“Love is a fog that burns away in the first light of reality.”
“Love is what you want it to be,
“Love is heaven to the lonely,
“Show me what you want me to do,
“Cuz love is what I got for you.”
“Love doesn’t come unbidden; you must work for her.”
[March, 2012 edit: I began writing this back in early 2008, back when I was with my ex-girlfriend and we were “doing well.” It was one of those “doing well” times in which one feels as though he’s going to be with that person forever, and I certainly felt as if I could spend the rest of my life with her, and have kids, all that. I’d cared more about her than I had cared for anyone else, and felt I’d had more of a “connection” to her than anyone I’d ever met. I never thought about all this much—what is between a couple shoukd be done and not talked about…when it’s being talked about much constantly, it means nothing is being done, nothing is developing, growing; “talk” is not sharing or understanding or communicating (there are better ways to communicate—talking is just a clumsy left-brained way), is it dissecting, controlling, using words as tools and words to rip minds apart.
At any rate, it was the perfect time to write about “love” since, if I’d used such words, I would have said I loved her. And thus I could be taken seriously without being instantly dismissed as someone bitter or hurt or (“You’re trashing love just because you don’t have it and want it!”) *whatever* knee-jerk attack or whichever label is used to judge and dismiss someone writing about “love” with anything but a glowing, smiling, glorifying attitude. To be sure, one who is alone and speaks unkindly about “love,” well, obviously we tend to examine motives rather than look at any potential meaning there. “Love” is definitely a cult; we go through it religiously and respond to attacks of our “Faith” with viciousness, coldness and brutal cruelty. Its followers are more terrible than those batshit-crazy religious zealots, more pigheaded than any Flat-Earther. The deeper we are a member of the cult of “love,” the less we will look at objectively; the more we are a slave to the one we “love,” the less we will see and wish to see, the less will understand or want to understand. We long to remain oblivious, blissful in the chemical reactions entreating our brains, being validated and accepted and praised by another, being freed—if only temporarily—from constant shame…and we don’t want to face reality, hear the truth, or lose this drugged out feeling; we certainly don’t wish to hear about what fools, liars, and slaves we are, how “love” is the most horrible lie ever perpetuated, how we are all willing servants to its ongoing stranglehold on human consciousness….]
The Cult Of “Love”
Yes, El Nordo finally worked up enough thought power and courage to tackle my least-favourite subject. (I’ll park this in my Politically Incorrect section and suggest that any feminine individuals should really, seriously stop reading now—nasty words and a big meaty, cylindrical ego-slamming is coming up for you, my little smooth-skinned, sweet-smelling, precious, gentle readers, …so leave now and you won’t have to think. Stay safe!
***winks and cuddles*** )
Why least-favourite? Because one can only talk “openly” and “honestly” about love EXCEPT in some popular or positive (or mystical) manner. That’s the truth, folks. As a concept, it’s as religiously defended as Catholicism still is today.
As far as women go, anyway; guys usually don’t do that with other guys who talk of “love;” they at times shame them in some way to never talk about it again (it’s kinda fruity, I suppose, in some people’s minds, to discuss subjects that are entirely feminine, of course), but when they do talk about it, it’s far different and less prosaic than the way women talk about it. It’s less cliched, perhaps. I’m not exactly sure.
The moment you say anything negative or even truthful about love (because let’s face, nothing is 100% “good”—not even “love”), you’ll be picked at—your “love life” will be dissected along with your character to find out what personal reasons you have for such a belief. (In effect, you’ll be seen as a lost sheep whose run astray from the Walmart-Smilie-Face World of the “relationship herds.”)
[Now…out of that little beginning light-herded onslaught, I said three heavy things—1: it’s like a religion. I believe this is so for most people, most women in particular, and their notions of “love.” Get to that later. Second and third coming right up…]
See what happened there? (2) Unless your thoughts on love are the usual ooie-gooie-sickly-sweet variety (or at least neutral, scientific, which is ignored most often anyway—no one wants to hear what science says on love…that’s like a politician talking about art—monkey pooh), you’ll basically be labeled as something (bitter, biased, angry, or some other, similar short-cut to actual thinking, that invalidates everything you say and think and leaves it all at the floor of modern pop-psychology, as meaningless “problems” of yours, unsolvable except through submission to or agreement in some doctrine or common theory—which is not scientifically based at all—psychology = another religion), and it’s something that female armchair shrinks enjoy like nothing else (save shopping, masturbating, and eating), “debating” with men on subjects like love and attacking them and not their points, for what you think, feel, or what you’ve observed over the course of your life matters more to them than what you say—which they don’t listen to at all, merely hear and strike like a tennis racket back at your head. Yes, you have “problems”—that’s why “love” smells like a box of Fecal Hoax Flakes to you. It’s all your fault, sir.
No, it’s not. Don’t listen to them. They probably know less than you do, which is why they’re being so dismissive in the first place. I mean, think about it—how many feminists are happy or in “healthy and mutually satisfactory relationships?” (How many people are in general? How many are actually honest about what they have with the person to whom they’ve bound themselves?
