Nature’s Metaphor for Sexuality

[George Gordon]

SEX is Nature’s metaphor for SEXUALITY! Nature the poet; sex the poem.

Man is pointed and direct; Woman is open and circuitous. His penis: the ‘outer world’; her vagina: the ‘inner world’. The merger is humanity. Creation; poetry.

And if you’ve realized that a lot of your perspectives in the past have been backwards, like taking women seriously instead of in humor, as goddesses rather than girls, or believing that you should be honored to be with the princess instead of the girl getting a chance to be with you, could it be possible that something even vaster still has it’s backwards grip on you? Perhaps your drive for sex is really a search for your sexuality. But isn’t sex a natural reflex of embracing your sexuality? So, are you examining the structure of houses rather than building one?

Look, through nature’s sexual parable, man is attracted and aroused by his sight of woman’s sexual form; masculinity is VISION—the Will and Ambition. His world is in the realm of action; the ‘outer world’ is his domain and time is against him for his erected essence is mortal. Whereas woman is attracted and aroused by her sensuality (the other senses and her intuition) of man’s vision; femininity is SEXUAL—the Imagination and Sociality. Her world is in the realm of inaction; the ‘inner world’ is her domain, timeless, eternal and encompassing.

Listen, men communicate logic, facts, proofs with each other, whereas women, with each other, communicate emotions, dramas. Men connect with each other through the ‘outer world’, women, through the ‘inner world’. That seems to be why some men looking through their scientific-analytical lenses exclaim: women talk endlessly, yet say nothing. In action, inaction—aye lad, but there is so much happening in that female hum, beneath the understanding of our virile worlds. Man communicates from an image for he speaks IN words, woman communicates from a feeling for she speaks BETWEEN words.

So how can man and women who exist in different worlds connect? For sexuality decays when either masculinity or femininity is taken from the other and held with more weight, isolated, as when one denies itself: either the will is seduced by procrastination or the imagination is persuaded by hallucination; the unleveled scale—Androgyny!

But when is the scale balanced? Man is the solution to woman, and woman is the solution to man: two fragmentary yet opposite compliments fitting into one another to complete the whole. Through their own worlds, man keeps the hallucination away from woman, and woman keeps the procrastination away from man.

The fortitude of a man’s ‘outer world’, his vision attracts and invites woman to reflect back her seductive nature—to be woman. He does NOT seduce (even though, in a desexualized society, his ego may proclaim so for the ones in awe do not know or else they wouldn’t be in awe), she seduces. A man simply is a man.

Seduction is woman’s domain. It is she that, leaving her own, enters into the man’s world, reflects him back (showing him who he is), and lures him into herself, encompassing him. The man comes, pursuing a reflection, an inversion, of himself—that missing rib, his heart more exposed—realizing he is not alone for he is a fragment. An erect penis; a moist vagina.

Yet notice the parallel between ‘Speed Seduction’ and woman’s nature varies to no degree. It’s uncanny. ‘Speed Seducers’ seem to, ironically, mirror feminine sexuality, reflecting back at women their own reflexive nature, formulating it into a cold calculated, logical science. How pathetic does that seem? What is a ‘Speed Seducer’ but a male lesbian? Two wet vaginas. There’s no point!

Like the Nice Guy who never gets to the point because he always needs a hand, beating around the bush, he rises to nothing. He has no world but in his imagination. And how can woman connect with his ‘outer world’ when he himself is not connected? How can woman react to inaction? An impotent penis; a dry vagina.

Before men, women are seductresses; remember to leave them to it. Buying into man as seducer is as man was when you bought into Nice Guy. Man is man.


!GEORGE GORDON!
I came looking for LOVE but discovered LIFE. -Pook

 

[Don Ronny]

Is it just my imagination or does your signature seem to be getting bigger?

 

[Poopie Doodies]

Nice post Pook!

 

[Lionheart]

"It does not matter how eloquent the teaching, if no one understands then it is still a crock of sh1t."

Zen proverb.

George : Not a diss man, but you overanaylze.
Maybe it's just me, whos read a million eloquent analysises(is that a word?) and is now tired of them.

For some reason your writings don't seem to grip as much as Pookathons.

I looked a girl right in the eye while talking about sex with her and asked her if she wanted to sleep with me, and got closer to ****ing her (We didn't) than I ever have following any hair brained philosophy or analysis.

