Primer

This is a choice few posts from a different site.  If you can find it, you are close to being Human (it seems).  There will most assuredly be more added.  I'm just not feeling that enthusiastic.  It has been too long for someone to pipe up and say something rational regarding all of this.

Open admission

 I have to consider, once again, the aspect of openly admitting the lack.  Could that possibly be enough?  There are plenty of men of all stripes that have admitted it to themselves.  That has surely helped greatly - for them.  If it was openly admitted, if they quit making excuses - like a religious calling, etc (is that the reason that priest were supposed to remain celibate (which clearly didn't work!)) of any other folderol that has been used to mask the truth, would that be enough?

I come back to the same answer.  NO.  Not if men are equipped and capable of so much more, which is adamantly what I believe to be the case.

The ONLY problem is that men have been trained for three millennia and a billion years before that, to hide from the problem.  As their intelligence grew, they were prevented by inertia from exploring what they are really capable of.  LOVING.

I think this has to go on ASP.

Impetus

     Does anyone even get that the point is to eliminate (pre)humanity's impetus to dystopia and creating madmen?  As long as we attempt to eliminate madmen, after they have been created, we will remain a mad race.

    When will the human race learn to quit leaning on a crutch that doesn't exit.  There is always only one outcome.

Can you begin to comprehend how quickly it can all change?

Polarization

√Polarization

I'm feeling a bit mad today, so this has to go on the phantom site.  It's not like I feel I'm going crazy as much as I feel I am being driven to extremes.  I thought Topsy-Turvy explained everything to precision.  It definitely freed something in my mind.  I can't say it will catch anyone that hasn't been reading along thoroughly and accepting what I have been saying.  

After further thought, I think I have to put this on LP.  I need help and that seems the best place to get it.  This holds some promise, like a loving song.

I have even gone so far as to say I finally feel like a real man.  

I still remain boggled by the complexity of getting to the heart of the matter: Loving Coitus and what the absence of it does to the male gender.  I have to shake my head.  

It seems so simple to me, once a person accepts that the surface issues are camouflage that the race uses to avoid the realization that we are not Human until we really learn to love.  Of course, that is not how the prehuman race looks at it.  They see the act that creates life as dangerous to study closely and, thus, unalterable.

While I say it seems simple, that is poorly stated.  I spent the last fifteen years convincing myself beyond the shadow of a doubt.  I keep trying to get a handle on how to get everyone from here to there.  Maybe I should say I keep trying to find a way to get anyone from here to there.  I am still not certain I have gotten anyone there.  Sometimes I think that no one believes it is that simple for us to rid ourselves of that which precludes us from becoming sane.

So, to polarization.  I've started thinking that maybe a chart showing the connections stemming from the male gender's madness might do.  Picture a chart with arrows pointing to various secondary effects from the starting point of a male gender in which the individuals feel an inferiority complex from everyone else, including their own gender.

My question, from this point, would be whether the other toxic characteristics should be before or after the starting point.  In other words, should the paranoia, stupour, misogyny and other toxic characteristics of the toxic gender be considered secondary or primary?

The polarization is certainly the most significant result (at the pointy ends of the arrows).  It leads to any distinguishable differences between humans becoming bones of contention (e.g. race, religion, gender).  Maybe more exactly, the bone of contention starts in the home and spreads from there (which I've said often enough).  That means gender is primary.  Does that make the others secondary?  I don't think so.  They all come from the same source.  

    The creation of bones of contention is certainly a secondary effect.  Would I put polarization itself as a secondary effect and examples (they are endless) of polarization as tertiary and quaternary effects?  Is the polarization of the two genders a special case?  Is misogyny a secondary effect or just the first and primary example of polarization?  Is the male paranoia another secondary effect, though it is tied so closely to the polarization of humanity?

    Once again, no.  They can all be classified as the first results of the source of embarrassment, guilt, shame, and madness.

How do I convey that all of it is created by the paranoia of the male gender.  Which leads to another issue.  Polarization is accepted by many men and women. How do I convince anyone and everyone that it is the male gender's madness that causes it all?  That the woman's insanity is derivative.  Can no one else look back into the distant past and see that it all started so very long ago that excuses by everyone were adopted in bulk.  Those that contested the situation were so resoundingly punished that we learned to shut up as a race about that which causes the chaos.  That was our first mistake and that seems well-pegged to have begun in earnest about three millennia ago.  It would be interesting to know the origins of Save Face but it's not worth the effort.  Everything in the West and India point to three millennia ago.

