The Virtue of Chastity

Sexuality is female. The man descends into the female principle the more sexual he becomes. Homosexuals tend toward homosexuality, as do womanizers, who in their manners are markedly feminine. The mature masculine tends toward restraint, intellectualism, austerity, and chastity. He tends not to delight in nakedness or physical contact, or in vulgar pleasures. He prefers to be plain, polite, respectful, and so forth, all of which lend themselves to a clearer representation of a man's actual worth). Vulgar men (read: sexual) mistake these characteristics as being feminine or unmanly, when in reality it is their own coarseness and sentimentality which has more in common with the feminine. In the presence of women, one becomes either increasingly disgusted at their lack of the aforementioned virtues, or eventually acclimates to them, thereby allowing their own mental sobriety to be diluted by frivolity and fruitless sentimentalism. Women trivialize or ridicule masculinity (read: masculinity, as opposed to sensuality) because their own nature is foreign to it; on the other hand, they delight in flamboyant and extroverted men, and love nothing more than to hear of a man's romantic feelings. Womanizers and feminine men tend to show off more of their bare skin, tend to take a interest in fashion and presentation, may wear excessive jewelry and accessories, or even wear make-up, all of which are highly characteristic of the feminine. It is also not uncommon to hear that womanizers have had same-sex intercourse at least once. Women find little solace in religion, philosophy, piety, and solitude, and it is the same with men insofar as they are coerced by the sexual urge. The thoughts of men like Kant or Augustine are absolutely incomprehensible to women, whose considerations remain deeply submerged within gross sensuality. Insofar as a man indulges in sexuality, whether by himself, with women, or with other men, he falls from a more masculine height into the sensible, sexual realm of the feminine. This is why chaste men accomplish so much more of lasting worth than sexual men.

Recommended reading:

On the Apparel of Women, Tertullian
Confessions, Augustine
The Symposium, Plato
Critique of Practical Reason, Kant
Sex and Character, Weininger
Ecclesiastes, Solomon
Father Sergius, Tolstoy

Quotes:

>"Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." (Ecclesiastes 25:22)
>"The whoredom of a woman may be known in her haughty looks and eyelids. If thy daughter be shameless, keep her in straitly, lest she abuse herself through overmuch liberty." (Eccles. 26:9-10)
> “It is only males who are created directly by the gods and are given souls. Those who live rightly return to the stars, but those who are ‘cowards or [lead unrighteous lives] may with reason be supposed to have changed into the nature of women in the second generation’." - (Plato, Timaeus 90e)

It's not "virtue" if you don't have a choice, sweetie.

Thanks, OP, I've been locked in chastity for two weeks and this inspired me even more.

Nice shitpost. Witnessed.

Refresh refresh refresh until someone responds to me in the other thread

>Women ridicule masculinity because their own nature is foreign to it

Thank you for providing a perfect example of how women are unable to frame anything outside of the confines of sexuality.

t. feminine man

out of all the woman-hating cultural memes this is definitely my favorite one. wish this one would come back in fashion im really tired of the current cultural meme that men are inherently sexual/visual and compelled to act on it while women are thoughtful etc.

My takeaway from this is that you think living free from any sensuality (i.e. living like an autist) is masculine. That's very immature.

Also, it takes a man to love a woman proper. Masculinity loves femininity and vice versa.

All men are turbosluts and would fuck every attractive female in sight if said females didn't object to it. This is why homosexuals are so promiscuous, there are no females to hold them back.

Wemen

>this is what incels actually believe

> (i.e. living like an autist) is masculine.
I've thought about this a bit, it's easy to mistaken autism for "masculinity". A man of few words, easy to anger, lack of emotions other than apathy and (autistic) rage. When really it's just regressive behaviour.

Wewmen

>it takes a man to love a woman proper

This is a meaningless platitude. It only shows that women are inclined towards partnership, and need another person in their life to "love them", and are not capable of finding wholeness within themselves. This proves Plato and all the other ancients.

