PDA

View Full Version : Wackos and their opinions (Aphroditianism)



wheelchairman
01-08-2005, 10:04 AM
I am a member of a message board called Soviet-Empire, for some reason every single political wackjob from New World Order nuts to Nazbol-Technates feel the need to argue with communists, as if we'd sympathise with them or something.

Here's a new one,
A short introduction to Aphroditianism
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=33047

And here's another place where the ideology is explained through polemic:
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=33028&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

To sum up, Aphroditianism is the belief that the Earth is a female being, and that all women are one with it, the Earth is polluted by the male sex, the male science, the male language, and male technology and this should all be destroyed.

They are insane. Your thoughts?

Lithuanian Offspring
01-08-2005, 12:54 PM
Thats kind of wierd. Must be a bunch of lesbians thinking of ways to get rid of us pesky males.

Noodles is gay
01-08-2005, 01:15 PM
In order to achieve communism, we must abolish the following things.

1. Infrastructure: All roads should be devastated, all harbours closed, all cities should be emptied, and all houses would be smashed down.

2. Clothes - In order to liberate people from their own inner repression (self-control), we must abolish clothes.

3. Money - Money is a tool used by the man-society to collect a false wealth, which makes the male think he is bigger than he are.

4. The military - All violence is a metaphor for the male incistence of "Missionary Sex".

5. The written and spoken language - Must be utterly and completely destroyed, both in order to 5.1 forget about the male dominance, and 5.2 destroy th prime tool for social control.

Yes they are clearly insane - civilization would cease to exist without those things. Even though i think the fact that a male dominated society, such as the ones the world still lives in, is wrong and that there should be equal rule; i believe that ^^ is utter nonsense - society wouldn't function; we would return to the stone ages. (I'm especially against the abolishment of the written word!)


All this would be replaced with -

# - A natural way of living, and adapting, by living in ecologic collectives where everyone have sexual intercourse with everyone.

# - A system of distribution, and self-sufficiency, in terms of a collective economy.

# - A new language, based on caressing instead of speaking.

I agree with Lithuanian Offspring - they must be lesbians or something very weird. :eek:

wheelchairman
01-08-2005, 01:18 PM
They are lesbians, and I agree with you on creating equality, I told her that myself. I am not a big fan of the destruction of the male sex though. Nor for the worship of nature. That is something I find outright ridiculous.

Noodles is gay
01-08-2005, 01:19 PM
They sound like lesbian hippies - 'lets love everyone and everything'

Crazy people.

Izie
01-08-2005, 01:19 PM
Random female point of view:

I somehow never thought that women would be much different if they were the "stronger sex". In fact, I even find that some women can be much more cruel than men.

"Male emotional castration"? Aren't we beeing a wee bit sexist here? Or maybe is it that females are allowed to say that males are less worthy, but males aren't allowed to say females are less worthy? Neat! Now we have a female dominant society! Very communistic *thumbs up*

Anyone who calls anyone else less worthy is the very thing himself.

Not to mention that the whole idea of the males being emotionally castrated is a load of poo.

"The character of aphrodisianism is to promote sexual language, equality, gender theory, and the destruction of the male sex, which have invented capitalism and thus stands in our way."

Erm... Equality and the destruction of the male sex don't really go into a sentence together very well...

"A natural way of living, and adapting, by living in ecologic collectives where everyone have sexual intercourse with everyone. "

Why do they connect the "natural way of living" with females? Don't you people know I'm freakishly scared of bugs (the females I know are too btw)? And other very natural things. I like the comfort of my own house, thankyouverymuch. And furthermore, I don't know many females who want to have sexual intercourse with everyone. I, for one, certainly don't.

I have no clue why I actually bothered with some sort of logical arguments, that theory has so much hatred towards men that it's unbelievable. If it were a male who wrote it, he'd be lynched.

Equality my tushy.

Lithuanian Offspring
01-08-2005, 01:21 PM
Imagine how much disease there would be, the STDs and not to mention all of the colds, scraps, etc you'd get from prancing around in a shitty field butt-naked all day. And, of course there would be malnurishment. 'Cause I'm sure their crops wouldn't do so well.

