The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love...

A L L

#notallmen

im with her

#idid

We are a gender of peace, PLEASE do not mistake me for an extremist male

>The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness.
But this is objectively wrong, and they're often better at it than women.

it's not
i did too
it's easily identifiable

t. Egocentric male

What did they mean by this?

>men don't have feelings, boo hoo
Why do all women say that?

So you agree with her? That the guilt, shame, and insecurity of the male is something to be eradicated, so that nothing is left but the beastly nature, which may then, freely, offer her a "good dicking"?

t. Daddy issues

ebin find and replace argument
>The female is completely egocentric, trapped inside herself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness. She is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone. Her responses are entirely visceral, not cerebral; her intelligence is a mere tool in the services of her drives and needs; she is incapable of mental passion, mental interaction; she can't relate to anything other than her own physical sensations. She is a half-dead, unresponsive lump, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness; consequently, she is at best an utter bore, an inoffensive blob, since only those capable of absorption in others can be charming. She is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes, and is far worse off than the apes because, unlike the apes, she is capable of a large array of negative feelings -- hate, jealousy, contempt, disgust, guilt, shame, doubt -- and moreover, she is aware of what she is and what she isn't.
>Although completely physical, the female is unfit even for fleshlight service. Even assuming mechanical proficiency, which few women have, she is, first of all, incapable of zestfully, lustfully, tearing off a piece, but instead is eaten up with guilt, shame, fear and insecurity, feelings rooted in female nature, which the most enlightened training can only minimize; second, the physical feeling she attains is next to nothing; and third, she is not empathizing with her partner, but is obsessed with how she's doing, turning in an A performance, doing a good plumbing job. To call a woman an animal is to flatter her; she's a machine, a walking dildo. It's often said that men use women. Use them for what? Surely not pleasure.

Because they are dominated by theirs while we can temporarily suppress them in order to get something done, eg, we have some (not total) control of our fee fees

Does anybody else "panic" when they read stuff like this? I feel like I have been "found out" or something and that womanhood as a whole are suddenly aware of something I've been too ashamed to admit to myself. I mean I don't even agree with her, and blame world weariness on the lack of "passionate" investment in life that I had as a kid. But still, this kind of "outsider" manifesto stuff usually contains a grain of truth.

>walking dildo
Should be walking onahole desu.

>Entire argument is based on emotional and ideological concepts
lol
Women

t. false flagging roastie

I feel like there is a group of people that are so dumb they don't realize who built the society so efficently that we can actually prevent dying from the nearest apex predator. In fact, it is so effective, people lose their minds unable to cope with the idea that there are no major problems that are left to be solved. So we have writers like this coming about to invent them.

Did this bitch ever take an off day?

But she is right in a sense. Think about it. What is the worst thing a man could do to you (a fellow man)? It isn't killing him, because there's honour in dying in battle. It isn't beating him up, because wounds heal and again there's honour in the struggle. It isn't losing to him in a bet, or working a shittier job, or coming second place in a competition. It's being fucked in the ass. That's a fact. Really think about it. Picture it, if you must. Being fucked in the ass. That's the worse thing a guy could to me, a fellow guy. It is humiliating on a deeply instinctive level, deeper than the vast majority of other humiliations a man can suffer. It is emasculating, weak and cowardly. It is irredeemable. No dictator was ever fucked in the ass. No warlord allowed himself to be buggered. But for women, this is not only expected of them but *desired* by them. But the fact they aren't allowing tens if not hundreds of men to penetrate them during their fertile years suggests there's an element of shame involved. And I'm not talking only about the ass, by the way, because women have another at the front of their body. It is one of the reasons, in my estimation, that women are so fucked up psychologically. To allow a man to penetrate you is to become as demoralized as a conquered state. Women are Gaulish tribes to the Roman armies of man. Their sadism is in itself the deepest source of their inherent and eternal inferiority. They simply have zero potential to dominate men, lacking as they do the physical means (a penis) to impregnate others (like an imagined two-tier system of women who can breed with other women, and those who can only be bred). Imagine waking up *wanting* to be conquered. It is unimaginable for most men, who only either want to conquer others, or simply protect their little independent nation as best they can. Homosexuality is irrelevant here, as they are not desired by women. Women react to their biological circumstance in many ways. I've seen it first-hand. Intelligent women tend to be very misogynistic, like intelligent niggers who can't bear to be associated with the shit-throwing ape community they belong to and are thus identified as being. So they become misogynistic and simply LARP as beta males, or instead they become a fifth column male and try to take manhood down from the inside as with this schizo Jew. But I repeat, Valerie Solanas has a point when she describes inter-sex relationships as essentially brutal and imbalanced. Only self-deceiving nu-males and alt-women have parity in their relationships, and they tend to break up often or numb themselves to their deeper instincts. I really don't think enough people on this board or elsewhere have really taken the time, as I have, what physical inter-penetration among the human species really, truly represents. And I say that as a virgin.

