posted May 24, 2007 10:15 PM            

quote:

---

Dulce, I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything. That was and is my opinion, and it's quite alright with me if you disagree. Sometimes my thoughts run a whole lot faster than I can type and I think when I spit things out they can be taken the wrong way. I was trying to explain why women might be attracted to the dominant type of man...but I never meant for it to sound like ALL women are attracted to that. Blame that on my Mercury in Sag....

---

Sorry about that, I know that the paragraph I quoted was from you but what I said wasn't aimed solely at you and I'm sorry I made it seem that way. I should emphasized that I was collectively speaking becaus there were other people too. Just got caught up in the moment.

quote:

---

would take Mr. Egomaniac's occasional mysogynistic comments, selfishness, and insensitivity over Spineless & Weepy any day. Which brings us back to what Swerve said two days ago, which essentially is what a lot of people have said in different ways...the dominant guy is simply the lesser of two evils.

---

If you think you were better off with the insensitive creep than the other two dipsticks, then that's great! But Swerve's idea of the insensitive dominant guy being the lesser two evils is highly subjective because I and plenty of others would disagree. As a matter of fact, I would say that the Spineless and Extremely Touchy are the lesser of the THREE evils because atleast I wouldn't feel stifled or suffocated by overbearing ego and I'd probably be freer to leave because spineless wouldn't even have the balls to chase after me, and I'm not sure about Mr.overly-Touchy-who-needs-constant-reassurance, but I know I could leave him faster than Mr. Egomaniac/Control-Freak. You think Mr. Egomaniac/Control Freak would let go of you as easily considering it would be a HUGE blow to his ego? Think again....

quote:

---

But...that's why I'm currently single. I have not yet found "Mr. Balanced."

---

Hmmm, then perhaps my 5th house jupiter that has made me lucky in love, because I think I've come very close to that with my guy.

quote:

---

Hmmmm...I'm curious as to why Xodian is being picked apart here?

---

posted May 24, 2007 10:22 PM            

But I guess I see these stereotypes, for lack of a better word, as very based in something physical – not something spiritual. When Iqhunk described "alpha male" he underlined "physically fit" or "strong".. I tend to agree.. I think alpha male = strong in some physical way – maybe even mentally strong – but I still see that as part of the "physical".. Now, I can't see this correlated to the spiritual nature of that man (or alpha woman) in any way. I could see someone as a psychologically and physically strong person while at the same time being infantile spiritually.

Again, this is my view obviously based on what I sense as 'spirituality' in a person.. Different people could have different ideas about that as well, but there are some values we agree on socially.. To me "spiritual" is someone who gives me a very positive - kind hearted vibe.. It has no connection to any 'physical' definition of alpha male or wimp.. or even alpha female or wimp-ette. This would be a person who is well beyond such definitions in my mind.. because they are who they are.. they don't fall under a category. I make eye contact and I notice and feel their soul.. not the physical category I can slump them in.

We have sayings such as "healthy in mind body and spirit".. There might be a truth to these sayings, deep down - because if I analyze my reaction to a person it is based on this.. So.. in addition.. this spiritual person who I'd get good vibes from would feel *healthy* to me.. not necessarily in the sense that they wouldn't have a sickness.. They might have cancer or the flu.. but healthy spiritually.. someone who doesn't have black holes in their spirit.. someone who has forgiven and forgotten and isn't at a point where they feel like attacking their fellow humans or causing hurt or suffering to anyone – or in the opposite spectrum – wanting to be harmed themselves.. We're back to BALANCE, I guess.. It's very important to me.

When I translate this notion I have - which isn't even something I *think* but rather something I *feel* very deeply – to physical concepts in this physical world.. like 'bad boy' or 'bad girl' .. it makes me wonder.. what does "bad boy" mean spiritually?

If it "means" this person is bad or rotten somehow.. then shouldn't there be a cure? "Bad" to me is equivalent to "hurt".. someone with a hurt spirit.. someone who has holes in their spirit so they seem dark.. and stuffy almost..

My *ideal* in the situation where I encounter such a person.. would be to make them better.. but this isn't something I can live up to and I know.. I'm NOT the right person to 'make people better'.. I absorb their negative vibes and become worse myself.. so I react sort of cowardly by distancing myself. I know I can't do them any good so why put myself in that situation where they can cause me harm?
It's almost like when you're in a crowded place and someone sneezes right next to you.. you hold your breath for a second because you think you might just get their bug.. It's not because you have anything against the person.. they just have the flu.. and you don't want to get it. It doesn't mean you dislike them. It doesn't mean you don't want them to be cured of the flu and be healthy again.. but you're not gonna stand there willingly – waiting to become infected yourself..