The only weapon women have against chaste men is to try to get them to value their sexual urge once more or to imply that there is something mentally dysfunctional about them. These are not serious criticisms against men like Kant or Plato, who have guided human thought and intellectual progress for centuries.

>being this anally hurted about not getting laid
Lmao

If men devoted themselves to nothing but women we would be no more than animals. The suppression of sexuality is the basis for civilization. Richard Wagner (who notoriously struggled with lust) said as much, insofar as monogamy is a step up from promiscuity.

Critics of chastity should ask themselves, why do I always frame everything in terms of a person's ability or inability to copulate with the opposite sex? Why do I assert that a man's self-worth revolves around women, and yet am offended when a man implies that a woman's sense of self-worth revolves around men?

Consider also the importance of my message. I say to men: do not go about wasting your energy on fruitless self-gratification, or considering yourself lesser because you aren't sexually successful; instead, develop yourself and let your creativity flourish, not simply so that you can romp around in the nude with a woman one day, but for your own sake, because intellectual activity is palatable in itself; and furthermore consider that you, as a man, alone are privileged to the ability to actually enjoy something by itself, without having to be concerned about whether it has worth to someone else.

But vicious critics of male independence want to bring a man's whole identity back within the confines of an activity he has in common with every beast and insect.

it's like clockwork

B-b-but Agustine was a promiscuous bastard till he was too old to do it Anymore. That's the only thing keeping me from celibacy desu senpai

Men have a choice between the swamp of sexuality and greatness.

Women would also have this choice if the above words made any sense to them.

>too old
IIRC he was either just over 30 or in his late 20's aka sexual prime. He gave it up at the top of his game. .

>and are not capable of finding wholeness within themselves
Yeah, and? This is the bit that men love about women. We are not just whole in ourselves but beyond that, we have excess. We have something to offer and we want to give it to those who deserve it.

nigga stop larping and get laid

>not capable of finding wholeness within themselves
Look at this undialect pleb

As I pointed out, women don't actually admire any male virtues, in themselves or others (though Tolstoy implies otherwise in Sergius). Women are attracted to men either because the men are feminine or because they are sexually attracted to them, viz, incapable of receiving them intellectually.

A person does not deserve something they cannot receive.

Read Sexual Personae.

Nice cope, my dude.

>women don't actually admire any male virtues
Completely untrue. It is just very hard to find a good woman, i.e. a proper woman. Most of them, like men, are stunted in some way. But in art we can catch a glimpse of what the ideal (i.e. the fullest, truest manifestation of) men and women are like. See: James Bond and the many women that fall for him.

And after a good, looong deal of fucking.
>Make me chaste, but not yet!

How is "not yet" working out for you?

You are missing the point. A woman who actually admired a man would not marry him, just as a man who admires a man does not want to marry him or have intercourse with him. What she feels is not admiration but merely a sensual affection.

why does virginity matter?
-because people know that women cannot keep their legs closed
-because people know that most men never amount to anything

virginity is the best discriminant for people:
-good women are not tramps
-good men manage to make something of their lives (and, since women are loose by nature, fucking a woman is not so hard (if you do not fuck a woman, you better be good at something else))

naturally, this utopia never occurs:
-women spread their legs chasing their fun, especially through good sex, thanks to the men ready to serve them
-very few men go beyond women
men never amount to anything besides providing entertainment for women, since providing for women is the easiest thing, especially when it comes to giving them gifts.

So what you're saying is that you don't like women.

>The Symposium
I see, because you're a homosexual.

How the fuck do you need to read books to go to a party according to that pic lmao

Woman = Jews

>a man who admires a man does not want to marry him or have intercourse with him
Hmm. A man can marry a woman he admires, no? Even if he is the more powerful, or dominant - this does not necessarily undermine the authenticity or humility of his affection for her. He might want to dominate or conquer. Objectify. Not necessarily. But is this even a real dichotomy?

Similarly, but on the inverse, a man or woman who fawns over a tall subject with his diamond cut jawline and perceived high status will want to possess him and to be possessed by him. Or maybe there is more to it.