>And I say that as a virgin.

It shows. In that entire speech you not once considered the fact that women really like getting fucked, its like their favorite thing to do

i've seen you post about this topic before and i agree completely

>not wanting to get pegged by an alpha female
Never gonna make it.

I'd rather be fucked in the ass than castrated.

>Who else sperged out?
>Who else wrote a whiny manifesto?
>tfw Valerie was the female version of Elliot Rodgers

Same my dude. Panic is the right word. May not be an accurate description of ALL guys, but as for THIS guy....hmmm....

Why is it wrong to have two different sexualities? Your post only identifies that male on male sexuality, when not consensual, is evil. I agree. And that female doing it to the other is rare. Okay great.

But that same desctructive force is what allowed societies to flourish. Just because it can be bad doesn't justify looking past the good. To qoute Camille paglia "There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper."

There is a concept of the divine masculine and the divine feminine, just as their evil polarities. Its a miracle that the divine feminine can shine in spite of the evil nature of masculinity, and its a miracle that the divine masculine can go on in spite of the evil nature of femininity.

You can wear fake balls and still appear alpha.

He means lose your entire dick

I'm not talking about consent. In fact, consenting to be fucked in the ass is even worse. Women consent to be penetrated. That is extremely not ok if you expect to have gender imbalance. The act of physical inter-penetration among the human species is very, very intensely symbolic and perhaps the primary cause of all warfare and everything else. It is empire building on a micro scale. As for destructive forces. Sure, but keeping slaves allows civilizations to flourish, and that isn't praiseworthy or psychologically healthy, especially if those slaves are white and perhaps asian (e.g. Chinese railroad workers). But yes I agree about the Paglia quotation, and I am not condemning inter-penetration among the human species since I enjoy the fruits produced by the labour of men far more externally aggressive, ambitious etc than myself, I am just addressing Valerie's manifesto, which I believe is an expression of the basic unconscious convictions of many women in regards to what has long been accepted as their performative norm.

You can still fake it, or just sew another onto it. Look at that guy from the 90s who had his penis cut off but went into porn with a fake penis grafted on. It is all external and thus superficial. Being physically penetrated by another human being is a deeply, psychologically life-changing experience, and one that essentially removes the female from the realm of potential and untarnished (because unconquered) purity to a state of willing submissiveness, of being irredeemably "female" as the term is understood by the masses. It is why I have repeated many times, I will only allow a female the pleasure of being penetrated by me when I am convinced beyond doubt that she is an individual whom's worthy of my lifelong loyalty, respect and protection.

>'m not talking about consent. In fact, consenting to be fucked in the ass is even worse. Women consent to be penetrated. That is extremely not ok if you expect to have gender imbalance.

Ya there exists a natural necessity to continue life. And hence, a natural order to things. To call it bad to chase after this deified goal of 'gender balance' is literally anti nature.

To understand why this is ridiculous, you have to understand that the diffferences between women are actually a good thing. We perfectly compliment each other. Its only when the society becomes immoral, or abandon these roles, does it ever become unfair.

