>inb4 not Veeky Forums

Also, is a woman with feminine characteristics more moral then? A woman with natural beauty, narrow shoulders and wide hips, negligible body hair, and so on is removed from the appearance of a man. How does that function within the framework of 'women being reincarnated immoral men'?

Are Asian women then more moral because they're naturally less hairy, or are they simply a reflection of Asian man, who are also less hairy? On the other hand, Asian women are know for having less ' feminine' bodies; small breast, small behinds, straight bodies, etc. How does that relate to the concept of 'reincarnating males being women'?

I was responding to your first post but then you clarified so I'll start over.

Your questions are difficult, and I'm not quite sure of the principle behind my investigation, right now it is only speculation. But I appreciate your interest.

My feelings are this: it is clear that there are some women who seem to be almost masculine enough for the line to be blurred. However, people have different tastes, and often times a man who finds one particular feature to be very feminine, will have a friend who finds this same feature in a woman to be masculine. There are some women who are considered to be very feminine by others who I look at and find very neutral and not stimulating.

I find that even in seemingly feminine women, one can always see the grey area, where maybe at the right angle you can kind of imagine that with some minor adjustments this person could easily be mistaken for a very feminine looking male. And herein lies an important point of my inquiry: I am trying to look beyond the simplistic notion that if you find women attractive, you are "not gay", because there are probably some very feminine looking males out there that, though we may deny it, might "accidentally" cause an attraction if we were to mistake them for a female.

>picrelated
imagine the same picture but she has a little hair on her chest and upper lip. i can clearly see the male

I think the principle underlying these questions is that a man's attraction to a woman has to do with the woman looking a certain way, which we will not try to put our finger on yet, but we can at least say that the characteristics of the woman must be "not masculine".

So is femininity merely the "opposite" of masculine? This is what I am struggling with, because, as I said, when you really think about it, women are less far removed from the appearance of men than say, a banana, but men are not attracted to bananas. So it's not merely "not masculine", but something about the possibilities that lie within the human form which are accentuated according to either the masculine principle or the feminine prinicple.

Imagine that we begin with a "neutral" human form (as we see in the beginning stages of pregnancy, when the sex is not yet distinguishable). How do you take that neutral form and make it masculine? How to you make it feminine?

This is sort of the idea of what I'm getting at: the form of the human is what is common to both homosexuality and heterosexuality, and so whatever your inclinations are, it is not a matter of man vs woman, but of degree. Think about how a person "could have been" a man, or if we consider Plato, how a woman could be the manifestation of a soul which has crossed the threshold from manhood into womanhood.

And furthermore, what about men who either want to be women, or want to behave in a way that is characteristically feminine? /pol/ will say that in every case this is evidence of a mental illness, but I remember knowing women that in their youth wanted to be boys or found more kinship with boys than with girls, or took a liking to more masculine hobbies such as video games and so forth. So I don't think we can attribute these things simply to a disorder; moreover, I think a person is lying to themselves if they say that all of their behaviors are completely masculine, and that they have no femininity. Consider as a boy how you acted differently around your father and your mother--each gender drew out different things in you, and I think this has to do with the elasticity of the soul. Perhaps people who have more difficulty pinpointing their sexuality have this issue not because it is inborn or from some disorder, but simply because they grew up around women and became accentuated in one direction or the other.

You often hear how men say that they find intelligence attractive in a woman... But they are not attracted to the intelligence persay, otherwise they would have a sexual attraction to men of equal intelligence; they must be attracted to the "intelligence" **in** the woman. But there must also be a limit in the other direction too--a woman could easily be **too** intelligent (I will have to ask you to suspend disbelief for a moment), in which case a man might actually be turned off because a woman is too cold and calculating, too detached from emotion and so forth--we certainly can imagine this scenario if the roles were reversed. So, again, men are lying when they say they are (sexually) attracted to intelligence.

I certainly do not find stupidity in a woman attractive, but then again, there is something embarrassing about being attracted to a very intelligent woman, as though she might be your mother or as though you were the woman in the relationship. Besides, what **really** intelligent creature would be interested in sex, especially that of the role of the submissive?