>A woman who actually admired a man would not marry him
Well, she certainly wouldn't want to tie him down, sure. I understand that. However, marriage does not have to be that. In fact, ideal marriage is far more spiritual that that, when formed by true lovers. It's not about restraint at all, but the opposite: total freedom in love together.

Interesting, though permit me to disagree.
Restraint and freedom, in human relations, might better be thought of as sculptor's tools, not ends in themselves. What you choose, together, to restrain or not to restrain, to bind or to loosen, shapes and forms the nature of your life together, the character of your mutual existence. Two lovers choosing to make a commitment to each other are not necessarily (key word) going to be angsty and possessive in a pathological way. Without the freedom to enter into bindings of your own choosing, you don't have much freedom at all.

What is this freedom you are talking about? Suppose my lover dies: am I then not free and incapable of achieving it? Then my freedom is contingent on the physical existence of another person. There is no such thing as contingent freedom.

If you say, love can transcend death, then why did I need to marry her in the first place, seeing as how my freedom was absolute, whether or not she be in my presence?

OP WHAT DO I DO IF I GET TURNED ON BY CHASTITY AND FEMDOM? HELP

Marry a strong manipulative woman that will control you, but that's caring enough to not destroy you. What else? I don't know how severe your fantasies are but try to tone it down a bit so it's not self-destructive, women don't really want to ruin you anyway.

Exhale forcefully if you happen to become aroused, then inhale as little as possible, and repeat until the arousal subsides.

If this is not enough, exhale again, forcefully, then hold your breathe before you have inhaled, and as you are holding your breath, relax as much of the tension in your body as possible, especially the areas around your groin and belly.

These techniques should help to cool the lustful fire. Try to regain your peace of mind, so that when you begin to breathe normally again, your inhalations are not feeding the sexual feelings. Then go for a walk, make soup, or return to whatever you were doing beforehand.

He became chaste as soon as he changed his faith. The moment he began to believe in Christianity, he gave up all his hedonism.

Whatever we call freedom is contingent on something by nature of its direct relationship with our own temporal, mortal and necessarily contingent-on-something-else reality. Since we can never have perfect freedom, perhaps one might prefer to think of freedom in a Platonic sense, and try to more substantially imitate its type-defining "form". Nevertheless, in this world and in these vessels, which perhaps are all that is, it is impossible to fully manifest it.

I don't know what you're really suggesting anyone. I didn't really mean to imply there are potential "freedoms" you should worry about losing. They aren't in themselves "freedoms", just ends you can have the freedom to choose. Choose to create the conditions for their existence. Choose to restrain yourself to achieve something. We do it all the time.

The symposium is anti-gay. Plato mocks the sophists who speak before Socrates. All of their arguments are weak and perverse, as demonstrated by Socrates in his own speech. Do you even lift?

one should read Confessions anyways. To be honest, when I read it, it was boring as hell, but as time has gone past, Ive sort of "digested" it, and its probably my favorite book.

You mean... That's what he says ;)))
Priests are famous for going to prostitutes that respect privacy.

Except constant sexual exploits are considered peak masculinity.

...

>Make me chaste, but not yet!
More like, Father forgive me, I was a fool who did not care for you, and I regret my past actions!

>Without the freedom to enter into bindings of your own choosing, you don't have much freedom at all.
What I'm saying is, is that marriage is not a binding. This is the modern conception of marriage and it's a corrupt one. Marriage perceived as a binding reveals the spirit of the age, which is focused entirely on social prestige and not on individuation.

You're right in pointing out that a woman who actually admired (or rather, actually loved) a man would not want to bind him. What she finds lovable in him would be killed by the binding. It's in his courage and his power to be free that she loves. When marriage is institutionalized, it does deprive the man of that.

Marriage is really just about trust. That is all it is. To trust one another to be pure towards one another forever. It is not about binding one another to the other, but about trusting one another in whatever you do. You don't need an institution to tell you that you are married to a woman, you can be married to her in your sentiment. And in trusting one another, you allow the other to be as they are, you preserve them as they are and do not tamper with them at all; you haven't actually gained anything either other than a mutual trust. Love is not about gain beyond that. People who seek only material or social gain never understand love and it's those people who have institutionalized marriage.