Now, on the other hand.. anyone could say – but "bad" doesn’t mean "bad" literally… it just means confident – then CALL it confidence.
Or alpha male doesn't mean dominating and dictatorial – it just means someone who has inner strength and resilience.. then TELL me - the person has inner strength and resilience..

There are certain almost universal definitions to "bad boy" and "bad girl".. that make the person sound like a player.. someone who hurts people and leaves, then proceeds to hurting someone else.. I guess it's the reason we have linguistically termed the behavior we've observed socially as – "bad".. as opposed to "good" or "funny" or something else.. Now, how am I supposed to endorse this behavior spiritually? It goes against my principles.. This is completely regardless of whether I'm female or male.. because if I had a sex change tomorrow I strongly doubt my mental view on this would change..
So maybe.. I'll agree with the view that's been expressed, a few times over now - for argument's sake and say "yes sexually and physically women like bad boys" "they want them".. "they have to have 'em" etc etc… but my next step in that reasoning is "so what".. "who cares about the physical and the sexual" It's not nearly as important as what's happening spiritually in my mind.. Then I see it as a case of people not being able to control their physical drives – so it spills over and infests their entire persona.. it puts a black mark on their personality and their spirit..

We certainly may have an inner drive to murder for instance when someone makes us angry.. and if we don't physically control ourselves.. each and every one of us is capable of murdering someone (when pushed).. does it make it OK to murder someone.. because there's a physical – instinctual drive there for it?

Would karma be thrown out the window then.. in this equation.. so we'd believe: "anyone can cause any physical or emotional harm to the next person" and this is perfectly fine.. because instinctually we all *want* to cause harm.. and we all *want* to be tied to a bed and be caused harm also.. so lets play with it.. and see where it takes us? These drives have to be worked through and stabilized for balance to be achieved.. Being in one extreme or the other won't achieve spiritual balance – just more hurt and more hurt.. and morrreee.. hurt..

That's where I see – endorsing "bad girl" .. or "bad boy" going.. in my definition of the words.. It's not better or worse, form my perspective to say "it's ok to hurt someone because she gets sexual satisfaction out of it" (IN your opinion).. then to say "it's OK to steal something because the person doesn't actually want that object".. OR "it's ok to go out and kill someone, because the other day they said they'd love to commit suicide".. Shouldn't you help that person become whole and balanced.. instead of hurting them? Even if it was the case that they *wanted* this..

I'd go further with that.. because – we then have X for instance – male.. saying "when a female says she doesn't like being dominated, she is either lying or she is blocking it out.. and it's because of feminism.. In reality all women want to be dominated."
It sounds to me like something they would've said about black people back in the day, such as "when black people say they feel a certain way.. it doesn't matter.. they're only animals anyway.. and they actually feel what WE think they do" – It's an insecurity based response – a fear based response.. in regards to something that is different to you – that you do not understand BUT that you *do* want to "rule over" so to speak..

Then that X person might go out of his way to be dominating.. WHY shouldn't he be? It is after all what SHE WANTS.. right? Regardless of what she said she wants? So it's a damn good excuse to get off on hurting someone – while convincing yourself it's what they WANT..

It's like rapist who say "she wanted it".. LOL Maybe I've found my answer to my own question.. before –

quote:

---

"What I'd like to ask is, why does it emotionally *mean* so much to you personally that women (all women) like bad boys on an instinctual level? Why do you seem to want (or even crave) this to be true so badly?"

---

Maybe the answer is: If a person has a strong desire to hurt another.. and they want to act on their sexual desire.. they will create a lalaland wherein they believe the person they are hurting "wants it".. so offcourse anything that goes against that belief.. will be shut down..

If this was the case, don't get me wrong.. I wouldn't see these people as ugly.. I'd just see them as sick.. I'm sure that one day we'll all be much healthier and happier than we are right now anyways.. and I hope that day comes soon

posted May 24, 2007 10:22 PM            

I guess in the same way.. Swerve says he hasn't yet been proved wrong.. I have to say I haven't either in this sense.. No man who does this.. has ever proved to me in any which way or form.. that he is saying this because he actually believes this to be true… rather then saying it because he WANTS it to be true.. so he can have his way and be as violent as he desires to be with no guilt at the end of it..