>feminine looking males out there that, though we may deny it, might "accidentally" cause an attraction if we were to mistake them for a female.
This is actually interesting, because what instantly springs to mind is the phenomena of men posturing as women -crossdressers, transsexuals, traps, and so forth. Two things spring to mind here.
First of, does a transsexual male 'look like a woman' or does a woman 'look like a man' to begin with. The fact that one can transfigure into the other implies a sort of fundamental base similarity -a shared substance, if you will. Rarely do people say: ' That man looks like a hurricane', because of the fundamental difference between subjects. I think looking at it that way, does in fact give credence to the idea that 'heterosexuality is homosexual'; the 'substance' heterosexuals are attracted to is a 'substance' they share with the object of desire (women).
Second, a surprisingly common sentiment is that being attracted to men that posture as women is not in fact indicative of homosexuality, providing the man is 'passable' enough. As long as he resembles a woman closely enough, regardless of the fact he is indeed a man, it's 'not gay'.

If you took a woman with out-of-the-ordinary brutish features -extremely broad shoulders, narrow hips, extremely hairy, square jaw, completely flat-chested, and so forth. And then you took a man that looked extremely feminine -wide hips, narrow shoulders, soft facial features, (artificial) large breast, but had a penis regardless. To whom should you be attracted to be considered 'heterosexual'? What's the essence of 'femininity' (beyond raw biology, which for our purposes matters little).

I think the easy answer is that the more feminine a woman is, the less gay you are, but as I highlighted above, it is not so easy to point to what is feminine and what is not, rather, it seems almost sufficient to say that being heterosexual is being attracted women who are sufficiently "not masculine" enough for you to not be appalled when considered fornication. Yes, I think this is an important point we've just touched on. It is almost as though you want the human form to be "veiled in femininity", but it is only necessary to reach a point which is "good enough".

Maybe this clarifies what I was getting at in the OP. And this goes along with another point I made, that women even take this "veil" further, by dressing themselves up in making, and making themselves "even more feminine". So they are doing their best to sufficiently convince your mind's eye that they are "not masculine". As a man, then, who fornicates with women, it is not the actual women you are focused on, but the "veil of femininity" that they are **projecting**. They are vehicles for a certain necessity which your mind is focused on, some necessity of distance on the spectrum of sexuality.

I will input my opinion, not anyone who has commented so far in this thread but I am interested in the discussion.

I describe my sexuality as pansexual, however I am not attracted to masculinity. For example, the person in the picture you posted I find extremely attractive however I do not find self-identifying males as attractive on the whole.
Along side that I find self-identifying females born as females to be attractive also.
I only label myself as pansexual as I don't care for any of the labels which try and dig any deeper however at my core I feel like I am heterosexual.
I am attracted to femininity no matter how that manifests. To me the sexual organ isn't the determining factor on my sexuality what is however, is the socially constructed idea of feminine and all those implications.

Not paticularly scholarly, but I'm using this as a form of therapy, so sorry if it's not fundamental to the debate (i.e. looking for referenced sources).

You should know that it’s poor form to inb4 as op.

>all these walls of text

If it has a penis then it's gay. Simple as.

The whole point of the thread is that if it doesn't have a penis it's also gay -or at least that's what we're trying to arrive at.

Clearly the only truly straight men are trap lovers, they don't even have to be immoral and reincarnated to be feminine.

Correct (OP here). I think what I'm trying to get at is that fornication is immoral, because sexual intercourse involves sexual relations with a person, and that person could be male or female, and as we have shown in the thread, this is not a matter of "man or woman" but a matter of person-veiled-in-femininity versus person-veiled-in-masculinity. Regardless of your sexual orientation, a woman is a still a person, and having sex with her is, fundamentally, not morally superior or inferior to fornication with any other *person*, male or female.

Wrong. A gay man would never touch a trap.

Which is furthermore why continence is a virtue, independent of sexual predilections. A homosexual is a not an inherently bad person (or at least not moreso than a heterosexual one), nor is he excluded from the moral duty of chastity.

Another point to consider is that women (personality wise) are pretty gay. Not as in they are attracted to women, but that they are like gay men in their behavior, mannerisms, personality, and the fact that they are sexually attracted to men. So, not considering the physical aspect, being attracted to a the personality of a woman is like being attracted to the personality of a gay man. In other words, take the personality of a gay man and put it in a beautiful woman and you have the typical beautiful woman; she uses words like "Hubble", "my boyfriend", "we look so cute together" and so forth, all of which are pretty gay things to say, and that's the personality of the woman you are attracted to.

