Women

WHAT IS IT LIKE TO HAVE A CUNT? (II)

Some time ago I wrote an insightful and sensitive comment entitled “What is it Like to Have a Cunt?” I think it might be time to re-visit it if only to refresh the underlying meaning of female behaviour from the perspective of the confused male as is clearly the case with the poster.

The first point to note is that having a cunt is not simply something interchangeable with having a penis. They are not simply interchangeable parts. Having a cunt means that the female has a largely different conception of reality than the male, a different world-view if you like. And it is not simply a matter or hormones – the male hormone testosterone exists in both the male and the female – and is to be contrasted with the female hormone estrogen which simply adds fat on the hips. It is testosterone that makes the female (and the male) horny. So where do we go from here? We go to the female mind.

On the Korean flag – you might have noticed – is the Buddhist Yin-Yang symbol where the Yin is the male principle and the Yang the female. The Yin is the active element, the questing, questioning, yes the romantic element while the Yang is the passive, reactive, the accomodating and the practical principle. Apart they are usually in conflict but together they need each other for completion. Together they make up a complete human being.

The female is a fleshly, carnal creature. Her life, in effect, revolves around her body and, of course, her children which are her body’s extension. She looks with contempt upon the male who is the romantic, the artist, the philosopher. He is the dreamer. For the female, however, his romantic flights, whatever they might be, are just so much “overhead traffic.” They are to be tolerated at best, despised at worst. He is a fool who is unable to grasp the realities of life’s journey. While perhaps temporarily amusing, he is ultimately dispensable. A sperm donor, you might say, but not much more.

I hope that this has clarified, at leats to some degree, the poster’s confusion.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: Boru 1014 (09/26, 8:05PM)

Well no, Boru, I’m not saying men are “walking dicks” at all. I suspect you are giving a literal reading to my sentence, “He is a fool who is unable to grasp the realities of life.” But that was intended as my attempt – a male’s – to speak from the female perspective. That, in other words, is my take on her view of things but it is not mine. In my view the male is the active, creative principle. How many great artists and philosophers, for example, can you name who are female? But while the male is the active principle, the female is the practical realist which is also necessary. We complement each other. But, and this was my main point, there remains a fundamental disconnect in their world-views – their philosophies? – which I saw as the continuing and irresolvable condition of their relationships and which, of course, formed the basis of the poster’s difficulties.

: wogdog (09/27, 6:21AM)

You seem to have made the same mistake as Boru. Read my post to her over to yourself. (Try not to move your lips as you might disturb the night watchman sleeping in the next room.)

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: hfx_godzilla (09/27, 9:21AM)

How could 4 people “like” your comment? This is not a criticism of you – well not so much – as it is a criticism of the cretins who pressed “Like.” Do they have functioning brains?

: Boru 1014 (10:36AM)

Well Boru, I think this illustrates the limitations of sites like Bitch since one cannot detect subtleties like humour, irony and so forth in the written comments. There is a one-dimensional quality to the communication requiring people to put laughing faces on their posts to indicate – wait for it – humour and sad faces when – wait for it – feeling blue. Absurd, but inherent in cybernetic communication. But what can we do?

: The Dribbling Half-Wit (10:56AM)

What can that possibly mean? I know one thing for sure, I’m not missing any subtleties from The Dribbling Half-Wit.

RSVP

: avastO (09/17, 12:05 & 12:08PM)

Well yes, avastO, I did manage to grasp that but my comment stands. Godzilla’s comment was so primitive and intellectually impoverished that I found it impossible to conceive that anybody, upon reading it, would push the “Like” button. So my comment was directed at the cretins, not specifically at Godzilla.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Paingirl (09/27, 6:44PM)

Paingirl, you must understand that if I knew that it was you, among others, who pressed “Like” on Godzilla’s primitive post, I would never have used the word “cretins.” I’m trying to think of another word. Can you help me out?

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: Boru (09/27, 8:03PM)

“This video does not exist.” Excellent Boru, excellent. It raises, of course, the ultimate existential question, “What is it to exist?” which neatly dovetails with my two-part analysis, “What Is Reality?” Put differently, does reality necessarily imply existence or, like the unicorn, can “reality” – note the quotation marks – be said to equally subsume fanciful or imaginary constructs? Is the assertion, “This video does not exist,” since it has no denotative referent, one of those constructs or, on the contrary, does the assertion itself have some claim to independent existence and hence reality? I leave that question for your consideration. Write back soon with your analysis.

(I couldn’t watch the Robert de Niro clip since I don’t have the latest “flash player” and was too bored to upload it. In any case, I don’t think Robert de Niro, or any other actor for that matter, is worth Montrealman’s time.)

: Paingirl (8:09PM)

Consider it done.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Lucyfer (09/28, 10:43AM)

Good afternoon Lucyfer. Sorry for not getting back earlier but I was otherwise engaged.

I was interested in your analogy to the effect that, for you, reading my posts is like “eating a bowl of flour.” I have never heard this analogy before nor, for that matter, have I ever eaten a bowl of flour so I was in the dark as to just what you had in mind. It doesn’t sound very pleasant but that’s about as far as I can take it. Any chance for a clarification?

Your second analogy to the effect that I am “a computer” was also baffling. As a matter of fact I tend to be something of a technophobe – certainly not a nerd – so once again I am mystified by the analogy. Indeed, I find computers useful only at the very lower end of the cognitive scale , i.e., for processing data and information. In a word, the computer lacks creativity. It can replicate but not create in the full meaning of that concept. So it seems there’s a problem there too.

I must plead complete ignorance as to just who “Kitt” from the “Night Rider” might be as well. I have heard of neither Kitt or the Night Rider so I’m out to lunch there too. Forget the serial killer. I’m actually a loveable romantic, except when I’m doing philosophy. Then I am a rationalist although an intuitive rationalist, if you take my meaning.

Nice to hear from you. Write back with your thoughts if so inclined.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Lucyfer (09/28, 5:35PM)

Well Lucyfer, is your reaction to my posts as being “insufferable” an indication of what they really are or merely your reaction to them? You mustn’t confuse the two. I’m not sure what you mean by them being “completely devoid of flavor.” I always thought they were rather jaunty when not profound (as they often were).

You are mistaken in supposing that I am “desperate to prove something.” If anything, I just want to throw the light of reason on what, for the most part, is empty bluster on this site by its multiple blowhards. But I’m not desperate to prove anything.

I’m sorry to hear that big words “enhance monotony” for you. Is that the fault of those big words or is your motonony to be found within yourself, in your inability to comprehend them?

You must look inward, Lucyfer, to discover the cause of your distress.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!