them.

THAT is the IMPORTANCE of the role of the Male/Father figure in human society.

It most certainly does NOT end at conception.

Even further the kids themselves recognize this -- the lack of and need for an active father-figure to guide AND discipline them -- they often HUNGER for it, even if they seldom express it.

A number of those boys stated out loud and in the presence of the rest of the group (which shocked me, knowing that "boys code" usually precludes such) that they wished that *I* actually COULD BE their father (and I was hardly "indulgent" nor was I rich, so it wasn't that they were seeking a patsy or some wealthy patron) and then several of the others openly agreed (somewhat pathetically, this sentiment was NOT limited to the fatherless boys with single moms). And then privately I had three different boys (the fatherless ones) who privately asked me if they could actually CALL me "Dad"! (And if you think them asking for that doesn't affect a guy... I tell you it was REALLY hard to control my emotions and keep tears from my eyes.*) I had to tell them I felt that would be "inappropriate" and potentially embarrassing, but that if they wanted, they could freely call me "Sir" and tilt/nod their head and we would both know that was "code" for them expressing a "Thanks Dad" sentiment, and that on the opposite side if I called them some nickname of "Sport" or "Junior" that was me expressing the same sentiment from the opposite side.

*Probably the only more emotionally moving thing was when I had to say "goodbye" to the group -- career changes had added a huge commute (and imminent relocation) and made it impossible for me to continue with the youth group -- we all openly shed a few tears (as did some of the boys' dads, men I had managed to get "reinvolved" in their sons' lives -- and who collectively BEGGED me to stay on, something which was simply not possible).

Note: I have managed to stay in touch with several of my former charges over the subsequent years (egads nearly 2 decades now!) -- as they went through college and got into careers & even started families -- even though they are scattered around several states, they keep me updated via occasional emails and photos; and in a certain sense, I still do think of them as more than just former students but as my adopted "sons", and they've all managed to (with a few missteps and errors) make me rather proud of having been able to play an important part in shaping their lives.

[–]Xlasingx3 points 12 years ago [recovered] (23 children) | Copy Link

Your references and statements are absolutely correct, especially in todays society. What "Androcato" was referring to, least I understood, is to biological imperatives. (I likely invoked this conversation as it stood. My apologies...) This is to say, simple human core functions of survival with a drive to procreate, such as Stardusk has stated, "eating, sh%$ing, pi$$ing, breathing, reproducing, dying...". Beyond this, there isn't much to derive need or ponder about the human existence until articulation and derived intelligence became part of our cultural makeup.

What you note in regards to feminist is exactly true, as they attempt to subjugate men, while attempting to render a mans existence irrelevant. A sounding resolute FU to any feminist whom drives to this conclusion.

It is extremely admirable of you to have taken such responsibilities with the youths in your life, teaching, coaching, developing. I simply cannot commend you enough here! I would wager, you will always be in their minds somewhere in a positive, respectful light. ~And I do agree, men do capture the attention and commanding correction, when it comes to youths. Eh, maybe not the brainwashed females, so much. Medicating kids, yeah, I hear you. It's a sickness, from the helicopter parents to the mangina fool to the "out of her wits" feminist mother. This sickens me, absolutely, sickens me.

Males are of the utmost importance as you have portrayed commendably. I applaud you sir! If I were in your position, having been called "Dad" and "Thank you sir", I don't believe I could hold back the tears either. You will always remember them and they will never forget you!

Other fathers, "BEGGED me to stay on""... I would have been one of them. When youths come into contact with a caring, nurturing, commanding parent type figure in their lives, not only does this have significant impact on both sides, though their development has likely been altered to the core as beneficial to their forward life. I have never looked upon a mans correction and discipline, as a bad thing, contrary, it is essential!

To those whom you still keep contact, I can say this. Been on both sides and yes, it is tough to miss them as they do you.

You sound like a very decent person. I look forward to future conversations. Great point by the way.

Cheers Sir!

~lasing

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

It is extremely admirable of you to have taken such responsibilities with the youths in your life, teaching, coaching, developing. I simply cannot commend you enough here!

Well, I kind of fell into it by accident -- actually I was "tricked/trapped" into it by the program leader...

I'd been in a "small group/study group" with a bunch of others that met on the same night as the youth program; and his wife (pregnant at the time) started attending the group, so he would stop by to pick her up, and I had (foolishly) gotten into the habit about "ribbing" him about the uniform (calling him "RaaangerRalph" etc).

And the following fall, he managed to sucker/trick/trap me into agreeing to serve as an "assistant/substitute" for about 3 weeks. I mean I protested... a single twentysomething guy who had no kids, no younger siblings, and just out of a six year relationship (licking my wounds) -- what the heck business or reason did *I* have to be working with kids? (And even from an "appeal" basis -- I mean I was in decent shape, but I'd never been a "team sport" kind of guy -- tennis, swimming, wrestling {til my back got thrown out}... but I was not the "Coach" type if you get where I am coming from -- plus I was generally more of a bookish nerd/mechanic type. People? Forget it. I'm not introverted or antisocial, but I've also never been a "group" kind of guy.)

But 3 weeks? While the regular "assistant leader" was on an out of town work assignment... yeah I could probably do that (at least help keep the urchins corralled and prevent them from going "pyro" and torching the place anyway).

Little did I know. The kids latched onto me like flies to flypaper... and they didn't let go. (Little buggers even got me to get the HS-age program going when they "aged out" of the junior-high one).

Keep in mind this was a DIFFERENT era, it was 20+ years ago -- late 1980's into the early 1990's -- long before the "pedo-paranoia" took root. (But there were starting to be "rumblings" near the end, and while it wasn't THE reason I quit... I could see trouble brewing, and that certainly contributed to me getting out of the program: the newly hired "mangina" former social-worker now youth-pastor that had started and almost immediately began gossip behind my back {and I later learned a lot more extensively than I was aware at the time} that a -- by then mid-30-something -- single guy working with teen boys was "weird"; and he especially attacked the fact that the program was "boys only" -- for which he had a especial hatred, since he blamed it for the failure of his first "coed teen" program, which the boys in my program thought was "cheesy, childish & stupid").

So while I don't regret ANY of the years and effort I did put into it -- but (more's the pity) if it were NOW... I'd never go within 100 miles of such a program, and I would strongly CAUTION any other male from becoming involved either. Because YES, it has gotten that bad.

Which of course just makes the problems even MORE acute. Kids have FEWER quality male fathers and father-figures; and -- since the rational/sensible men stay away -- chances of someone with "deviant" motives is actually MORE likely to be who they get stuck with.

In some senses, it's somewhat akin to MGTOW... the better/smarter men are backing off of women -- we've done the math and determined it ISN'T worth the risk.

But that doesn't mean women will cease having kids -- they'll find some "sperm-squirter" to act as their stud (they'll do the "turkey baster" routine from a sperm bank, or bedsome drunk PUA at a bar, or if they need to they'll even go "cougar" fashion & trick some underage teen into it.)

Males are of the utmost importance as you have portrayed commendably. I applaud you sir! If I were in your position, having been called "Dad" and "Thank you sir", I don't believe I could hold back the tears either. You will always remember them and they will never forget you!

Well it was difficult enough not to with the kids who didn't have fathers -- that just tugs on your heartstrings (frigging "Oliver!" types -- showing up with ratty clothes, holes in socks, worn-out shoes {which you find out from their friends are their "best" pair, and that the reason the kid DIDN'T show to event X was he was ashamed of his clothes etc}).

But when the other boys joined in with the "wish you were MY dad" sentiment...

I mean, I could even partly understand it with the brothers whose father was partly disabled (though the lack of an arm didn't seem to stop him from engaging in activities HE wanted to for his own pleasure -- per example he played on the church ball team -- but he continually used it as an excuse to NOT do things with his sons.)
But in a very real sense, it was the WORST (hardest to bear) with the boys who HAD their fathers IN their homes (i.e. what is called an "intact" nuclear family)... Because THAT tugs on your heartstrings in an entirely different way (it's not just sadness and sympathy, but mixed with pity, disgust, outrage and anger!) Neglect IMO is nearly (not quite, but almost) as bad as outright abuse.

It is extremely admirable of you to have taken such responsibilities with the youths in your life, teaching, coaching, developing. I simply cannot commend you enough here!

I didn't write it looking for attaboys; and quite frankly I disavowed the "attaboys" I got back then as well. (And this is events that I was involved in two decades ago.)

I wrote it for the specific purpose I stated -- to note the NEED and the VALUE of the MAN/FATHER in terms of our society.

That it is (IMO definitive proof that) women -- even the smart, very nuturing kind -- really CANNOT properly parent children to adulthood. In my experience the female gender is just generally "out of their element" when it comes to "parenting" children much past their toddler years -- and definitely not once they are past puberty -- if all kids have, or if their MAIN parent is "mom" (or mom + mangina-dad) then it's a total "crapshoot"... they're on their own (some might make it OK, but be much worse for the wear, others fall into any of a dozen different traps, or simply don't become "adults" at all even if they live another 50+ years -- perpetual children).

Other fathers, "BEGGED me to stay on""... I would have been one of them.

Yeah well, don't be so fast to say that, it wouldn't exactly make me your fan.

And I wouldn't really appreciate the statement. Because you see, my internal reaction to that was NOT what you might think.

In fact, it both disgusted me... AND made me despair.

It disgusted me because these men were STILL seeking to have someone else take the responsibility for THEIR role. (Their sons needed THEM to teach and lead... not an outsider.)
It made me despair, because I had hoped they would "step up" and continue the program -- that they would BE the fathers their sons (and in some cases daughters too) needed and wanted THEM to be -- and then the additional hope/prayer was that they would help father the other boys/kids in the community who had no one.