Freedom is acquired by freeing the intellect from baser instincts like lust and the admiration of the female form. Once you are able to look at an attractive woman with sobriety, then all that is left is her personality, which is generally unremarkable. At that point you are free (or if you like, more free) to contemplate existence from a higher plane. A man is free to love existence fully once he has transcended the narrow love for one person or figure.

It's sad that masculinity has become confused with libidinal urge.

>all this subconscious abrahamic anti-sexual guilt in this thread

ooooh boyyy

Look retards, sexuality isn't "bad" or "wrong." It's powerful, yes, and it needs to be met with caution (otherwise you end up with soulless degeneracy), but this autistic sort of self-denialism has no discernible benefits whatsoever, and acts only as some other thing for the ego to cling to ("well *I* don't engage in sex, so *I'm* better than the unwashed masses" etc.)

If you're actually going to be celibate, join a monastery, otherwise don't bother. You're just deluding yourself.

>what is subtext?

Hot
That technique just made me cum in my chastity cage

>Marriage is about trust

These are just more womanly platitudes. Unfold what this means in a coherent way, without referring to more platitudes.

>to trust one another to be pure towards one another
Pure as in chaste?

>trusting one another in whatever you do

So it's "I love you no matter what". Then what does the love refer to? You just love something for no reason? There is no matter to your love?

Behold, the incoherence of the feminine!

>homosexuals tend toward homosexuality
Holy fuck no way

>What I'm saying is, is that marriage is not a binding. This is the modern conception of marriage and it's a corrupt one. Marriage perceived as a binding reveals the spirit of the age, which is focused entirely on social prestige and not on individuation.
In the Christian nature of being paradoxical and yet intellgible: binding and liberation are not necessarily dissimilar. Submission to God is considered a liberation. Christ's suffering, submission and death, a liberation from the forces of the world, from the power of death and sin. In the same way, hadn't it been for the two millenia since Christ's sermon on the mount the belief that when man and woman entered into a marriage together they became "one flesh" which only death could part?
I'm not a Christian, but it seems that, contra what you said, the idea of today is that a relationship is a temporary affair that ideally is to the benefit of the the people as individuals. The rights of the individual are paramount in the new schema of relation. I'm not saying this is necessarily an evil or decadent thing or whatever, but I think it's the opposite of what you were saying. Now almost half of marriages end in divorce.
>You're right in pointing out that a woman who actually admired (or rather, actually loved) a man would not want to bind him.
I wasn't the one that said that. I think there is a sort of truth to it, but there is no freedom without the freedom to change, to alter. After all, what is the dominant force of the world but flux? Desire and being desired change us, the friend alters the friend, the lover and the beloved both alter each other. It is unavoidable. Your concept of love is so abstract, so bound in conformity to the ideal that it can only force you into asceticism, and to entirely deprive you of all the real, imperfect love you might well have.

>Women find little solace in religion, philosophy, piety, and solitude, and it is the same with men insofar as they are coerced by the sexual urge.

You are an atheist, friend. Proof of my point that sexual men don't understand religion.

This is ridiculous. Sexual urge is inseparable from both genders. The sexual question is in fact the defining core of each polarity. Everything that it is to be a man is founded upon his sexual role, and everything that it is to be a woman is founded on her sexual role. The libido is one of, if not the most primary motivations. The issue does not come from some overvaluing of it, but rather an underestimation of our will. Man is defined by his sexuality, but rather in relationship to his pursuits. A man who gives in to his libido fully is either a weak and pathetic man, or else a predator. But a man who fails his libidinal impulse is more wretched still. Mastery is the measure.

>Unfold what this means in a coherent way, without referring to more platitudes.
You don't know what trust means?

>Pure as in chaste?
No, as in freely expressed. Not held back.

>So it's "I love you no matter what".
No, it's love without possession, because possession spoils the object of love.