Noodles is gay
01-08-2005, 01:26 PM
Random female point of view:

I somehow never thought that women would be much different if they were the "stronger sex". In fact, I even find that some women can be much more cruel than men.

Women can be a lot more cruel than men,take in schools for example;boys will fight but not necessarily hurt each other very much, girls, however, hurt each other emotionally which is so much worse - not a lot of people realize this which i find incredible.

I think that if women had been 'the stronger sex', ie if m ancient times they had ruled, things would be very different. Society would be unrecognizable - esp. if people like that 'author' had any power.

Mayhap she should go and live her 'vision' just to start us off :D

(Not sure if this makes much sense - sorry)

Lithuanian Offspring
01-08-2005, 01:32 PM
Women can be a lot more cruel than men,take in schools for example;boys will fight but not necessarily hurt each other very much, girls, however, hurt each other emotionally which is so much worse - not a lot of people realize this which i find incredible.

I think that if women had been 'the stronger sex', ie if m ancient times they had ruled, things would be very different. Society would be unrecognizable - esp. if people like that 'author' had any power.

Mayhap she should go and live her 'vision' just to start us off :D

(Not sure if this makes much sense - sorry)

I tend to have the opinion that, while men are the stronger sex physically, women do have more control in the mental department. If you think about it there have been alot of women in history that controlled through males. Alexander the "Great", Julius Caesar, Anthony (Both were married to Cleopatra), and the list is endless.

wheelchairman
01-08-2005, 01:35 PM
She certainly is no hippy, she advocates the destruction of the male sex. She may say she loves everyone, but she only loves them for the place they have in her world. (all existing males who do not hurt "mother Earth" too much, I am guessing, will be no different than castrated cats and dogs.)

She's against violence, but she supports the killing of capitalists, sexists (but only if they are males), and others.

I tried to tell her, that there is a difference in males who are class conscious and non-class conscious, as there are a difference in females who are class-conscious and non-class conscious, bourgeois and worker. But she would have none of it, males are an imperfect female.

What I despise is her religion and how she uses it to justify her pathetic actions. It's no better than the 5%'ers. I would almost wish they'd go the way of Jonestown.

Izie
01-08-2005, 01:35 PM
Women can be a lot more cruel than men,take in schools for example;boys will fight but not necessarily hurt each other very much, girls, however, hurt each other emotionally which is so much worse - not a lot of people realize this which i find incredible.

Absolutely agreed. Women can cause so much more mental/emotional pain, and this one is indeed worse. A bruise or a broken arm heal (let's not get too extreem), but some sort of a psychological scar has the chance of never disappearing. And yet we're considered all nice and soft. Yeah... Right.


I think that if women had been 'the stronger sex', ie if m ancient times they had ruled, things would be very different. Society would be unrecognizable - esp. if people like that 'author' had any power.

Mayhap she should go and live her 'vision' just to start us off :D

(Not sure if this makes much sense - sorry)

If women had ruled... It would be very very very difficult to speculate what society would be like today. The way I see it, maybe they wouldn't have fought over teritories that much, but women can be extremely protective/possessive over other things (men, or even more - children). Too many things to take into account to actually come up with a peroper theory :/ Maybe after I've given it some more thought :/

Noodles is gay
01-08-2005, 01:35 PM
I tend to have the opinion that, while men are the stronger sex physically, women do have more control in the mental department. If you think about it there have been alot of women in history that controlled through males. Alexander the "Great", Julius Caesar, Anthony (Both were married to Cleopatra), and the list is endless.

I quite agree so don't take this the wrong way - Alexander the great's mother didn't rule through him, she merely wanted the best for him. So little is know about Alexander that it's impossible to come to that kind of conclusion.

No offence or anything :D - I'm just the board's resident classics freak.

wheelchairman
01-08-2005, 01:39 PM
As far as women ruling, the early history of most tribes has a history of female rulers, eventually as the tribes progress a patriarch divides family along that of male family etc. etc. but in early days when we lived as tribes women were often the 'chief', not for all of tribal history, for tribes themselves go through many stages of development, and I don't exactly remember particular much from this book. (The Origin of the State, Private Property, and Family by Friedrich Engels)

Lithuanian Offspring
01-08-2005, 01:40 PM
I quite agree so don't take this the wrong way - Alexander the great's mother didn't rule through him, she merely wanted the best for him. So little is know about Alexander that it's impossible to come to that kind of conclusion.

