Mfw unironically writing the most important philosophical manifesto of the 21st century

Did you mother happen to abuse you as a child? Did girls bully you growing up?

Because what you are saying leans extremely in that direction.

if any of this was true why the fuck would feminism be a thing... furthermore, you're completely ignoring that women have all the power in sexual relationships because they decide consent, and by extension disproportionate social power in general.

You're a funny dude.
Publish this as satire.
And I'll publish my work on das Uber Riche in Spanish to the Mexican people.
It'll be a way to encourage the union national synarchistia back into action.

Writes a philosophical manifesto about women without ever speaking to or getting with a woman.

Utterly pathetic.

big words but
>not an argument

t. the Supreme Gentleman

Why would anyone want to speak to a woman?

I do, on several occasions.
Sometimes just for fun.

women are objectively inferior to men

...

The jews have brainwashed women to go against their genetic submissiveness, of course. What did you think

lol this has been posted before (or if it hasn't then goddam that's sad that you even thought this could possibly be original as a bullshit meandering justification for misogyny).

oh wait, you're serious. how cute.

its not entirely offbase, but its not all that interesting, you also stole other people’s ideas blatantly.

Hey OP. I think there's some merit to this idea, but unfortunately there are examples in nature of species in which the female is penetrated and must submit to the male, but also the female is not submissive to the male in general.

The example is the praying mantis. The male mantis mounts the female mantis from behind and deposits sperm into a particular part of the female. Then about 17% of the time, the female eats the male. However, because multiple matings occur, most adult males end up being eaten. So the act of penetration does not make self-hatred/masochism a "winning" sexual strategy, and in fact it is possible for the penetrator to be the "submissive" gender.

I do think many women engage in somewhat masochistic behavior, but I don't think it comes from this particular reason alone.

This must be Houellebecq drumming up some business for his new book.

there are two possibilities here
>le epik trole
>sincere
if you wrote this sincerely, there's no hope for you user, you will die either by suicide or by police gunfire following your elliot rodger copycat shooting, that is if you can ever get out of the group home for severely autistic children that you currently live in
why do the staff let you have an internet connection?

To allow a man to penetrate you is to become as demoralized as a conquered state. It is one of the reasons, in my estimation, that women are so fucked up psychologically. 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.

Insects aren't the same as Humans.

>inter-personal penetration
Just call it sex?

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.

the recipient of the penetrative act cannot be a true submissive, first of all, we need to understand that this submissive-masochist dynamic appears two-fold on this situation, while she is indeed being the recipient of the phallus, we cannot forget that it is a consensual act. However in order for this consensual act to happen, the female has to agree and decide that she wants to be the penetratee. It is this decision what gives women the upper hand. This leads to the fact that the woman is in charge of deciding if copulation with an individual is worthy or not, in this dynamic the male is forced to comply to her desires, or else he faces rejection.

We can easily see how this dynamic is true in a very specific situation, where this dynamic is broken; rape. Rape is but the abolition of this social order that lies within the basic notions of human sexual dynamics. Rape is penalized because it empowers the male. It gives him the power to engage in copulation without the necessary consent of the female.

Let's not forget the following, males have a certain standard to attain in order to become a partner. Males have to compete not only in the physical aspect, but on the social and economic ones aswell. Males with no power, are simply disregarded.

Females on the other hand don't need to comply to any standards, and before you bring up feminist garbage about fatties, body image and so on, within these social circles, females still have the upper hand. A fat feminist attacks the good looking Stacys as a defend mechanism, but she still controls all the beta orbiters and decide if they are potential partners or not. These beta orbiters cannot fight Chad so they lust over the Fat Feminist instead.

We can see that, even inside the different social classes, this dynamic holds true. Which brings us to my original point, women are the sadists, not as the fetishized notion of sadism, but as the role who holds the power

/r9k/ sends it's regards

Yeah that post seems out of place, must have been a troll trying to make OP look stupid with that post. I doubt some one who wrote that excerpt would talk about humans and mantis. Sure it is cool that he brought up some examples in which the female does bite back, but it has nothing to do with the idea he is trying to say.

itt: The same conversation, post for post, taking place in r9k over this, only ironic.

>evo-psych
>philosophy

choose one

This is true. So you need something further than "sex with a man requires submission" to validate your claim, something specific to humans. Based on your other writings, it seems this thing is "consciousness." That when you are self-aware, this makes the act of penetration a necessarily submissive act. This is a stronger argument. In the most basic sense, sex between men and women requires an activity, and a receptivity, and both parties are aware of this. Sex seems then, for the man, mediated through the women.

