Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
@E3_441672
If you want to criticize someone or something you need to be more clear.
You really need to take your own advice, dude.
@dongonzor
I'm by definition the exact opposite of a troll. I don't care about the feelings of others. Neither as evidence for what they're saying nor after I have disagreed with them. It's always good to be polite, but not at the expense of the subject matter.
You sacrifice a lot of SM quality by how giddily you attempt, and fail, to explain it. It's good to be elaborate, but not at your expense of clarity, the price we pay for your frankly ridiculous excess wordiness.
@JaybeeInGWM
The only time ever I've seen someone be this ceremonious on an Internet forum and so enamored with his totally fabricated and flamboyantly emotional interpretations of the situation was when the said person was openly gay.
(Yawns)
Still the only thing he said in his "voluminous exchange" was a power fantasy of being able to computationally predict fetishes. I said that's nonsense. I explained why it's nonsense. He ignored it. Then he said nothing. Or maybe he threatened me with starting this "poor zarkle and high and mighty me" wank. And then he did.
Again...referring to me, the 1st/2nd person, in the third whilst addressing me directly doesn't add the intellectual lustre you're clearly craving. It just makes you seem like (even more of) a headcase, frankly.
Going back to subject matter, your failure point is that you keep stating we can't. I didn't say we could; my stance is that we WILL be able to. Your rather unscientific lack of vision won't stop the progress of technology. Thankfully. :)
Click your username at the top of the page to open a menu, select "Account settings", go to the subpage called "Block users", type "zarklephaser4", click "Block user" and your troubles are gone.
THERE. You've just shown you're capable of concise, precise and relevant answers. Err towards that, and you'll have a LOT few detractors.
"@fbbnuts
What you seem to have in common is that you booth look for attention.
Every time someone has replied to this thread I first expect problems. I've been accused of everything, including many contrary things, but it's true that I'd rather run a blog than constantly see these smears, personal attacks, denials, bad theories and other off topic stuff."
Nicely cut but thats what I expected. I never talked about a blog but you rather run one than see all of this, but yet you somehow seem to feel the urge to look at it, and react to it?
Its nice that you educate us but what's in it for you and at what costs?
Anyhow now its time to look at some GWM as thats why im on this site
Zarkle (I almost never type out a username, this is the first time in YEARS) - get help. I can't put it any simpler.
@Zarkle
Science and vision are incompatible concepts. Science means the sum total of valid and verified observations we have now. Vision means the human fantasy of what we might be able to potentially observe, without being able to say yet how.
Science and vision are absolutely compatible. We realize our “vision” by applying “science”. So, your long winded diatribe is ill conceived. How else would anything ever have been invented? I could bore you with endless metaphors to reinforce my point but that’s more your thing.
Your word salad belies your intolerance for dissent, and the unending need you have to always prove your right about everything, even on the smaller points, by parsing ideas into the tiniest of particles to be rearranged to suit your point, even when you are actually wrong. This, incidentally, is why you seem to be loathed by many on this thread. Of course you won’t ever see yourself that way. Guess that’s your personal “charm”?
Having said the above, I agree with your larger point as I can’t see how AI or any program can ever predict with complete accuracy how a human will behave, for the same reason AI can produce a decent story but not one as authentic as one produced by a human. But who knows, maybe Elon’s nuerolink will accomplish such a feat? If humans shared your lack of vision then I suppose we’d still be wiping our ass with our hands.
But reading the argument between you two is as entertaining as when Shylock demanded his pound of flesh from Antonio in the Merchant of Venice. Thanks for the laughs!
I understand. Now math majors are gay too. This is probably why they're considered so boring. They wish to keep secret their orgies where they ram each other round the clock for two days straight with the help of speed and Viagra.
Apparently you don’t get anything at all. Please explain how you make the acrobatic link between me pointing out that you are reducing a woman’s curves to a math equation and all mathematicians being gay? This is a great example of how you take a fraction of a thought and twist it to make it work for your own narrow minded purposes. You’d make a great propaganda Chief for Putin with your gift for re-coloring the truth. When you called my post original you were actually conceding it was true.