No offence or anything :D - I'm just the board's resident classics freak.
Well you can't argue that she tried to make her life better aswell as Alexander's. And plus who are we to say what she wanted. Last time I talked to her about it... um..... well she didn't have much to tell me :D

Noodles is gay
01-08-2005, 01:41 PM
As far as women ruling, the early history of most tribes has a history of female rulers, eventually as the tribes progress a patriarch divides family along that of male family etc. etc. but in early days when we lived as tribes women were often the 'chief', not for all of tribal history, for tribes themselves go through many stages of development, and I don't exactly remember particular much from this book. (The Origin of the State, Private Property, and Family by Friedrich Engels)

I didn't know that :o so i shall have to read up about it - i merely knew about hte amazons and prehaps a few other tribes as well.

Izie
01-08-2005, 01:43 PM
She certainly is no hippy, she advocates the destruction of the male sex. She may say she loves everyone, but she only loves them for the place they have in her world. (all existing males who do not hurt "mother Earth" too much, I am guessing, will be no different than castrated cats and dogs.)

She's against violence, but she supports the killing of capitalists, sexists (but only if they are males), and others.

There's so much wrong with her theory... And you can't really argue with people who base their ideas on belief or feelings and not arguments. There's no argument in the world that would convince them.


I tried to tell her, that there is a difference in males who are class conscious and non-class conscious, as there are a difference in females who are class-conscious and non-class conscious, bourgeois and worker. But she would have none of it, males are an imperfect female.

The girl discovered how to turn Freud upside-down and now she's all happy. That's the only dimension she cares about now. No class, no any other form of hierarchy but gender.

It's amazing how this gender division is so strong. I can't even count the number of times girls from my class said the "Boys are all the same" sentence. What they don't realize is that this automatically puts them into the "Girls are all the same" category. I honestly dislike any generalization of this type.


What I despise is her religion and how she uses it to justify her pathetic actions. It's no better than the 5%'ers. I would almost wish they'd go the way of Jonestown.

In my oppinion it's not right to use religion for anything like that. I know people do it all the time basically, but I still find it wrong. And yes, I know how you despise religion in general, but let's not get into that.

Noodles is gay
01-08-2005, 01:50 PM
It's amazing how this gender division is so strong. I can't even count the number of times girls from my class said the "Boys are all the same" sentence. What they don't realize is that this automatically puts them into the "Girls are all the same" category. I honestly dislike any generalization of this type.

It's attitudes like that (your friend's not yours) which give birth to the entire problem; if people understood that two sexes are needed, basically, for reproduction and nothing more there would be no problem at all. Men's chauvinism or women's feminist attitudes (like our 'friend's') add to the problems, not solve them.

One would think that people would get over the whole; 'ergh! but he's a boy!' attitude. It doesn't matter at all which sex you are but just that either sex should have the same chances and opportunities.

Izie
01-08-2005, 01:56 PM
It's attitudes like that (your friend's not yours) which give birth to the entire problem, if people understood that two sexes are needed, basically, for reproduction and nothing more there would be no problem at all. Men's chauvinism or women's feminist attitudes (like our 'friend's) add to the problems not solve them.

One would think that people would get over the whole; 'ergh! but he's a boy!' attitude. It doesn't matter at all which sex you are but just that either sex should have the same chances and opportunities.

See, the thing is, they won't hear about it. I explain it, nicely and slowly (I have male friends who agree, and who I've never heard saying "All girls are the same), but nope. No way, not a chance. It's like someone implanted something in their brain and they won't let go. Feminism is good to the point that it actually wants equality, but at points it can go too far.

Or (mean theory) they're compensating for not managing to have a normal relationship with a male by saying they all suck (goes for males too!).

It would be much better if people wouldn't mind the fact that other people are different. That is normal after all, and I honestly don't see what we're so afraid of. A bit more of understanding and respect for actual human qualities that have nothing to do with gender/race/religion would be helpful.