“Things are fine!”
Right. Until you spend some time with them and their “significant” other and you begin to see; their phony public facade can’t be kept up %100 of the time; they dismantle it at home, albeit partially when company is over. But it always comes down eventually and the truth can be seen. Every single one of these “relationships” are “dysfunctional”—because female-male “relationships” have not functioned for thousands of years and cannot function in this setting, this environment….But that’s another story. Point is, we’re all grand liars when it comes to “love.” Like any religious person, we have to lie to ourselves to keep the bullshit rolling along and “be happy.”)
Taking a serious position on love means to unravel its “mystery” also, and that’s another unrecommended thing to do. It basically depends who you discuss/debate with this stuff; women seem to feel they invented love and know all about it. (They do—by the time they’re in their twenties to early thirties, most women fancy themselves as experts on love, especially if they’re single and hip on women’s magazines and the usual generational books that shares with them all the mistakes of their mother’s generation, which they promptly repeat.) They don’t know “all about it,” and they didn’t invent it of course, but it’s typical, I find, that they need to build themselves up into something more than they really are (and I understand why, so that’s not really my point); but that’s more deception. Women don’t know more about “love” than you or any man does; they just act like it. They convince themselves and each other that they are, but even the most blockheaded male hesitates to trust a woman especially if she claims she so adept in love. Why? Had she been so adept, she’d be in a 60-year marriage or “relationship” or common law. I’m sure some do, and are in healthy, so-called “loving relationships.” But most aren’t, hence most know little of love.
(Did you see what also took place higher up?—3: “in some people’s minds, to discuss subjects that are entirely feminine, of course…”
Yes. Whatever notions exist today of love, we seem to know or only care to know the female side (as usual—this is entirely a female world, so “love” shouldn’t be excluded from the list of things they ultimately control or strive manically to control, in every possible way); meaning that a question needs asking: what is the “masculine side” of “love?” Yet even that question is too soon to be posted.)
It’s a tangle—to get into or discuss. I’ve already insulted some women, a few times, and everyone in general just getting into what happens when you start talking about “love.” People who gear most of their adult lives to “love” are obviously going to be insulted if someone comes along and brazenly calls them “fools.” But after a few “relationships” they already know what fools we are all. But I wonder if they know what a religion “love” is…
Biases must be revealed with this subject. And it must be approached in some manner of structure, so I’ll start again…
1. What is “Love?”
This seems to be the most important question, the most relevant.
Seems to me that everything begins with that. It seems there many types of love. Everyone knows what love is—we do, but what we know is hardly ever expressable or even understandable (I can spend twenty years buying various items, tucking away bits of rope in my trunk, a few years later finding a knife and cleaning it, sharpening it, all the while living my calm and productive life…and suddenly use these items when something “clicks” in my brain and take an airport hostage and get twelve people blown up in a premature bomb explosion. Just an example—the mind works in unconscious ways only the most aware can see—and still not completely understand.) There is so much we know but only fractions we ever understand, by the time we’re dead.
Love, I think, is one of them. “Love,” I should say. What the fuck is it?
Let’s check the dictionary…
love “luhv” – noun, verb, loved, lov·ing.
1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3. sexual passion or desire.
4. a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.
5. (used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like): “Would you like to see a movie, love?”
6. a love affair; an intensely amorous incident; amour.
7. sexual intercourse; copulation.
8. (initial capital letter) a personification of sexual affection, as Eros or Cupid.
9. affectionate concern for the well-being of others: the love of one’s neighbor.
10. strong predilection, enthusiasm, or liking for anything: her love of books.
11. the object or thing so liked: The theater was her great love.
12. the benevolent affection of God for His creatures, or the reverent affection due from them to God.
13. Chiefly Tennis. a score of zero; nothing.
14. a word formerly used in communications to represent the letter L.
–verb (used with object)
15. to have love or affection for: All her pupils love her.
16. to have a profoundly tender, passionate affection for (another person).
17. to have a strong liking for; take great pleasure in: to love music.
18. to need or require; benefit greatly from: Plants love sunlight.
19. to embrace and kiss (someone), as a lover.
20. to have sexual intercourse with.
–verb (used without object)
21. to have love or affection for another person; be in love.
22. love up, to hug and cuddle: She loves him up every chance she gets.
23. for love,
a. out of affection or liking; for pleasure.
b. without compensation; gratuitously: He took care of the poor for love.
24. for the love of, in consideration of; for the sake of: For the love of mercy, stop that noise.
25. in love, infused with or feeling deep affection or passion: a youth always in love.
26. in love with, feeling deep affection or passion for (a person, idea, occupation, etc.); enamored of: in love with the girl next door; in love with one’s work.
27. make love,
a. to embrace and kiss as lovers.
b. to engage in sexual activity.
28. no love lost, dislike; animosity: There was no love lost between the two brothers.