People sometimes say that men who like muscular women must be gay. Now you're saying men who are not attracted to muscular women must be gay? Because how else could you object to curves?
Did you actually use the “people say” explanation?? “People say”???!!! People say???!!! Remember what you said in response to another user who tried to apply the ridiculous and unsound “people say” argument? I believe it was something to the effect of, people say that a lizard king rules Mars! People say the moon is made of cheese! People say I’m the President of the USA! Jeez did you get your wisdom from Trump U? That’s actually a very Trumpian tactic. Say anything that helps you until it doesn’t and then backpedal and call out your opponent for doing the same. You’ve been exposed dude. Your do as I say not as I do rationale is just so hilarious. It’s not very valid for a mind as great as yours and utterly unscientific, unless your name is Trump or Goebbels.
What I am saying is that this fetish or attraction is like some strange type of beer. You're not genetically disposed to it. But you might like it when you first encounter it. Then you might sometimes decide to have one. Or you might become addicted. Or you might be able to change your attitude and circumstances, find better beers and better things to do and kick your addiction.
But seriously, the thing I find most interesting about you, Zarkle, is that despite having all of your supposed knowledge on the subject you are still here with the rest of us ogling these women. Why is that Zarkle??
So the conclusion must be that you have this Eros or Thanatos driven fetish, like the rest of us, and you understand the how and why, yet you continue on with said fetish. So are we to believe that you do not wish to be cured of your effeminate ways? You do not wish to have a supposed healthy relationships with a woman that isn’t fetish based? I guess all that knowledge isn’t really benefiting you personally very much, eh? If I’m wrong then I ask again, why are you still here?
Really, I’m not trying to get a rise out of you, but rather I pose a real honest question. So what gives? Either you are blind to your own inclinations of personality and mindset/psychology and are incurable as I alluded to earlier when I spoke of psychologists, or you really are just a troll. Maybe you’re both.
You said that this addiction is akin to a weird type of beer. So why don’t you take your own advice and “find better beers and better things to do and kick your addiction”?? Why haven’t you kicked the habit using that monopoly of knowledge you claim to possess?? I can’t wait to hear you attempt to square that circle. I’m quite sure you possess the hubris to try, and will.
Maybe you just like that beer too much, despite knowing how to escape your addiction. Maybe you’re a serial killer and thus you are perfectly happy understanding your psychological blemish and thus have no need to change. Or, maybe you’re just a humongous deuchebag who enjoys quoting things other people have theorized in an attempt to satisfy an ego that was never nurtured as a child. You’re probably the type who obsesses over the creation of every cup of coffee.
So you see, to reinforce my earlier point, how SCIENCE & VISION actually are compatible? You have the science but you lack the vision to put it into practice and heal yourself.
I'm sure you'll call me ignorant and you'll play the victim and try to fling as much horseshit on the walls as possible in an attempt to remain in your little "cocoon of knowledge". I guess that's all you have left, unless you're going to claim that you enjoy having a mental defect. But, that's not very rational for a genius like you to forego the use of such great knowledge.
Now I must get back to my job at NORAD.
@Zarkle
Science and vision are absolutely compatible.
When he said they weren't, given how huge a proportion of science focuses on the theoretical, I threw in the towel trying to engage with him. I wish him well, but he maliciously detected my and our thirst for deep engagement on this topic, and twisted it to see how long and how arduously he can get people to try to persuade him to reject things he himself already doesn't believe in. I still believe there's EITHER a good person deep down who's been hurt by mistruths and is now slyly lashing back out, via his baiting, at a society he feels lied to him, OR he's quietly anti-female muscle and is baiting us that way.
Either way, afaic he's too far gone for me or anyone here to help, but I hope he eventually gets the help he clearly needs.
@Zarkle
Need some cheese with that whine?
Triggered by triggered. Can't make it up.
I love how you think it's your place to say the "discussion is almost over". Promise?
Enjoy imagining me "blowing my load". Glad I could oblige.