Lithuanian Offspring
01-08-2005, 02:07 PM
It would be much better if people wouldn't mind the fact that other people are different. That is normal after all, and I honestly don't see what we're so afraid of. A bit more of understanding and respect for actual human qualities that have nothing to do with gender/race/religion would be helpful.
It would so nice and good. But the reality of the fact is that if you have differing opinions on a subject already then you can't coexist. You can try and hide it and act nice. But if I am a Christian I am automatically an Anti- Everyother religion on the face of this Earth. So this is the problem. It would be good if we were all mental clones.

wheelchairman
01-08-2005, 02:10 PM
It would be interesting to research why we have these generalisations? Well I mean as Izie said it could be because they suck at relationships (makes relationships sound like a skill.) However, it is a tendency of people to date generally the same type of people, you know? So for a small-minded person, one who doesn't have many male friends other than the boyfriends that they may have, it may seem that males are generally all the same.

The fact remains though, that you have to be incredibly close minded to generalize literally half of society. I mean that's generalising to a point of absurdity.

Although if you haven't read this yet, Goddessofsensuality was brutally raped at the age of 14, that's probably why she has such an aversion to the male sex.

Lithuanian Offspring
01-08-2005, 02:21 PM
Although if you haven't read this yet, Goddessofsensuality was brutally raped at the age of 14, that's probably why she has such an aversion to the male sex.
Well then that is it. That is the source of all of this hatered, or equality as she might think, comes from.

Izie
01-08-2005, 02:24 PM
It would be interesting to research why we have these generalisations? Well I mean as Izie said it could be because they suck at relationships (makes relationships sound like a skill.) However, it is a tendency of people to date generally the same type of people, you know? So for a small-minded person, one who doesn't have many male friends other than the boyfriends that they may have, it may seem that males are generally all the same.

I'm not sure exactly why we have the generalizations, my theory was one of my ideas, which of course doesn't have to be right. But the thing is, we have generalizations about everyone and everything, not just gender ones. We can try, but I don't think we can ever have an absolute answer.

Back to gender generalizations. Relationships HAVE become a skill, I swear (in my environment), it's like you have to know exactly what to say/do at every single point, and if you say/do something the other party didn't expect, everything is off. Or maybe I just have strange friends.

Ha, the not-many-male-friends leads me to the point where I had lots of male friends, and everyone else thought we had some sort of other thing going on. That's actually the eternal question of "Can males and females can be just friends or is there alwas something more?" Personal example, yes they can. Examples of many other people around me... Not really.


The fact remains though, that you have to be incredibly close minded to generalize literally half of society. I mean that's generalising to a point of absurdity.

Although if you haven't read this yet, Goddessofsensuality was brutally raped at the age of 14, that's probably why she has such an aversion to the male sex.

Yup, that probably explains the aversion. And the close-mindedness. But I don't really think you can blame her for it.

wheelchairman
01-08-2005, 02:41 PM
I don't blame nor excuse her for it.

Generalizations perhaps just make the world more understandable.

I do thinks guys and girls *can* just be friends.

I honestly don't have much to say, (obviously), but I am glad this topic turned into something interesting.

Noodles is gay
01-08-2005, 02:43 PM
Back to gender generalizations. Relationships HAVE become a skill, I swear (in my environment), it's like you have to know exactly what to say/do at every single point, and if you say/do something the other party didn't expect, everything is off. Or maybe I just have strange friends.

Since I agree with everything you just said - that's really quite weird! :eek: - i can only expand a little bit.

Relationships ARE a skill - they haven't become one. You must say the right thing, act the right way, look the right way, laugh at certain times, not laugh at others, know what to say next, not have the social skills of a rock (ie. like me) and just make the right moves.

Also agree with wheelchairman's last post.

Izie
01-08-2005, 02:54 PM
Since I agree with everything you just said - that's really quite weird! :eek: - i can only expand a little bit.

Relationships ARE a skill - they haven't become one. You must say the right thing, act the right way, look the right way, laugh at certain times, not laugh at others, know what to say next, not have the social skills of a rock (ie. like me) and just make the right moves.

