Emerald

But this moves the goal posts from your original argument. (And Vegans have generally heard every argument and justification, which is 99% people trying to find a valid reason to justify their own behavior to themselves to deal with the cognitive dissonance of doing something they themselves disagree with.) It's moving the goal posts, because your original argument was about deliciousness and how you eat animals because they're more delicious than grain. You weren't originally arguing that it was because of prioritizing your well-being. That's just the secondary argument you chose to run away to when I confronted you with the "pleasure vs life" question. I honestly like it when people make the argument about pleasure... because it's a lot more honest than the vast majority of other arguments. The real reason why 95% of people in developed nations eat animals is because they taste good and they prioritize their pleasure over the animal's lives. That's the reality of it. It's why I used to eat meat, eggs, and dairy. They tasted good. And I prioritized that pleasure over my own values. And that was why it was difficult to go Vegan because I had to face that about myself that I was living out of integrity with my own values, and I was prioritizing my own hedonic joys over sentient life. I had to see that I shared similarities with rapists who prioritize their momentary pleasure over someone else's quality of life and well-being. There was no lying to myself anymore and going into cognitive dissonance with the 532 arguments that every non-Vegan with Vegan values uses to justify their behavior to themselves. So, most people do prioritize their own pleasure and creature comforts over the life of another. They just don't agree with the ethics of it if you confront them about it and ask them about it directly because very few people like the idea of being the type of person that prioritizes their pleasure over the life of another.

This is moving the goal posts a bit, no? A little bit of cognitive dissonance. I was just asking you if it's part of your value system to prioritize your own momentary pleasure over the life of another? If it is your value, I disagree with it. But I'll at least accept that that's part of your value system, and I won't bug you about it anymore because you don't hold Vegan values. But if it's not part of your value system and your not okay with prioritizing your pleasure over the life of another, your argument about deliciousness might be little bit out of integrity for you.

Is it part of your value system to prioritize your own momentary pleasure over the life of another? If so, how do you feel about the fact that you hold that value?

I don't really think that's why he wrote what her wrote. It was more of a chauvinistic gripe about woke society forgetting that women's main value and role is reproduction... which is probably more of an anti-trans reflex than anything else. But he still seems a little annoyed that women are operating outside of the ways that he feels comfortable defining and understanding women. He really likes to have a sense that he has a hard and fast understanding of women and how we operate, but he is often reductive and inaccurate in understanding basic things about women and Femininity. And because being misrepresented and misunderstood is one of my biggest pet peeves, I often call him out on stuff like this. Also, he was speaking a bit like Matt Walsh in his posts, so I figured he might have just been exposing himself to some right wing propaganda that's perhaps injected its venom and taken ahold of him a bit. So, I think he just mentioned that he was trying to educate men about women because he got caught being sexist and was trying to find another logical explanation for the sexist gaffe when I called him out on it. But I don't think he considered the full implications of what he was communicating because another guy on the thread was like "Then does that mean that women are lying to themselves when they pursue a career?" I don't think he realized that his sexism was opening up that particular can of worms that he doesn't agree with himself.

I was considering sharing something similar. The idea that "women's #1 value is reproduction" assumes a male-centric viewpoint. And it could be said that, from the female-centric viewpoint, the #1 value for men is reproduction... That is, if we're actually functioning from a Darwinian scientific perspective that boils human existence down to survival and reproductive functions. When it comes to reproduction, males and females of a sexual species exist for this very reason. Without the sexual reproductive function, there would be no such thing as male and female. But Leo seemed to be trying to play off of this Darwinian scientific perspective for women, while exempting men from the evolutionary lens and to see men as the exempted beneficiaries of Darwinian evolution but not as participants in it.... and to view men's value as non-relational and self-contained and women's value as purely relational... and specifically dealing with the reproductive element of relational value. But men and women have always had most of our evolutionary value wrapped up in community connection and contribution. So, everyone's evolutionary value is relational... and reproduction is just one relational evolutionary values that we all possess. And older adults who are past their child-rearing age don't lose evolutionary value. If it were the case, women wouldn't be living so long past Menopause. Ultimately, the Darwinian lens only describes a fraction of what a person is and is just bad science if we try to scientifically reduce half of the population to a single function. Yet again... perhaps those in glass houses should not throw stones. If we look at nature beyond the human species, the primary function of the males of many different species is literally just for the purposes of reproduction and nothing more. Let's pull a Jordan Peterson... but instead of Lobsters, let's apply Praying Mantis logic to humanity instead.