This is so fucking retarded

God isn't inherently evil because he is given an inherent position of power when we aren't. God only becomes evil when he abuses the power to his own gain over the consideration of their weaker counterparts(creations).
This is the same way with the relation of man in women. Its not that it is bad that there exists a difference in power, God and man, Man and women, it is only bad when the power is used for evil.

So what is evil? When it goes against our very nature. God was expected to be good, and in man's position, so is he. If you didn't think men would get their asses kicked after abusing specific women the tribe valued, that ridiculous. The leader of the tribe, even among apes, always kept order otherwise it would fall apart. When it comes to gender and natural order, its a beautiful thing. Hence why any discussion about wage gap in the western civilization is an absolute joke

its actually genius

god btw, rick and morty btw

sounds like you're projecting your (repressed or not) bdsm fetishes onto the whole of humanity desu

Lmao

Impostor syndrome?

This.

Read "Good Old Neon" and have a good crywank about it m8

Reading this gives me the most mild and calm feeling of pity and smug conceit in my own benevolence.

I identify with this as a male. Its not even hateful right? It paints man as a tragic creature rather than an evil one driven by insecurity and a drive to overcome his base nature by any means possible. It gives a rather balanced backstory of man's achievements in comparison with women.
I have most certainly fucked women just as a status boost and I am not certain if I the physics PhD I am pursuing is motivated by passion or just the lust for the intellectual credentials.

>somebody post the inevitable female supremacy passage
>thanking the user that recommended me invisible cities 5 years back

No tall men! What? ...

"Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing.

This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence."

"Nothing different can be expected of women if it is borne in mind that the most eminent of the whole sex have never accomplished anything in the fine arts that is really great, genuine, and original, or given to the world any kind of work of permanent value. This is most striking in regard to painting, the technique of which is as much within their reach as within ours; this is why they pursue it so industriously. Still, they have not a single great painting to show, for the simple reason that they lack that objectivity of mind which is precisely what is so directly necessary in painting. They always stick to what is subjective. For this reason, ordinary women have no susceptibility for painting at all: for natura non facet saltum. And Huarte, in his book which has been famous for three hundred years, Examen de ingenios para las scienzias, contends that women do not possess the higher capacities. Individual and partial exceptions do not alter the matter; women are and remain, taken altogether, the most thorough and incurable philistines; and because of the extremely absurd arrangement which allows them to share the position and title of their husbands they are a constant stimulus to his ignoble ambitions. And further, it is because they are philistines that modern society, to which they give the tone and where they have sway, has become corrupted. As regards their position, one should be guided by Napoleon’s maxim, Les femmes n’ont pas de rang; and regarding them in other things, Chamfort says very truly: Elles sont faites pour commercer avec nos faiblesses avec notre folie, mais non avec notre raison. Il existe entre elles et les hommes des sympathies d’épiderme et très-peu de sympathies d’esprit d’âme et de caractère. They are the sexus sequior, the second sex in every respect, therefore their weaknesses should be spared, but to treat women with extreme reverence is ridiculous, and lowers us in their own eyes."

>is ugly
>is also feminist
I'll tell you, my noggin is joggin

Manlets, when will they learn?

>a man dispassionately bracing her like she's a retard

If I had my hands bound behind my back, laid on the floor and my cock and balls protruding out of a cockbox, a gag in my mouth and I couldn't move at all. What would valerie do to my manhood? Would she just stomp on them in her shoes, or take a knife to them and geld me quickly? Would she want to make me suffer first or just cut my throat?

Would she enjoy crushing my bollocks?

...

>a piece of feminist text
>explicit mention of author's sexual complexes

Every time. Does a single feminist author:

1. Mention men's sexuality in relation to anything other than women's sexuality?

2. Omit mentioning being sexually frustrated by men?

Feminist Literature is even worse than /r9k/.

You do realise women, shit, most people, don't think being fucked is the end of the world or being conquered?
If most guys had the option to receive brief, painless sex from a relatively attractive man with no malice they would never see again, or vile, repugnant sex with a hambeast who is into scat and everything they find repulsive and have everyone know, they would pick the former. Being screwed is only horrifying to heterosexual men because they don't like it. It's the most sexuality repulsive type of person on the planet to them, doing something painful and disrespectful that they can't enjoy. The same is in the weakness. There is no weakness in letting or wanting someone to do something you enjoy simply because they do as well.

