I must say I was very much taken in by the women and freedom post over in the "Details Of Clark Ashton Smith thread" and would like to add my two cents in a wholly separate and unique thread.

The study of women has always been an ongoing process. Usually with no sound conclusion . They claim, or actually men and women, to want good qualities and a person with a mature knowledge of what it is to truly "Love"; something which separates us from animals. But I find it humorous how a rift seems to form in our knowledge of what true human love is or was intended to be and merely animal mating. Animals mate with the ones who possess qualities which can guarantee a successful continuance of their specific line. Nothing else is taken into consideration.

We humans are different, obviously. But woman seem to desire a mate with particular features and today it is plainly visible. They have rough, harsh looking features (or as young people claim , "a bad boy"- shaved head, or balding,wear clothes worn by trouble makers, at least that is what we deem them to be, a life style which results in time behind bars and lastly, these types do not have the ability or intelligence to truly care for a wife and raise a family. It is this which woman romanticize. Ask one if this is true and they will quickly deny it. Then when everything falls through the women look back and say, "I don't understand why he hurt me", when it is obvious that if one adds trouble then trouble will usually be a part of the final outcome. I don't understand what is so glamorous about that. Many of my woman friends deem it as "The woman's curse" Any thoughts on this?

For men we go for the ones with a supermodel type appearance. Usually they are the ones with questionable morals and behaviors and lack the ability to raise and care for a spouse and husband as well.

H.P. Lovecraft viewed it in this manner and broke it down to "Miss. Helen Sully" I believe. And broke it down to simply biology. That church and other religious institutions are to blame for this cross eyed view.

If both subjects are true then why are their still a few good people out their who suffer alone? In my opinion there is a good side. Some of the best art and literature have stemmed from this. Edgar Allan Poe was one, R.H. Barlow was sensitive to this to an unusual degree. Though Algernon Blackwood did not struggle with this. Lovecraft to. Weird world. Any comments?

As a young man I am trying to increase the intelligence and ability of my discourse. So I apologize for any grammatical errors.

The ladies like the bad boys. You should cultivate the bad boy image yourself. Problem solved. Next, please!

Quote:

You should cultivate the bad boy image yourself.

The "bad boy" image has many variants, and is not limited to Hell's Angels stereotypes. CAS, for instance, took a leaf from Sterling's book, and cultivated a Gallic variant known as "the Decadent poet/roue'", complete with beret. The bored housewives of Auburn swooned into his arms. Just use your imagination!

There are a lot of things your post brings up which are very interesting but I will raise one point only.

It helps to know what kind of woman you want to spend your time, and maybe even your life, with.

These women who go for the "bad boy" image spoken of above tend to have very short attention spans and get bored easily. You'll be her "bad boy" until she tires of the façade/ and or the next "bad boy" comes along...

Neverthless no two people are created the same and you never know.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14 Sep 09 | 08:42PM by NightHalo.

I am afraid you are all wrong in this. This has nothing to do with free will of choice. The selection of a specific type of partner is conditioned from very early years, and is a reflection of the nature of ones parents and upbringing. It is merely a repeating of the perspective one has learned.
Not all women prefer "bad boy troublemakers". A woman will base her choice of partner on the way her father was, and also on the way her mother behaved. Likewise a man who's father has been weak or evasive, and who's mother has been emotionally absent, will select women that reject him. And he will then deny the pain of realizing his own emotional disturbance, and instead project it outside of himself and put the blame on women in general, whom he thinks only want "bad boys".

The course of this unwilling partner selection (if self-destructive), and disturbances in emotional conditioning, may be repaired to some degree with extensive psychological and spiritual work.

Remember, there is no perfection in human relationships. There is in all humans a sense of rejection in one form or another, and to larger or lesser degree. The art of life is coming to terms with it, acceptance, and realizing a love that looks beyond and transcends the pettiness of human conflicts.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 15 Sep 09 | 02:17AM by Knygatin.

Knygatin, I don't think Jojo was giving real relationship advice (I could be wrong) but I got the impression of playfulness rather than seriousness. Likewise, Kyberean seems to have been going off of Jojo's comment and connecting it to CAS.

In all seriousness, as per the last discussion, I personally find the above statements to again contain too many absolutes. Again, so much of it is true. Of course our parents affect our psychology and I would be the last one to suggest there really is a tabula raza.

However, if one adopted this philosophy that indeed we have no free will and that everyone is "programmed," then things like responsibility will be in the trash. Guys like this Garrido in California who raped and kidnapped a small child could say, "Well sir, yes I raped her, but you know my parents did this and that and you know, I am just programmed to do this..." People make choices and that, even if they are under the belief in illusions, is a form of free will. This man had a choice.