That's definitely true. It was true for me too.

Actually, livestock consume between 60% and 80% of the crops human beings grow, depending on the region. So, if you really want to save plants for the Vegans... then stop giving money to companies that breed millions of very large plant-eating animals into existence for human consumption. For every 1 lb of beef that's produced, it requires 16 lbs of grain to be grown and fed to cows.

Of course it does, but how does that get conveyed in a way that's helpful to men by simply saying women's #1 value is reproduction? What was it that you're trying to get men to understand about women? Also, how does this help men understand women if women can only reproduce for 20-30 years out of their life? Wouldn't that create a huge blindspot in understanding women of all ages (including ones in their child-bearing years)? And how do you want men to change their thinking or behavior in relation to that understanding you're trying to convey? This is what's unclear to me about what you're saying... if it's directed towards men. To me, it doesn't seem like you're really teaching anything that isn't either obvious... or wrapped up in social should or should nots around women's behavior and role in society.

I'm pretty sure that most people over the age of two already know that women are the ones that have the babies. And I don't think anyone's in disagreement that women are the ones getting pregnant. So, what is the rationale here? What are you even trying to help men understand about women when you say women's #1 value is reproduction? How does that help men? If anything, it could harm them if they come to see reproductive value as women's sole value as they won't be able to have a relationship with a fully well-rounded female human being who is far more than just her reproductive value. That's the issue with scientific reductionism. Also, what qualifies you as an expert in these matters? Reading books? Doing pick up? It honestly (even if it's not your intention) comes across more as a schooling women about their role and value in society... and as a way to say that modern society is making a mistake and going too woke by allowing women to have roles and values in society outside of motherhood.

The ebb in the population will likely cause some economic problems... but it's also a short term problem that we will have plenty of time to adapt to as it will take several generations for that to happen. So, I have serious doubts that the declining birth rate will lead to economic collapse because most developed nations are pretty close to the the 2.1 replacement rate. But any short terms problem caused by a declining birth rate will lead to a better prognosis in the long-term for our species and all the other species on this planet. So, even if there is an economic collapse (which is a big 'if'), it's better and more survivable to have an economic collapse than an ecological collapse. The current state of our economic system is reliant upon constant expansion. But you simply can't have infinite growth and expansion on a finite planet without causing extinction for our species and others. This is what I mean by excessive Masculinity. The Masculine principle is all about expansion while the Feminine principle is about contraction. And we see all expansion as good and all contraction as bad because we are out of touch with nature.... and we prefer only the Masculine principled polarity. To keep going as we are will eventually cause the quickly burning star of capitalism to use 'up all its fuel' and collapse into a black hole... and we will get swallowed up by the powerful forces of nature. So, we need to ebb as well as flow. And if we allow space for integrating (Feminine) ebbing... Mother Nature won't swallow us entirely. The population is naturally ebbing. So, let it ebb. It is the intelligence of the feedback systems of nature acting within us that's causing us to have fewer children. Also, if it's such a huge problem in your opinion... why haven't you had kids? Why finger wag at people for forgetting that women's "#1 value" is reproduction when you're 'part of the problem' by your own definition.