And alas, more's the pity, the "despair" was proven correct. The program only continued for one more year (slowly falling apart)... and the following year the "mangina" leaders (who I had ALWAYS had to contend with to keep a "gender separate" program going) managed to kill it off in favor of a "professional-youth-pastor-led" program that was a "coed 'teen challenge' program" (BTW, the end result of which, was that within the next 3 years one of the boys got locked up on "sex offense" charges {it was even in national news, pre-Romeo/Juliet laws and an agressive "feminist" DA looking to make a name for herself}, another boy got a girl pregnant while they were still in high school, and two of the others dropped out) -- the touchy-feely psycho-babble "co-ed" program had managed to significantly undermine just about everything I had spent 6+ years teaching (wrecked a couple of the kids parents' marriages as well, but that's another story).

Because I and the leader-boys had stayed in touch (as much by their efforts as mine, so NO applause please) -- I did manage to intervene in a positive way in a couple of the worst scenarios that happened after I left...

One kid who I know I literally prevented (by about 5 minutes) from committing suicide.

Having been told something was wrong, I called him on that night on his cell phone... reached him when he was 50 feet from the end of the breakwater where he claims he intended to just dive in (and had he actually jumped in, he doubtless WOULD have been done for: given that he couldn't swim, plus the time of year, water temp and the way the breakwater is situated) -- talked him back to his car, met him for a cuppa coffee... and, while it took a lot of effort over the months and years afterward, together we got him stable and on his feet (he's 36 now and doing well, got his own place about an hour drive away from me -- I still see and talk to him every few months).

End of story: no regrets, and it taught me a LOT about society -- stuff I didn't fully comprehend previously (and/or maybe just didn't want to believe) -- learned a LOT about just how "insane" (and in the end "selfish/self-centered") most women/mothers really are, and also just how far from the mark the vast overwhelming majority of men have fallen.

But of course I also think that the effort -- despite what I learned, and the enjoyable aspects of the experience -- the whole thing was largely futile.

There is the REMOTE possibility that the boys (now men) that I worked will will "carry the ball" to the next generation (at least with their own sons) ... but as difficult as it was for me to do that program back then, well it was NOTHING compared to the forces against such a thing NOW...

But who knows...

[–]Xlasingx2 points 12 years ago [recovered] (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xlasingx1 points 12 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

If my son grows to be half the man you are, then I shall be whole.

Egads I'd hope he does a damned sight better than me.

I'm a good for nothing lazy jackass at least half the time -- and a royal arsehole the other half.

I get you don't want credit

Yeah see that's not true. I do want the "credit" for things I have achieved (and probably NOTHING pisses me off more than when some other fucker claims credit for PHYSICAL or MENTAL PRODUCTIVE WORK that I have done).

But to me that is vastly different than what I view as worthless "attaboys".

Don't get me wrong, I've dispensed plenty of "attaboy!" statements to youngsters myself... but in those cases it is meant not as some citation of merit (which to have any value has to come from someone you know sufficiently well in order to RESPECT*) -- but rather as a motivator (to encourage the kids to keep working at something they are making progress on -- its inappropriate for THAT kind of "attaboy" to apply to me working with kids, because I simply DON'T anymore. I stopped. Cold Turkey. Done. Over. And {probably} never again.)

*BTW no disrespect intended by that, but the reality is that I don't know you (you're like me, an anonymous account on the interwebs) plus your dispensing the the "credit" is based on the story told through my fingers -- and which while I'm NOT trying to be grandiose (and really the boys group I led was a trivial thing in the grand scheme, it's not like we stormed the Alamo! or saved a boatload of drowning people or anything -- I mean I tried to impart some wisdom while I worked with them on and taught them some life skills, some mechanical stuff, computers & programming things, took them deep country backpacking and "boy scout" like stuff like that; important to their development yes, but I was just doing -- and in fact a pale minimal imitation of -- what REAL fathers have been doing {or at least USED to do} for countless centuries). But at the same time I'm only giving a brief summary, hitting the "tops of the bumps" and what I have written is ~~probably~~ DEFINITELY missing a lot of the cruder warts and missteps and screwups and stuff -- I mean while the kids definitely liked and respected me, I know there were also times they hated my guts (just naturally tends to happen during 10 day long backcountry hikes ya know ;-)

though how many times have you helped someone.

Yeah... on that I tend to be a sucker for hardcases and lost causes... kind of a fool and idiot that way (but not in a patsy sense, I'm aware of what I'm doing, even when it's stupid/futile).

And I guess I see that as what people (men) ideally SHOULD be -- that it should be the DEFAULT, the "mediocre" -- rather than it being some "superman" thing.

In fact I guess when it gets lauded as a "superman" thing... that just depresses me, because if we've sunk THAT far... yikes.

I bet you cannot count all those times. You are remarkable! So say I to the growing list in your life...

I normally try to NOT "count" them. Besides I've been the recipient of help too -- even from the boys in the group. (Shit one Christmas they pooled their change and well... they DIDN'T {couldn't} know, but I was so tight for cash, maybe had all of $5 in my wallet and bare {I mean bare} cupboards -- long story short: troubled business, miscalculations, invoices out but delayed checks coming in, anyway -- they gave me like a book of those "McDonald's" gift-coupon thingees, I think it was like $10 or $20 worth or something... anyway, I lived off of those for about a week {rationed out sparingly: two plain burgers a day with ice water}, and they lasted me just long enough until a big check came in. So that "gift" those boys gave me, actually kept me from... well I can't say "starving", but from having to alternately fast or having to abase myself and "beg friends for food money".)

:'-)

But as for COUNTING -- I try not to so that my head doesn't get TOO frigging puffed up. (Keep in mind even WITH this -- with me generally NOT "tooting my horn" -- people still think I'm an arrogant bastard.)

Folks/men. One day shall see those whom made a difference, a positive one. You shall be counted. You are what men, John Wayne alike, believe in.

Ask one of those youths you speak of, "whom am I most like". Aside of hero, you'll likely hear the same as here. (Course, if they know whom John Wayne is.)

Yeah, see now that's like totally overboard.

First of all while I liked a lot of the characters he played... John Wayne himself was pretty much a drunken rat-bastard in real life... and of course WAS only an "actor" playing a bunch of parts (sorry... I don't hold much for modern "celebrity" worship).

But HERO? Again nah mate, wrong guy...

I've never really put my life at risk (well, maybe that one night with the black bears, I did purposefully and consciously take "the point-risk" to drive off both of the bears -- and to pointedly keep the two dads along with the boys themselves well in the back -- but Blacks are really more "bluff" than bite, they're not Grizzlies; and I can "bluff" too in a pretty scary fashion, biggest danger was probably having a frigging coronary.)

Other than that, I mean I generally do my best to PLAN shit and to think things through 20 different ways in advance in order to KEEP my arse from being in risky or dangerous situations to begin with. (I'm actually REALLY "anal" about that.)

Motto's pretty much always been "Be Prepared" (but halfway between the Lehrer song and the Boy Scout motto).

[–]Xlasingx1 points 12 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

My apologies for not responding again, ran into a house issue, that needed addressing asap.

No man. You're just right, please do not change. Yeah, we didn't know each other till now.

Good to meet you.

Also, no human whom helps another human is a sucker, not in my book.

Wow, the boys helping and you surviving on burgers and water. Geez, what a mind f#Z$. This is both courageous and hard felt.

Arrogant works when you can back it up, most cannot. You seem to accomplish this alright..

Hero, sorry man, too late!

Chime in on me anytime and course keep me honest!

The world is a better place because of men like you and yeah, I don't know you, though I can see genuine a mile from then. "The" world. Hopefully it can be rescued and folks like you are leading the charge.

I'll be reading up on this thread more so, once I have a bit more time. Great thread and excellent conversations!

lasing

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My apologies for not responding again, ran into a house issue, that needed addressing asap.

No apologies necessary... Reddit is a come & go as you please kind of place.

And there are easily times where I am not on here for days or weeks -- and sometimes I accidentally miss or skip comments and such (so don't take offense if I don't reply, I may simply not have seen it).

Also, no human whom helps another human is a sucker, not in my book.

Well, there are a couple of sides to that.

You most certainly CAN be a sucker or patsy -- there are plenty of people who go through life as a kind of "petty con artist" playing the "perpetual victim" role, or the up/down/up/down again cycle (in an pendulum fashion) -- using/abusing someone's generosity until it is drained, trying to "show" some progress and then if that fails to reopen the assistance, they move on to their next "supplier/patsy".
Others don't intend to be that (or at least they don't start out that way), but fall into it, in part due to a little TOO much willingness of others to repeatedly jump to their aid: a kind of debilitating "learned helplessness" eventually sets in (and this can then transform them into the kind that go through the cycle above). It really tends to be prevalent with people who get into abusing alcohol and/or drugs (which certainly CAN be caused by problems -- but also generally cause a host of other problems) -- but of course that is far from the only "crutch" that serves the cycle.
So, the REALLY difficult thing is how to ~~know~~ decide or choose (because you can never really KNOW) when to offer help, versus when the best thing you can do for someone, is to blatantly do absolutely nothing... nothing at all (or even tougher, to help... but only to a certain point and then "draw the line", which you HAVE to stick to); to basically force them then to rely upon themselves the rest of the way -- to give them a hand up, but then to LET them be responsible to dust themselves off, wipe their own tears & licks their own wounds... and start to run the race again... all on their own.

Because if you don't... then scenario #3 can easily become scenario #2, which can lead to a life as #1.

