In your best prose, write about the beauty of the female body

...

Dat shit hot lol

Here's a napkin, wipe off your lips and lose them fat hips
I know your toes smell, your butt smell like corn chips
You was about what? Lookin bougie, I ain't the one
You try to pour your drink on me, go' head call the bouncers
My cousin outside, with two tecs, and forty ounces
Them homos at the door, didn't want none - further more
You started first fats, I'mma quench your thirst
Don't need no pens, why them niggas lookin at my hearse?
With two grenades in my coat, a bomb in my pocket
I'll make this club jump off just like a Houston Rocket
Like Monica said, "Just one of those days - you take it personal"

Women are extremely obnoxious because there is no way to turn off your instinct to value them and desire them based on their immediate appearance.

The male transcendental aesthetic assigns irreducible sublimity to something as soon as it detects that the thing has a vagina. This isn't even a single operation. You don't just look at a woman and go "I want her." That would at least be tolerable. What actually happens is that the "I want her" impulse is mediated across secondary channels and processes that tediously unfold in your mind. You look at her, you realize she has a vagina, and then six different half-imagined fantasies and weird yens like "I wonder what her asscrack smells like?" start playing themselves out, where previously you had been thinking about the physics and engineering of suspension bridges.

The more sex you have, the worse it gets. I saw a girl walking home tonight and she had bare legs because she had just been at the gym. My brain immediately slotted a 96% accurate, involuntary fantasy of what it would feel like to kiss and lick her legs before fucking her, based on previous experiences of fuckings that I've had. All she was doing was walking around. She gets to have a completely free and unfettered mind, but because I saw her mundane leg flesh, I had my time and cognitive energies wasted by imagining the exact spot where her ass fat meets her thigh fat and trying to guess at what kind of pussy lip configuration she has.

Sometimes I try to force myself to realize that women are just people, just semi-hairless apes like me. But the more I do that, the more I find it sexy that I want to smell and french kiss their holes. No matter how you try to escape your innate tendency to rate the sublimity of a frumpy 5/10's semi-hourglass shaped body as on par with the plasma jets of a quasar, your brain just finds a new way to humiliate you. There is no possible way to look at a woman and not want to fuck her. I want them to leave me alone so I can read my fucking book on the bus in peace.

She got a big booty so I call her big booty.

saved my friend :^)

I'd buy your book

Gzus whats her name?

Imagine how women fell toward men, you robot.

Who's this semen sommelier?

got an asscheek that is round like a ceramic bowl on sale at homesense for $35.99
her body has shapes like other objects for sale in magazine
she shapes and arranges the shapes of her body according to beauty standards
the shapelier bodies go to the highest bidder, men able to afford the splendour of such objects, still now analogous to furniture
the shapelier bodies acquire a taste for power, which generally ruins one's ability to appreciate their shapes
their supple breasts and firm taught stomachs become weapons used to control and oppress men
her cunt is like a Venus flytrap
her cunt gives her sovereign power over absolutely everyone all the time
one must not disagree with this sovereign object, her body like expensive household furniture, her cunt: God himself
her cunt being God, thou shalt OBEY

Muslims understands this, which is why they force their hoes to wear trash bags all day

This is great

No matter how they feel, it wouldn't be the same. Male sexuality is inherently different from female sexuality. Men are more visual, which is why seeing girls in hot pants walking around as if it's normal is such a distraction.

>No matter how they feel, it wouldn't be the same. Male sexuality is inherently different from female sexuality. Men are more visual, which is why seeing girls in hot pants walking around as if it's normal is such a distraction.

How would you know, are you a woman?

...

who dat

...

Ask transmen how their sexuality changes once they begin taking male hormones. They all say that they become hornier, and more obsessed with body parts.

>Ask transmen how their sexuality changes once they begin taking male hormones.

Uh, I'll pass.

...

Do they also find it difficult to finish daily tasks because their minds flood with fantasies of dick?

>tfw seeing a beautiful woman ruins your day
Being a man fucking sucks

>transmen
>men
You men women on androgen hormone treatments. Not that there's anything wrong with it, just call it what it is.

Oh boy, how I know this feel. And then you come to your house and your empty, soulless bedroom.

I write about the female body almost all the time, but I am a little drunk and watching the Super Bowl with my parents. I will report back later.

Will user deliver?

I will. Would you like me to dig up something I've already written, or spitball something new?

Sierra Skye ;)

>Would you like me to dig up something I've already written

This.

If you're strong you sublimate if you're weak you masturbate

Plump. Ripe. And just the right amount of tight, it's what it always has been. The female form, my one and only wet dream. Thick in all the places where I can get my grip, loveheart shaped lip upon lip ready for the slip of my hard, wet di-OH! Wowsy! Just another woman to make me drowsy!

I wish, I just wish...I wasn't a man....

Is sexual sublimation actually tennible, or are modern psychologists right that it can lead to mental disorders?

The psychoanalytic concept of 'repression' isn't synonymous with 'sublimation.' In short, one is life-denying and the other is life-affirming.