I have now come to the conclusion that a true love is difficult to find, even for the best of us, it's a one in a million that you will meet her, so forget that for a while and just enjoy yourself.

If you just want sex then spending time in the gym and making your self better physically will pay dividends over philosophizing anyday.

If a self-confessed intellectual like me (I know that definition still reeks of egotism) is getting tired of reading stuff like this, then we are obviously seeing far too much of it.

The board has longed passed the golden age.

Lionheart.

 

[George Gordon]

Don Ronny said:
Is it just my imagination or does your signature seem to be getting bigger?

Usually my signature’s size seems to reflect the girth of my post. The point I’m getting across.

Poopie Doodies said:
Nice post Pook!

What you say!? But my fading ego still flickers, and my falling philosophies yet flutter.


Hi Lionheart,

"It does not matter how eloquent the teaching, if no one understands then it is still a crock of sh1t."--Zen proverb.

That sounds like the description, to the layman, of a Zen koan. Tragic. But you, my friend, are not everybody. Could it be that just YOU don’t understand? I mean, are you saying that just because 90% of males don’t understand what it means to be a Don Juan that it’s a “crock of ****”; Or that because most people don’t understand poets, like Shakespeare, poetry is a “crock of ****”?

Maybe it's just me, whos read a million eloquent analysises(is that a word?) and is now tired of them.

You’re probably right—it is just you, having read a million analysis’s perhaps you’re in the habit of approaching everything you read (and experience) through that scientific microscope. Maybe you’re a scientist. Or a mathematician. Did you ever consider exploring literature?

Listen, it’s quite apparent you didn’t understand and overlooked the entire point of my post. I don’t know your sexual experience, but if it’s minimal, that would explain why you didn’t understand the whole of the metaphor. As thus:

I looked a girl right in the eye while talking about sex with her and asked her if she wanted to sleep with me, and got closer to ****ing her (We didn't) than I ever have following any hair brained philosophy or analysis.

Men do NOT ask—they DO! That is why women are seductresses. You may say, well, I have to initiate. I’m the man! I’m a seductive playa! Sure. Okay. But why are you thinking about approaching or initiating in the first place? It’s because you smell the bait in one of her ‘Man-Snares’. In nature’s grand strategy, man seems but a pawn; but his ego, his philosophy, makes him think himself a king. That Philosopher-King, Mr. Dictator.

See, I consider philosophy poetry’s antithesis. Both result in perspectives or perceptions, but what is the difference? Poetry is the words of nature, humanity’s only true language; philosophy, the interpreter that knows not her syntax and grammar. Poetry leads to wisdom; philosophy, to frustration. So you tell me if I’m philosophizing or not.

This post was written through the frame of my sexual experiences thus far, taking into account the transition from when I was not even a speck on woman’s sexual radar until I discovered that that big red blinking blurb was ME!

I have now come to the conclusion that a true love is difficult to find, even for the best of us, it's a one in a million that you will meet her, so forget that for a while and just enjoy yourself.

Could your impression of LOVE be backwards? Perhaps another metaphor is needed, as metaphors are that link between the ‘outer world’ and ‘inner world’, that contact—or overlapping—where the two worlds reflect upon one another so you can look through them in translucence. In nature, a metaphor is a fragment of its compliment and reflection. It is a symbol in the ‘outer world’ of the same idea in the ‘inner world’ It’s a translation between masculine and feminine. In essence, it’s the same light, but there’s a difference depending on what side of the prism you look.

Look, before a man becomes acquainted with femininity (and thus, his own true masculinity), his vision is but a white light casting the black shadows of philosophy, but woman is that sexual prism that transforms a man’s vision, refracts and redirects it into a full spectrum of motley vibrancy.

Man is a mere gardener. He plants the seeds in a garden that pleases his eye and then waters the soil moderately until the buds start poking through. As the plants and vegetation begin to sprout leaves, the gardener as to protect the plants, weeds the garden, removing all unnecessary wild foliage which obstructs the plants now in bloom with crimson flowers and luscious fruits. He is a guardian gardener. He looks after the garden, keeps it under control. The garden, without him, would be chaos not capable of producing fruit; the gardener, without the garden, would a green thumb have none.

If you just want sex then spending time in the gym and making your self better physically will pay dividends over philosophizing anyday.