Wow, the boys helping and you surviving on burgers and water. Geez, what a mind f#Z$. This is both courageous and hard felt.

What... that's hardly the worst thing in the world.

There have been many times in my life when I had even less, and survived on less (it doesn't hurt that I'm a relatively small guy -- stable weight around 145/150, but back then I was probably around 135/140 -- and my metabolism has always been able to handle both a "gorge" and a several day "fast").

I'll admit that a week of plain burgers can get boring and I wouldn't recommend it on a continual basis... but for a week? No big deal. I mean I probably could have survived that week on just the $5 I had in my wallet, but it would have been a lot tougher (plus of course I didn't know when the checks were going to come in, it could easily have been another week or two beyond that, as it was I basically still had the $5 and about half the book of coupons when the cash started flowing again).

Oh, and there's nothing wrong with plain water -- most beverages that people buy are largely water anyway (soda is probably 95% water, coffee probably 99% water, etc).

Arrogant works when you can back it up, most cannot. You seem to accomplish this alright..

Heh. My standard line is that I'm really not "arrogant", I'm just normally right, and I am simply confident about it. And when people claim that their problem with me is that "You... you... you just always HAVE to be right all the time!" -- well, I explain that I try to do my research thoroughly before I arrive at my conclusion and opinion... and I ask them if they think I should reverse or skip that part (which is what they seem to do)... normally that shuts them up (well, the jaw tends to open & shut, as if they're about to respond... but they seldom find any words to actually say).

I mean what else are people striving for? To be wrong? To not care if they are right or wrong? To not give a shit and just go with their gut feel? Or to go along with what other people think/want when you are fairly certain that it isn't correct? Obviously no one is going to actually BE "right" 100% of the time... but to criticize people for endeavoring to get close; or imply that they should go along with what they know to be wrong or wasteful or illogical, and to do wo without saying anything at all, attempting to correct it ... well, that seems to me to be a bit inane (and far more worthy of criticism).

Hero, sorry man, too late!

Nah... again not (and that's not false modesty, most of what I've done in my life is pretty trivial).

Plus, that word gets used WAY too often these days, makes it lose meaning.

The world is a better place because of men like you and yeah, I don't know you, though I can see genuine a mile from then. "The" world. Hopefully it can be rescued and folks like you are leading the charge.

Ah... but I'm not leading any charge. Nor am I trying to rescue the world (I may be a bit arrogant, but I'm not that arrogant).

Plus, I'm not sure the "world" needs rescuing, nor that if it did, there would be any way to rescue it.

And as for civilization, our society ... I think one of the chief things that is destroying it -- that causes untold, often needless, purposeless suffering -- is this penchant people have for trying to "rescue" it (or at least the claim that that is what they are trying to do... all too often it seems to end up requiring that they be paid some lavish salary or permanent sinecure along the way to the purported "saving" they claim to be about).

I think we'd all be better off if people simply cared a bit more about (and maybe tried a bit LESS to take advantage of, or even trying to compared themselves to and compete with/outpace) those NEAR them. And moreover, I think even THAT -- the "caring" (or purported caring) -- needs to be done a lot more consciously, or perhaps conscientiously is a better word... in a care-full, and not in care-less fashion.

There is a sentiment from some philosophies and ancient societies that (paraphrased) is "If you save the life of a person, then you take on some burden for them... forever." And I know that stands in contrast or "tension" with what I had stated previously with my 3 numbered "help" scenarios... but I think both are actually true at the same time: they coexist despite their seeming contradiction. When you step in to "help" someone, you are altering their life -- and that somehow creates a "bond" or "commitment" between you -- it does not mean that they have a "blank check" on all your resources, nor that you are permanently required to perform additional acts on their behalf without limit... but it does mean that you need to take at least some of the responsibility for the outcome.

IMO, one cannot simply toss people alms and then walk away entirely washing your hands of the effect(s) of your action(s) -- that is not really being responsible, its not being care-full, but rather is very care-less. (It's one reason that I generally avoid giving money to what I think of as "distant" or large charities & organizations -- in addition to the fact that I know {via research} that most of such money never reaches it's purported recipients, it is also to my mind not "responsible" in that one never knows whether what was done was actually the right thing to do... or whether it will be more debilitating instead of helpful, because I know that "assistance" even with the most noble intentions can often simply cause more suffering).

So... as to whether my actions have truly made the world a "better place" -- of that I am never quite certain. Definitely my existence and choices have had a significant effect on a number of people's lives -- and I have tried to be mindful and care-full of the reality of that (even while aware that I cannot KNOW the end effects, that I am in many ways operating "blind" on intuition) -- and I do try to follow up to the extent that I am able to (or that I have any "right" to, since people's live are THEIRS to live and not mine to control).

And I like to think that at the end of the day... well, that I've at least done more good than harm.

But I'm not certain that I'll ever really be sure of that... not in this life anyway.

Yes that does sometimes STOP me from doing things. (Lots of businesses and business ideas for example end up staying in my filing cabinet because I question the ethics of them... not that any are truly UNethical {no "Breaking Bad" meth labs or anything} but rather whether they are going to be truly "ethical" AND "beneficial" -- accomplishing more good than harm, sufficient to warrant the effort that will be involved in monitoring them and being responsible for them... when I am uncertain of it, well THAT in when they stay in the cabinet.)

At the same time -- I am aware that choosing to NOT do something -- well THAT is a choice as well.

So, I don't really debilitate myself with "anxiety" over past choices. As the saying goes, Once you've made your bed you have to (or get to) sleep in it that way.

BTW, sorry for the philosophical "zen" digression, but writing on this... well, I'm just kind of in that "contemplative/reflective mood" right now... and I hope that wasn't TOO darned confusing (toss the chaff an keep whatever few kernals of grain you might find there).

Cheers!

[–]Xlasingx1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Xlasingx1 points 12 years ago [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xlasingx1 points 12 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just as an FYI... when you reply to your own comment, I don't get an orangered envelope thingee. Not to belabor the point (it's all good) but I saw these only by chance 'cause I came back and loaded the full thread.

I would NEVER pawn my kids off to someone for my own benefit. (Had to say that.)

Well, in a sense nearly everyone does this in some way or another -- even if it's just sending the kids to school, or when they join some sports team or something -- even the most active parent can't be involved in everything that their child does...

Nor in some ways SHOULD they be. If your parents are directly involved in leading all of a kids groups, well the kid tends to end up with a host of potential problems because of it (feeling "smothered" or that the 'rents don't trust them, etc) -- just go look up the "stress and Preacher's Kids" phenom (they often end up as two faced "Jekyll & Hyde" people).

From my perspective part of being a "really good Father" is introducing your son to the "world of men", and that includes introducing him to and allowing him to befriend and be tutored by other men who may have careers or abilities & skills that are different than your own, and to teach them things that are potentially beyond your reach (or at least your experience).

Probably one of the NEATEST things to see (EVER!!!!!!) is when a partial "role reverse" happens -- an otherwise "moody" teen boy has some new experience or learned some new thing (say Fly Fishing or something) -- come home all excited about it -- and the Dad (actually REALLY listening) admits that he's never learned much about that, but always wanted to ... and then this "magic" happens the kid LIGHTS UP! You mean DAD is interested in THIS TOO!?!?!?!?! Maybe the boy can show his dad a thing or two; and then... they can do it together sometime? (Puhlease!!!) That would be SOOOO coool!

And the "role reversal" is CRITICALLY important, boys need to learn that they too can TEACH skills to others... (including older men... even DAD!) -- because THAT is the male/father role: teaching & guiding.

Basically they "connect" in a way they probably never did before. And of course the kid probably WON'T just be "teaching" -- the dad is older and has (or should have) a lot WIDER experience, much of which will (should) be applicable even to an entirely new skill or task. (Even if it's just:* "Ok, son... now I understand how that works... but to be safe, we should make certain that the extension cord is rated for a higher voltage the one you got there is just a lampcord, and it's not designed for..."* etc.)

Of course I'm digressing all over the place.

My problem with the dad's was not that they wanted to "pawn" their kids off on me; but rather that they didn't seem willing to "step into the breach" when it was needed (and when their sons obviously needed them to do so -- IOW this was NOT about "women burdening men" this was all about Sons & Dads and the way knowledge & training are SUPPOSED to happen -- about men being in charge and TAKING charge, rather than being passive followers).

[–]Xlasingx1 points 12 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xlasingx1 points 12 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xlasingx2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Something else. No man is a "thrownaway"!

Doesn't even calculate. Sorry. Can not do!

LOL. Made me think of this clip

:-D

I didn't intend and never even read/saw the username to mean THAT!

The "thrownaway" was just intended to refer to the account, not to me!

I normally use Reddit under other account names -- and there was some damned thing or another (I think under /r/RedPill? or maybe it was /r/MensRights) that I wanted to comment on...

But I figured what I was going to write would be really controversial that I'd end up with LOTS and LOTS of SRS type "stalker-attacks" following me around in all of the other subreddits and giving me grief...

So I pulled a new "throwaway" Reddit account, and tagged it with MGTOW because that was the relevant issue. IOW I never intended to continue using this account for anything... but I have kind of defaulted (by accident) to continue using it for MGTOW/Men's issue posts and comments -- keeps it from getting all intermixed/intermingled with my other online comments.

Cheers!

[–]Xlasingx1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Excellent clip, I remember this movie. ;-)

TWO DOLLARS! I want my TWO DOLLARS!

LOL.

When it comes to depression, simply making it through the day, etc.. Do you have any advice? My experience, to include me, this would help men I've seen and frankly, given you've been through entirely too much, I'm just guessing, you have a wealth of knowledge, that quite a few could benefit from. My word, I'll preach to those whom shall listen.