[Origin: bef. 900; (n.) ME; OE lufu, c. OFris luve, OHG luba, Goth lubō; (v.) ME lov(i)en, OE lufian; c. OFris luvia, OHG lubōn to love, L lubére (later libére) to be pleasing; akin to lief]
—Synonyms 1. tenderness, fondness, predilection, warmth, passion, adoration. 1, 2. Love, affection, devotion all mean a deep and enduring emotional regard, usually for another person. Love may apply to various kinds of regard: the charity of the Creator, reverent adoration toward God or toward a person, the relation of parent and child, the regard of friends for each other, romantic feelings for another person, etc. Affection is a fondness for others that is enduring and tender, but calm. Devotion is an intense love and steadfast, enduring loyalty to a person; it may also imply consecration to a cause. 2. liking, inclination, regard, friendliness. 15. like. 16. adore, adulate, worship.
—Antonyms 1, 2. hatred, dislike. 15, 16. detest, hate.
Blah blah blah. There we go. Essentially, it could mean anything. Any fucking thing! I love garlic shrimp, and I love dogs…but not in the same way. Context, levels, personal experience.
Conclusion: the word is simply and completely meaningless.
That’s why I don’t talk often of it and why I cringe when I see people use it as a name—such as: “Well, Love is great.”
Sorry, but it’s not a person or such. Hence: “I don’t ‘Love Pizza.’ I don’t think pizza is divine and so do not capitalize it, or ‘love.'” You can see tell a lot about people by which (and how many) words they capitalize. The resolve to make something a big deal—a bigger deal than it is…think about about twenty years of putting that extra effort into capitalizing a word, one word that you type, what? A few times a week? A day? Say, it was “Day.” Every Day, typing and capitalizing that special word, “Day,” each and every-Day, even ThursDay…
(I will sometimes capitalize “Nature,” for one reason: it’s the total sum of all life on this planet. If one capitalizes “John” because he’s a living being, why should we not capitalize all Life on the planet? That’s my point here, merely. Even though “Nature” isn’t a deity, not “divine,” nor is it a person or female figure or dude with a goat’s head or bird’s head. Nature *comprises*—like All comprises, except Nature does it in small, “Life’s Franchise on Earth,” for our planet and was around far longer than humans and thus has *nothing* to do with us. Masculine and feminine are not human inventions either. That’s biology, too—Biology even. Big “E” on evolution even; these are massively old systems, part of a far older one called Life, in which we’re only recent and very, very minor members. That’s what I reason, anyway—so get a grip, I say, on this bloody ego-tripping where humans are concerned…)
You get the point; so, the more you write, the more accumulated effort goes into that extra effort to make certain words “divine.” Deification, objectification. This is religion in operation and nothing besides religion …
(A million tiny shift+”D” add up, yunno, so consider a million people doing that for a thousand years, every Day, and we now have an accumulated “extra effort” that equals an avalanche crushing clean the side of a mountain, don’t we? Eventually, we do. I’ve seen religious types write about God is this way: “GOD is great!” I’ve seen people capitalize nearly every word in every sentence they write. Anyway…)
So, we’ve established that “love” is many things. Generally, I see human love as no different than love in nature…let’s consider…
2. “Natural love?”
What is the quintessential difference in social behaviour between humans and other mammals? Let’s review the three major differences between human animals and non-human animals, for that purpose. There are only a few key differences between homo sapiens (sapiens) and our common (extant) ancestor, chimpanzees, in no order…
A. Humans have written, spoken, and symbolic language.
B. We are fully bipedal, housing a large neocortex which has grown large under such locomotion.
C. We have opposing thumbs. (Tool-making, manipulating matter in environments.)
That’s it, physically. Metaphysically, the biggest different is consciousness, self-awareness, sentience—“being aware that we’re aware” and for all we know, other mammals have this too—and we know we’re going to die…as far as we can discern, no other animal comprehends its own mortality, not actively. But here is the problem because we barely understand consciousness—because humans are only barely conscious, newborns, themselves. So we don’t know an animal’s dreams…does a dog dream of dying? Does he fear it? Probably fears the dark, the end, pain, injury, bad smells, disease, death, all the things in symbol and sense form that point to its demise; but there just isn’t any good evidence that a dog, or chimp, is aware of its own death.
Hence only humans kill themselves?
There are more similarities between human and non-human animals—and the similarities are all subjective: we simply do not and cannot know what other animals think, dream, or conceive.
And love? What differences…?
Let’s look at similarities. Every mammal species that I’ve studied, every social species, like mice, dogs, have similar behaviour to that of humans. I see no distinction between “love” in dogs compared with humans.
1. Both care for young. Each mother and father of both species is capable of great affection towards offspring (as for dogs, they actually display *more* “love” because there are no orphans in wolf species, for example; the same cannot be said of all human cultures).
—Humans also harm their babies, infants, at far higher degrees than other mammal species; the abortion rates in humans are far higher than any other ape species or any mammal species (reptiles seem to be more like us, or vice versa, but they lay enormous numbers of eggs and only a fraction make it—predators take them and parents, like crocs and gators, don’t guard them for very long once they’ve hatched; no, human female mothers seem much like insects, actually: spiders are the only other (natural) example in nature of a gender of a species which kills its own offspring at such high rates).