But what is 'gay', though? We usually associate gayness with attraction to men, flamboyance, feminine features and so on, but have we not established that everybody is gay? Even heterosexual males who do not exhibit traits we commonly deem gay are in fact gay.
We almost need to sub-categorize 'gayness' then, it seems. All men are gay, but then there is a subset of men who are -double gay? These are men who are attracted to masculine features -which is the defining trait of gayness- but are also feminine in behavior.
Being feminine in behavior is gay you claim, but in you say that 'the more feminine a woman is, the less gay you are'. Does this apply only to physicality, or also personality? If so, are feminine gay people actually less gay, because they approach the feminine ideal more closely?

What I'm also not clear on; is there any 'absolute feminine essence' we can speak of? Or are women essentially men, in the sense they are born from the same substance, just taking on a 'feminine' appearance? Are femininity and masculinity perhaps a manifestation of the potentiality of the same substance? Almost like your hair can be short or it can be long, but it's still hair. We then after the fact ascribe qualities to length of hair and so on. Or are masculinity and femininity two different things altogether; an apple and an orange.

Look up anachronism

You are applying middle class European categories invented less than 200 years ago as if they are universal laws.

There's no such thing as gay or straight.

...

This

I've always been attracted to androgynous people, both females and males. I dislike when women completely identify with feminity, and I even dislike crossdressing men when they look and act too much like a woman. My favorite fantasy is probably a long-haired, delicate looking man with a strong manly voice and normal clothes. I can get off to traps in a hurry, but it's not my preference.

traps have penises you retard

Homosexuality is about denying your love to a whole sex of people. This is just another(albeit subtle) fascist maintenance of universal injustice. Pansexuality or nothing.

Faggot

You bring up some good points.

Right now I am working from the standpoint that there is a kind of polarity, with femininity as a principle, or at least a point (on the way to something else), and masculinity as an opposing or distant principle which has a special relationship with the feminine that we are trying to work out. I don't know if we'll be able to define *why* the masculine is attracted to the feminine, but I think we can make progress if we follow this polar model.

The "absolute feminine essence" or absolute masculine are the principles or poles, but as we have posited, the human being does not partake of either pole completely, but lies somewhere between on a spectrum, since men and women are born out of the same substance, or partake of the same form, the human form, which then subsequently is molded according to one principle or the other. In other words, both men and women have arms and hands, and have hair on those arms and hands, and have veins running through them and bones supporting them and so forth, but you have a more feminine arm which is contrasted with a more masculine arm and so forth, and this fact is revealed through the natural attraction a man feels toward a "feminine" arm and so forth. Now, I think we would say that we don't know that the arm is objectively feminine, in reality, to a non-human observer, the arm would appear different from a masculine arm but not necessarily "feminine"--at least I don't know if we can prove that--but for the subject (a man) the arm clearly has a femininity to it, which is associated with his mysterious, perhaps subconscious relationship to it, which he does not enumerate at first, but feels viscerally as a movement in himself.

The interesting part in this model is the point of neutrality, the threshold where one principle crosses into the others. I don't think we can say this is subjective, since we have a clear separation in the physical aspects of the sexes. There are two types of genitalia, as far as we know, and there is no third, therefore the threshold must exist which indicates a point of neutrality between the masculine and feminine principles. However, what we discussed earlier was that, though a person might be definitely on the feminine side of the threshold, in the fact that they have female genitalia, there is a certain way of looking at things where we are able to perceive the *form*, and see the characteristics of the opposite sex which nonetheless partake of the opposite principle (a woman with manly characteristics and vice versa).

How attraction now plays into this is a point of difficulty for me, but I think now I can address your questions. You point out my contradiction, in that I in one instance say that the more feminine a woman, the less gay is the attraction for her, and in another instance I say that attraction to a woman's personality is akin to an attraction a gay man. I think I can answer this question clearly.

(cont)

...My response is that the gay personality is not actually attractive to men, therefore I do not contradict my initial statement that attration to the more feminine is "less gay". Compare it to being in a state of inebriation, wherein you find one person particularly funny, even though in reality they are behaving in a manner no different than usual, it is merely you who are in a drunken state, and are reacting differently to that person. This is how it is with the gay personality. When you see it in a gay man, you are in a sober state, not under the intoxication of lust and beauty, and therefore you are generally offended by it or turned off from it, or at least you do not find it admirable. But in your state of lustful inebriation, when you confront this gay personality in a feminine woman who arouses you, it appears to you as a pleasing, charming thing, when in reality it is something else which has affected your constitution.