Oy...

Well if you're talking about clinical depression (i.e. being depressed with no real reason) then I'm not sure I've really got anything to say as I'm fairly sure I've never experienced it.

Have I been depressed -- oh yes, sometimes DEEPLY, so much that I didn't want to get out of bed or move or do anything at all.

But it's never been without a reason -- I have always been able to reflect and in some instances the cause(s) are obvious and simple (death of a friend or loved one, obvious financial problems or other things in the world or with people I know), and in others it might take a while to identify them.

And then there is generally well, really only two thing TO do: If it is something you CAN do something about, then you need to buck up and do what is necessary. For the things you can't do anything about -- other than perhaps grieve or be sad -- well, I guess I just give myself permission to BE sad and grieve for a day, or a week, or a season; but at the same time to realize that like a "jackass standing in the rain" sometimes you just need to be out and about and endure it.

Beyond that, I guess I have found that setting small tasks -- goals of things to accomplish (day by day, even if only a short amount of time: that I WILL do this thing {even if it is as trivial as read another chapter in a book, or clean a room, or check two things off of a checklist of "things to do when you have the time") -- and then ESPECIALLY it seems to help if I am doing something for/with someone else; the pleasure of accomplishing something is a balm, and the working alongside someone else seems to be invigorating.

But as for me having "been through too much"... I guess I find that puzzling... I think I've actually led a fairly boring and uneventful, even rather "spoiled" life that really hasn't had all that much for difficulties -- it' all been rather "first world problems".

Even when I've been poor and down on my luck, I've never really LACKED for anything -- hungry sometimes, yeah, but NOT in anything like what could be called a debilitating "starvation" sense.
And as far as injuries... well other than cracking my head one too many times, and once denting (or at least trying to dent) some asphalt with my face (and cracking the left cheek bone) -- and of course the dent in my head when I got stoned (big rock dropped) on my head when I was a kid (I think 4 yrs old?) -- but never anything that required more than a couple stitches; no casts or crutches or anything...
Same with career & finances; I've worn a lot of different "hats" and had several different trades/careers (if you can call them that I guess) -- and had my own businesses be both wildly successful and then had the world change and lost everything on a calculated gamble that didn't pay off, and ended up-to-my-eyeballs in debt that I had to work to pay off... but I've never lacked for a warm place to sleep; or decent clothes to wear; or really had to suffer anything more than minor annoyances in terms of other catastrophes: minor losses to storms/floods and stuff like that... so you know.
And then in terms of close/intimate friends & relatives... yeah I've lost more than my share over time; some I've just lost touch with or moved distant from or it became clear that the relationship was "over" and best parted; others just "disappeared" (through no fault or choice of theirs) when I probably needed/wanted them most; still others died in accidents or of age/disease; and alas more's the pity one friend when I was young (too young) committed suicide (nothing I could do -- even though I knew he had problems -- and seldom is there a week or month when I am not reminded of him in some way or another); and then just a few years back lost another due to addiction problems (again, I'd tried... but ultimately we make our own choices and lives). But even with that, I still am in touch with some of my earliest childhood friends, my immediate family are all still living and healthy, etc.

I guess all told, it hasn't been an entirely boring life -- but then there's nothing all that unusual or uncommon in any of that (in terms of my personal experience) -- or in fact in ALL of it. Nothing that many many many other people my age probably haven't also been through or seen or done.

I mean by comparison to others that I know... things my father had to deal with (growing up in the great depression, losing his dad -- my grandad, who I am named after, but never met -- at age 19 in a farm accident, then being the oldest son in a family of 6 kids, having to run the farm and basically take his dad's place... and a host of other things he's lived through -- and still lives with); or further back what I know from family history that other prior generations have endured, and their parents even more so before them...

Well... by contrast, I've had a pretty darned sweet, "cushy" life (at least so far... and it's probably "cushier" now than ever before) -- Now it hasn't always been some "Life of Riley" -- and its never been a jet setting around the world to "chunder" while slumming in ghettos -- no trust fund riches or richie-rich benefactors... but then I don't think I would want any of that if it was offered: it really doesn't hold any appeal to me.

And wealth of knowledge -- again not to sure of that; things I've experienced and thoughts about them, or stories/tales to tell... sure.

But all "old(er) farts" have a host of those. And much of what I "know" is now useless... or near enough, because much of the world has changed since I learned it. Other things -- basic fundamental things -- certainly those are still useful, but I'm hardly the sole possessor of those. And most of that is generally already written down, recorded by other long before I came around (now granted a lot of what is/was written is intermixed with stuff that's wrong, or nonsense, and the "good stuff" is often buried beneath or surrounded by a babble of bullshit -- but it's still there for those who want it -- and I'm not sure anything I would add to the pile would be any better than what other have {I've probably got my own mixture of wrong, plus bullshit babble that would end up getting mixed in too!}).

And as for advice... I often try not to give that... too much of a burden if it goes wrong.

Really the only, or at least chief thing that can be said of anything in life -- and it goes for the small, the large, the good and the bad, the easy and the difficult, and that is: This too, shall pass.

Whatever it is you are experiencing, eventually it will change, or your attitude towards it will -- and in the rearview mirror years later, things that has seemed to be insurmountable mountains, tend instead to have merely been hills you had to climb a bit slower... but eventually (one way or another) you will have gotten over them or managed to get past them and continued on your way.

Cheers and best wishes.

Note: I probably won't be back on here for a couple days... busy end of week and weekend ahead. So don't take an absence of response from me the wrong way.

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What "Androcato" was referring to, least I understood, is to biological imperatives.

Which is STILL complete bullshit.

The "biological programming" in regards to human males is FAR more than merely "sperm squirting".

The species where that is true... the males in fact DO simply "die" after they have done that.

This is to say, simple human core functions of survival with a drive to procreate, such as Stardusk has stated, "eating, sh%$ing, pi$$ing, breathing, reproducing, dying...". Beyond this, there isn't much to derive need or ponder about the human existence until articulation and derived intelligence became part of our cultural makeup.

Excuse me but this is ridiculously "sloppy" thinking.

Procreation accomplishes NOTHING in evolutionary terms if you offspring does not SURVIVE to procreate in turn.

ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH.

[–]Xlasingx3 points 12 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

All the comments to biological programming is to say that without intelligent thought within, humans, like any other animal, apply survival instincts, with no intellect in this description or action.

Nope.

When humans have no "intelligent thought within" they are quickly dead, because humans do not HAVE "instincts".

Yes, like a spider or an unintelligent animal. Humans have basic instincts.

Nope. Humans have SENSES, and we have certain biological systems and urges that drive us, but humans really do NOT have anything like "instincts" of animals. Compare and contrast:

If we drop you or any other human (sans your "intelligence" -- you get no "pre-training", carry no reference books, no smartphone) into a woods or jungle with a host of different fruits & berries, etc -- some perfectly edible and suitable for human consumption, and some that are toxic poisons -- what do you think the chances are you'd be dead from poison within a day? week? month?
Yet if we drop a bear, or a raccoon (or virtually any other mammalian omnivore) into that environment -- they will probably do just fine.

THAT is what "instinct" is all about; and quite frankly you (and I) simply don't HAVE any.

Our "instincts" were tossed aside in favor of intelligence. The "ROM based hardcoded OS" got DITCHED in favor of a "RAM based open source software OS" that can be continually upgraded.

On this I am in agreement with and will cite Maslow, who basically...

Psychologist Abraham Maslow argued that humans no longer have instincts because we have the ability to override them in certain situations. He felt that what is called instinct is often imprecisely defined, and really amounts to strong drives. For Maslow, an instinct is something which cannot be overridden, and therefore while the term may have applied to humans in the past, it no longer does.

We CAN (and often DO) override our mating drive -- ergo the very subject of this thread: abstinence, -- that there is even a WORD for it is proof that we do not have a mating "instinct", but rather sexual/intimacy "drives".

No one is saying, someone with today intellect would live by this nor would it apply once intellect is developed.

You think that "today's intellect" is somehow all that significantly more capable than humans that lived 3,0000 or 6,000 or even 10,000 years ago?

I sincerely doubt that (there is zero evidence of it, and in fact plenty of evidence to the contrary).

The only thing that makes us "superior" is what we have inherited in the form of the extensive accumulated body of knowledge along with applied knowledge in the form of "technology" i.e. machinery & tools, etc.

But while possession and understanding of these ARE passed from generation to generation -- it is done so in the form of "teaching/training" -- the knowledge is in the external "physical" world (where it can be "scaled" and disseminated and go "viral" -- i.e. it doesn't have to be passed on genetically, and in fact it ISN'T passed on genetically, not even LANGUAGE passes that way).

It is NOT that we are all intellectual "giants" compared to people 3,000 years ago, rather we stand higher and see farther because we are standing on the proverbial "knowledge" shoulders of the generation prior to us, who in turn are standing on the generation before, etc...

And we REALLY get to see HUGE distances because here and there -- seemingly at random among those who came before us... there in fact WERE occasional "giants" in intellectual terms (who ironically more often than not had NO biological children... and yet in another more important sense WE are ALL their "children" and beneficiaries of their knowledge and the sacrifices they made to gain it and pass it on).

Per example Copernicus had no wife, no children... and even more, he kept his discoveries theories and calculations almost entirely secret & private until he was on his deathbed (wise man yes? obviously wiser than Galileo)... and only then did he finally allow his "explosive" manuscript to be published ... yet who among ALL of the 7+ billion humans living today is not a "Copernican"?