(For example, do a bit of research into non-abortion deaths of children—a wholly female crime, you’ll see, in nearly every country on this planet; into the high 90s percent-wise, female to male ratios tipped asburdly in favour of mother murderers. Every year, we see infact mortality rates in humans at levels higher than it would be proportionate for other species with our numbers. Mice probably out-number humans, on Earth, and only here have I witnessed (as with rats, other heavy-breeding, large-litter mammals), yet they have predators to naturally curb their ever-growing numbers, at the lower of the food web. I wonder if domestic mice kill their young in greater numbers than do wild mice? Domestic mice have no predators…
With humans, our “love” notwithstanding, our treatment of our children, collectively as a species, is enough for any thinking person (who has studied most other mammal species or has at least a vague understanding of how dog and mice and wolf and alligator parents behave in their environments—if not, the person might think humans all oh-so-superior here “too”) to wonder if the differences between how humans love and how animals love…might be lopsided, not in our favour (but then again, I wouldn’t want to put forth any radical ideas here…).
—Humans abuse children. Period.
(This doesn’t occur naturally in other mammals; where it does, it is extremely rare and linked to an extraordinary set of circumstances (a father lion may kill cubs that aren’t his—this is not evil, or abuse, though: this is ensuring that his genes get passed on and that he’s not wasting resources caring for children that aren’t his; females “sleeping around” in nature is widespread, actually, and males do it too, but not as much; it’s “normal;” human females don’t, either, nor males, take naturally to monogamy, which is not that common among mammals. Only in social mammals does it get into couplehood, and even then, as in humans, a (very) kindly estimated 30% of all fathers, human male fathers, in the world are raising kids that are from another man, and their wives didn’t tell them.) But as far as abuse, no other species is so barbaric with its young.
Fathers abuse, yes, but mother abuse their kids (especially boys) moreso as infants; I can’t understand why this isn’t a bigger issue—abortion has a nice politcal built-in excuse, I get that, but I cannot tolerate mothers getting away with murder and sexual abuse and physical, and psychological, abuse with their kids, while all the vile negativity gets spewed at fathers, fewer in number than abusive numbers, who give all fathers a bad name. It’s gotten worse over the last three decades in which we’ve observed 50-60% divorce rates and 50% fatherlessness among boys and girls. I judge a species when I must on one basis: how it cares for its children. This is not “love;” this is politics, cruel feminization, social engineering, and clear evidence that animals in natural settings know more about “love” than we could ever dream…
So, I’m not too impressed with “human love” thus far. Let’s continue…
2. Both have sex—consentual?
—Saying that human animals and non-human animals both do the funky mombo is a no-brainer, sure, but what’s the difference? We both screw—“lust” is what it is, of course, naturally, the hormonal and chemical attraction betwen genders that Nature set up to continue the various species. A big difference is that it works very well in nature, and it worked (past tense) very well in humans…until we started farming and overpopulating—then it got managed like everything else got managed. Marriage.
—Hunter-gatherers had three things modern humans do not have:
i. Social balance. (Men kept to their strengths, women kept to theirs. In Inuit societies, men switched roles regularly with the women—girls were given the exact same education as the boys, initated as hunters away from moms, got. Boys were given domestic training—how to sew, skin, cook, and such.)
ii. Interpersonal freedom.
iii. Lower numbers, of course (which, for one thing, increased flexibility overall, and let smaller tribes move around freely with little crime and war, compared with civilizations, naturally. The more nomadic, the less war. It’s as simple as that—the more farming, the more “civilized,” the more war (whose root is materialism—the more want for “more”) and hence more barbarism. Less troubles all around in society and inbetween men and women. Strange how we got that backwards…)
(Am I saying we should bo back to hunter-gatherer life? No, I’m simply pointing out that “love” seemed still natural to us long ago. North American nomads are among the most devoted to family, community, and are children-orientated as well—there was no common term for “orphan” in northern North America before Eurasian expansion.)
But even women in hunter-gatherer groups controlled sex. Or it was mutually arranged or settled into, and it became tradition.
In the natural world, sexual consent is not a communication piece; females use chemicals and body signals to display to males when they’re ready to breed, mate, pair up, whichever. “Make love.” Fuck.
Scientists are discovering more and more that other mammals have a better system going for them—males don’t “rape” because females aren’t in conscious control and their bodies tell the males when it’s time; when it’s not time, the females fight off, aggressively, advances and the males back off. It is not to their advantage to fight for something another female can offer, if he wants it bad enough. So, he leaves her be. That’s how it works in nature. Females have teeth, but males don’t seem to force the matter anyway—there’s “tail” around other places, and his feet work, I guess. If he’s an Alpha male or not, it seems he won’t risk injury, the way some mothers won’t risk themselves to fight off a predator who’s going after her infant; she can always have more and will often let the predator have it. Nature plays by some cold rules, but humans play by downright vicious ones.