Brava! That was half the point of the post. It’s not about wanting sex! And doing things in order to get sex. It’s about wanting to be in the same rhythm with your masculinity—with your VISION! And when your vision is strong and focused, women want to be a reflection of it. They want to be the insight, that ‘inner vision’ of your ‘outer vision’. They want to be that inversion of your ‘outer world’. You do all the work; they’re sexy.

If a self-confessed intellectual like me (I know that definition still reeks of egotism) is getting tired of reading stuff like this, then we are obviously seeing far too much of it.

If you’re getting tired of reading stuff like this, why did you continue after the first paragraph? And then write a handful of paragraphs yourself telling me that you’re a scientist and that you don’t understand anything unless it’s a mathematical equation?

Also, this ‘piece of eloquence’ was posted at the request of a couple of users on this board.

The board has longed passed the golden age.

Maybe that’s your cue to start your own golden age, your own world…

Cheers!

!GEORGE GORDON!

 

[Lionheart]

"You’re probably right—it is just you, having read a million analysis’s perhaps you’re in the habit of approaching everything you read (and experience) through that scientific microscope. Maybe you’re a scientist. Or a mathematician. Did you ever consider exploring literature?"

Muuhahahahaaa.
I am very well read....the difference is that lately I have decided to put more time into formulating my own view of the world by living MY life rather than living the life of others through their words.

"That sounds like the description, to the layman, of a Zen koan."

Of course!
The fact that it is a layman's description is the whole point of the quote!
Also if you know a lot about Zen, then I am suprised that you do not know the dangers of egotism, as your post also reeks of it.

You very much want to be Pook2, while I personally hate the 'y0 dood' 15 year old I-dont-have-to-use-punctuation if I don't want to, your are very much an equivalent - albiete at the other end of the spectrum.

"Could it be that just YOU don’t understand?"
I understand just fine thank you George, in fact I am willing to bet my understanding exceeds yours.

"If you’re getting tired of reading stuff like this, why did you continue after the first paragraph?"

I didn't!
Firstly, I know the sort of things that you post, and I also know that you have been b1tched at before by longtimers for posting lengthy diatribes that either mean next to nothing OR that the answer is so heavily concealed by metaphor, similie and verse that either NO ONE gets what you are trying to say, or (like myself) laugh at your egotistical attempts at wordiness
(Having once been there myself ).

Intellectualism is for me, very much physical confidence gone SOUR.

That is why we have so many eloquent and intellectual posters on this board, they got pissed off with their lack of physical presence and retreated into a self-righteous defensive world (much like the I-am-so-individual-member-of-a-group goths and 'metalers').

....that's not a bad thing, if they can embrace their sexuality AND keep their mind - they will be unstoppable.

Thing is Gordie, I KNOW I am intelligent - therefore I have no need to broadcast it, I see two friends of mine with almost comparable intellects to mine who are EGO MANIACS, they argue with me about things that they know nothing / less than me about, and I hand them a plate of their own ass with all the trimmings(plagrised that from the great Maddox) and make them look like ****ing idiots. I will make them lose their egos, they can never be great until they realise that they are not God's gift.

Given the counterpoint, if I know nothing about the subject I shut up, or tell them I think I know something but am not sure.

Pook's stuff rocked the casbah at the time because it was NEW, plus the message is a tad easier to extract despite Pook-tastic's considerable intellect and writing skill.
Notice his later posts get less ratings and yes-men replying, however there is still considerable info to be gleamed.
(Not a diss of the Pook-Meister, I usually read, and enjoy, his posts as well )

"Maybe that’s your cue to start your own golden age, your own world…Cheers!"

I have my own golden world, I don't need to broadcast it on this forum, why do you think I never post tips? (Although I do give out quite a few replies.)

As I mentioned before, I am not 'dissing' you.

But cut the eloquence down and keep the message, I have as much trouble taking you seriously as I do the 14 year olds who think they have it all figured out or the ones that eschew any attempts at readable posts.

Anyway thanks for your input and contributation - I am sure people get plenty from your posts.

Lionheart.

 

[iqqi]

georgie,

what a beautiful picture you have painted. some of your brush strokes made me giggle.

 

[George Gordon]

Lionheart.

Before I read a post, I often notice what the poster capitalizes/stresses because it often lets me know ahead of time what is important to the poster. The tone. What his challenges are at the time he wrote it. His FOCUS! When he speaks of others, his focus is really on himself, whether condemning or praising.