[–]Xlasingx3 points 12 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

OK. I see your point. We as humans derive ideals from our ancestry cult. "I am connected to the people ahead of me by a tangled strain of blood and entropy", then thought, Correct?

Divined demeanor to us all.

Aside of ((agreeing)) with most of your points. Alpha comes to mind, I sort of understand what appears to be stressed logic, though I could be wrong, however your attacks make no sense. Are we saying we are so secluded in our beliefs within our origins, that we must intimidate? Some folks are simply attempting to help others, which is my interpretation of this thread to vastly varying levels of humans, whom may be fencing dichotomy to may trip upon you beliefs one day, i digress. Yours may be different, I'll admit, others are different as well, should all whom differ then be attacked and whom shall be the attacked?, Don't disagree with the thought manifest, we shall live free in all aspects. however "Adrocatos" method of delivery, is not meant as a feminist regurgitation nor do I believe lost enters the equation, as would I say to mine. While on this point, lets leave Androcato out of this. No harm was meant in theirs.

Cheers?

I agree with your accounts of feminist, as would most listening. Talking "instincts" into account, how far must this travel in the past? 10,000 years, 70,000, maybe 3,000,000,000. What would multi cellular organisms instinctual values possess? I gather, your thoughts are, they are well enough. Fine. Your logic makes sense. Except, that you steer here before me, stating exactly what you claim is irrelevant. How can I view yours more so than another, given language and reasoning is then built upon the same ancestral cult you call Sh%$ upon. I will say this, I hear you. Loud and fucking clear.

This said, I find your thoughts intriguing. May you answer some though equations?

How did you enter this thought? How did you engage the boys, under you control to encumber this belief? If one of those then, challenged you in your beliefs, in the, "I question everything", not just you, how do you fold this cleanly?

No offense. I've been on both sides and believe me when I say, nihilism makes more sense than all of this to anything else.

How can we all benefit from what you are stating? Please be explicit and extensive.

My promise, as this might sound. I will listen, hear you, analyze, deconstruct, logic and reason. I intend no attack of my own. I simply want to understand and possibly believe as you.

Sorry. I speak sentient. Possibly my views shall change. I welcome your thoughts.

You are welcome to private message me or keep this here, though I encourage you not to involve anyone else, as I will disavow otherwise. Your choice.

Cheers mate!

~lasing

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Not attacking... debating with STRONG emphasis!

You ever hear the story about how the Wright Brothers went "at" each other? Literally they called it "scrapping" and each felt that no one was a better "scrapper" than their brother.

They would argue over some detailed engineering or design point during the night, Orville would say something to the tune of "No, Wilbur, you IDIOT, that's not what it will do... look because of [points A, B & C ...which will lead to X, Y & Z] we'll have no choice but to do it THIS way." To which Wilbur would respond: "But Orville, you're forgetting about [D, E & F] which will throw a wrench in that whole thing!"
Then they'd go to bed PISSED OFF at just what an idiot their brother/partner was, and frustrated about how this whole "airplane" thing was just not going to happen, and probably a waste of time.
In the morning... Orville on more than one occasion, would write a note in his journal something like: "After giving Wilbur's points long and hard thought I have come to the conclusion that he is correct."
and at the same time Wilbur would be eating breakfast and writing a note to Orville: "Must go out on some errands this morn, but during sleep & morning cogitations, found your arguments of last nite persuasive, in short you are correct."
Then the following night... well, they'd go at it AGAIN, but this time from the opposite sides!

That's how they not only managed to INVENT the airplane (powered, fully controllable, reproducable, etc) -- something innumerable numbers of very smart men had been working on for their entire lives over a period of centuries, and never even come CLOSE to having a prototype for -- but how they did it ALL (on their own, self-financed, self-constructed) within just a little over 4 years from the date they started the project.

That's "scrapping".

;-)

[–]Xlasingx1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

What possible "context" can lessen the complete LIE that is the following?

Biologically, as a male, you're only purpose is to inseminate an egg. Once that's done, you're dead.

And your claim now that:

I was strictly referring to insemination in a non-sentient species.

Well... that's one HUGE misstatement.

You didn't say

Biologically, ~~as a male, you're~~ non-sentient species males only purpose is to inseminate an egg. Once that's done, ~~you're~~ they're dead.

Nope. You specifically wrote "you're", and you are rather obviously NOT writing a post for non-sentient species to read (I mean really, what would be the point in that?)

Now, did I go on a long RANT.

You betcha.

Why?

Because it is IMO precisely this kind of THOUGHTLESS regurgitation of feminist LIE that "males are just sperm squirters" that needs to stop.

And in order to get it to stop, it's needs to be rebuked every time it rears its ugly, shitty little head.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

I apologize for that, I acknowledge my mistake in regards to using non-sentient and the like. However, even if I relate sperm squirting and baby popping to humans:

Men are BIOLOGICALLY sperm squirters, and women are BIOLOGICALLY baby poppers. The prime purpose of our base biology is to reproduce, and therefore it is our prerogative to multiply! Now, you didn't take into context my opinion on fathers, and the male in general (when it comes to sentient species). Regardless, the first two statements, primarily the one regarding the biological purpose of men, ties heavily into the benefits associated with male abstinence, a form of biological apostasy. That is primarily why I stated our BIOLOGICAL purposes in the first place, this was entirely about helping men unlock their full potential, something which is truly beyond most can conceptualize. Moreover, MEN (humans) are solely sperm squirters as our biology dictates, which in conjunction with the female gender results in sexual reproduction and the variety of benefits it entails (in regards to the genetic variation present in the offspring). None of my statements were discriminatory against MEN, nor do they invalidate our natural rights, as biological factors have no say in our purpose anymore.

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

the prime purpose of our base biology is to reproduce, and therefore it is our prerogative to multiply!

Again, emphatically NO.

MERELY "reproducing" -- coitus through birth -- is NOT all our base biology is designed to do.

Human infants are not horse "foals", they cannot STAND and walk immediately after birth; nor are human children "colts" that are weaned at < 6 months, nor "yearlings" that can survive independently from their parents, and reproduce at 2~4 years.

Regardless, the first two statements, primarily the one regarding the biological purpose of men, ties heavily into the benefits associated with male abstinence, a form of biological apostasy. That is primarily why I stated our BIOLOGICAL purposes in the first place, this was entirely about helping men unlock their full potential, something which is truly beyond most can conceptualize.

Oh, I fully understand where you are trying to go with it.

But you are ENTIRELY misunderstanding what MEN and the full expression of male sexuality/gender are about... because here you go again:

Moreover, MEN (humans) are solely sperm squirters as our biology dictates

AGAIN, that is "feminist" BULLSHIT.

Just as human females are NOT done immediately after giving birth... nor even after the child is "weaned": they have CRITICAL roles to play in the early development of the intellect (primarily chattering incessantly so that the infant/toddler acquires the language), as well as the early acquisition of motor skills.

So too are MEN necessary AS FATHERS/PATRIARCHS for the later development -- the SKILL & KNOWLEDGE acquisition of pre-teen and teen years, and even the "apprentice" stage up to the mid 20's and beyond (especially in regards to GOVERNING the larger society -- something that women are abysmal at and not equipped to do).

And we ARE in fact EVOLUTIONARILY DEVELOPED to serve those gender roles during the 20+ years of human childhood & youth.

They are NOT simply "social constructs" that can be tossed aside in a willy-nilly fashion.

If you (ala Huxley's "Brave New World" utopian/dystopian bullshit) cut out/end the natural evolutionary FEMALE/MOTHER-nurturing role in the early years -- if you stuff the kid in an antiseptic orphanage -- you end up with a stumbling, mute idiot (the classic definition of the word "idiot" meaning an IQ of 0-to-25, literally the "don't know how to wipe their own arse" level).
If -- as our society seems insistent upon doing, stage by stage -- you cut out/end the natural evolutionary MALE/FATHER-nurturing role in the middle and later years -- stuffing the kids in the equivalent of Pavlovian-training camp prisons for 10+ years -- you end up with (at worst) either imbeciles & morons (again classic IQ of 26-50, and 51-70) or if there is SOME minimal quasi-FATHER presence, normal range IQ's (71-110) but still a population flled with *"perpetual children" who never reach anything LIKE full human maturity & independence (much less the super-maturity necessary in terms of properly managing an advanced civilized society in an optimum manner).

None of my statements were discriminatory against MEN, nor do they invalidate our natural rights, as biological factors have no say in our purpose anymore.

Rights? That's part of the frigging problem here as I see it. This isn't about "rights" -- it's about the RESPONSIBILITIES of a sustainable human society.

We're FUCKING IT OVER -- because of all of the bullshit self-centered arguments about "rights".

You don't have a RIGHT to fuck over an entire generation of kids -- much less destroy human society -- I don't care if you have a vagina OR a dick!

And the ROOT of this problem is the pseudo-scientific GARBAGE that focuses almost solely on the "sex" act as the definition of "gender".

Both GENDER roles are much, much MORE than merely "sperm & egg".

FEMININITY is more than just being "fucked" and serving as a "womb" and a set of milk-laden boobies -- its MOTHERING (feeding/nurturing, facilitating/enabling the toddlers to talk & walk within a well-maintained and SAFE household).
MASCULINITY is more than just "fucking" -- its FATHERING (and all that the dreaded word "patriarch" encompasses).

So, long story short, if what you are primarily PREOCCUPIED with or OBSESSED about is whether you "jerked off" -- then you're not being a MAN -- you're being a EUNUCH/MONK, in a vain attempt to stop being a neurotic adolescent BOY who beats off 20x a day in order to flood his brain with pain-relieving/sleep-inducing morpho-endorphins.