It is so clear to me because I learned to look for the big picture.  To me, when I look at the general characteristics of the two genders, it is so clear.  But, that is preceded by the premise that Loving Coitus is what drove the male gender mad.  Not their desire for sex.  Not testosterone.  Not their greater strength.  Not being the 'breadwinner'.  They all contribute but they are secondary effects in a different dimension.  Those are all easily available excuses that don't go too near the truth.  The race accepting Loving Coitus makes us Human.  The race accepting the lack makes us almost Human.

I think there are many women that don't like to consider the influence men have had on their existence for many millennia.  They want to feel independent of it all.  I guess the interconnectedness of it all is what stumps many.

Which leads to a further complication.  Many millennia of being a race that is essentially sentient but still dragging the chain of the animal's stupour along with it.  That is why it has been so difficult to distinguish where the flaw lies.  Sure, there are some women that go mad.  How could they not?

Very frustrating to attempt to unravel it all on my own to the point where someone can comprehend and accept it all.  Once again, I have to ask.  Am I the only one thinking here?  It is so easy to get caught up in the daily insanity.  I have had to force myself to ignore it all in order to get here.

I hope I have more to say here, but I am not so sure.

Let me try a different tack.  If you look closely at the most major split in humanity, that is, the conservatives and liberals, the most significant breach is between those that believe alternatives to coitus are essential and those that believe coitus is the only way to perform sex.  That is the wedge that the conservatives can rely on.  There is, of course, more to it, but that is the bone of contention we continue to fight about, first and foremost, for three millennia.

I just can't figure out why the human race is resisting attaining its sentient state of Humanity.  I know it is so easy to block it out and continue with the antics of getting all involved with the surface issues.  It is just so difficult for me to believe that everyone would rather distract themselves with the horrors of prehumanity rather than resolve them.

I have repeatedly made what I thought were conclusive arguments just to see them seemingly brushed aside.  That is another bit piece of it.  I don't even know if I am getting through to anyone or not.  There are a number of hits from different sources that seem to maintain a presence but are they advocates or blind mice?

Maybe what is missing is tracking the insanity back to the male gender.  It staggers me but maybe it's not clear to everyone just how toxic the male gender is.  Or, maybe, it is just brushed off due to the deeply embedded fear of confronting the lack in coitus for a sentient race?  Or, maybe, it's the instilled fear that there is nothing to be done about it that hits home?  

It is just another big picture issue.  I expect anyone that misses the toxicity of the male gender attributes it to specific, high profile individuals of the gender as compared to those that keep some semblance of their humanity.  The remnants are always there.  Some men intentionally mask them.  Some have actually learned to cope with them in various ways.  The best are those that find some way to share.  But, the taint is always there and apparent, if one looks closely enough.

The taint that is always present is men's inability to open themselves up completely.  It is not natural for a sentient being to be so closed off.  It is a taint that cannot be removed until Loving Coitus becomes real for anyone interested in coitus.

I guess there are some that are completely sane because they fulfill Loving Coitus.  Even then, though, I wonder.  Are they still tainted by the demented state of the rest of their gender.  I hope everyone sees by now that I certainly believe that, if every man found another way to share the ecstasy, that would do the trick - maybe.  The biggest problem with that is that it ain't gonna happen, as far as I can tell.  I also can still make an argument that it won't rid the male gender of the paranoia, unless it were proven conclusively that men cannot succeed at coitus.  That also ain't gonna happen.

AI

AI is really quite fascinating for unearthing the paradigms of nonsense that remain.  If we ever become wholly Human, it may become a way in which to attempt to root out the nonsense that remains.

I had a conversation with an AI.  I asked it why so many couple's sexual engagements did not include mutual orgasm.  It gave me some folderol about cultural biases and religious beliefs.  Which may be the best evidence that we are lying to ourselves.  It is directly from the mouths of humans that AI learns.

I really wish I had followed up and told it that it was wrong and asked it to correct itself.  I expect I would have had to follow up with explaining the real situation.  I'll leave it to them to find this site.