Also, like society, psychology is ever changing. In Freud's time, there were two parents usually from which one could ascertain some sort of idea of where the child was coming from. But now, given that the divorce rate (in the US at least) is nearly half, most children do not have the two parents around. And while indeed, there may be one parent, oftentimes that parent is not around much because they are working to support their family. If no one is around and if there are not really parents to get to know, who is the child taking some form from? Who do orphans or children moving from family to family in foster care, for that matter, get to know? I don't point these things out because parent-child psychology is completely off. No, there is much to it but there is also exceptions and particularly right now, great changes occuring when it comes to how much contact a parent and child have.

Quote:

Remember, there is no perfection in human relationships

Yes and in this you are generous. If there is any "lesson" in all this talk it is that it is important to "Know thyself." Know your psychology as best you can, cultivate your good qualities, be aware of( and perhaps even try to conquer) your weaknesses, and know Knygatin's statement above that there is no perfection.

We may disagree about details but I agree wholly about striving towards:

Quote:

a love that looks beyond and transcends the pettiness of human conflicts

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 15 Sep 09 | 01:50PM by NightHalo.

NightHalo,

Thank you for your eloquent and sensible response to Knygatin's post. I completely agree and was urged to post a similar response, although I'm glad I held off - in no way would I have put it so well.

And CD -

I'm intrigued by your post. I understand most of what your are saying, but don't understand why you seem to feel trapped by society's small mindedness. As much as there are truths to your listed stereotypes, they are far from absolute. Giving in to these stereotypes and giving them such acknowledgement only ensures that such silliness will be around for even longer. You have to have your own set of ideals and values. I do. It wasn't easy, and it took me years to begin to feel comfortable. In fact it's work that's never done, a constant and ongoing process - but I know that the other way is completely false and as hard as it may be, I'll never back down. I certainly don't go for supermodel types. Nowadays I'm quite vocal about saying whom I think is attractive regardless of what others might think. After years of being made fun of in school and at work for liking the "weird" girl or the "fat" girl (not my terms) I'm finally beyond bowing down to the fears of other people. I mean most of the population has never read "The Call of Cthulhu", why would you feel the need to cater to their tastes!? If there is a stereotype to acknowledge however, it is that confidence is attractive. Believe in the things you think and the things you care about with all your heart and don't be afraid to let it show. Ever.

To quote Harlan Ellison "The Universe doesn't care" (actually I think I left out an expletive). You have to influence your own reality, as impossible as that sounds. The alternative is sitting around waiting for something to happen, and we all know what a lousy bet that is!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 15 Sep 09 | 03:25PM by mikehunchback.

NightHalo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin, I don't think Jojo was giving real
> relationship advice (I could be wrong) but I got
> the impression of playfulness rather than
> seriousness. Likewise, Kyberean seems to have been
> going off of Jojo's comment and connecting it to
> CAS.

I do not see why fun and profound insights should not go hand in hand. I think they frequently do. And so far in this thread I have not seen anyone except me and Kyberean give practical and down-to-earth advice that might actually be acted upon.

Jojo Lapin X Wrote:

> I do not see why fun and profound insights should
> not go hand in hand. I think they frequently do.
> And so far in this thread I have not seen anyone
> except me and Kyberean give practical and
> down-to-earth advice that might actually be acted
> upon.

Jojo, at the risk of offending; this post was at least funnier than your original one.

Quote:

I do not see why fun and profound insights should not go hand in hand. I think they frequently do. And so far in this thread I have not seen anyone except me and Kyberean give practical and down-to-earth advice that might actually be acted upon.

Jojo, I apologize if I made any assumptions with your post. The brevity of the statement and the "next please" lead me to think otherwise.

As for practical, I guess that depends on one's perspective. I found mikehunchback's account and advice to be geniune and realistic. Cultivating a façade is not particularly practical unless one is just trying to get into bed quick...

Truth can be ugly but I would take it along with trust any day.

Wow,

It is very refreshing to see all the unique and diverse answers to my post. The reason I feel trapped by society is that it takes two to tango, as the old saying goes. If this is true then the actions and responses of another person take on some importance as to where you can go in life. I wish I could adopt a philisophical view toward matters like CAS or maybe even some of the old masters like Homer.