Why not take the easy way out -- take Paul of Tarsus' advice and just cut both the damn nuts & dick right off -- then you wouldn't need to worry about it anymore.

But NEITHER way will you be expressing REAL masculinity. (I mean good god, beating off occasionally {or wet dream or whatever} is no different than PISSING in the morning, or crapping after a big meal at night -- its a straight forward biological function.)

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

Thank you, you really opened my mind to the topic. I will look into this when time permits, and question myself when need be. But again, I refer to biological purpose as solely reproductive and therefore my statements are valid. However, MEN do indeed play big roles in regards to a general biological purpose.

So, long story short, if what you are primarily PREOCCUPIED with or OBSESSED about is whether you "jerked off" -- then you're not being a MAN -- you're being a EUNUCH/MONK, in a vain attempt to stop being a neurotic adolescent BOY who beats off 20x a day in order to flood his brain with pain-relieving/sleep-inducing morpho-endorphins.Why not take the easy way out -- take Paul of Tarsus' advice and just cut both the damn nuts & dick right off -- then you wouldn't need to worry about it anymore. But NEITHER way will you be expressing REAL masculinity. (I mean good god, beating off occasionally {or wet dream or whatever} is no different than PISSING in the morning, or crapping after a big meal at night -- its a straight forward biological function.)

What the fuck do you exactly mean by this? I abstain from all sexual contact to utilize my innate male essence, the vitality present within sperm and the various effects brought on by excess testosterone (increased cognitive function, confidence, productivity, etc.). Moreover, I face my problems head on, I see no reason to engage in "wanking" in order to temporarily flood myself with dopamine, and escape from my problems. And no, I will not cut my balls/dick off because that would rid me of the very thing that gives me benefit. Sure, wanking is a biological function, but is it necessary? NO. It is discipline that made MEN who they are today, it is male discipline that brought men to take the torch and lead us from the caves and into space. Look at any ancient philosopher, and you will see the MEN warning other MEN to not waste their time and energy fapping, when it could be better spent shaping the world into one of their liking.

I will certainly concede that you make excellent points, and I applaud you for that. However, my statements regarding the genders are solely based on their respective purposes in regards to reproduction, which primarily derived off of the necessity for variation in the genome of the offspring. In addition, you seem to over exaggerate the necessity of the need of the mother, if you look closely into this, you are supported the supplanting of the male mother need in the minds of young men. This is because it is highly unlikely that there is a gene responsible for this male mother need, rather it is a thought-process or behavior that is acquired (not passed on). Think about this. I cannot say this firmly enough, but you are a traditionalist. You believe in set gender roles to benefit society, while these roles squarely shovel their accrude shit onto MEN. I'll admit I know little about gender dynamics within human beings, but the male-female gender dynamic is NOT and was NEVER the natural partnership. WOMEN have ALWAYS been our vehicles for reproduction, and the EXPLOITATION of MEN fueled what you call a "sustainable" human society via utilization of the nuclear family. Think about this, as well.

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

But again, I refer to biological purpose as solely reproductive and therefore my statements are valid.

Again... no, they are not.

If the offspring does not survive to FULL maturity to not only have its OWN offspring, but to make certain THAT offspring reaches maturity too...

Then the "biological reproductive purpose" has NOT been fulfilled.

Humans can reproduce at approximately age 13; but then the parents MUST be capable of not merely having sex and birthing the child, they MUST be capable of protecting and feeding and teaching that child in turn so that when IT reaches maturity it can do likewise.

The problem is that 13 year olds are incapable of doing all of those parenting activities (not even in a hunter-gatherer era). They have additional skills they must acquire during their teens, including learning how to TEACH their own children (i.e. pass on knowledge via external non-genetic means -- because humans do NOT have "instinctual" hunting skills, cooking skills, etc).

We broached PAST "instinct" and our species continuation requires MORE than merely reproduction -- full human "reproduction" includes the passing on the skills & knowledge (including how to pass them on in turn).

I guess a short way of looking at it is that "insemination" is the first HALF of making a human-- it happens in a single act, and then over 9 months, the process creates the "physical" form.

But that's only the first half, the second part, subsequent to "insemination" is "indoctrination" -- passing on the knowledge that takes the place of the "instinct" we moved beyond -- and THAT part, the indoctrination is NOT a single event, it takes a decade to two decades, and it requires BOTH males and females (with different specialties transferred at different stages, and in slightly different ways to each of the separate gender offspring).

Human reproduction (the "cloning" or making a fully formed copy) is NOT simply the physical process, but rather the physical PLUS the intellectual.

BTW, you do know that I'm simply being "strident" here, and that the bold, etc are for emphasis.

IOW, I am in no way "angry" at you... just using firm language to make strong points (because I do firmly believe this is an area that has been distorted in a VERY critical manner, by a series of philosophies that are both horrendously wrong and horribly "warped", and they are doing untold damage to our civilization).

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

Ah! I see, thank you for making this apparent to me. I apologize for not taking your arguments in as "strident". Sincerely....I regret using harsh language with a fellow MGTOW. However, I would like you to address my argument regarding the indoctrination of male-mother need. Primarily, this:

You seem to over exaggerate the necessity of the need of the mother, if you look closely into this, you are supported the supplanting of the male mother need in the minds of young men. This is because it is highly unlikely that there is a gene responsible for this male mother need, rather it is a thought-process or behavior that is acquired (not passed on). Think about this. I cannot say this firmly enough, but you are a , traditionalist, at least from my point of view. You believe in set gender roles to benefit society, while these roles squarely shovel their accrude shit onto MEN. I'll admit I know little about gender dynamics within human beings, but the male-female gender dynamic is NOT and was NEVER the natural partnership. WOMEN have ALWAYS been our vehicles for reproduction, and the EXPLOITATION of MEN fueled what you call a "sustainable" human society via utilization of the nuclear family. Think about this, as well.

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sincerely....I regret using harsh language with a fellow MGTOW.

No prob. Same here.

However, I would like you to address my argument regarding the indoctrination of male-mother need. Primarily, this:

Yeah... I skipped that on purpose. Partly 'cause it's getting late here (after midnight) and I need to be getting some shut eye.

So -- beyond stating that trying to diminish FATHERING as "male-mother-need" is just childish/juvenile "shit-shaming" -- I'll do a rain check on the full argument.

Oh, and yes, thank you for the compliment on the "traditionalist".

I know you see that as an derogatory insult, but you've been sold a "bill of goods" on that one too (whether you're aware of it or not, you've swallowed -- hook, line, and sinker -- Margaret Mead's bullshit view of men/fathers).

And again, you're entirely wrong on the traditional gender roles -- you are mistaking and conflating that as being the same as the MODERN (20th century, post first, second & third wave feminist) definition of gender roles -- which they simply aren't/weren't.

BTW, more than willing to discuss this with you further (and the orgasm/abstinence stuff -- I think you're falling into a trap on that, but I was mostly just playing devil's advocate a "tweaking" you a bit) -- but alas, I just can't any more tonight (me eyelids are drooping and I'm mistyping ever other word; thoughts are getting sluggish too).

Cheers!

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The exploitation of MEN through the male-female relationship is integral to sustaining the "sustainable" civilization

LOL. No it isn't.

It only becomes "exploitation" when the women are allowed to "wear the pants" and place themselves OVER men.

While that is not a uniquely modern phenomenon, it didn't become a pervasive thing until the modern era (chiefly increasing in the 20th century).

And moreover "exploitation" of men (woman on top, man ground underneath her heels) is anything BUT the path to a sustainable civilization... it is what is rapidly destroying civilization.

Basically we're all "going down" until & unless it is reversed -- modern civilization (even technology) is really no longer "progressing" -- we're just "coasting" on the inertia from the past... reaping the last benefits of the low-hanging fruit from trees that were planted (to extend the metaphor) centuries ago.

I firmly believe that the father is the building block of civilization via enforcing discipline in the child, in fact, I refer you to barbarossaa's blog site (he talks about the father-son bond).

Yes, on this we are agreed. But it isn't merely a "father-son bond" -- having males be friends or co-inmates/co-slaves in an insane asylum run by WOMEN -- is not going to build (or even maintain) a "civilization".

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

LOL. No it isn't. It only becomes "exploitation" when the women are allowed to "wear the pants" and place themselves OVER men. While that is not a uniquely modern phenomenon, it didn't become a pervasive thing until the modern era (chiefly increasing in the 20th century). And moreover "exploitation" of men (woman on top, man ground underneath her heels) is anything BUT the path to a sustainable civilization... it is what is rapidly destroying civilization. Basically we're all "going down" until & unless it is reversed -- modern civilization (even technology) is really no longer "progressing" -- we're just "coasting" on the inertia from the past... reaping the last benefits of the low-hanging fruit from trees that were planted (to extend the metaphor) centuries ago.

What are you talking about?

Men have been exploited throughout history for the means of labor, warfare, scientific innovation, and countless other reasons. Of course, the latter is really only exploitation if the engine driving it is gynocentricism.

This really isn't something just present now, however, with the sufficient mechanization and industrialization, the shackles that are traditionalism are being slowly melted away by the thermite reaction that is feminism. I agree that gynocentricism is destroying civilization, and I apologize about assuming that you were a "patriarch", though I agree patriarchy is the most efficient form of civilization at present (strictly without gynocentricism that is).

In addition, technology is indeed progressing. Scientific growth is characteristic to the function --> f(x) lim x--> 0 for 1/x, such that as x gets closer and closer to singularity, the larger total scientific output becomes. If you really think that technology or science in general is not progressing, you certainly need to get your head out of the ground and read up on some scientific papers, specifically those on new applications of theoretical physics (Dr. Harold White), and those on new applications of biotechnology ( synthetic protein synthesis).