Even sex has become moronic among humans, and it’s no one’s fault, really—it was the cost of bigger brains and “civilized” lives. Men are pretty much slaves now to the whims of women, and have been since dogs were first domesticated, then us—why? They control sex. They control its advertising, its distribution, its access, and everything that follows intercourse. Mainly, it’s not sex at all that enslaves men; it’s the potential for sex that women use to get us to do all sorts of things, as we all know and don’t discuss that much, because there is nothing we can do but resist, ultimately.
(It’s no secret the human female controls whether a human male “gets laid”—she’s the gatekeeper, right? He, the keymaster, awaiting orders. He’s got to pay her price to do what his biology drives him to do, but she’s pulling all the strings. She’s replaced former chemical signals with her own conscious rules—and now we have approaching 7 billion humans on the planet.
He has no birth control pill to prevent his seed from getting her pregnant…so, guess what? He has to trust her, with that, as well… once more he must trust a gender who’s track record with the truth, is, well, not as good as his, to be mildly kind here.)
Men, we can only scratch our heads and wonder, ultimately—there’s no chemical signals we can use to determine when she’s (really) in estrus, if she’s faking it, if she’ll change her mind halfway through, if she’s been drinking too much (and if he has too, and if he’ll be charged with rape, jailed and then really raped, where dicks really aren’t supposed to go), or if that other kid is ours or not (and why it’s becoming illegal for us to check through paternity tests, as if feminists really want ‘female ethical oblivion’), if she’s really taken that birth control pill.
She can always kill it, in utero, or smash its head in when it’s born and cling to a “depression” defense, and get off after a year in therapy, after which she’ll likely do it again—stats show, anyway.
Lipstick? No, that might not mean she’ll take an equal role in sex, guys, it could mean something else entirely (“I wear it for me!”); the clothes, perfume, hair, bras and thongs, finely polished appearance? No, they’re not at clubs painted up and air-humping for you, pal, that’s for some other reason they can’t talk about…
A smile and batting eyelashes? Hair twirling? No, there’s lots of guides about female signals, but no good ones—they’re all pretty much useless as much as they’re good info, because it “all depends.” It’s a game, her game, and it’s all deception, innuendo, flirts and winks. Kid stuff, I say, but that’s only an educated opinion.
It’s a world of female rules and games, “modern romance” is, but we were talking about “love.” Not social groups of dubious intentions. In other mammals, it takes a fraction of the time and the males don’t end up paying so much to be “so blessed” by female companionship.
That’s what I like about Nature—a wild dog can walk up to a female, wag his tail, sniff her ass, and find out her entire story, how healthy she is, how many kids she’s had, how long ago she’s eaten, had sex, all that stuff human males have to ask about and filter through their various “bullshit-o-meters.” A wild dog can cut through the shit and there’s nothing hidden from him—no lies he must wade through, no books he must read. He just knows, and she can hide nothing from him. It’s all truthful, simple, and out in the open. That’s what we’ve lost, guys—truth and openness.
And now we’re trimming our hair and shaving our faces and spending all our money on products and clothes and cars and crap to impress females…confused and wondering and hoping. We are now idiots. Dull slaves with no clue what we’re really getting into anyway…
Nature is honest when it comes to love. A black widow male knows that hideous sexy black bitch is gonna rip his head off and eat it if he doesn’t fill her up (I’m sure he caught the joke sometime about the praying mantis…), pay the price for her “love,” her presence and companionship, such as it is, and the future offspring after the fleeting moment of copulation (and the offspring’s perilous plight away from her indiscriminately hungry, web-flinging digits); mostly he’ll get away…if he doesn’t love her too much and stay—if he runs away, he’ll live.
Think about that.
Why? A black window female is intensely feminine—that is the primal “feminine made flesh” in Nature, in small, going way back to simple arachnids that crawled onto land from the sea (from simple crab forms over 75 million years back to 70-80 million spider species worldwide, today, in every ecosystem, on every continent, in nearly every climatic zone or terrain region or nearly every elevation you’ll find one type; an average Boreal forest has hundreds of species in a given square foot of underbrush—these species are far more adaptable, of course, is what I’m getting at, but they don’t “love,” obviously…).
Its nature is wholly feminine but at an older, much more streamlined level in terms of evolution. All the base, primal things in Nature that helps “the feminine” survive (as one half of whatever gender) can be found this non-hunting (non-masculine) species of spider. Reptiles and amphibians have this insectile feminine, too, and so do human females—on the left sides on their brains, I expect. That said, males have “half” this nature as well. Not all mammal males are hunters, and not all human males are, either. (In case you’re wondering, an example of a “masculine spider” species, well, any hunting one that doesn’t ensnare with webbed traps; a scorpion is an arachnid that is extremely masculine…it hunts, hides, ambushes, runs after and attacks with an extra digit (a phallic one, of course), a stinger—which is a poisonous spear. A ranged killing arrow, entirely attached and organic. Masculine hunter, that one. A black widow spider is feminine…it sits in a cozy web and waits for dinner to come, not see the trap, get stuck, signal her to come and cocoon it. A feminine spider passively manipulates objects to bring it what it needs; a masculine spider actively chases its prey, runs it down and eats it. No objects, just spirit.