Take some remedial English Lit and just maybe you'll glean some insight, maybe.
Have a nice life, Sigmund FRAUD.
@zark
> You´ve been wildly off topic a lot of times.
When actually? Like I said, most of my repetitive and verbose messages are about applying some concept of psychotherapy to the issue. I still don't understand why it is a problem. Maybe people perceive them as more authoritarian than they really are. Or ignore or misunderstand the qualifiers I almost always start with.
Well, you´ve been quite or very involved in discussions that are far off topic and not of interest to anyone. But OK, whatever. You really seem to know your psychotherapy. I do think it is like 80 % bullshit. I´ve never been to therapy myself though. Freud was wildly out of line on so many occassions. But surely there are some wisdom to it (sorry now if I´m being off topic). Let´s leave this.
> You have no favorites or subscriptions of any.
I prefer to use the search. I see no point in storing a list of my former moods that may or may not come again. But my recurring favorites are the ones I've already mentioned, such as Anastasia Hein and Lea Kannowsky. Then maybe a dozen others. I don't search for Julia DeLo that much, but I like mentioning her because the interview by Ryan made her feel like a real person.
OK, thats fine.
> I have tried to focus on how to have this inclination/fetish/whatever and still be a good loving person.
It depends on what you mean by love. Being easy to get along with? Giving her money? Doing the dishes? Giving her pleasure? Exchanging vows and raising kids together?
I mean in general. Loving as in not an asshole or just thinking about yourself. Forget about it.
> Ok, so that´s it? The psychological reason is all just about insecurity? Everyone has insecurites though?
This fetish is a fantasy, not a biological drive. Fantasies are stories created by the mind to resolve or at least alleviate anxieties. The mind creates the fantasies according to the character of the person and out of the material he is exposed to. Many others have offered this explanation too from their personal experience. The strength of the anxiety correlates with the power of the fantasy.
I agree with what you are writing about fantasies. But I´m not sure this is something unique for inclination towards muscular women. What you write here could also fit in with the fantasies of Ted Bundy, right? His acts also started in his head as a fantasy. What is, from a fantasy perspective, the difference with this "fetish" or any other, say men who are in to domination?
This is just a mirror image of fantasies of endlessly conquering or abusing women. Oddly, men who have been abused by women tend to worship women, but men who have been abused by men tend to feel safe and not guilty abusing women. Being abused by a woman teaches a man that he is weak, but being abused by a man teaches a man to take it out on the weak.
Interesting, I have very little experience of being abused by women, I think. Well I did have a hard time some times with my mother when I grew up, but I´m not sure it was anything special. Are you saying that guys with this inclination/fetish usually have been abused by women (in their childhood I assume)?
> I have thought of another thing recently:
Be careful or you'll end up the next prophet. As long as I'm here you will look good in comparison, but after everyone is assured I'm gone they will start telling you to STFU.
Haha! No I don+t think so.
> You don´t need to give anything to the women, you just take.
In a way you're describing all porn, including all wank material that isn't strictly porn.
Yes, but in another sense which I hope you understand. Porn is of course passive, but I mean that the sexual fantazy of muscular women is passive in its very nature. A dominating fantszy is about doing things to the women, and in the end fucking them good. It´s a little bit of revenge perhaps but mostly an ego enhancer. "Yeah I´m gonna fuck you, do things to you" the male goes. It is an active act.
Being dominated is the opposite. Therefore it is passive, and I think a common factor among guys here are that they are not the best relation ship types. They both fear and dread women. Does that sound reasonable? Having a muscular woman that does all the job... it is more about being fucked than fucking (I don´t mean it literary with strap on dildos or stuff like that, I´m sure you understood that) and hence more of an egotistical fantazy. Makes sense?
Does not matter if you don't explain why you think so or what do you even mean by that.
This is like someone who does not know the rules of soccer and hasn't ever watched it on television said that soccer is 80 % bullshit. No offense, but why should anyone listen to him, or how can anyone even know what he means?
The vibe I get is that your feelings about it are 80 % negative, with no further logic to it.