Yes, on this we are agreed. But it isn't merely a "father-son bond" -- having males be friends or co-inmates/co-slaves in an insane asylum run by WOMEN -- is not going to build (or even maintain) a "civilization".

I never remotely implied anything about gynocentricism in this statement. As a matter of fact, I referred to the father-son bond at its essence. That is, the passing of knowledge and wisdom, the realization that one's father does not know everything, and the resulting curiosity that soon reveals itself in the mind of a male adolescent.

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Men have been exploited throughout history for the means of labor, warfare, scientific innovation, and countless other reasons. Of course, the latter is really only exploitation if the engine driving it is gynocentricism.

Yes, but not specifically by and for women.

In addition, technology is indeed progressing.

No, it's really not. We're pretty much just reading the limits of refining what was previously discovered.

closer and closer to singularity

Sorry junior, but all of the "singularity" stuff is utter bullshit. You need to learn the difference between "fantasy sellers" and reality.

EDIT:

See here and here and here.

Especially the Pinker quote: There is not the slightest reason to believe in a coming singularity. The fact that you can visualize a future in your imagination is not evidence that it is likely or even possible. Look at domed cities, jet-pack commuting, underwater cities, mile-high buildings, and nuclear-powered automobiles--all staples of futuristic fantasies when I was a child that have never arrived. Sheer processing power is not a pixie dust that magically solves all your problems. —Steven Pinker

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, but not specifically by and for women.

I think you're wrong in that respect. The driving force of civilization as we know it is gynocentricism, which is firmly vested within the reproductive power of the female. Take a look at this.

No, it's really not. We're pretty much just reading the limits of refining what was previously discovered.

Hell no. There are millions of other things that are progressing along. It's difficult to conceptualize many of these profoundly abstract and high-level technologies, but we are in NO WAY reaching our limits. We're only coming closer and closer to technological perfection. I'd advise you to read some of Dr. Michio Kaku's or Dr. Steven Hawking's books regarding this matter (both are esteemed theoretical physicists).

Sorry junior, but all of the "singularity" stuff is utter bullshit. You need to learn the difference between "fantasy sellers" and reality.

This is in no way a fantasy. It's a projection of scientific growth based on scientific output (articles, papers, concepts) with respect to time. I'd advise you become more aware of the new ideas that are being produced en masse, literally, get yourself a subscription to "The Lancet", or "Scientific American". However, singularity is in essence the point at which Artificial Intelligence surpasses human intelligence. This is bound to happen with the introduction of Quantum Computing, and the sheer computing power that entails (instead of 2<sup>x,</sup> it's 3<sup>x)</sup> --> In fact, look into the new partnership between UBC Faculty of Physics with NASA and Google (D-Wave Systems, based in Vancouver, BC).

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The driving force of civilization as we know it is gynocentricism, which is firmly vested within the reproductive power of the female.

LOL. No, it's not.

What he is talking about -- this fallacious "all supporting female soul mate" -- is actually a relatively recent invention.

Men USED to be (for the majority of human history) well aware of the "feminine wiles" -- including the faux-innocence, and the alternate "harpy/bitch" aspects as well.

This is in no way a fantasy. It's a projection of...

It's bullshit.

Profitable bullshit spread by bullshit peddlers -- akin with "flying cars" and jetpacks.

See here and here and here.

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not about an "all supporting female soul mate", it's about men wanting to reproduce and have children. A man's legacy are his children, first and foremost. I hope I didn't come off as advocating this "soul mate" bullshit. This is [our need to reproduce and have children] a biological instinct that has been passed down from our predecessors, and has firmly vested itself in our modern day society.

However, you're correct when you say that men used to be aware of women. You're absolutely right. The ancients (esp. Aristotle --> refer to Politics book V), knew well the dangers of female nature, and knew that generalizing women was necessary in order to avoid these dangers.

In regards to technological singularity, these are crackpot articles you refer to, while I'm actually directing you to real studies taking place in Ivy League Universities. Moreover, I've had the privilege of attending a research study, and have bear witness to the vast new array of theoretical and both practical sciences and technologies. There is a singularity, and it will indeed be here. The mechanics of an artificial intelligence is not something I can comprehend, but I liken it's internal structure to be a derivative of some type of biotechnology, perhaps a giant augmented mind with gene splicing resulting in enormous cerebral cortex thickness. Again, this is entirely conjecture, perhaps computers (AI), will never reach the level of intelligence of organic beings.

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not about an "all supporting female soul mate", it's about men wanting to reproduce and have children. A man's legacy are his children, first and foremost

Nah. The "genetic legacy" shit is just more of the same garbage being peddled in a slightly different form.

However, you're correct when you say that men used to be aware of women.

And far more recently that that:

http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.com/2011/09/tolkien-and-women-word.html

Which is discussing this letter (#43) that he sent to his eldest son:

http://glim.ru/personal/jrr_tolkien_42-45.html

In regards to technological singularity, these are crackpot articles you refer to,

So... like Scientific American (which you just suggested I need to subscribe to) -- I mean is THAT just a "crackpot" thing too?

Because: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2010/06/23/singularity-schtick-hi-tech-moguls-and-the-new-york-times-may-buy-it-but-you-shouldnt/

Again, this is entirely conjecture, perhaps computers (AI), will never reach the level of intelligence of organic beings.

Bingo. We don't even really understand what "intelligence" is; what we do know is that it isn't simply "mips" -- something else is going on.

And BTW, when it comes to programming and computers, I do have a pretty damned good idea of what I'm talking about. I could give the full list of langs and machines I've worked with (started in the days of punch cards if that gives you any idea) and the applications I've been responsible for (3D parametric CAD package that ran on a 68000 and fit on a 400k floppy diskette)... but suffice it to say that even when computers are doing things that appear to be really "smart" and which some people may believe means that the machine is "thinking"... it's actually not doing anything of the kind.

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So... like Scientific American (which you just suggested I need to subscribe to) -- I mean is THAT just a "crackpot" thing too?

Scientific American is not a crackpot article, in fact, it contains the newest studies being pumped out of schools. However, I concede my point on the singularity, and will look deeply into it.

Now, You're right about computers. They're essentially adding machines, and I believe I was certainly being a bit emotional when I talked about Quantum Computers. I couldn't see a machine doing anything a human does, perhaps a mix of technology and organic matter, but never anything that is solely robotic. Alas, I don't know enough about this topic to banter on about robotic intelligence, robots are lines of code written by humans at the moment, and are about as intelligent as a "retarded cockroach" as Dr. Kaku once said; However, I am optimistic about emerging technologies in the field, but should perhaps extend the time until singularity indefinitely.

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Scientific American is not a crackpot article, in fact, it contains the newest studies being pumped out of schools. However, I concede my point on the singularity, and will look deeply into it.

I wouldn't. From what I have seen there isn't any "depth" to it -- not when it comes to anything REAL -- there's a lot of "fantasy" (i.e. fantastic speculations across a whole spectrum -- akin to the design of spaceships IF we had an anti-gravity drive {but of course we don't, which renders the whole endeavor as a vanity}).

Now, You're right about computers. They're essentially adding machines,

Well, they are a bit more than "adding" machines -- the are calculating engines -- capable of a whole host of mathematical operations.

And the key value is that they do it lickety-split...

That "trick" of doing MASSIVE amounts of calculations super-duper-fast can be used to create all sorts of illusions -- but they aren't "reality".

Now, when given temporary control over some human-engineered machinery systems, and programmed in some manner that they can follow either a series of instructions, or using an algorithm follow a series of instructions that result from complex calculations -- they are even capable of creating a host of actual physical objects which would be otherwise VERY difficult for humans to create. But in that sense they are no different than a "lever" or any other "tool" -- just devices for man to be able to multiply his own efforts in certain specific directions.

and I believe I was certainly being a bit emotional when I talked about Quantum Computers.

Yes. They're chiefly still "theoretical" (a few prototypes of modules, etc -- but no actual "quantum computer" has ever been built {that I am aware of anyway}) and while I have no doubt that we CAN eventually see some dramatic "leaps" in computing capabilities (and then turning that into useful technology)...

I do not see them as anything that is REALLY all that substantially different; and most of the exuberant "promises" being made are hyperbole.

I couldn't see a machine doing anything a human does, perhaps a mix of technology and organic matter, but never anything that is solely robotic.

Well, the thing I have always wondered... is if we were able to create an artificial intelligence (and BTW any initial AI -- if even possible -- would NOT be akin to a HUMAN brain, but probably more like a rat or a cat, or as you noted "retarded cockroach") -- but let's play the devil's advocate here and posit that it WAS the equivalent of a "human".

Which human?

Einstein -- the dude who would go outside and forget to have put on his pants?

Or would it end up like...

Josie the bar-slut -- who begs drinks off of whatever manages to crawl by her, and then sleeps with them so that she can (literally) steal the contents of their wallets?

And keep in mind that if the thing were to be ACTUALLY CAPABLE OF "thinking", then that would mean it would no longer be a mere machine subject to human programmatic control.

Now, unlike a lot of people who waste countless hours worrying about that and then writing down their fervid imaginations... I pretty much don't see the point of wasting my time in that manner (though if like E.Y. I could sucker some rich farts into tossing me a couple of million so that I could pretend to be working on solving it... and largely just "play" the rest of the time... then I suppose I might claim to take it seriously too.)

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jakethesnake761 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

MEN necessary AS FATHERS/PATRIARCHS for the later development -- the SKILL & KNOWLEDGE acquisition of pre-teen and teen years, and even the "apprentice" stage up to the mid 20's and beyond (especially in regards to GOVERNING the larger society -- something that women are abysmal at and not equipped to do).