Here I think, we are reaching a point of confusion. We may have to clarify what we mean by attraction. I say that a masculine man does not find the gay personality to be admirable, but I do not say that man is sexually attracted to that which he admires, in fact, it is the adverse. The corollary, then, is that he is actually attracted to that which offends him. And now I might have to rearrange my words. This is the idea I am approaching: there is something in common between the disgust a masculine man has for the personality of the gay man (and also the personality of woman considered in abstract), and his lust for woman.

This may get confusing. Remember, though, the threshold, and that the function of this threshold is that it serves as a crux by which a human form is able to become "feminine enough" to *also cause a polarity shift in man's relationship to the person in question*. Here is an explanation. Consider the relationship that a bully has to a weaker, more feminine boy. He uses this boy as a means of expressing some impulse in him, some will to dominate, to assert himself, to "see" himself in the world, his masculinity, etc, etc. Compare this to the relationship between a man and a woman. The male role in fornication clearly involves a similar principle of masculine expression, the desire to assert oneself, to "cross a boundary" by using another person as a means. A man envisions his conquest of a woman, and this requires her person to be violated, to have her personal space breached so that the male can physically express himself *through* or by means of this person. Now, I am saying that there is a commonality between these two relationships, the bully vs the bullied and man vs woman. That commonality is the desire for male expression, his ego, his violent nature in asserting himself in space and so forth...

(cont)

...This is where the threshold becomes important: I posit that in the victim of bullying, the bully sees himself, his masculine nature, and he is belittling this person because he sees himself in that person (in this situation I am assuming that the victim is male, although in comparison to the bully he is "more feminine" and "submissive looking"). However, when the "victim" crosses that threshold, wherein they become *so* feminine that they are actually a woman, some other force begins to operate, and a polarity shift happens in the bully as well. In this case, instead of merely feeling disgust (as he might feel for the gay male, who is, to our point, a common victim of bullying by these type of men) his disgust undergoes a shift and becomes lust. His disgust, his will to bully, while still a desire to dominate, becomes a sexual attraction. And even to the point where he can potentially fall in love with his "victim" because she (now it's "she") allows him to assert himself in a very intense way, and she is proof of his masculinity.

And also take notice in the polarity shift between the male victim of bullying and the woman; the difference is that the woman actually becomes attracted, submissive to the male who desires to assert himself using her, whereas the male is still not feminine enough to become a submissive and feel sexual attraction (or perhaps he is).

ThReAD gAY a$ fUCk

>all these mental gymnastics
jfc faggots

A question that arises from this in my mind is: how does this model fit with Plato? I am inclined to think that the female form is "molded" to the masculine, in that at a certain point, when the "soul" crosses the threshold of our model, they actually become a receptacle for man's form. This physical transformation is analogous to the psychological transformation, wherein by becoming female, the soul is inclined toward submissiveness towards the male. If it had not crossed the threshold into the feminine, and were still predominantly masculine, it would still feel adverse to the man's desire to use it for its own expression.

As evidence for the spectrum model, note that women are not *totally* submissive to a man, though their submissiveness and will to partnership (the opposite of the will to solitude), and they can still feel adverse to the man's desire to have her, to own her physically and mentally, to set boundaries upon her. No woman is so feminine that she is completely submissive without any desire to assert herself, but note that some women are more submissive than others, some seem to have more independence, and so forth.

the rules straight men have to follow in order to be straight
1. You can, indeed are expected to say the most faggy things to eachother ("suck my dick"), but do it in a masculine tone, this "cancels out" the gayness
2. You are expected to be desired by everyone including other men without desiring back, in fact you must be the most desired, nothing less. To desire men back even the slightest = gay
3. For the straight man it is particularly important that of the men who desire you the most, must themselves be the most desirable
4. To be truly straight you must not actually be able to gauge which of these men are themselves desirable, that would be violating rule 2

thank fuck I'm a cocksucking fag

>heterosexuality
no such thing

This speaks to me, a 26-year-old virgin, in a very direct and real way.