Actually, I don't think that Vegans have a radically different philosophy than most people do. Most people like animals and don't want animals to suffer unnecessarily. My guess is that over half of non-Vegans have Vegan values. They just don't live by them, and (as a result) have lots of cognitive dissonance around their consumption of animals and animal products. That was how I was before I went Vegan. And when I went Vegan, the most difficult thing was facing into that cognitive dissonance and becoming conscious of how I'd been living out of alignment with my own values for 27 years. But this is also what's uncomfortable about interacting with a lot of non-Vegans when they suddenly find out that you're Vegan (especially if they suddenly find out you're Vegan when you're eating a meal with them). Here's a scenario that always makes me squirm in my seat... I'll be out at a restaurant with someone who doesn't yet know that I'm Vegan, and I'll tell the server that I'm Vegan so that they don't add non-Vegan ingredients. And then, after the server leaves, the non-Vegan that I'm with will start explaining themselves like they're on trial. And they'll start giving me justifications as to why they're not Vegan... or that how they tried it before and it didn't work for them. But I'm genuinely not judging them. In fact, if someone doesn't have Vegan values and is just like "I'm fine with eating meat and dairy because I genuinely don't care about reducing the suffering of animals." I tend to respect it a bit more because they're being honest with themselves and living in alignment with their values. But because these non-Vegans with Vegan values are judging themselves for living out of alignment with their own values, they'll feel like I'm judging them... when it's just themselves judging them.

This was an interesting read. I hadn't thought of what I was sharing from these angles... but it definitely fits with all the things I'm doing intuitively when attempting to communicate something experiential to someone who hasn't had the same experiences.

There is an issue of over-population that is creating a lot of large scale issues like climate change. And this is a problem that humanity has never faced with before. And if every woman still saw their primary value as reproduction and focused on having a 5-10 babies like women have been made to in generations past to have more farmhands, it would cause the population to expand when it needs to contract in order for humanity to avoid huge global problems. This is why Stage Green movements like Feminism have arisen at this juncture in history in the first place... to offset and balance out old survival adaptations that are now counter-productive... and having a ton of babies is one of them, as is having women's sole life purpose as motherhood and only men in positions of societal influence. Before, it was always man vs Mother Nature. And we needed to be hyper-Masculine as a society to survive against the powerful forces of nature. But now, the Masculine power of our species' societal and technological development matches and threatens to exceed the Feminine power of nature. And we have become cancerous to the planet because of our excessive Masculinity. Because of this, the things we've always done to survive in the past will now backfire because our societal technology . So, women need to gain more societal power beyond motherhood in order for society to adapt as a patriarchal species cannot survive long in a post-industrial world without totally destroying itself. And both male and female leaders must learn to govern in a way that integrates the Feminine. So with what you said, how are we even defining what "value" means in this context? Value isn't static, it changes as our society changes. If value means survival value, then we're much more likely to survive and thrive as a species if we're having fewer babies. If you're looking from a Darwinian perspective, then it's all about adaptations that make us more fit to the enrironment. And that changes as the environment changes. Up until the industrial age, it was evolutionarily advantageous for women to have as many babies as possible and to dedicate all their time to that. Once you get to the industrial age, you have technological changes that enable and even necessitate women to individuate. And with individuation, the toothpaste can't just go back into the tube because there are people who don't understand the macrocosmic societal changes that are happening now.

I think her point was to say that "free sex anytime you want it" isn't much of a benefit from the woman's perspective because it doesn't give us what we're looking for and the emotional payoff is minimally positive or even negative. It's a bit like having a million dollars in Confederate money. It's a lot of money but that currency just isn't worth much from the perspective of the average woman... even though "free sex anytime you want it" is or seems very valuable to a lot of men. And the male fantasy of being lusted after by many women would truthfully be a nightmare if it was actually realized. Women know this because of the lived experience of being lusted over by many men. But most men don't know this because they haven't had the experience of that fantasy coming to fruition. And they generally don't understand how terrible being objectified by a large swath of the population feels. It's a bit like a thirsty man seeing all the women having constant access to copious amounts of water... and that women are always having people try to give water to them even when they don't want it. But what they don't realize is that the vast majority of that water is sea water... and that men and women actually have conferable levels of access to fresh drinkable water. But I've known guys who have had a lot of sex with a lot of women, and I haven't generally found these guys to be particularly attractive. They've mostly been regular average guys. They're mostly just social with both men and women... and they're open to that kind of experience. Like the guys I went to high school and college with that had sex pretty frequently, were of a variety of different levels of attractiveness appearance-wise and personality-wise. But they were all social and had a healthy social circle with male and female friends and acquaintances. So, my thought is that it probably isn't that difficult for a generally social man who can just go out and have a good time to find women to sleep with. Without all the insecurities, hangups, and projections, it's easy to find a woman who will sleep with you... and it's even easier to find a man who will sleep with you.