Fag

Seeing the upper whites of the eyes but not the lower whites is a sign of psychosis.

God you’re so gay. The quote didn’t make me feel anything, but this response absolutely did. Please level up soon

>stud service
tfw shooting Andy Warhol

This reminds me of this Sam Hyde video:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=xukW-JibjVc

If you’re not joking, I recommend you read Freud. You’d really agree with a lot of his stuff... you two come at sexuality from the same perspective.

Not him, but I’d like to ask an extremely virginesque question.

Assuming this is true... why? Aren’t most (if not all) women incapable of orgasming from penetrative sex? Isn’t the vagina totally numb beyond the first few inches? Is there pleasure? Is the pleasure psychological? Is it social? What’s going on?

Sorry if these are “bags of sand” tier questions, it’s just a subject I have no direct experience of and I’ve always wondered about it.

>women aren't egocentric
>wearing makeup and dressing like a prostitute isn't egocentric

As CS Lewis pointed out, makeup may be vain, but it’s still done for the aesthetic pleasure of others. True selfishness is the neck beard who doesn’t attend to his personal hygiene/grooming whatsoever (I would know)

So true selfishness is Diogenes

And they say women don't have a sense of humor.

Theres no creature more repulsive and ungrateful as the female. The feminist discourse inspire jealousness, this feeling so addictive to women or inferior men. Yet, even after three generations they weren't able to deliver a single great women, the maximum they can get is the vapid steriotype of "sucessful women", a typical souless slave to her patrons.

>Aren’t most (if not all) women incapable of orgasming from penetrative sex?
No. And some women in fact feel vaginal orgasms more strongly than clit stimuli
>Isn’t the vagina totally numb beyond the first few inches? Is there pleasure?
Never heard of being numb, but that it can be painful to go deep (as in hitting the cervix)
>Is the pleasure psychological? Is it social?
What’s going on?
There's always a bit of psychological in sex, user.

>Being physically penetrated by another human being is a deeply, psychologically life-changing experience
you should try getting raped by a woman to see how irrelevant the "penetrating" itself actually is in this dynamic

Logic and empathy, are a driving force, and a nurturing supplement. Some are more attune to one than the other.

Through narrow minded goal orientation, and arduous longing for reciprocated affection, we find the basis of personal fulfillment, and love, both necessary values for any man or woman. What value does success bring without admiration? And what is more blissful than the reluctant acceptance of altruistic compassion, by those who doubt it's verity or authenticity?

...

>Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence."

spot on

>guilt, shame, and insecurity
>beastly nature, good dicking
hmm... tough choice, really

>walking incubator
ftfy

>Is the pleasure psychological?
this
always

>There's always a bit of psychological in sex, user.
understatement of the millenium, right here

>it's a /pol/ comes to Veeky Forums to talk about feminism thread

Don't forget to post your favorite pepes, fellas.

>"There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper."
There are Chinese empresses like Lu Zhi, Wu, Wei...
There is also an Elizabeth Bathory