>You just love something for no reason?
You love out of a deep admiration for something.

Isn't it funny how all these people, who are men, who in this thread brag about abstaining from interaction with women, are experts on female psychology?

>and acts only as some other thing for the ego to cling to ("well *I* don't engage in sex, so *I'm* better than the unwashed masses" etc.)

>A man who gives in to his libido fully is either a weak and pathetic man, or else a predator. But a man who fails his libidinal impulse is more wretched still. Mastery is the measure.
I don't disagree. I was pointing out that the conception of masculinity is often reduced entirely to, as you described it, the "man who gives in to his libido fully"

People generally channel their angst about the inherent immorality of much sexual behavior into retarded ideologies like Feminism and envious(of other men) leftism.

so these are the discontents of civilisation........

>I'm not saying this is necessarily an evil or decadent thing or whatever, but I think it's the opposite of what you were saying.
It appears the opposite, and people conceive of it the way you do, but people always invert things. It does appear at quick glance that people abuse marriage today just for personal gain. In truth, though, these motives have been bestowed on them by society — they are in fact not thinking about themselves at all, but about what others think of them. They are motivated to seek personal gain not because out of their own expression or desire, but because of the social prestige attached to it. It is such an inversion that from the inside, it's impossible to understand it. They believe they are operating on their own accord when they are simply fulfilling the expectations other people. And they may be fulfilled by doing that themselves, but in the end what does it make them other than the masses?

That's some shit proof

Chastity is the most misunderstood of all the virtues. Men and women alike are unable to conceive of themselves beyond their own sexuality. Their whole identity revolves around their relation to the opposite sex. A man's sexuality is the female principle within him—when he transcends it, he is no longer drawn to the feminine, either in his own lust or in the image of the female human being, and is then free to explore a purely intellectual world, via a consciousness uninhibited by lust. He is free, in other words, to overcome his contingent nature and soar into a mystical union with God.

Unironically agree OP, good post

>And finally, woman! One-half of mankind is weak, chronic- ally sick, changeable, shifty - woman requires . . . a religion of the weak which glorifies weakness, love and modesty as divine: or better still, she makes the strong weak - she succeeds in overcoming the strong. Woman has always conspired with decadent types - the priests, for instance - against the "mighty," against the "strong," against men.
-Nietzsche.

Ironically, your identity also seems to be wholly focused around the opposite sex

>MFW you people die without having had sexual relations with a beautiful woman
>AND you never accomplish anything of note
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Hmm, interesting. Fulfilling social expectations... I guess today we experience more fully the anxiety of the individual vs the community, where expectations fail desire, where expression is not adequately found and where satisfaction is not found in convention. The success of Luther, in his theology of the lone individual in conversation with God, as opposed to the member of the community which works together under God, speaks to the degradation and failure of medieval society at that stage, where the individual must seek refuge outside society, alone himself and with creation.

But that isn't true in the slightest. A man of conquest is not one who gives into his libido fully. Power, accomplishment, prestige, wealth, prowess--all these things are tightly tied to concepts of masculinity throughout the western world. And even with new masculinity, the central purpose is to try and strip masculinity of its libidinal drive. Very rarely is masculinity reduced entirely to the man who gives in fully. It is most fully recognized by the serial rapist, who is repulsive to all.

>Quoting Nietzsche to support someone arguing for Chastity

>mystical union with God through abandonment of the feminine
>Understanding God as pure, cold intellect
All the great Mysteries of the faith are acts of love. The whole point of Christianity is the denial of the notion of what is rational (we all are sinners, therefore we all deserve to plummet into an inferno forever) with a pure emotion (love) and offer undeserved mercy. Christianity doesn't fetishize strength and detachment, it values love and meekness. Even in the wonky world of Gnosticism, the positive divinity is the feminine and motherly Sofia.

>Plato
>A virgin
He fucked lots of little Greek boys, user.

>But that isn't true in the slightest.
The growing culture of PUAs and porn worship suggests otherwise.