That's interesting. I'm a little surprised that there are multiple men on this thread that genuinely find this story scary or disturbing. To me, it comes across as the most mundane story. It's just another porn scenario among many others. And I don't really feel disturbed by sexual scenarios unless someone is being victimized and/or forced to do something against their will. What is it about this that creates the feeling of horror?

What I notice is that men are more likely (on average) to clamor for authoritarian governance to tell them what's right and wrong, typically in a very systematic and legalistic way. That's why there are so many men who look up to authoritarian political figures. But I don't think this is part of men's nature per se... at least not mostly. I think men tend to be conditioned by society to tune out from their body, emotions, and instincts. And sensitivity to these internal emotional cues tends to be seen as a threat to a man's Masculinity. So, there is often a numbing to the internal compass in order to come across as more stoic. And so, in lieu of sensitivity to their internal compass (because of the conditioned lack of emotional sensitivity), there is a dearth of self-sovereignty in a sizable percentage of the male population. And in that vacuum of self-sovereignty, there is a search for a perfect external authoritarian figure to make decisions for them. So, an authoritarian strong-man who purports himself as a perfect authority will make men who are disconnected from their emotional compass feel like "Finally, I have found the source of direction and truth." Women, on the other hand, tend to (on average) be more sensitive to their emotions and thus are somewhat more likely to recognize "The emperor has no clothes".

Your profile says you're from France. Do parents still make decisions for their adult children in France?

More doesn't mean better.... but better means better.

She's an adult. So, her dad doesn't have any ability to make decisions for her. And if you had an adult daughter or son, you also wouldn't be able to make decisions for them. And any attempt would backfire. I've worked with people who have adult children who have addictions, and one of the worst things you can do is to try to jump in and rescue them from themselves. You have to let your adult kids live their own life, even if you hate their choices.

Them's fighting words! Jung's work is far superior to Freud's. Freud is just oversimplified and is like "Everything comes back to your relationship with your mother, and your dreams are all about sex." Conversely, Jung is a brilliant mystic and alchemist in a 19th/20th century scientist's clothing. And he (far and away), understood so much more about the workings of the human psyche than any of his contemporaries. Here are some finger puppets one of my best friends (who is also a Jungian enthusiast) got me for my birthday a few years back...

I am still curious who you thought it was. But yes... watch them back through to sense the twinkle of the "element of irreducible rascality" in my eyes.

But it would never actually start a trend because sleeping with a bunch of men isn't interesting to most women. It's very high risk, low reward behavior. And that's especially true if we think about sleeping with a bunch of men in one day. So, all the danger talk is super hyperbolic. It's just another sexual spectacle to add to the mountain of porn that already exists. And all porn is fundamentally mundane. Plus, there are already sex workers. And there always have been. So, there has always been relatively easy access to sex on offer for men since the beginning of humanity. So, she's not really screwing with foundational moral principles that haven't been thoroughly eroded since the days of Moses.

I was kidding with @integral. I figured the person they assumed that it was was a woman. And there's only like 4 women on this forum. So, I was thinking there was a 25% chance that they were thinking it was me making a confession. So, I was going with it, in case I was right. Plus, I'd been commenting on this post before, and they might have seen my name.

Yeah, the math isn't really adding up to me. Like, you could get 100 guys to insert themselves per day and that might be manageable. But if we're assuming a completion that takes 10 minutes per guy, that would be at least 1000 minutes of sex. And that's like 17 hours of sex. By hour four, everything would be on fire... especially if she's (hopefully) using condoms.

You thought I was really letting my freak flag fly, huh?