While I disagree that all women are weird-looking, inferior males, every time I meet a woman whom I am considering allowing the pleasure of being penetrated by me, I first perform one very simply psychological exam using just my imagination. Briefly, I picture what said woman would look like without hair, i.e. bald (eyelashes are left on). Almost every time I do this what I end up with is basically a bald male-looking person trying to look fuckable. Honestly, it puts me off them most of the time. Only a minority of women actually pass this test, and even then I have to mentally picture them doing things like sitting cross-legged alone and not bothering to lift one leg while breaking wind (thus causing something akin to a "fanny fart" or even the flatulence simply being expelled and finding a new home within the vaginal canals), or picking their nose, or urinating and having the urine run down their thighs etc. All gruesome stuff truth be told. What's unfortunate about this process is that the few girls who do pass my tests are treated like ethereal beings and I make no effort to display my attraction to them because I have placed myself at such an inferior position to them that even looking at them threatens to spill the secret, so to speak. I almost penetrated a 5'8 girl in early 2014 who would, in retrospect, fail my test at almost every stage, but I admit that sometimes eros himself demands that you seek human warmth and so forth with even the most awkward of mates.

So the female form is really her humiliation, in that she is formed as a receptacle for man, and she is psychologically drawn towards him, to lack an individuality and a self-will, but desires to be a submissive, and to have a man as her anchor in life--her guide and companion--not being able to rely upon herself.

And you can see this in the way she desires to display herself. She wants to make herself attractive to man, to accentuate her receptiveness to his masculine principle. She shows off her body as an object, but not as something desirable in itself, but strictly as a thing which is prepared to receive a man. And again, consider the analogous nature of her psychology, that it is not built to be useful in itself (like man's mind), as thing which has its own will to express, its own creativity to give birth to, but only as a thing built solely for the attraction of the creative force to it. Her mind is first and foremost, a womb, like her body, and that is why, her whole life, her attention is fixed upon making herself receptive, not necessarily to a man, but to the creative, independent principle, which is the core of the masculine drive.

Note, again, that women do not lack this masculine drive entirely, but possess it in part, but it does not predominate in them, which is why their creative endeavors typically lack the intensity and consistency of males. Women would rather give themselves to someone than be someone. They have a harder time enduring solitude, if they even feel the problem of solitude at all (which is the will to create). You may argue that women create life when they give birth, but this is not creativity, which arises out of the will. Women incubate the creative force and nourish it, but they are not its receiver (as in a radio). I do not say that men are the fountain of creativity, but that they partake of it in themselves.

Of course it is. Why do you think 2D exists, OP?

It is strange. You are looking for that "veil of femininity" which is sufficient to convince you that you are not looking at yourself but something distant from you. Woman is like a mirage, made to appear as though she were something far off, when in reality she is your very neighbor.

I think your feelings can be described this way: the more you are aware of the personhood of a man or woman, the more delicately you treat them, because you are very sensitive yourself. This is what makes you so careful around people.

Why then, does a woman, who is under the veil of femininity, or in other words, non-personhood (this is what allows you to think of violating her) become a person you treat with such delicacy?

I think, maybe it is because you require so much femininity to be able to strip off the personhood of a person to the point where they can become a sexual object (this is why the women you are attracted to are very feminine), but nonetheless you are still viscerally aware that you are not dealing with an object, but a person, a human being; it is no surprise that you treat them with such reverence, because this is also the person that you want to use to assert yourself (sexually and therefore psychologically), and you, being a very careful person, want to make sure that you do not overstep even the smallest boundary. You want to do such an intimate thing with a person who you want to respect, but who's beauty is so shocking to you that you lie in a kind of no man's land, trying to hold together with each hand two great weights that are like opposing forces, and you can't pull them into any one consistent action or approach that you take towards this person.

It is easy to imagine yourself penetrating a woman, but when you actually got up to the task you would feel very nervous and unassured. This is essentially because you are incapable of treating people as objects and doing violent things to them. You have probably felt uncomfortable with things like slapping a girl on the ass for this reason.

If you wouldn't fuck pic related you are gay.

A fantastic post, and I mean that sincerely.

I have argued at length in my manifesto that the very fact women not only allow but desire to be penetrated by a man shows that their fundamental psychological disposition is one of weakness, submissiveness and self-loathing (to various degrees). Why are women having fewer children today in the West? The answer is obvious. Because they are deciding to transcend the identity of womanhood and instead adopting the traditional mannerisms, ambitions, standards of inter-personal relationships and so forth as men.