Also agree with wheelchairman's last post.

Yup, agree with wheelchairman's last post (except I obviously still have something to say).

And now that you've mentioned it, it is very true, they have been a skil, all through history. Maybe it's just stranger now, since we have a society that is much more equal than it used to be, yet we still have the need to fulfill certain social roles in a certain way in order to be accepted and not labeled as a "weirdo".

The thing is I really dislike the whole "relationship as a skill" thing. I just want to be able to be myself and do whatever the hell I want to do whenever I want to (not walk around naked and such... just the normal things: say what I want, wear what I want etc.)

I think it doesn't HAVE to be that way, the only catch is that you have to find someone who is enough like you to actually accept you for who you are. The whole relationship business would really be much easier if we could really just accept people for who they are and not expect them to live up to our idea of who they are.

I've been watching too much Sex and the City (and generally disagreeing with justaboutanything they say). Any other thoughts?

Noodles is gay
01-08-2005, 03:08 PM
Maybe it's just stranger now, since we have a society that is much more equal than it used to be, yet we still have the need to fulfill certain social roles in a certain way in order to be accepted and not labeled as a "weirdo".

The thing is I really dislike the whole "relationship as a skill" thing. I just want to be able to be myself and do whatever the hell I want to do whenever I want to (not walk around naked and such... just the normal things: say what I want, wear what I want etc.)

Definitely, i just get labelled a weirdo and be done with it - that's the best way methinks because then you don't have to act everytime you go anywhere.

Just be yourself then, eventually someone will like those natural characteristics about you - that's how it seems to me.

Basically i agree with you.

wheelchairman
01-08-2005, 03:11 PM
Hmm yes relationships are odd in the methods that they can have a person negate oneself. Really odd, and most often you rarely fully realize it until it's over. (and this concept was actually developed by Hegel)

On being accepted, all I've ever done lately is be myself, I'm loud, flamboyant (and charming if I do say so myself), and basically force people to accept me, it's worked so far.

If people would drop their inhibitions of themselves and their expectations of others, a lot of good things could be done.

Noodles is gay
01-08-2005, 03:18 PM
I know this is totally unrelated to other things and disturbs the flow of the topic but i really don't care.

[QUOTE=wheelchairman]On being accepted, all I've ever done lately is be myself, I'm loud, flamboyant (and charming if I do say so myself), and basically force people to accept me, it's worked so far.[QUOTE]

Wow, you're the complete opposite to me. I'm very quiet and hope people will accept me, although usually they do not. :(

wheelchairman
01-08-2005, 03:20 PM
On an ironic note, I was too for many years. Then I got pissed off and became the opposite of that. Over the past year or so, it's kinda toned down.

Izie
01-08-2005, 03:24 PM
Definitely, i just get labelled a weirdo and be done with it - that's the best way methinks because then you don't have to act everytime you go anywhere.

Just be yourself then, eventually someone will like those natural characteristics about you - that's how it seems to me.

Basically i agree with you.

Yup, the thing only is I think the place I'm from wasn't that cruel... We actually didn't have any "weirdos", so I'm not very fit to talk about this problem.


Hmm yes relationships are odd in the methods that they can have a person negate oneself. Really odd, and most often you rarely fully realize it until it's over. (and this concept was actually developed by Hegel)

On being accepted, all I've ever done lately is be myself, I'm loud, flamboyant (and charming if I do say so myself), and basically force people to accept me, it's worked so far.

If people would drop their inhibitions of themselves and their expectations of others, a lot of good things could be done.

That last sentense is the absolute truth.

Eh, I was always myself, a bit narcissistic, a bit sarcastic, a general know-it-all and brutally honest. I'm a bit less honest these days (as in I don't push my oppinion if it wasn't asked for, so I keep quiet about some sucky things and let people be happy with what they think is good...).

I've got some really good friends, and the rest... I don't care much about. I am who I am, like it or leave it. And I do the same for others.

It's interesting though how you can be seen as closed-minded if you don't like someone. Like, if I don't like an... I dunno, a girl I'll be labeled as jealous, if I don't like a certain persn from a certain country i'll be labeled as someone who doesn't like the whole country... Don't we have the right to just not like someone?