The female orgasm is overwhelmingly the result of psychological influences. Penetration is only unnecessary but often undesirable to all but the most sadistic and self-destructive female. Though it is true that the weaker sex do experience orgasms while, say, riding horses, sitting atop a tumble dryer, rubbing absent-mindedly against the corner of a table or simply squatting over too quickly to their laces, none of the orgasms experienced as a result of such accidents is memorable or significant to them. There are no erotic videos targeted to the female audience, for example, which simply involve a female riding a horse and allowing the hard leather saddle to pound her clitoris until it encourages a frenzied erotic state. Consider, for example, the fact females like males experience erotic dreams (which usually involve being forcibly overwhelmed by some brutish male or a usually shy male whose brutish passion is revealed only in the imagination). Such dreams involve no penetration, and yet the female wakes up regardless sweating, panting, blushing and smelling of a back-alley fish market. Unsheathing the clitoral hood, which is by my layman's estimation simply a very small version of the hood of a penis, one is confronted with the clitoris itself, which is again simply a very small penis. Now think of your penis, and remind yourself how sensitive its "head" is, and why nature thus fashioned it with a relatively thick layer of protective skin which unfortunately, in third world and semitocracies, is removed, essentially gelding the penis owner. Now imagine the head of a penis reduced to perhaps a tenth of its size but - and I pause here to allow a moment of calm before I reveal a truly astonishing truth - is still home to as many nerve endings as the penis head itself. The clitoris is truly the overlooked catalyst of female pleasure, but even so the nerve endings within the clitoris itself are not set aflame by any old caressing hand, violent fantasy or paternal praise. No indeed, many a hand may enter the female erogenous zone with the expectation of having to wade through a landscape of mucus-esque vaginal discharge in order to reach the clitoris instead, only to be greeted by a hostile landscape of coarse pubic hair and a dry, reticent clitoris. The reason for this is the true source of female sexual excitement is in fact in the mind, rather ironic considering how feeble the female mind generally is. While a man typically becomes excited by the mere sight of a young woman's foot, or by some other frank depiction of sexual intercourse, the female, perhaps to her credit, derives her true sexual pleasure from a psychological environment which, gradually and by various means, serves to smother her and apply a great deal of pressure to her in a psychological sense.

you mean 'autism'?

It is consequently her resistance to this environment, and the struggle that involves, which allows her to experience not just some one-off accidental peak experience but a prolonged, intense other-worldly experience which truly tells us something about the essential nature of the inferior sex. When a man dreams about several angry male strangers ambushing him and seemingly attempting to harm him, his instinct is to become very angry and aggressive and do whatever it takes to fend of his assailants lest they murder or even penetrate him. A female, however, yearns for those dreams where she, a cute and fragile woman of great refinement (and thus great repression; refinement essentially being the aesthetic expression of repression), is dragged from her pale white horse while cantering around her grand estate and wrestled to the mud underfoot by a gang of violent criminals who both desire her physically and also are hell-bent on tearing the limbs off her body. There needn't, I repeat, even be any actual physical penetration involved, for the female species is dependent largely on psychological penetration while the male is instead focused on the physical. Take for example the notion of Stockholm Syndrome. This pretty much only applies to females, whose biological and neurochemical make-up dictate that from birth they yearn to be little more than the slave of some reliable, powerful and passionate male. One can easily imagine the various females discovered to have lived in their captor's basements for decades, serving as little more than a source of sexual release, to have experienced a sensation of consistent, low-level erotic pleasure merely because they would have been reminded at every moment of their status. It would I imagine be the equivalent of a male "edging" his erect penis for decades instead. For a practical application of my general worldview in this respect, I would sincerely suggest that any males on this board listen to "Shoe Gaze" music while attempting to manufacture and environment of erotic potential in the company of a female. "Shoe Gaze" music relies on the wall of sound technique, which is the mental equivalent of applying intense physical pressure to the female clitoris. It creates a suffocating, all-encompassing atmosphere which allows for erotic potential to be fulfilled for a female, rather than, say, heavy metal music which for men is a more useful means of simply allowing their anger and desire to dominate to be temporarily unleashed without the time having been taken to develop any ambience or mood.

Maybe your power level is also immense

show vagina!

I was just thinking that.

a perspective of someone who wants to fuck his mom?

Its a nice theoretical fantasy you made here but I bet that if I were to ask you right now pointing a gun at you what you would prefer, halving your leg broken in several places forcing you to be in a cast for a year or getting fucking in the ass without any physical repercussions you would choose the later. I wont even mention getting maimed or dying.

Talking with intelligent women all i cant think about is why was i born in a time where this war of the sexes has flared up so much...
Its so fucking tiring having to constantly deal with it...
Another thing that oftne bugs me is sociatel emphasis on sexuality.
These two together really hindered the ability of men to be intimate with one another in a platonic way and consequentially true male friendship seems impossible. Much like a true monogamous relationship seems impossible in the era of club and app hook ups.

Schopenhauer was a smart lad.