It could be argued that the reason that even attractive women wear such large amounts of make-up in pornographic movies is that the studio bosses suspect that anything less than "bimboification" will result in the viewer feeling sad, lonely, empathetic and so forth rather than filled with lust, frustration, anger and so forth which keeps them coming back to see, as Sasha Grey puts it, the gladiator-esque spectacle of a woman being aggressively sexually attacked by one, two or indeed several men.

It is a deep shame that younger and younger girls are feeling the need to wear make-up, and that younger and younger boys feel the need to do the male equivalent which is to act brutish, callous and so forth. When these two actors do meet, there is a visible sense of disappointment and resignation when neither is willing to let down their guard or stop the act.

homos need to leave this is a cis het supremacist nominally trad board

You posit the masculine as something dominant, assertive, and the feminine as something submissive, receptive; what then do you make of the sort 'male lesbian' archetype under which we can group certain men?
Men who display feminine traits on a physical level (through fashion, body language, etc.) but more importantly on the psychological level- non-aggressive, 'non-violent' (not even in the physical sense but also in a conceptual way e.g. unwilling to treat women as sex objects) somewhat submissive, desire for passivity, and so on- who nevertheless have a desire for women.

There can be said to be some sort of seed of masculinity in the form of this pursuit of sex with women -which is by extension a proclamation of masculinity in the form of assertion or dominance or what have you- yet at the same time they are in every other way entrenched in the feminine, the submissive.
And I'm just talking about men we would normally call 'metrosexuals'; however, this paradox is even greater in transsexuals (who are entrenched in femininity, providing they're actually passable) who nevertheless desire sex with women.

How can something feminine simultaneously harbor deeply masculine traits.

no she's gay

I am in support of women's efforts to overcome their own nature. The problem is that they do not see the issue this way. As I said, it is in their nature to be submissive, and the problem is that they may potentially trade one form of submission for another. Instead of being receptive to the man's physicality, they may become abusers of each other, they may forfeit the effort entirely and simply become wanton hedonists with absolutely no principles (which is what I see today).

See, I can essentially agree with women on the point that men use them, this they are willing to talk about for ages. But after that, if you try to discuss the notion of self-discipline, and the concentration of one's efforts toward a higher principle, it is as though you are speaking a different language. Women have reached the point where they desire liberation, and I shall not condemn them for this, it is what I am seeking myself. The problem is that they have no idea what that means, and so they rise up merely to descend back into some feminine receptivity like New Age spirituality, or arbitrary notions of self-expression by going to festivals or getting tattoos and so forth. Again, it becomes clear that they don't actually know what to do with the freedom they so fervently believe they desire to obtain. It is like a prisoner who can't function in society and so wants to return to prison where his life has structure.

And it becomes vicious cycle, because if you try to help them with their own liberation, by discovering the idea of standards and principles to them, which are what masculinity and self-disciplien are all about, there is a good chance that they will interpret this as some form of "patriarchal oppression" that men are trying to impose on them in order to lord over them, etc etc. You see how it becomes a problem. We know why Schopenhauer described them as children. It is really the same work to foster self-restraint in a child as it is to foster it in women. Their desire to idolize persons of power and to submit to them (even if they are other women) is so strong.

I hate these sloppy slutty girls because i like love and passion and trust, but a part of me wants to use and hurt that girl, its disgusting

you must rise above this sadistic urge bruddah

You make the mistake of attributing non-violence to femininity. Women are not non-violent, nor are gay men (or lesbians for that matter). As I understand it, lesbians are notoriously violent. I have also heard stories through friends about the chaos that ensues in gay break-ups. The feminine is not non-violent, it just doesn't use physical violence as much, I think. Do not think that the victim of bully is a purer creature than the bully, he may be harboring vicious thoughts for his aggressor even though he doesn't act upon them.

Also, I do not attribute unwillingness to treat another person as an object to femininity either. In fact, this is accentuated in the feminine. Women have no problem objectifying each other, so much so that they are not even aware that they are doing it. Women are born matchmakers, they are constantly thinking about who would match with who, and so forth. They can be very shallow, etc etc.

You are right though in your idea of their being something feminine about these masculine men. It lies in the way that they fall in love with those who submit to them and give them power. They almost take on a kind of femininity, a kind of adoration, and almost become submissives themselves. Here, I am inclined to think that they are actually becoming feminine to some drive in themselves. They become slaves to their own lust. I have seen this in men. They are an almost frightening juxtaposition of the desire to fornicate and their romantic love. This is one of the strangest phenomena of man, this relationship between love and sex. It is a deep question.