I have definitely yet to be proven in my mind.. that this isn't what drives men into shoving this opinion down a woman's throat.. "you're an animal.. this is what you want deep down": It sounds cult-like doesn't it?.. except it sounds like it is what THEY want..
If it's what the other party (woman in this case) wanted – then she would be the one shoving the notion down their throat – not the other way around.. It's always the person who has an issue and can't accept people and let live.. that has a double agenda.. in my experience.. How can I ever know for sure, that this isn't the case.. and that men are just well-meaning in trying to tell me (or someone else) that I WANT them to dominate me? Regardless of what I feel and know about myself..?

posted May 25, 2007 12:38 AM              

Xodian,
I think we're just discussing different things. What I'm saying, more directly, is, no one will ever convince me that sensitivity is weakness (or wimpiness), the same as they will never convince me that innocence is naivete. They're different entities altogether, far too often misunderstood, distorted or misconstruingly merged.
We are brainwashed in a way that we don't realize and distorts our clearer insight into what's True (to each of us individually) rather than what we're programmed our entire lives to believe.
The Rebel Spirit, Original Mind breaks free and sees things from their own truth. Statistics, authorities and theories are received openly/respectfully (as anything should be), but not as an absolute.
There are no absolute truths. It's so ever-moving and fluid, person to person, moment to moment.
The view from this kind of liberation isn't subjective, it's panoramic.

posted May 25, 2007 06:48 AM            

quote:

---

In social animals, the alpha male or alpha female is the individual in the community whom the others follow and defer to. Where one male and one female fulfill this role, they are referred to as the alpha pair.

Chimpanzees show deference to the alpha of the community by ritualised gestures such as bowing, allowing the alpha to walk first in a procession, or standing aside when the alpha challenges. Canines also show deference to the alpha pair in their pack, by allowing them to be the first to eat and, usually, the only pair to mate; wolves are a good example of this.

The status of the alpha is generally achieved by means of superior physical prowess; however, in certain highly social species such as the bonobo, a contender can use more indirect methods, such as political alliances, to oust the ruling alpha and take his/her place.

---

If "alpha" is "leader of the pack".. then 'alpha' is more like a king or queen.. who keeps everything together. Definitely not a lone wolf type - "taking care of *his* needs" - in animals he is the pack leader, so is the alpha female.. So if you take the traditional - primal definition of the word - You can't be an alpha without a pack to take care of. Even based on this definition - you could say women have a primal need to be in a pack where themselves and their offspring are protected by the strong alpha figure.. you definitely couldn't say.. that women somehow have a primal need to be hurt or attacked by a male?? That's not what alphas do in the animal kingdom. They don't "make sure their needs are met at others' expense".. their job is to lead and protect *their* pack..

posted May 25, 2007 09:48 AM            

quote:

---

My *ideal* in the situation where I encounter such a person.. would be to make them better.. but this isn't something I can live up to and I know.. I'm NOT the right person to 'make people better'.. I absorb their negative vibes and become worse myself.. so I react sort of cowardly by distancing myself. I know I can't do them any good so why put myself in that situation where they can cause me harm?
It's almost like when you're in a crowded place and someone sneezes right next to you.. you hold your breath for a second because you think you might just get their bug.. It's not because you have anything against the person.. they just have the flu.. and you don't want to get it. It doesn't mean you dislike them. It doesn't mean you don't want them to be cured of the flu and be healthy again.. but you're not gonna stand there willingly – waiting to become infected yourself.

---

That's exactly how I am, only I'm the one who forgets distance myself when it is much needed. Empathy can be a pain in the @ss sometimes....

posted May 25, 2007 04:58 PM            

*******************************************

Sun conjunction Mars: You are strong-willed and passionate, and you exude a powerful aura that may intimidate some men (or keep them in the position of "just friends"). You simply must express yourself and are not willing to "hide your light under a bushel". This aspect indicates that you have great inner strength, and usually great physical strength as well. You enjoy competition and are a formidable opponent. With your enthusiasm for your goal, you can be an effective leader. Just be sure to remain flexible enough to accept advice. With this aspect, you don't take criticism very well. Don't see it as a personal attack if someone suggests a better way of doing things. Remain open and you will encounter less resistance.

It's difficult for others to be indifferent towards you. You possess loads of presence. There is a courageous air about you, and you exude confidence even if you don't own it! If you're not highly active and energetic, you are most certainly confrontational. You get right to the point, go right for the jugular, and you make things happen. Others might call you impatient, but not in a nervous sense of the word--you simply can't wait around for something to happen. When you want something, you want it now.

Because we are combining two masculine planets, people with this aspect might be considered masculine in expression, regardless of their gender. It is not that you are lacking in femininity, however. But you do understand the male spirit better than most women, and you are not a woman who will flutter her eyelashes or act in a girly-girl manner. You have a strong sex drive and can become irritable when you have no outlet for it. You have a competitive spirit; you truly like to win. You can be gutsy, not afraid of conflict, and really quite daring. Peeling away the layers, however, and you may be a somewhat insecure person who does everything in your power to prove yourself.