Unlike you, I am not well read. I’ve probably read under 300 books in my lifetime. But I think viewing what you read through a proper frame is more important than whether or not you’ve read all the classics and the scientific treatises. You said, “I have decided to put more time into formulating my own view of the world by living MY life rather than living the life of others through their words.” But, my friend, what if, instead of their WORDS, you ‘lived their life’ through their EYES? For you not only read what the author has to say, you also read—or discover—what you have to say; Your SOUL looking through the EYES of another. How powerful and illuminating is that?

You also said, “You very much want to be Pook2.” What you think I want is really none of my business. Besides, how do you know what I want? But wait! I will tell you: I very much want to be GEORGE GORDON (or whatever my name is in real life). I want to keep my eyes open to MY VISION and my ears open to MY CALL! And allow MY VOICE to continue to develop accordingly. What more can a man want? Yet, what less?

Also, I don’t know a lot about Zen, but when I was 16 I was into Taoism. I’ve always considered the two to be siblings. Though I never agreed with removing desire because I saw it as removing a part of my own HUMANITY, lessons were still learnt. Zen speaks through koans and mondos: Paradoxes and metaphors, a similar language as poets. Lao-tzu was, by some, considered a poet. I’ve read through some mondos and then asked myself, “What the ****!?” so I can sympathize with you here. If monks are so wise, why would they choose to ‘conceal’ what they saw through metaphors? Could it be because there is no other way to say it? Regardless, I’ll try to clear up a few things you seemed to be asking…


Listen, I think the key to understanding opposites or extremes or whatever you want to call them—they are the same, really; sexuality—is to realize that scientists seem to put them on a scale that protrude in opposite directions, an infinite divide; whereas poets seem to see them as spherical like a moon with the sun illuminating one half, but whole.

This cannot be explained. It cannot be ‘transferred’ I can only give you one frame; the moving picture is up to you.

If man is the gardener, woman is the garden, and love is the fruit: how does the relationship differ between the gardener and the fruit, and the garden and the fruit? This is the same metaphor as my original post, different angle. Love has a different meaning to man than to woman.

Why has man as warrior and woman as lover endured the ages: from Mars and Venus to Tragedy and Comedy, war and love, death and life? You have to take them as a whole, a balance. Lose the comparisons; find the overlap.

Man at war evokes woman at love. War draws woman to man; Love draws man to woman: Man toils in the soil; woman produces fruit. If man does not weed the garden, infatuation will not bud into love, the garden will not produce fruit, fulfilling the appetite of man, encouraging him to persevere in his toils. How obvious does the oneness appear? The cycle from eclipse to eclipse.

In nature, war is man fighting himself; in philosophy, war is man fighting other men. Thus, naturally, the greatest battle a man must face is his mortality! There is no score because mortal flesh knows no other nemesis than time. Only when he has HUMBLED his ego, the illusions fade. Only then is he truly free to be ‘limited’, and ultimately, unlimited.

Love is a reflection of war.

Woman is lover, she is seductress. The more I embrace my will, the more I see how backwards I had it when I was a Nice Guy. I thought I was the pursuer. Now, it is the girls that do the pursuing. It is the women who try to get George’s attention. It is the women that ‘trance word’ and mirror George. It is the women who lead George’s thoughts toward sexual images. The things they say to me now would have blown my mind a year ago—I wouldn’t have believed it. They just can’t sit still in George’s presence. Before this site I wanted girls, but now I want them…to leave me alone.

And finally, you said, “I KNOW I am intelligent - therefore I have no need to broadcast it” and “I have my own golden world, I don't need to broadcast it on this forum.”—My friend, I’m curious why you did then?

Cheers!

!GEORGE GORDON!

 

[DankNuggs]

Dude! What is your problem....Its very perceptive for you to find metaphors, its good for the mind to be able to see the interrelatedness of life in all areas...Congrats. but as a tip, its just bs fluff....You aren't even close to making more than a minor point covered in the bible, and I fell asleep twice trying to read your post...


You want girls to leave you alone? I suggest carrying a copy of this post, and read it to whomever you want to run screaming in the opposite direction

 

[Crotch Sniffer]

I normally hate GG!s incoherent ramblings but this is a beautiful post. Very well written!

However...