What's the actual distinction? They seem identical to me

You can count on me.

poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/50580

I think the gist of this is true. It's as if your mind genuinely cuts out and all you see is her. And the mindless subconscious rating too, the "would I-won't I", without even really realizing it's happening.

>Imagine how women fell toward men
Not even a fraction of the same. Even though Louie CK is an idiot the joke he has about men being sex prisoners in their mind compared to women only being tourists still holds true.

Correct.

Women aren't actually "beautiful", just young and therefore fertile, which elicits carnal desire.

The enlightened will abstain from sex as from alcohol, or smoking, or other hedonistic experiences, save for the purpose of reproducing himself when he wants to start a family.

>or are modern psychologists right that it can lead to mental disorders
Never heard of this.

Repression is the superego having an unhealthy dominance over the desires of the id, resulting in denying oneself conscious access and acceptance to the pleasure principle causing anxiety, neurosis, and anti-social behaviors. Sublimation, on the other hand, is the ego dominating the id, denying the primitive short-term pleasure principle in favor of long-term goals of flourishing.

In short, life-denying vs. life-affirming; "I can't enjoy because of social norms" vs. "I shouldn't indulge because I have bigger goals."

Did you just write this? Brilliant, mate.

jiggle
jiggle
twitch
jiggle
twich

jiggletwitch

Bullshit. Female sexuality is way more selective. The number of men you encounter that you fantasize about is way lesser.

I'm not really seeing what the difference is supposed to be there, in regards to the superego and ego.

How about
>I want to indulge but I can't due to circumstances beyond my control

>tfw gay and can't really see what's so special about women

Have you never read Freud? Ego is "I shouldn't have sex because I have to be up early tomorrow" and superego is "I shouldn't have sex because premartial sex is wrong."

Not quite, because sublimation doesn't necessarily imply lack of control (although I can see why you would think that). They say Muhammad Ali wouldn't have sex for a month before each fight. That is sublimation. A situation where lack of control is involved, I suppose, would be Christian morality dictating masturbation and premarital sex are wrong, sublimating the sanctity of sex, but that's not what the original user was talking about.

...

You won the lottery m8, it's a curse.

bustling bosoms of Abraham's kotch i zotch the toch yipee yum yum gum ball patty cake bastereded yamies milky milky nam saks tidy nunnumbs crash bang pancake under pancake

would kill to be you

All things being equal, gays are the luckiest men on earth. I can't imagine how freeing it would be to look at a beautiful woman and feel absolutely nothing.

C'mon, bros.

In your previous example, I don't see how it makes sense that the ego is the one which keeps you in check for the long term.

I am not that user, but the fundamental difference is conscious acceptance of the desire. But I think I disagree with that other user because they both ultimately lead to the same thing, which is that your base desires are not satisfied. This is not a good thing.

You want to not be ruled by hunger? Don't starve yourself, have a fucking sandwich and move on. You can't fight your biological needs and however much energy you think they are wasting is nothing compared to the mental energy used to sublimate them.

Think of it this way: imagine you have some work to do and you are horny. Try to sublimate the horniness and not succumb to the need, and see how easily distracted you are (by everything). Compare that to just having a quick wank, and then see how clear and unfettered your focus is. The second option is undoubtedly healthier and more productive. We don't transcend our animal instincts by denying them, we transcend them by being the (kind) master of them.

They're just shitting you. It's a gift and a curse at the same time. The annoying distraction is alternatively also a passion, a passion you can use to funnel your desires and focus. Not having it is worse than the worst of having it.

Honestly there's like no better feeling than having a girl cuddle you with her head on your chest and you can just kinda feel your breathing lift her up and bring her down

I don't know if there's a psychological thing to that but I love it so much and I hate that I want it so bad
Fuck women

If having that passion is a good thing, why are gays so much more successful than straights?

that's exactly Hegel's view of (bodily) morality.

Sublimation is the wrong way to look at it.

Your force of effort and life isn't essentially sexual. It's just essentially creative, and most people are so boring that they choose the biologically default over what could be much better.

What is your question based on? Why do you think they are more successful, and at what?

Are you implying gays are not passionate?

What the fuck are you talking about?

The problem is that the wank doesn't satisfy the urge, it only eliminates horniness for half an hour. Once that time has elapsed, you're just as horny and as lonely as you were before.

Most girl's bodies are not nearly as nice as they look clothed
Thanks to leggings and pushup bras of any girl can create the illusion that their bodies are even worth fantasizing over
The average girl has terrible posture, tummy fat, a fucking wrecked vagina, skinny but also with cellulite, disgusting tits
Unless you're fucking nothing but 10s, 90% of the sex you will have will be disappointing
If I want to get rid of intrusive fantasies I just imagine what they actually look like naked

He is a faggot.

You dont have to think about sex that muc user

You implied that the curse of male sexuality and it's obsession with young women is also a blessing because it can be funneled into constructive actions. If that's the case, then why are gays more financially and artistically successful than straights on average?

Nah, I don't think that's the case. I think if you honestly went into your work after cumming, and really immersed yourself in that, it would be more than half an hour.