Sometimes, if she’s full, she’ll cocoon it up. It could sit there until the next day, paralyzed, slowly dying, captive food-in-waiting, a prisoner, before she comes to suck the fluids out of its body, giving it eternal peace.
So, she builds webs and ensnares prey. She lives alone and doesn’t play well with others—asocial insectoid, black widows are—it’s exceptionally selfish, self-centered, self-absorbed, and obviously very poisonous. Deadly. It attracts males with a bright red symbol near its sexual places…it wants children, but it doesn’t know why (it tries to eat them once they’re born, seeing them as food, seeing them not as children but prey of course—so, in this respect, in has little relation to higher mammal femininity concerning nuturing offspring, except where it does) of course, because it’s just a bug obviously, and doesn’t have an actual ‘developed’ brain—this has worked so well, however, that black widows didn’t need to get more complex or change much, or at all; hence this is primal behaviour, over 400 million years of evolution at work.
Even among the savagely brutal matings and “love” in the insect world, the rules are clear and everyone knows them—that’s my point. The females know, the males know.
But humans are mammals, so let’s look at a “masculine feminine” hyper-specialized and odd-ball mammal example—hyenas. It’s “oddball” because the males cannot dominate the females in any possible way—even the young are above the males in the heirarchy. Sisters run the whole show; they hunt and keep mangy males around to screw and that’s it. The males get scraps and look horrible. They’re smaller, less aggressive, and eat last at feasts or scavenging sorties. As for breeding, the females select a male and “allow” him to mate with her—she has a genital system that prevents penile entry totally, so only when she’s physically submissive can he mate with her. This is actually the most extreme female control over sex that we can witness in the natural world.
Not even a monstrous gorilla, Alpha greyback, will risk his standing and the social harmony by beating up a female of standing or forcing himself on her—if she’s not ready. Beating up women doesn’t happen a whole lot, in primates especially. Chimps are agreeable genderwise as well. Most cats and dogs and some other species (minks, ferrets, weasels) have the “scruff of the neck” that is used by parents and mating males on females. She’s ready to mate at any rate, but the male will sometimes get a good bite on that area while he’s giving it to her. Apparently, chomping that area releases some chill pills to the brain.
Yes, but humans aren’t like apes—females are not so submissive. We’re more aware and bipedal—sex is multi-positional. She can even rape the male—human females are like hyenas in their periodic extreme control over sex, aka Sumerians, Goddess-worshippers, Wiccans, Victorians and Christians, feminists, but they surpass them in the ability to have sex with the male when he doesn’t want to. In no other species can a female get a male drunk, take him to a room and mount him, stealing his seed and leaving, which happens in human society. It’s no big deal, as long as the male believes this is a good thing, to his advantage (losing his DNA, as a female would lose her egg if a man did this to her—so, as long as he sees this as “gettin’ sum” and not rape), it’s all fine. I only mention it as an aside on the differences.
So, let’s review.
Mammals and humans both raise children, both have sex and make more children (and handle over-population differently), and both have consentual sex for the most part. We do it in different ways, as I’ve blathered about above, so our ways of loving each other (3) on an interpersonal level is quite different too:
3. Interpersonal “love.” (One on one “relationships” and such; marriage, kids, love affairs, whatever. Romance, too, I suppose…shudder…)
I quote that because it’s new and I never did care for it. “Relations” are what go on between any two beings—a piece of wood crashing into dirt is having a “relationship” with that new environment and creatures there. You have a “relationship” with the person who sells you newspapers, or tea bags, or cars or food or anything. We have relations with others all the time. It’s a specialized word invented within the last 30 years and I don’t buy into it—same with “dating”—and other female names and games.
Men and women on intimate levels? Yeah, that’s more than some paltry and clinical “relationship” category—“bi-weekly mutual or nuclearly exclusive partnership?” Ugh…so tedious.
Women run this world, like I said, the world of “love.” They apply the meanings (“relationship” was a word that popped up in the feminist wave of the 1970s, for crissakes; before that, we were still “boinking” and banging and fucking and screwing and getting married—“relationships” and “common laws” replaced marriage, of course, over the last three decades), the definitions, terms, even the literature that women soak up in books and magazines and use as hooks to sink into single or married men.
What about “dating” is a guy thing? Do we go off on motorbikes for first dates? Do we meet around far away fire pits in dark hours of night? Do we strap on boxing gloves and have a sparring match with Cupcake? Do we do anything masculine whatsoever? Anything but sit and talk and sit and talk and answer her questions and fill our faces with some cultural snack, meal, or liquid, at a designated meeting area?
No, we go to school and learn what females want—everything their way. Houses and fences and gardens and safe streets, malls and shopping and comfort. *Of course* “love” is as feminine as anything else.