OK now we are off topic, but what I´ve read about from people who have went to psychoanalysis, this is my guess. For whatever its worth. A lot of people knows this subject a lot better than me though. You probably do. I mean, the whole idea is to dig in your childhood about perceived trauma and such. What if that is just bs, has it ever been proved efficient? But if people want to spend dire money on it, it´s up to them.
The same as above. Also, Freud is not the same as psychology or psychotherapy. Freud is somewhat irrelevant here. Nothing I have said in this discussion rests on Freud as an author or a historical figure.
I think that generally clueless people discuss persons. You can project into a person a lot of your own likes and dislikes, fears and aspirations, hopes and disappointments, which can easily make the whole discussion meaningless and devoid of substance. It is more neutral to discuss events, though they too can be falsified and reinterpreted. Usually all meaningful discussion is about ideas. But you did not offer any ideas in your criticism.
I agree! I had a discussion about the Ukraine war recently and a lot of the arguments I heard was of the type "Putin is a bastard, its obvious". What criticism of mine are you refering to?
But if I try to read between the lines, I'm led to assume you're still trying to say "fantasies of domination bad, fantasies of submission good" or if all men were pussies the world would be a wonderful place. In this line of thinking, women don't need to be pussies because they're naturally kind, though you should never presume on that. In reality they're not even naturally kind. But men who are pussies often suffer from hidden anger and veiled delusions of grandeur and entitlement.
Absolutely not. I think fantasies about dom/sub are kind of 2 sides of the same coin. I read that Erich Fromm wrote the same thing, I can look it up for you if you insist. They can be nice as fantasies, but in the end, maybe one shouldn´t get too involved in them if you also want a healthy relationship with your partner? The fantasy is really about objectifying the object of desire, that is kind of the anti-thesis to love, don´t you agree? Wouldn´t it be more mature to try to fantasize about a woman (big/small/strong/weak/whatevs) who is also vulnerable? A lot of the stories you can read on sites like these are really quite pathetic and I don´t think delving into them too much is good for you.
I have mentioned in this discussion, a long long time ago, the idea that some men are attracted to powerful women because they're afraid of their own suppressed anger and what it might do to women, including their mother, if allowed to surface. It's not even a fear of physically hurting the woman but more like a fear of being rejected for one's hostility. It's like overcompensating for a hurt. A fear that no matter how much you think you like her, you end up behaving as if you didn't like her at all.
Thats an interesting idea. I think its up to one self to try to figure if that applies, cause I certainly don´t think it applies to all people, we are far too complex and multi-variable.
I recognize in myself a certain distrust towards women. The way it works is I feel out of place and disconnected with truly friendly women, but get more easily along with women who are somehow broken, self-centered or have trust issues. So my distrust of them is not unfair or shameful towards them if they don't trust me either.
Yeah, me too. I can find women like that quite boring.
Reading your two last paragraphs again and again I tried to find an overarching theme, but it wasn't domination versus submission or evil men versus good men.
My idea about egotistical fantazy: just think about the ejaculation. Its more in the pants when it comes to muscle women. Highly egotistical.
To grow up is to accept that there's a limited number of things you can do before you die. Men and women who refuse to grow up prefer their imagination to reality.
We also need to dream about things and fantasize though?
Vanilla sex is about men doing things to women. There's nothing inherently wrong in this. Or conservative. Or archaic. It's just how human biology and psychology operate when not broken or distorted in some way. There's not necessarily any revenge or ego enhancement involved...
I think you are wrong here if you are saying (again) that an inclination towards some kind of kink is a sign of a broken or distorted psyche. But I will get back to this soon.
Opposite and how would you call that? But perhaps you have the same goal? Feeding ones ego? Technical, a troll also doesnt care about the feelings of the other, only his own. He feeds on the impact he has on others and seeing that in reactions. Yours is edjucating us? Showing that youre superior on the subject and reacting to the reactions you get? What you seem to have in common is that you booth look for attention. Wich basicly confirms that you are visible, have somekind of influence and you do matter?