However, there are things complicating this relationship. For instance, women choose who to have sex with, they are the "gatekeepers" of relationships. In this sense, sex in its entirety is no longer for the man, but in fact for the women! And this too can be argued against; it is the man who typically propositions the woman, and thus again it is he who is active and she who is receptive. Now the relationship in its entirety is for the man. But relationships of this nature typically involve men spending resources on the women, so again the relationship is not for men, but for women.

This sort of dialectic process can go on for quite a while, until you get to a point where one party is FOR the other, but also FOR itself, and vice versa. We call this love in the human species.

And I should point out, the natural product of this sort of love should be a uniting of the two parties; this is found in their child, who is the product of both parents.

>A fat feminist attacks the good looking Stacys as a defend mechanism, but she still controls all the beta orbiters and decide if they are potential partners or not. These beta orbiters cannot fight Chad so they lust over the Fat Feminist instead.
I don't want to seem like a retard for falling for some obvious bait...
I guess I wouldn't know where to start if this wasn't bait. Got a good chuckle regardless. The disturbing thing is that I've heard this sentiment given elsewhere but unironically. It's like r9k and incels have fashioned a completely fictional realm of sexual-social interaction complete with rpg-like character types. They are not simply reacting to the actually present hyperreality of modern sexuality; they have set up a complete non-reality to react to which drives them farther and farther away from the experiences that would expose the fiction.

What is this autism and where can I get more?

As much as I'd like to laugh about this, it has eerie tonal echoes with what a friend of mine wrote before his psychotic episodes. I don't think he could tell if he was being serious or not either. Get help OP.

get the fuck out you normie cuck

I genuinely hope everyone you love gets cancer

>the recipient of the penetrative act cannot be a true submissive
are you a girl or a gay?
The biggest reason for homophobia and the inability to accept homosexuals, is the subconcious hatred and fear of a man getting their ass fucked. Any man would fuck a man ass (trap) on the other side of a glory hole if he was told it was a woman. But the prospect of the other way around, is enough to vehemently hate the concept of homosexuality.

>this topic and material touches close to home in a weird way and makes me think about myself, my life, and the world deeply, so I am going to say there is something wrong with you to make myself feel better and hopefully make other anons think there is something wrong with you and hopefully make you question your motives, abilities, and perspectives, because I have really become quite flustered, because I am a 17 year old girl

A wild not an argument appears! It uses: Not an argument. it is not effective

Maybe when you get to high school, you'll figure things out.

>evidence that might suggest I'm delusional is actually evidence that I'm on to something!

>evidence that might suggest I'm delusional
im not the writer of that, just would more quickly defend what they have put forth based on effort and merit, compare to what you have put forth, the post I attempted to mock.

So I missed this:
>evidence that might suggest I'm delusional

Oh, wait nevermind... that was you feeling as if there were some similarities in writing style between the writer and your psychotic friend. What fabulous evidence for op to be delusional, what extraordinary evidence. You could be purely innocent and purely looking out for them, or you could be the delusional one, and doing as I suggested. Could you even admit you were offended if you were? Why would someone be offended by something that had no hint of truth?

you should write for social matter

you're leaving out that it's a fear of being violently rayped and castrated which is what happened to men before the Christian church and then the rule of law in Republican European states. In ancient times, if you lost a battle, you had a 1/3 chance of dying, 1/3 chance of being conscripted, 1/3 chance of being some kind of slave (which usually meant sex toy or piece of equipment worked to death)

GOLD

WEAK WEAK WEAK

interesting idea but delivered poorly, fixating on the wrong aspects, begging to be BTFO'd by most intellectuals. Try harder next time sweetie if you're going to steal other people's ideas and then muck them up publicly

nice pic. Where did you get it from?

...

yfw this is Pynchon getting into the mindset of an angry teenage incel for his next book about an angry teenage incel that uncovers a deep conspiracy about shit eating women

This is a good post. but keep in mind that all of us are essentially living in our own private fictional realms. In the case of most people, continuous social interaction from childhood tends to result in a convergence in the structures of their private realities. In the case of less socialized people, this error-correction mechanism doesn't take place. And in the case of /r9k/ and incels, the socially interaction that emerges out of a community of frustrated outcasts actually serves as an echochamber to reinforce simple minded concepts that are unhelpful for explaining reality, and which only serve to reinforce an existing miserable state of mind.

I'll read your suicide note before I click on this link.

Despite how sad of a state OP is in, I'm happy in knowing that I'm not nearly as delusional as him.

so the most important philosophical manifesto is a pseudoscience rag devoid of any source material or survey material?