I know so much of H.P.L but I never agreed with his views of there being no creator. Though with the passage of time I'm seeing some truth to his statement, at least here on earth. It is true how church and religious institutions get your hopes up for things. Like he said to Helen Sully in a letter for the year 1936, he blamed religious institutions for peoples romantic outlook, that and the 18th century, on life. Also to Sam Loveman he said, Samuelis, the reason you suffer is because you pay too much attention to people. Listen to the old man and learn to avoid the huddled masses". Though I see fault in that out look to.
Maybe we are just dust and particles passing through.

Plus, everyone on this forum brings up some interesting points on free will. I think we have free will but only to a limited degree. No, you cannot control the type of household you were raised in, for example. But you can control how you react, even though the inclination to act another way other than what you want, is still there. And the conditions which effects your rise or decline in life will always be a factor. I mean suppose someone wants to play football. In school they filled our heads with the fairy tale statement, "Any thing is possible if you put your mind to it". So by that statement if someone is 5'5 and 130lbs and can play football exceptionally well then he should make the NFL if he practices hard enough. Though the coaches controls whether or not you get in and size will be a factor. I don't know I guess I am just disillusioned from believing one thing my whole life and finding out it was not correct. I mean I am moving along well as an up and coming writer, and having your demons help in that, but it is no way to live. I mean yea, REH, CAS, HPL; all of them were good writers but when you put down the pen. Its no way to live.

Who said anything about the "bad boy" aspect's being merely a facade? However facetious my phrasing may have been, I don't doubt that CAS's satyr-like antics, and the persona through which he expressed them, reflected as real an aspect of CAS as any other.

Quote:

Truth can be ugly but I would take it along with trust any day.

"Truth is what we desire it to be, and the facts of life are a masquerade in which we imagine that we have identified the maskers".

--Clark Ashton Smith

No Kyberean, I never doubted in CAS' authentic personality and as with Jojo, I apologize if it was advice being given. I brought up a "bad boy" being a façade because it seems one is either a "bad boy" or one is not. Like this thread has brought up so much, it is in the psychology right? From my subjective point of view, it seems imposing or trying to become a "bad boy" is a façade. I admit there are limitations to this train of thinking but it seems sensible to me that a woman would know if a man was not really a "bad boy" after all and then, the poor person trying out the guise would be left where he started...alone.

Quote:

"Truth is what we desire it to be, and the facts of life are a masquerade in which we imagine that we have identified the maskers".

Yes, when I think cosmically, I agree with him and find his statement profound and sagacious. And yet, we still live among others and the dictates of society, particularly when it comes "justice", and society and others still identify "truths." Not all truths are created equal but nevertheless, there is something to it when dealing with others. Ultimately, it's all relative. How lovely it would be to sit like Buddha and be non-attached but then, what does one do when say, someone accuses you of doing something you didn't do? Where do you place yourself? I didn't run the red light officer. And if you didn't, then what? There has to be some sort of truth that a majority can agree upon or else there would be no standards. It's a very worldly system which has much to be desired and yet, how to really escape it...?

I have perhaps been too oblique in my comments, here.

My point regarding the "bad boy" persona is that it is not necessarily a facade; that that particular aspect of one's persona can take many forms; and that one should allow that part of oneself free reign, when appropriate. Of course, the behavior should not simply be feigned, but I believe that any male with a nanoliter of testosterone has this persona latent and available to him, to varying degrees.

With respect to the quotation from CAS about truth, that was simply in response to the specific assertions regarding truth and trust. More generally, the notion of "truth" is the crutch that enables the will-to-power, at our current low level of evolution. No one disputes the social utility of the concept of truth, or even its necessity. As CAS suggests, some simply have a more naive and unsophisticated view of the matter than others.

More generally still, and as I mentioned in another thread, I do not accept the idea that there need be a gulf between thinking "cosmically" and thinking in terms of the so-called "real world". I mention this only in passing, as I have no desire to reopen that particular discussion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 16 Sep 09 | 09:42AM by Kyberean.

Quote:

My point regarding the "bad boy" persona is that it is not necessarily a facade; that that particular aspect of one's persona can take many forms; and that one should allow that part of oneself free reign, when appropriate. Of course, the behavior should not simply be feigned, but I believe that any male with a nanoliter of testosterone has this persona latent and available to him, to varying degrees.

You have a good point about the latent persona; I guess I always considered that "latent" aspect to be charisma but then the two can, and often do, go hand in hand. Where I question the advice I guess is in the context of it being given. I just don't believe being a "bad boy" will really lead to anything substantial/ and/or long lasting. But you are right, it can take different forms and so who knows. Such are the pleasures and diversity of life; it never ceases to surprise.