I will say that I actually think that self-restraint is a higher form of masculinity. You are right that womanizers partake of the feminine themselves which is why, I think, they are less monogamous. The height of femininity is to submit completely to another person. The height of masculinity is to become whole in oneself, and on the subject of self-restraint, the self-restraining man actually learns that his violence against others is self-laceration, he is tearing himself apart by trying to prove himself to others, and therefore, to preserve himself, he must come to non-violence.

this is a pretty good thread

7.5/10

>It is like a prisoner who can't function in society and so wants to return to prison where his life has structure.

Again, a great post.

The most beautiful woman I have ever met, and who I will remember and think about for the rest of my life, was a girl from an upper-class background who was very tomboyish and obviously disliked many if not most fellow women for being wilfully stupid, too cutesy, resentful of men and so on. She obviously suffered quite a bit due to this since she herself was a woman, and furthermore was too sensitive, shy and naturally tender to want to pursue a masculine career or simply become "one of the boys" in a genuine sense (or in as genuine a sense as she could achieve). Her solution was to be true to her natural disposition, that is being tender, sweet, sensitive, supportive, submissive and cute, while also having a job (and thus not being dependent on the man she ended up dating) and spending much of her time around older men who were married and would never think about trying anything with her. To me she represents the ideal woman, that is a woman who understands that for both practical, functional, aesthetic and natural reasons she should be a beautiful, cute, supportive, submissive, caring, tender, self-denying, pure and so forth as possible, and that her male partner, who may himself be somewhat androgynous, will do his part by living up to the traditional male standard (dominant, secure, financially successful, confident, independent, rational). Granted that both are intelligent and self-aware and don't take their respective roles too seriously, they can in the privacy of their intimate relationship let their guard down and be like two vulnerable children who don't take themselves too seriously. Unfortunately I wasn't in the right mind at the time I met her and was too much of an angry, reckless, self-hating mess to make my feelings known, but still her influence helped me overcome that and become the slightly better man that I am today.

>try to discuss literature on Veeky Forums
>people meme and shitpost
>'lol liking women is gay'
>people are having platonic dialogues

>The answer is obvious.
>Proceeds to talk a bunch of wiseacring philosophising bullshit

Thank fuck I'm no longer 21

just read about weininger's pseudo-mathematics

>appeals to nature
Dabsolutely isgusting

it's only gay if you're the same race

I have to clock out for a bit. Thanks for the interest anons.

There is the potential to get into very difficult territory, some here have touched on it. For instance, aren't men "feminine" towards more powerful men? And what about the way that the religious man talks of God, submitting himself, putting his own will aside to serve a higher principle, etc etc. Is he not like a woman in this relationship? How is it that men are supposed to be masculine and yet they display these characteristics? How do they become slaves to their own lust and so forth...

The answer, I think, requires a distinction between love and sex (or perhaps lust). I am not quite sure how to go about it. The Symposium says that love is a lack, which is the cause of feelings of unworthiness toward the beloved. It also says that men love different things according to their capacity to perceive the divine (the true nature of things); some women are only able to glimpse the divine through the veil of femininity (how the feminine is to be associated with the divine is a difficult problem as well), whereas some are able to perceive it in wisdom, and some even further in the unifying principle of the latter, and so forth. This Plato explains is true love, that pure impurity before the beloved. Lust on the other hand, involves some aspect of degradation, which is why it becomes so confusing when we try to interpret how a man comingles the two in one relationship. It might be that the veil of femininity represents the potential for man to attain to the actualization of his creative urge, and he loves the woman for this, because she is his proving grounds, his means of unification with the godhead and self-realizing, and the violence of lust is his impure, rudimentary means to do so. This is plausible because there are similarities in coitus to the mystery of creation and generation, and the interplay of these great forces.

That's all I can put together for now.

I'd like to see how a man would crush a watermellow with his thiccs.
youtube.com/watch?v=xvZwYadmgPw

>ywn have your skull ruptured between her godly thigh and pelvic muscles

STFU faggot

Gay and straight are culturally specific categories and not real

No more than your culturally conditioned identity as a cowboys fan or Lakers fan

...

fuck off with you postmodern bullshiters