That’s why I snarl at it; it’s all hearts and flowers and chocolate, lying poetry and pink cards with fancy writing of empty, hideously untrue, flowery words. Rubbish. No soul. Just a bunch of words that evoke shallow recollections or cheesy sentiments. Emotional Twinkies; no meat there. It’s not working between men and women for many reasons (overpopulation is a big one), but feminine control, when unidentified, is a disaster. Look at the last thirty years of “whatever women want.”
Men aren’t getting married anymore—a good thing!—“Marriage Strike” is what it’s called, more underground really, across Western nations. What does that tell us? That men are not keen on marriage any more—and over 85% of divorces are initiated by women, so women don’t like it either. Each for totally different reasons? Some, yes. Anyway, what did marriage ever have to do with “love?”
I’ve “loved” all of my girlfriends; regardless of how long it was, or where it was headed, or whether we or I or just she wanted kids, or if we didn’t want any, or if we didn’t want to get married…none it made any difference, because each time love is different. Affection is a creation that is unlike any other type. I think it’s that individual.
One on one, what happens, in modern love? Dating, back and forth between flats, apartments, houses, rooms, dorms, boxes. Maybe we sneak arond, having more fun if it’s forbidden, or maybe it’s all by the book. Only “who wrote the book of love?” No one did. “Love” as an evolutionary “thing” has not been around long—Earth wasn’t “loved” into creation; it was pounded and violated by volcanic streams, violent tectonic activity—storms, floods, mountain ranges crashing together over thousands of eons, ice piling up and causing shifts in the planet’s axis—giving us seasons. This planet is not kind and gentle—“Mother Earth” and “Father Nature” and are teddies on pillows in a Disney theme. They’re brutal artists; creators and destructors, and they love nothing but that. They are not humans, of course.
So, how exactly do mammals love? And humans? Is there really any difference? Is “human love” so much overrated tripe when we really start getting into how other mammals relate and care for one another?
How can we tell? Well, look at the worst of non-human animals and compare with the worst humans can do to each other. I already covered murder, abortion, child abuse—and I have gotten into the equal spilling of blood in domestic violence situations (women growing more violent with weapons, and more likely to kill defenseless mates; read: sleeping). Then we have rape, which, in terms of the actual numbers of men who do this, is, as feminists tell us, about power—or, as evidence suggests, actually, powerlessness.
In Nature, non-human males do not experience anything near what human males experience in our society. Women are of course quick to pooh-pooh this, but I’m a bastard enough to enter into any subject with my trusty sledgehammer. So, let’s consider:
Picture a male dog in a pen surrounded by females in heat—say, twenty bitches. Here’s a kid in school. In school, boys are shamed because their hormones are flying and their sitting around chicks all day with budding tits and wearing lipstick and perfume and tight jeans. Hmm. A dog would go fucking crazy—even an expertly bred, “champion” bloody German Shepherd would be growling and trying to hump one of them—and if they fought him off? He’d go into a corner, and await another opportunity. But female dogs are not so cruel to tease that way—if they’re in heat, ready to mate, he’ll get at least one of them.
It simply blows my mind how utterly moronic the modern education system is, and I think this is a big reason—we certainly wouldn’t tell the girls or their parents to conform to some standard (their rights omg!), even a reasonable one, nor could we pull our boys out of school and give them the same opportunities. Home-schooling sometimes works, though, if it’s not the fundamentalist religious weirdo stuff. But that’s so passé…
And splitting the genders up is only done in private schools. So, why don’t women have any clue what it’s like for boys, especially teenage boys in the most inane invention of the last hundred or so years, high school? (What simpering hen conceived of “high school” anyway? Of all the needless, cruel, mundane, pointlessly tedious things to do to children…spoon-fed regulated info clusterfuck boxhood in a public middle-trash fashion-obsessed pop-culture cliquetry…we could have kids able to do anything in society by age 15, I mean, holy shit…we piss information into their brains, 90% of which they forget and never use again, over how many years? All so they’re suited to work at McDonalds and haven’t learned—experienced—a fucking thing about life by age 20, or 25? Nevermind…)
(No. I changed my mind: I guess women can never understand the problem because it’s all so very one-sided. Which feminine men attract a lot of females? Few rich ones, popular ones. Rock stars. Politicians. Doctors. Lawyers. Masculine ones do, too, but in different ways.
Imagine a group of horny teenage girls in a cage…surrounded by naked studs…wait a minute, not a fair comparison, because, as Vilar pointed out in The Manipulated Man, it’s just not the same deal at all. Women begin learning at a young age to control their feelings, grow cold, and suppress their sexuality. I’m sure not all do it on the same level, but they all do it to some degree. They have to.
Plus, sexual attraction is just different for women, who are not as stimulated visually.
