dark wrote:
Ok I could write a 10.000 word post about this topic since I am researching about for years.
Indeed. A great post indeed. I'll disagree with you on multiple points, but it's still quite thought-provoking and helpful at clarifying where our worldviews diverge.
dark wrote:Let me state clear that any smart sounding quotes are never helpful in a discussion based on facts.
a
Indeed. Pithy comments illustrate and highlight truth which are known but not recognized-- they don't prove facts.
dark wrote:I agree most religions abused the rights of women (still do) and depressed their potential.
You say that as if a religion is a conscious being-- it is not. Women, and males, oppressed themselves through their clinging to religion. Being truly human is a scary proposition. The true "will to power" is rare-- most people have a slave morality-- they NEED to submit. They would rather submit to a potentially imaginary being than live their own lives. This is true of women and males.
dark wrote:If you look at examples in the western world also women abuse power. You Sophia are a great example, since your profile declares one of your hobbies is "Life Destruction".
Of course. And to the extent that I destroy, it's because people NEEDED me to destroy. Indeed, the numbers emails begging for destruction far far far outnumber any level of destruction I could ever personally inflict. A Kali is much in demand these days.
dark wrote:Back to your quote. Why is it inferior to "buy drinks" for women, to treat them well, to protect them, to spoil them?
Well, I suppose if you want to define the powerful and the weak to be "equal" by some standard of your own, that's your prerogative. For me, powerfulness and superiority are so intertwined that it's hard for me to fathom anyone seriously debating the point.
To illustrate--- which one of these creatures is superior? Kate Winslet or a garden slug? Photos, just in case you need refresher:
Now, everyone agrees that Kate Winslet is more powerful than a single garden slug. She could, for example, easily kill the garden slug, while the garden slug could certainly never kill her.
Now, from God's point of view or a pagan point of view or a spiritual point of view, maybe these two creatures are "equal". Perhaps they both contribute to a cycle of life, perhaps that both play vital roles. Perhaps, in the grand scheme of things, the most important thing kate winslet will ever do is exhale, so that the atmosphere can maintain the right sorts of gases. Maybe they are, in some esoteric way, "equal".
But I'm not god, I'm not an alien, I'm human. I know that most males would sacrifice greatly to kiss Kate Winslet and I know that most people are repulsed by a slug.
So is it within humans. Some people _are_ attractive, some people _are_ repulsive. Lots of people want to BE me or to be near me-- but how many people want to be a slug (or its human equivalent)??
Our universe is not based on destroying to survive it's about symbiosis of energy to survive for a longer period. Surviving is not the strongest but the fittest.
Surviving isn't the point. By the measure of survival, everyone fails.
Procreation isn't the point-- what does it really matter to me whether my great great great grandchildren conquer your great great great grandchildren? What does it matter to me if my long-distant offspring die off, while your distant offspring prosper? I do not live in the future, I do not live in the past, I do not live on the scale of planets or circles of lives.
I am here.
I am now.
And it's up to me to decide what I want to do, what I want to create, what I want to destroy, what I want to communicate, what I want to enlighten, what I want to obfuscate.
You can even take this example and scale it down to a normal relationship between a man and a woman. A healthy relationship is exactly like that. Both are giving up something to get something better they couldn't get alone.
First and foremost-- "healthy" is very very loaded. Deciding what is and is not "healthy" is a difficult thing. And then, deciding that "healthy" is better or somehow "moral"-- that's another big leap.
After all, all my 'relationships' could meet that definition. They give up some things-- freedom, independence of thought, emotional stability. I give up something too-- I give up my time. I choose to spend time with someone who, normally, I would never meet. In return, they get to be near me, they get to obey me, they get to become something better than the otherwise would be. I, on the other hand, get to have more enjoyment than I might otherwise had-- whether that enjoyment is the hot, spiciness of rage, the comedy of humiliation, the pride of total control, or something even more carnal-- we both give up something, we both get something better in return.
Since your attitude is to destruct, to rule, to win, I am shameless now and tell you my opinion is this attitude is inferior. No matter if a woman or a man adopts it. It's an attitude of destruction, not of creating.
Well, if we're going to be technical and philosophical, what I call "Life Destruction" is less about pure destruction and is actually more of a transformation.
Pure destruction might best be symbolized by people who are sufficiently unamusing that they are banned from future interactions with me. The universe will continue for me, but they, for all intense and purposes, no longer inhabit it.
What I call "Life Destruction" is closer to a religious experience-- sacrificing _everything_ for a superior being, offering up EVERYTHING on the altar to this being, eager for them to take whatever will please them.
And of course, often I don't go through the trouble to _really_ take EVERYTHING-- too timeconsuming. It's enough to take a few things, so they know it's not a game, and then watch as the flood of offerings still comes. Virtual whole phonebooks come if you even hint you might like to speak with people in their lives. Customized humiliating pictures just for mom and dad. Dirt on the boss that only one employee would know about. on and on.
It's rare to actually _take_ all that is offered-- destruction doesn't have to be complete. What's hot is knowing that someone has GIVEN their life to you. They will sacrifice ANYTHING. Actually bothing to take everything-- that's an afterthought. You ahve to destroy some sectors of life to make sure the sacrifice is sincere, of course, but the pleasant part is knowing you have that level of control.
After all, even the hebrew god demanded Abraham sacrifice his beloved son Isaac-- but upon seeing that Abraham WAS willing, no need to actually destroy Isaac-- it's was hot enough for god that Abraham would submit to that demand. <grin> So who am I to resist similar temptations when given similar powers? After all-- are we not created in god's image?
The point is, destruction is all part of transformation. Life sculpting probably would be a better term than mere life destruction-- but the destruction part is sufficiently enjoyable that it makes a better catch phrase that underscores my orientation more than mere "sculpting" would.
And of course, lest I seem like someone who's been operating out of a dungeon for 15 years, do remember, I actually _am_ very inexperienced in a lot of these things. When my grandiosity gets going, I can talk about things as if there are hundreds of people whose lives have been irrevocably changed by me. But the fact is, I'm still working on an undergrad degree, I only recently "came out" as kinky to all my friends, family's still in the dark, and all the people who I have done my little "life destruction" on have been people I've known in person, less than ten individuals in total I'd say-- give or take what you want to call destruction. So, don't build me up into too much of a supreme monster or anything. At the end of the day, no matter how many people I hurt, I still come home and spoil my beloved cat, who gets far more meals than a normal cat really deserves. :)
Sophia
My job keeps me busy with too much work. I hope I can still answer it. And Indigo I think like you, but we already had some intelectual threads here.