I have to disagree with the idea that women are the seducers though... I think seduction is an interactive thang where man initiates and women screens for interest via looks, status, whatever.

Your metaphor is almost complete...you just have to include the male aspect of seduction, for he certainly has his role!

If not, we would all be getting approached by hotties on the daily and would laugh at the idea of this site!

 

[MVPlaya]

What the hell is this crap? Go get a life and shut the f_ck up about metaphors!

What is this metaphor crap. I see idiots discuss them when talking about f_cking economics!!!! You people need to shut the hell up and leave metaphors for your Shakespearean Literature classes.

 

[George Gordon]

Danknuggs,

Originally posted by Danknuggs
You want girls to leave you alone? I suggest carrying a copy of this post, and read it to whomever you want to run screaming in the opposite direction

Sorry man, but that wouldn’t work either. In fact, as you’ve seen in iqqi’s reply, it would do quite the opposite because some of it was written between the lines, the words—in woman’s domain. Also, this post was a tweaked rendition of an English paper, which was written for a hot English professor of mine, who has since gone completely nuts over me. More below.

Any other suggestions? I’ve tried being nice and even ignoring them when they try to talk to me.


Hi Crotch Sniffer.

Originally posted by Crotch Sniffer
I have to disagree with the idea that women are the seducers though... I think seduction is an interactive thang where man initiates and women screens for interest via looks, status, whatever.

Your metaphor is almost complete...you just have to include the male aspect of seduction, for he certainly has his role!

The male aspect of seduction is that he is the game. He is the trophy. Women are HUNTERS of men. Man is there for woman to chase and capture. She enters his world, his domain, and sets traps for him, puts the bait out, and draws him into herself. His ONLY ROLE in seduction is to be a man. And if he be not a man, women don’t want to seduce him because he’s already seduced himself by her presence.

It is our egos that, in our society where getting women seems to be such a ‘great feat of manhood’, make us blind to nature’s grounds that women are seductresses and we are simply being men:

Yet we are not men because we can get women—no! That is the ego’s philosophy talking—We get women because we are men. But to expand the frame, it is the women, really, that get the men.

See, a few months back, I told myself that I’m off limits to women until I amended some things in my life, and you wouldn’t believe the results I didn’t particularly want, though I learnt a lot! I’ve never had such success with all women: young, old, hot, ugly. I think when you get to a point where chasing women, practicing techniques, etc. isn’t important to you anymore—or becomes a low priority—you realize how much they want YOU, but you were blinded to notice it before because you wanted them more than they wanted you.

A lot of the techniques you learnt here when you found this site where training wheels. But once you get past the transition phase and take the wheels off, the more you realize you were thinking backwards.

Take the idea of ‘Signs of High Interest’ for example. What are these really? You may see them and think, “Wow! Doc Love says she must really like me because X. I’m the man!” Sure. But if you see women in nature’s light, as the seductresses, these signs no longer are signs but lures. Man-bait. They irritate me sometimes...

Chick starts singing and bouncing up and down when she comes near me: “Notice me! I’m over here, sir. Talk to me.” Chick fondles necklace: “Please look down, sir. Look at my lips. Look at my neck.” Chick brushes up against me by ‘accident’ and says she’s sorry: “Touch back me sir.” Chick straightens top up, and arches her back: “Look at my breasts please, sir.” Chick uncrosses legs: “Look at my crotch, sir.” She wants to IGNITE your VISION. These are her natural seductive reactions to you (or your VISION), not signs to whether or not some technique is working. But what do you think happens when you don’t look, when you stay with the eyes?

My English professor does bizarre things in class. She reacts to me: my expressions and movements. She squarely faces me, yet I move from side to side of the room every class. She mirrors me. Feeds my ‘trance words’ and ‘ideas’ back at me from my papers—she even weaves rebuttals from essays of mine into her lecture. No one else knows that she’s saying two different things at the same time but me. Women speak between words, in innuendos and metaphors all the time.

I recently started working at a restaurant and these waitresses not only follow me on break, after a few minutes of conversation, they have me talking about sex before I realize it. Phenomenal.

Originally posted by Crotch Sniffer
If not, we would all be getting approached by hotties on the daily and would laugh at the idea of this site!

You have to remember that there are those that do! And do you know why the hotties approach them? Because these men could care less whether they’re pursued or not.

!GEORGE GORDON!