Still… You stimulate anyone enough and that’s just cruelty. Expecting them to restrain themselves in spite of biological impulses is not only cruel, it’s creating a future pathology in that “repressed” individual. That’s my point. That’s why women can’t relate—they’re stimulated only when they want to be stimulated. Men, especially young men today, are stimulated almost all the time. Females are an addiction, and hidden away it gets weird. Men get weird when they are forced to suppress their libido and are being constantly stimluated. And the ages of the sources for stimulation just get younger; not even feminists like that. (14-year-old? 13-year-old? 12-year-old?—just how young do we feel it’s okay to dangle this “jail-bait” around and expect men to adapt, always?) Ah, back to men controlling themselves…
Seriously, there are ten-year-old girls wearing make-up. Ten. Year. Olds. Eight years earlier they got out of diapers and now they are dressing like prostitutes. Apparently few agree, but I don’t think this is a good thing. But then again, I don’t see the point of make-up (or alluring clothing, or other “beauty power” flexing of the “weaker sex”—males are pussy-whipped quite enough), and generally think that getting young boys addicted to female sexuality by age nine is going to create more problems then whatever its initial point was…freedom? Rights of teenagers to become sluts? Okay, I guess, whatever gender sells the clothes; I say it’s cruel and absurd, but I suppose corporations and governments and women’s organizations know better than I do what’s best for my non-existent kids, and your children, our children…also, then again, my opinion and fifty cents won’t get me a cup of coffee, so I’ll leave that and get back to—“love…”
Well, it’s boring so far. Love means absolutely nothing. What matters is how one acts, right? What’s the function of love?
Protecting children, “loved-ones,” providing, caring, nursing, tending, tucking in and giving a kiss goodnight? Seems easy, but it’s not. Both men and women can do those things, and more, but often do not. Why? Not sure.
Perhaps what baffles me about “love” is that is means something different, because it is; it’s personal. I don’t see “love” as separate from “hate.” I see them as one and the same—two sides of the same coin, as it were, and not quite opposite, for love is seriously overrated and blurry. They are passion. How we use that passion, to create—and for what reason—or to destroy—and for what reason—determines the function of love.
What do I mean?
You have two children and one has the Plague; you live on an island in the 1500s and can’t save his life, say. What is a function of love here? To allow the small boy to go on suffering, as no doubt a mother would, trying hard to fix him, or put him out of his suffering, as no doubt a father would? Both parents use empathy and want to help the child in different ways—freedom from sickness, or freedom from needlessly enduring sickness.
Yet, out of context, it would appear that the father is cruel—but his love is no less for his son, and he’d make him well if he could. The cruelty, from the father’s point of view, is allowing it to go on. Sometimes the mother will spare the child, and this goes back to what I mentioned of abortion and infant mortality, two female-dominated past-times since before history; it, too, spares a life of suffering. But mothers who kill their children do not often do it to “spare” them; it’s almost always a selfish reason the mother has. Abortion is on a fuzzy line because it kills before technical human life begins; before consciousness of pain anyway, so it’s “humane” but it’s still a little tailed human cellular form, living and breathing and determined to be a baby…rights, right?
Anyway, I’m growing weary of all this and getting nowhere…I’ll leave off with a quote from Zubaty:
“Men are stupid to imagine that women think the same way they do, or even that they have men’s interests in mind. They don’t. That’s what gets us into trouble. When a man says “I love you” he’s thinking about what he can give her. When a woman says “I love you” she’s thinking about what she will get. It’s a perfect match, as long as you understand what’s going on.”
And three from Esther Vilar:
“The majority of men prefer to subjugate themselves to an exclusive deity, woman (they call this subjection love).”
“Man has been manipulated by woman to the point where he cannot live without her and therefore will do anything she asks of him. He fights for his life and calls it love. There are even men who will threaten their idolized female with suicide unless she accepts him. Not that this is much of a risk for them – they have nothing to lose.
“Woman, nevertheless, is incapable of living without a man. Like a queen bee, she cannot survive on her own. She, too, is fighting for her life, and she, too, calls it love. They each need one another, in fact, and it seems therefore that they share at least one sentiment. The cause, nature, and consequences of this sentiment however differ as much as do the sexes.
To a woman love means power, to a man enslavement.”
“I love him.
“He is an excellent workhorse.”
And leave off finally with one last quote:
“Love is gay.”
[Heh. Well, that was four years ago. Weird how fired up I still was about many things—things that don’t really phase me today.
But my basic idea of “love” hasn’t changed much. As someone dedicated to truth, I can’t associate myself with “love” of course. Being alone and being free are one and the same, so, as with lies like “love,” I can’t go back to being caged up in some “relationship” obviously. “Love” is not something I desire. “Peace” is not something I want. “Happiness” is definitely something I will avoid—and thus avoid “unhappiness” as well.
For most of my life I was convinced I had to be “happy” and the only path to “happiness” for a man is to “get a woman.” And women are expensive. “Happiness” and “Love” are not cheap—you need lots of money. “Peace” is not cheap either—but instead of money you just lose your balls. Thankfully I’ve learned that none of this shit is true—that “happiness” is just another modern cult, another exalted lie, along with “peace” and “love.”
I might continue the third part of this (“Happiness”) in the next entry with some more of Esther Vilar, whose other book I’ve recently read. This will at least provide some more up-to-date writing on the subject of “love” in relation to “happiness,” since they are cults which are dependent upon one another.