Is war inherently phallic?

Literally penetrating your enemies battle line, then battlefield mitosis occurs in victory, when you penetrate them, conquest is insemination, a blending of the dominant male and the defeated womb.

> grab em' by the nose and kick em' up the ass

Was actually

> grab em' by the balls, and fuck em' up the ass.

you need to penetrate many men if you wanna win a battle

warriors are big, muscly and dripping with sweat

>things that are used to penerate air/ allow a projectile to accelerate through a small gap for accuracy are like something that is designed to penetrate a pussy and fire a projectile through a small gap

Woooahhh, its almost like nature invented the gun first!

Why is war so gay?

THE GUN IS GOOD. THE PENIS IS EVIL.

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN SO GAY YOU LOOK AT WEAPONS AND SEE DICKS?

IT'S LIKE YOU'VE NEVER COVERED YOURSELF IN OIL, WRESTLED A MAN INTO SUBMISSION, AND THEN PENETRATED HIM.

> GROUND AND POUND

Yes.

Because you either have the biggest penis, or the biggest load, or have the most penises.

Phallus objects tend to penetrate.

This is why attackers have phallic objects, and the low degenerate enemy has nothing but holes for the phallus to penetrate.

All wars have been stories of sex. Whether they were justified by religion, ideology, independence, economy, retaliation, lols - no matter the reason given to the public, the fact is that this is how nations fuck and procreate.

As an example, the arms race was a race to see who could fuck more and the space race was all about who could fuck the moon first.

Female: UFO saucers
Male: Rockets

hmmm
m
m
m

Yes, life is all about asserting authority over other people. It's an eternal struggle for living organisms to propagate DNA in order to pass on the most desirable genetic traits. 99.9 percent of us are irrelevant to the .1 percent male population who's names we wear, women we fantasize about, and who will eventually breed out our DNA.

>Veeky Forums autist tries subversive interpretation

they're not wrong though.

Yes, if you like pointed dicks

sex is inherently war like

>ANYTHING LONGER THAN IT IS WIDE IS PHALLIC, MEN ARE RAPE, DOWN WITH THE PATRIARCHY1!
t. (You)

>the fact is that this is how nations fuck and procreate.

>Alexander penetrated Persia and this gave birth to various Greco-Persian countries
>US penetrated USSR and this gave birth to numerous Eastern European countries
heeey, this is getting eerily close to explaining geopolitics.

Maybe.

Efficientcy is inherently phallic.

Proof that God exists. Dick is penetration like bullet

No, everything isn't phallic, you autistic fucks. However, it is male and/patriarcal. You see, when designing the methods and tools for war, one tries to make it as effective as possible.
For most of human history, weapons have been made individualistic, and by males for males. The masculine, the individuality and strategic saw the worth of the females and the feminine, protecting them for the sake of the selves, making sacrifices in the ages of war. The weapons of the swords and the bows, from men to men, was an individualistic tool, to use for each man against the enemy. The individual male is what is the masculine, the thriving in its own and the - even though somewhat contrary - collective of the individuals is what has been the primary moving factors of war.
This has been done to save the collective, the females, the feminine. To protect females is the natural charecteristics of the male. This explains the individual sacrifising himself in the act of war for the collective; why ever else would one face war to save their nation/country/tribe/etc? For one does not participate in war to save oneself, but to save the ones that make up oneself, namely the collective, and the feminine. As the Feminine completes the Masculine, the Collective completes the Individual.
So, indeed, war is - or has at least been - inherently masculine; but that is not the same as saying it is phallic.

Chakrams everywhere.

>weapons whose purpose is to penetrate are shaped like an organ whose purpose is to penetrate

Really made me stink

I'm stealing that.

I know women sometimes hunted alongside men before agriculture, but I wonder if they also fought with them or at least knew how to defend themselves in case of an attack by a hostile tribe.

Cavities v pillars. Liquids v Solids.
Snares, pits, and poisons; barrier-walls and strongholds. People in history have known the way women have fought for ages. Deceptive though they may be traps and poisons are pretty efficient. So is holding up (for the most part) and being defensive.

Obviously, the best method of war is when both fallic and feminine methods are applied in concert.

Maybe the penis is missile like?

I guess. I mean it's not like we can throw holes at each other.

It's an efficient shape, for:

- propelling things through air or water at high speeds
- making sharp metal objects out of, the better to stab or slash your opponent at a distance
- depositing sperm inside a human vagina as close to a cervix as possible (microdicks need not apply)
- rolling dough flat
- storing and transporting all manner of foods or liquids

>microdicks need not apply
Please don't bully.

>Humanities brainlets inject psychology over a field of engineering that places efficiency overall

kek

Efficientcy is based on the warrants of the individual insofar as it defines the criteria with which they judge efficientcy.
For example, when asked for the feminine equivolent people joke about throwing holes. Note that throwing was never mention and the warrants about how they considered weapons and aggresion to manifest as propulsive are present.
>brainlet belives in 'efficiency' as a legitimate abstraction instead of seeing the reality of efficacy; that it is a tool used to measure the relative success of a method againsts others within reference to a subjective criteria
Sasuga nigger poster.

>how they considered weapons and aggresion to manifest as propulsive are present.
Because they are the most efficient, stop trying to justify your waste of time major.

So mines and IEDs are inefficient? Stop trying to project vague simplicities and global rules onto efficientcy.

Are mines phallic? No, why not? because its not efficient.
I have no idea of what point are you trying to make anyway, the vast majority of weapon systems are projectiles

Comrade

Sometimes a rocket is just a rocket ja?

Mines and IEDs do create and/or contain phallic objects through.