And we ARE in fact EVOLUTIONARILY DEVELOPED to serve those gender roles during the 20+ years of human childhood & youth.

They are NOT simply "social constructs" that can be tossed aside in a willy-nilly fashion.

If only one parent of a young man could survive and thus rasie this young man to survive in the wilderness on his own whan he was full grown i would always pick a father to do this , even though we are stoic we train youngsters survival skills few women outside of the Sarah Palins (who was trained by her father could raise a man to survive on his own.i don't consider a woman who raises a kid to become a slave to who ever is dominate as a viable parent.

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The critical important stage of the female/mother role -- especially in regard to boys -- is essentially "over & done with" at what used to be called the "breeching" stage when boys (i.e. approx. around ages 6-8) were put into "big boy pants" and allowed to roam outside of the house -- by then all the motor skills are automatized, the main language and basic vocabulary have been acquired, and the child can pretty much act independently (not survive independently yet, but still capable of "dressing, feeding, and overall being responsible creatures").

It is at THAT point there's a transition -- instruction from the Father really can (and probably should) begin; but it CAN be a tapering off of the mothering accompanied by an increase of time with "dad" -- the kids AREN'T yet "adults" but they CAN begin learning rudimentary tool skills, basics about the world at large, etc.

Properly done, by the time the child reaches puberty, they SHOULD be capable of being and acting as an independent "adult" (even surviving on their own if necessary) -- though they will likely be missing a lot of skills (and especially experience) and it's pretty darned risky for a kid to have to shift for themselves in their teens.

Now women CAN (if it is absolutely necessary) take on that training... but by and large they just aren't very good at it (that's simply a fact). It's like trying to pound a nail in with a wrench... you can do it, just not very well.

[–]jakethesnake760 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jakethesnake761 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

And I think this can also be said to be supported by data on things like ADD, ADHD, and ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder -- aka "unruly kid"), which are FAR more prevalent in single-mother households (and thus one of the reasons such diagnoses have become increasingly prevalent overall -- it parallels the rise of the single-mom & feminist-led households -- as does also the increasing pervasiveness of things like Prozac and other anti-psychotics to the mothers) the women are simply SO unable to "parent" the children, that their only alternative is to place the blame on the child, to label the kids as "brain-diseased", and to control their behavior via powerful "zombifying" pharmaceuticals.

There may also be anecdotal evidence atleast there is to me that this whole autistic syndrome is mother induced. Every autistic i have known (i've known several) have extremely angry and judgmental mother that they seek to rebel against the only way they know how.

Really liked your post BTW i too have similar workings with you boys and girls.

[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

There may also be anecdotal evidence atleast there is to me that this whole autistic syndrome is mother induced. Every autistic i have known (i've known several) have extremely angry and judgmental mother that they seek to rebel against the only way they know how.

Yes, this has been my suspicion as well.

I am entirely convinced that boys diagosed with "ODD" (so called "Oppositition Defiant Disorder") is a reaction to having a semi-schizoid "bitchy" mother and/or "bitchy" women as teachers (along with either no father, and "absentee" father, or a totally passive "mangina" father).
I'm fairly certain that ADD and ADHD are caused by a combination of ridiculous demands of the schooling system along with demanding and neurotic "helicopter" mothers/parents (again lack of a strong "patriarch" father).
And as I noted -- I highly suspect that "autism" has to do with "failure to nurture"* during infant/toddler years (and it's increasing to epidemic proportions as women increasingly do the "paternity leave" and especially the "daycare" stuff** -- a DIRECT result of feminism).

*The kids in the Romanian orphanages had HUGE problems in this regard -- because they were treated like dogs at some run-down puppy-mill.

** Is Autism Statistically Linked to Early Non-Maternal Child Care? says:

The incidence of autism has risen dramatically in many nations. The co-ordinated increase points to a single cause. It is highly improbable that one biological or chemical factor in the environments of many different nations has changed rapidly enough to account for this increase. Only a widespread behavioral change could fit this pattern.

...and...

Recently the incidence of autism has increased dramatically. This increase has coincided with a dramatic increase in the use of non-maternal child care in early infancy (Rideout et. al., 2003). Early non-maternal child care has been shown statistically to predict problem behavior at 54 months (National Insititute of Child Health and Human Development, 2003). Non-maternal child care, which includes the use of television, video and computer games, must on average afford less eye contact than maternal care. Reduced exposure to the mother's gaze would make it more difficult for the infant to internalize the image of the mother's eyes.

So, it's basically a matter of NEGLECT (via one mechanism or another) during the infant and toddler years -- basically mothers (and/or "parent/nurse" because EITHER gender, and even a total stranger technically CAN provide the same kind of close/intimate attention and nurturing) -- are "checking out" and being preoccupied themselves with all kinds of other shit, are depriving the kids of what they need (offering them some pale substitute, whether mechanical or "professional") and what they, in a "traditional" family home would generally have received.

It is also my opinion that fathers are generally "skipping out" on their duties as well -- we've tossed kids into "schools" as a means of not having to be bothered with them.

[–]jakethesnake760 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xlasingx3 points 12 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xlasingx2 points 12 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Most humble regards to your previous compliments, as well for posting this.

Out of curiosity, I did a little research on this. I will say, I never considered this, until now. 40-100 drops of blood to produce 1 drop of semen and as noted below, aside of ejaculation or "nocturnal emission", semen will be "reabsorbed into the body", this being fundamental and a basic understanding. With this in mind, ejaculation logically would deplete energy and vitality, transitive to energy and potential cognition, depending on circumstance, though I believe this to be deeper. (More research is needed on my part.) Meaning yes, all of what you are saying seems prudent, forthcoming and true. Not that I question, just curious on my part, to ensure a genuine response in and out of respect.

What I'm curious to understand is; How did you come about this and what have you learned/experienced from this path? It's one thing to learn, yet another to live by, then another to tribal wise, grapple or earnestly engage. Most reasoning behind learned is based on assumptions and consensus based on trusted sources or trials. Engaging; If one pictures "practice makes perfect", then engagement means practicing the art, thereof.

If men practice this, what would you say are the intrinsic values, beyond and to what you have already noted? More than I, should benefit from your understanding and experience, here in this realization.

Agreed on the mental aspect, "mind occupied by sex". Spot on and my simple and trivial regard has been reconstituted.

Deeper, yes, agreed again. Control over "reproductive power", I've thought about this many times, aside of societies sperm donators in placid and hopeful vestige, yes, there is a controlling aspect, which men have, which females do not. In this context, it seems we are being excised and or excisable to our true animal traits. The more I think on this, the more I realize. Men are in control, in absolution, then to regain within our own bodies a capability, not yet realized. This is by fortune fascinating.

I, nor anyone should trivialize nor discredit your comments. I find no "funny" or "backwards" in this, though I understand why you state this. Your thoughts are intelligent and bestow a primordial wisdom. I thank you for enlightening myself and those whom should, in my opinion, entertain.

Please do continue this informational divulge. All whom listen, can benefit!

Humbly and Cheers!

~lasing

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I learned of this through being part of the /r/nofap community. In addition, I have read some ancient Taoist doctrine, and have also watched many documentaries on the history of the ancients. However, I really came upon the benefits by experience (that is abstaining, 1 week now), and read up on them.

Some possible benefits that men could receive include everything I noted, as well as a sense of "inner peace" which comes with the conservation of sperm and therefore testosterone. I know many female advocacy groups state that testosterone contributes to violence, but that statement cannot be farther from the truth.

I, nor anyone should trivialize nor discredit your comments. I find no "funny" or "backwards" in this, though I understand why you state this. Your thoughts are intelligent and bestow a primordial wisdom. I thank you for enlightening myself and those whom should, in my opinion, entertain.

Thank you, I really can't think of any words.

[–]Xlasingx2 points 12 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xlasingx2 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]so6p 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes. Men do not need sex as one needs food or water.

One could abstain from sexual relations with women out of caution too. Think about this: Jumping through all those hoops, playing the right tricks, projecting yourself as worthy of a woman's attention, facing the risk of rejection, failure, manipulation, accusation, loss of reputation etc. can make pursuing sexual relationships a very bad deal. Emotional distress I may add is being found more and more equal to physical harm: yes rejection can hurt as bad as a bodily injury as it is processed in the same part of brain. I mean would an intellectual human being who has his life, career, well being, basic necessities all in order, go to such lengths for a little bit of pleasure? What do you think of this angle? I came up about this on my own as I don't agree that well meaning men who don't pursue sex out of fear of failure/rejection etc. are any bad. Maybe they are onto something. Maybe their caution is justified and the grapes are really sour. I read somewhere that caution and risk-taking, both traits can be an evolution/survival strategy. In some animal herds, the cautious male is often made the leader because he knows where not to go to avoid being hunted and is better aware of where the resources exist.

Also, I personally find masturbating or porn and things like that are just frustrating. It's just personal experience that after the act, it feels like less than the real thing. If they come up with hyper-realistic dolls then that would be more attractive to me. If there's sex involved with a woman without much effort, or in exchange of some of my resources if the deal is being made openly and honestly, then I will enjoy it myself and make it enjoyable for her. Otherwise, no thanks to women who could clearly get what they need from other men. I don't judge them, but I don't want to be that man, either. I've bigger fish to fry in life than pursuing a woman given how valuable my well-being is to myself.

Thanks for bringing it up Androcato.

[–]Xlasingx3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UnclePaul501 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]steadymotion3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnclePaul500 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zxz2420 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]zxz2420 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link