>writing something profound
>can't figure out how to arrange a dead man's switch

attack the attributes in a generalized fashion without naming your target instead. Let the reader incriminate and associate who they will.

OP is the white ghost of Patrice O'Neal

Seriously OP mentioned something in the other thread about already being schizoid. You probably need a psych user

Print it onto paper.

You really are something else Warosu-chan.

>therefore
>as I have demonstrated
>'inter-personal penetration'
>In order to
>'thus'...'thus'

And this is from 3 1/2 lines that are meant to be among the most impressive.

Publish it as a blog.

Publish it as an ebook once it is finished. Put the ebook on every filesharing platform you can find. One of those should survive you

You need to find the hot tumblr sites.

>Women don't want sex
>thus

We don't live in a "hyperreality of modern sexuality" faggot, we don't have fully immersive AI to blur the difference between real life and fake life.
We don't live in ANY form of hyperreality you pretentious faggot.

um

This is why I browse this board

You are literally just repeating the evo-psych speculations from r/redpill but with bigger words. If this is your treatise it’s painfully unoriginal and you shouldn’t be surprised when nobody pay attention once you’ve released it.

hey buddy try having sex first before you write about it

What did he say the is incorrect?

Hang yourself.

Goonan already did it.

Precisely, which particulate of data was brought forthwith provably incorrectly?

How many books have you sold by spamming the chans ?

We need to ban /r9k/ crossposters

what am i reading?

Oh, a brainlet, nevermind...carry on. How is the weather today little buddy? Will you get a lollipop today? I hope so, have a good one special friend

>mfw

>the very act of inter-personal penetration is an intensely and necessarily humiliating for the penetratee
that strange place where radical feminism and radical misogyny unite

kek

Is this just another part of a bait thread with a ridiculous amount of effort from many sides or do you actually think talking like a poorly written Big Bang Theory character makes you sound smart?
There was no data in any of op's rambling you faggot. He's trying to take evolutionary psychology (a field full of all sorts of nonsensical and/or contradictory horseshit among its few solid breakthroughs) and use it to justify his feelings of intense hatred for women not having sex with him. He posted it on /r9k/, for fuck's sake.

>He posted it on /r9k/, for fuck's sake.
>I ASSume anything possibly posted on /r9k/ cannot contain any Truth at all...for fuck's sake, of course.

>"It is therefore clear that masochism and its associated psychological corollaries (self-loathing, submissiveness) are in fact evolutionary advantageous traits in the female gender. As I have demonstrated, the very act of inter-personal penetration is an intensely and necessarily humiliating for the penetratee. In order to encourage reproduction and thus the survival and indeed proliferation of the Will, the human female is thus genetically inflicted with the self-loathing mechanism which compels her to act in a submissive and self-destructive manner, if only for the sake of finding the notion of being penetrated by a man (or, indeed, by several man simultaneously) not only necessary but desirable."

Here, I am going to make some grammatical corrections and adjust it a bit for clarity:

"It is therefore clear that masochism and its associated psychological corollaries such as self-loathing and submissiveness are in fact evolutionarily advantageous traits in the female gender. The act of intercourse is an intensely and necessarily humiliating experience for the penetratee. In order to encourage reproduction and thus the survival and proliferation of the Will, the human female is genetically inflicted with the self-loathing mechanism which compels her to act in a submissive and self-destructive manner if only for the sake of finding the idea of being penetrated by a man not only necessary but desirable."

You might even want to lose the entire "The act of intercourse is an..." sentence because it doesn't quite feel like it fits into the development that you began with the first sentence and ended with the last and you imply that you have already "demonstrated" its truth so it's probably not necessary.

Honestly, I doubt that you have the knowledge and experience to write some sort of "revolutionary" philosophical text right now because everything in this paragraph feels like nothing but speculation and also nobody with any actual merit to their ideas would start a thread like this.

I've also been writing something, although I doubt it'll be influencal or reach any levels of publicity. It is mostly for me to, more than anything, synthesize and spit out again everything I've been reading and to sum up my (definitely not philosophically rigorous) thoughts on society.