I would even go on to assert that the general appeal of Fascism to what may be referred to as "the masses" is pretty much the equivalent of the appeal of the aforementioned psychological intensity so very much enjoyed by the female species. Adolf Hitler, for example, described the masses as essentially "feminine", and realized that there is nothing more revolting to the feminine mass, and indeed females, than the politics involving lengthy, dull meetings, indecision regarding obscure passages of minor bills, debate for the sake of debate, and so forth. Recall if you can the poem which is perhaps most representative of the female erotic psychological disposition, that being Daddy by Sylvia Plath, which contains the lines: "I have always been scared of you / With your Luftwaffe / And your Aryan eye / Every woman adores a Fascist / The boot in the face, the brute / Brute heart of a brute like you" - these lines are astonishing for the frankness by which they reveal the capital-T True nature of the female species. And I would remind you that it is not merely a physical Fascist they desire, as any old miser weary from a backbreaking job may simply push his wife around without his behaviour causing even a single strand of her undergarments to become moistened. No, no, it is the Physico-Intellectual Fascist that females crave, a man who does what he does consciously and not merely as the consequence of frustrations imposed on him by his lowly status in life, or by his recklessly violent nature. It is the man with the cold glare, the quiet confidence, the capacity to communicate his incredibly violent and possessive desires by a mere momentary meeting of the eyes. It is also, perhaps most importantly, the man who comprehends the highest beauty and acknowledges the finest virtues yet applies such high aesthetic standards to the arena of sexual intercourse. A man who constructs an elaborate psychological environment into which the female enters, her heart racing, knowing she is now the alter that rest of this environment simply nourishes. The female's own investment in the detailed imaginative process of her reaching climax requires her to appreciate the kind of subtly rules and framework by which her orgasmic peak may be ascended, and it takes a man of equal imaginative capacity to meet her expectations in this sense. I am very tempted to conclude, in relation to this strain of my thesis, that it is in fact relatively feminine men, or men who struggle not to allow femininity to govern their character, who make the best lovers, as they have one foot, so to speak, in the female camp but and can thus burn it down, erotically speaking, from within. If some readers fail to comprehend this point, I would alternatively frame it thusly: the best sexual partner a woman could hope for is a manifestation of the darkest and most violently unrepressed aspects of her own personality, and a man who by his nature is intimately familiar with the feminine aspects of his

Undoubtedly, sir, I would choose the former. I shall not be blackmailed into giving up my anal virginity.

more feminine instincts more appreciates what it is these instincts, and thus the female in whom these instincts are allowed to dominate, actually yearn for. In such cases, a woman is essentially having sexual intercourse with herself, the contending aspects of her own nature both struggling against each other and investing the greater part of their energy into pleasuring each other also. It is why many profoundly intelligent men ideally desire a girl who is essentially the female version of themselves, so similar to them that their initial "shared glance" evokes the sudden conviction that they have known this person their entire lives (something the most intimate lovers claim is the reason they "fell for" their partner), which, given my above thesis, is actually what they are doing. They have identified someone who appears to them to be the expression of the instincts they most aggressively repress. The subsequent tension caused by the open revelation of mutual repression is what causes the racing heart, the blushing (blushing remember being primarily a consequence of shame, i.e. here the shame of seeing your deepest instincts manifested and on display). And it this tension, and the enveloping, smothering atmosphere it is capable of producing, which, I assert once more, causes intense erotic feelings in the female species, the source being primarily psychological and being disconnected from the act of physical penetration, and the clitoris being only the catalyst of the female physical sexual orgasm, which for females (as I have explained) is only truly meaningful if it the vast, intense psychological context is present to reinforce such a physical experience, it otherwise being no more meaningful than stubbing your toe against a bedpost.

What a load of crap. I wonder if anyone buys into these strings of oxymorons and incompatibilities.

People strayed away from God or their god(s).

Sounds like you agree.
I would definitely choose the later despite it being humiliating.

I don't believe you are being sincere in your desire to be physically penetrated by another man. I assert that you are simply choosing that option under the impression that doing so will undermine my profound thesis.