Izie
01-08-2005, 03:25 PM
Too much to explain.

wheelchairman
01-08-2005, 03:28 PM
Yeah I think a lot of major work in the future will be done in the area of studying the psychology of expectations, generalizations, and prejudice. Almost unavoidable.

Although I think a lot can be counter-acted with a good education.

Izie
01-08-2005, 03:30 PM
Yeah I think a lot of major work in the future will be done in the area of studying the psychology of expectations, generalizations, and prejudice. Almost unavoidable.

Although I think a lot can be counter-acted with a good education.

Yup, I think that psychology is one of the sciences that has been least developed, and we have a lot to learn about ourselves.

And I completely agree with education. he only problem is that the education has to be a stronger influence than what kids learn at home... Which would be sotrt of difficult. But not impossible.

wheelchairman
01-08-2005, 03:31 PM
Well you can almost guess that I believe in a sort of communal home. (not like the shitty ass daycares that we have today) but things will be different than they are now.

Although bigotted homes of today are begetting the bigoted homes of tomorrow, which is unfortunate.

Izie
01-08-2005, 03:34 PM
Well you can almost guess that I believe in a sort of communal home. (not like the shitty ass daycares that we have today) but things will be different than they are now.

Although bigotted homes of today are begetting the bigoted homes of tomorrow, which is unfortunate.

Your idea of education is really nice, and I do like it, in an ideal world it would be like that, I'm just not sure it CAN be that way.

I'm sometimes/somewhat conflicted with myself you see, on education/culture and stuff I could be considered almost marxist, but some other points... Just don't work for me.

wheelchairman
01-08-2005, 03:42 PM
Thanks, although it's hard for me to have concrete opinions on education, I've only ever been a student, my dad's a teacher though. and only a bit of the works of people like Bowlby.

the original pyro
01-08-2005, 09:10 PM
the reason females had a suboordinate role in the past(and still do today in most parts of the world) is, if one were to go back to the times of hunter/gatherer tribes, women were:

A) less muscular and therefor less skilled at hunting and gathering, which is pretty much what hunter/gatherers do.

and most importantly:

B) The key parent in childcare, and therefor relied on men more for what they needed while they stayed in caves and huts to look after their children. This continued to the neolithic stages of human development, and then when urbanization started, women took care of their children while men ran the cities and farms, thusly running society. This continues to today.

the development of urbanization continued to develop reason C:

C)Religeon. Started by men. Most Important gods are men, godesses only exist as suboordinate to gods, and were virtually phased out with monotheism. Almost all major religeons in some way or another state women should be subordinate and men dominate.

In a society where we are all in touch with nature and without society, we will all have a short life expectancy, possibly die out from std's, and will repeat history entirely as it progreesed before, only in different places. Unless men are kept in jails and raised only as sperm farms. In which case, histopry would still be the same, untill the revolution where a different religeon begins that accepts males rivales the other.

the_GoDdEsS
01-09-2005, 02:52 AM
It's rather human to make assumptions and generalisations about everyone and everything different that us. Whether they're right or wrong they help to somehow order the chaos the world out there is.

Men and women are different and it's frustrating that there is so much miscommunication. There are some generalisations you can make but they are not applicable on the individual. Ever.
I tend to believe it's all a question of communication because we only hear and see what we want to hear and see. And frequently both men and women tend to misinterpret each other because their semantics might be different.

The whole article seemed like a most idiotic utopia to me. I think the world's taken the development it should have taken. Pretty much agree with the person above me about the physical strength and roles of men and women in the past.

Also agree with Iz on the male emotional castration thing. It's just the biggest bullshit I have heard. I know men who are more emotional and spiritual than I am without being any kind of dumb emos. Men process emotions internally whereas women tend to show them. (generalisation)

Friendships between men and women also do exist. At least applicable in my case. I have many good male friends who are maybe one of the best partners for a serious conversation.

the_GoDdEsS
01-09-2005, 10:03 AM
Men who show emotions aren't real human beings.
Neither are wimmins who don't put out.

*handcuffs you to the stove*

Now cook, biatch!