It started as a response to Popper's paradox of tolerance. I posit that the state of being a singular society, of having any burden shared between people, is an obstacle to tolerance (if any one tolerant society will be destroyed by its own tolerance). The world should be organized in a series of multiple intolerant (or tolerant, although to protect their own destruction as proved by Popper they will likely become intolerant to some degree) societies, with no common burden besides sharing the same physical world, as a meta-society of competing unions of people doing what they believe will create an ideal society. If you've read Nozick this will be familiar, I draw from him (as well as Moldbug's "patchwork" concept, as well as to argue against democracy [as with Hoppe and others]) frequently. I argue against Arthur Desmond-esque Might Is Right natural law, in that I think it's in everybody's self interest to let everybody else persue their own self interest, because no one is omniscient, and so no one can be perfectly sure that whatever they do will increase their happiness or material success (or whatever metric they use to measure success) more than anything else. Your best bet is pretty much to let others have freedom to see what they do, so you can learn from that knowledge. I draw from Hayek in a sense, in that not only can economies not be centrally planned do to individual lack of knowledge but also societies, even if you don't think there's any epistemological incentive for anyone to do anything but help themselves. I'm fond of Discordianism: schisms are good and uniformity, or what I characterize as globalist-modernity, is bad. I have multiple arguments for this, and I try to make the case that the political events of the last couple years (over which my "manifesto" has been written and scrapped and redrafted etc) has been the result of an unprecedented paradigm of globalist-modernity that alienates and atomizes and oppresses alternative models of society and creativity. I think that the political tension and everybody's deep, inchoate feelings of dread are due to the expansion of the state (and its cultural apparatus, any part of culture you're "forced" to participate in, being forced to live in a singular society that contains the culture- I'm calling this coercive-culture as a shorthand) and that the solution is some kind of redistribution of sovereignty akin to the "exit" movements. This can happen via property, via residential lines eg provinces or counties, or situationally (i.e. places that will turn into communes can just become such). I'm probably not a very good writer, but hey, at least I'm writing.

Jesus that's autistic

This reads like a weird misinterpretation of Andrea Dworkin which is probably the most insulting thing I could say to you.

Sounds about right.
The disdain other boards have for robots is entirely justified. The board revolves around resentment and bitterness and desperate attempts to justify it without blaming themselves. Some of the most delusional people on the internet are there.

Women have the power in this pc society where victims are promoted and power is shamed.

None of this is a sound argument, just so you know.

>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
I don't believe you could have unintentionally skipped over castration. Why are you even on a lit board? Go back to your virginity support group.

>anything possibly posted on cannot contain any Truth at all
>Sounds about right.
Extremist, absolutist, baby and bathwater, head in sand, head in cloud, ignoramus, idiot

t. loves to get fucked in the ass

Castration is pretty much just superficial. Meaning you could literally just move towns and have a new pair of testacles surgically attached and feel fine about life. But being penetrated will haunt you always. There's nowhere you can run to in order to escape the knowledge that you were once penetrated by a man. Only death. My girlfriend and I had a long serious discussion about this subject the other night over a glass of wine (or three!) and she pretty much agreed with everything I said about the capital-t True nature of inter-penetration and how it affected her as well. She agreed that it was harrowing the first time she was penetrated by a man, and even told me that a brain specialist told her that neurochemistry and neuro-linguistic pathways actually changed shape in order to accommodate the traumatic knowledge that she has been penetrated. When I pointed out that I might penetrate her one day (and raised both my eyebrows at the same time twice while wiggling my upper body in order to humour her) she said that it was "different" because having already been penetrated already by a man, every subsequent man (8 thus far, not including me to come) is, in her words, simply "echoing the violence of the first". It absolutely blew my mind how candid she was with me, and although we didn't end up having sex (not that night at least!) I left her studio flat at 4am and walked home through the rain knowing that my convictions and instinctive beliefs had been proven true, and that at last I had a case study to reference when putting all my countless complex ideas down on paper.

There is no complex, fear, about a female being penetrated, because the hole feels realllly good. And society is structured that the women gets to choose what man is fortunate enough, after buying her gifts and performing challenging mateing ritual rights, to attempt to make her hole feel really really good.

There is nothing to worry about, no higher philosophy or psychology about it: I have a pleasure hole. A man has a pleasure stick. Whats the big deal, whats the big problem or significance, why should I think about anything """deep""" about my fundamental nature. My mouth is another pleasure whole I penetrate with food. A penis is just like food for my pussy. You guys are crazy.

>A penis is just like food for my pussy.

see this is why diversity is good, a angsty neckbeard would not produce such a sentence

Females don't actually enjoy, or are indifferent to, the physical sensation of having a penis inside their vagina. The pressure on the clitoris, and the psychological context in which the sexual intercourse takes place, is what puts them into heat. If you don't believe me I have a folder of 233 twitter and facebook screenshots written by women reinforcing my assertion, so don't bother with that. Also claiming food is similar to penis in any respect is just so entirely wrong that I am tempted to laugh aloud at your stupidity.

yeah that was probably a tranny assuming her gay asshole is the same as a pussy