Do you just forget of the concept of Chad, a man who is successful AND has sex anytime he wants? This is what every man wants to be no matter who you ask

I am not focusing on any particular person, but on the principle of femininity within myself, which I understand as sexuality, which binds my existence to others, viz., sexual partners. Sexuality is actually the materialistic, atheistic principle in man, causing him to funnel all his power of belief into the transient and temporal. Chastity is the means of his transition from the unfulfilling hedonistic life into the sublime religious life.

Intellectual union is the only union which can attain to permanence. Physical unions are transient and thus can never serve as the end of man's seeking for meaning. Love is something which is felt as sublime contentment, not pertaining to any particular passing state or emotion, not pertaining to the attainment of some possession or exterior validation from something else, but is a kind of uninhibited awareness, and this is what I mean by intellectual union, viz., one that is immaterial and mental.

I at one point conceded the notion of the "divine feminine", but I actually think Christian resignation is rather a kind of masculine inheritance, similar to the transition of a son into adulthood, by initi
ation of the father, in which case he is actually shedding femininity, not bonding in some ephemeral copulation. Christianity is about manhood, not marriage.

>growing
They will be outbred.

>I am not focusing on any particular person, but on the principle of femininity within myself, which I understand as sexuality, which binds my existence to others, viz., sexual partners. Sexuality is actually the materialistic, atheistic principle in man, causing him to funnel all his power of belief into the transient and temporal. Chastity is the means of his transition from the unfulfilling hedonistic life into the sublime religious life.
That doesn't change my assessment of you. Your abstinence from the feminine seems to be ruling your mind

Coming into a girl you love is transcendent. Truly, an act of God

Exactly what I'm saying. He is not a slave to his libido, he is in full control. He is only despised for his wastefulness.

Kant didn't orgasm. Proust jerked off several times a day. Cervantes had a wife and children. Goethe had two notable love affairs. Byron had so many partners that historians are still debating the exact number. All of these men are literary giants. Your legacy isn't the result of avoiding urges. It's the result of following your passions.

Sex with love, is different than lustful sin but yeah even masturbation ties into this.

>By annihilating the desires, you annihilate the mind. Every man without passions has within him no principle of action, nor motive to act.
t. helvetius

desire is wind
mind is sail

chastity is like sawing off the mast of your ship because you cant navigate

What you have is a lopsided contempt for half of Gods' children. Christianity is about manhood, but it also is about motherhood, and brotherhood, and sisterhood. Mary Magdalene was the first person to see the resurrected Christ for a reason.

>tfw locked myself in a chastity cage
>tfw gf just doesn't understand the virtue of seeking wisdom
>tfw just told her to fuck someone else if she really needs it so much

"Sexuality is female"
Stopped reading right here

im genuinely asexual and its uncomfort difficult to connect with people and difficult to not become sad and negative about sexuality in general

desire is wind
mind is sail

I like this

This is why i waste time on Veeky Forums instead of reading books.

Your a sexual because you believe no one wants you so your to scared to try

The Greeks as well as the early Christian Fathers all held the view that women were merely inferior men, not some other type which was equal before God. St. Paul explicitly said they were not equal and were to man as man was to God.

I don't understand how you equate chastity with contempt for women. By practicing continence I am not hurting them, nor am I impinging on their own religiosity. I am contributing to a state wherein they are not things I only relate to sexually. It still does not mean femininity is something to be embraced in the kingdom of heaven.

Yep
How many conclusions can you make without...observing?

Better=/= Different

Most of those olds guys only were able to view woman an authoritative positon, the hierarchy structures at the time did not allow woman to be in prestigious 'male' positions, this fed into the idea of them being lower than man.

No man in this thread is talking about having abstained from female interaction his whole life. We are talking about reaching a point where we choose to abstain from female interaction, having been exposed to it our whole lives. So this does not preclude us from being experts on female psychology. Why would we even be discussing continence if we had never interacted with women?

no!
dont like sex dont like porn dont like any of it ive tried to but i dont

What you're describing is literally sexual repression.