My hunch is that you stay consciously dwelling on the awesomeness of the sexual fantasies and the orgasm and actually WILL your desire to come back because you had such fun with it.

Same analogy with eating: me saying that you should eat if you're hungry doesn't excuse people from eating 11 packets of doritos instead of doing their work. At that point it's not about satisfying the need it's about avoiding the work.

Well what'dya know! He's still in my back catalogue.

The drive never goes away completely.

why cant you just accept it for what it is? you need some old bearded jew to tell you what you are? that's disgusting

In your work and horny example, you don't factor in how often it isn't just a "quick wank", nor how often it just means you postpone your work again because you've exhausted your energy. What about the long term, then?
>The second option is undoubtedly healthier and more productive.
In the short term, because you get rid of your horniness. But what happens when you don't do it for a longer period of time? I remember the times I tried to experiment with it where I really wanted to but still ended up focusing on whatever annoying work I had to get through. I wouldn't say it helped me focus more, but I think the feeling at the end was worth more than the times I jerked off, worked, and finished working. Also your example with starving isn't comparable at all. You don't need to masturbate in the same way you need to eat. Go long enough without ejaculating and your body will do it naturally in your sleep, but you will still be as horny as you normally would be when you wake up, in relation to how long you've gone from ejaculating on your own terms.

I don't know. I think I'm going to try my best to go at least two or three months without. I've been wanting to for a while and see what happens to my thought process, productivity, energy level and so on.

>Well what'dya know! He's still in my back catalogue.

He argues against Kant transcendental postulations basically.

>If that's the case, then why are gays more financially and artistically successful than straights on average?
What exactly did he mean by this?

I'm testing this. I'm doing 3 months no fap and starting a journal, just to see how it feels.

What do you mean?

>This is not a good thing.

Many famous composers would hold-off on masturbation and sex in order to foster creativity. How is that not a good thing?

Here is what Schopenhauer says:

It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex ; for the entire beauty of the sex is based on this instinct. One would be more justified in calling them the unaesthetic sex than the beautiful. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing.

This seems to be correct. It is only by a coarse, vulgar and sexualized definition of "beauty" that woman can be called beautiful, but the true definition of beauty must necessarily subtract personal interest, and particularly sexual interest. Aesthetic contemplation is impossible when under the thrall of sexual passion. The woman's body, viewed objectively and aesthetically, would be seen as Schopenhauer correctly notes. Furthermore, the woman is fundamentally incapable of artistic endeavor and the woman is unable to create anything beautiful.

But I would take it further. It is only through a lot of unnatural cosmetics (which includes not only makeup, but plastic surgery, fancy clothes, hair removal, tanning, and so on) plus extreme efforts that go beyond nature (extreme dieting, physical exercise far more than is normal, and so on) that woman can be considered sexually appealing in anything but a prehistoric, grotesque sense. The "stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race" is also hairy and immensely grotesque-smelling in the state of nature such as women existed throughout most history...men were only attracted to this in order to satisfy an animal and brute impulse, and in order to make children that would support one in old age.

Only under conditions of advanced civilization and leisure, and through the unnatural and extreme efforts hinted at above, can the woman be made to look appealing at all. But even then her bestial, animal nature still shows itself in her violent and brutish behavior. And so one is reminded, secretly, of her primal and grotesque origin as a "stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged" hairy, foul-smelling, hoarse-throated creature.

I'm used to it. Like other anons have said it's far healthier to indulge for a bit and focus on what you need to for longer on greater things.
But it's the lack of control I don't like. I should be used to a lack of control because that's life but it still is somewhat uncomfortable when you really think about it, near invisible forces inside my body can make me do things counter intuitive to my own prosperity because why not

It's just interesting to think about and I like to talk about it here even if my mind is pretty made up about it
Sorry to rant about this

The longest I've gone has been about two and a half weeks, if I remember right. And it wasn't even intentional the first week or so, after I realized a week had passed I wanted to see how far I could go. I definitely remember feeling I would get aroused by tame things more, and feel more energetic all around.

I mean in your example where you say the superego dominated the id, it leads to negative results. And the ego dominating the id can lead to positive long-term results. I don't understand how that's supposed to fit? Wouldn't it be the other way around, superego good long-term and ego not, or rather good short-term but not long-term?

It's possible to escape those forces, trust me.

Prostitution should be legal. The only reason it isn't is because women want to restrict male sexuality into forms that they themselves have complete control over. If men could get sex anywhere, the social power most women possess would dissipate.

>he's not homosexual
what a pleb.
Homosexuality can be an equally carnal sexuality (exemplified by the popular lusting on young boys) but desu, from my perspective the patrician homosexuals value the object of relationship higher than the object of sex. I haven't seen this be the case in any heterosexual relationship. at least I haven't seen it represented with equal male-female honesty, one is usually lying to some degree to the other

There's a profundity and depth within homosexuality that doesn't exist within heterosexuality

No, because ego is about realistic satisfaction of desires and the superego is the conscience, the internalized social norms and morality. If the superego dominates your desires in an unhealthy way (i.e. repression), you can get bad mental results. The ego just makes sure you don't do anything rash.

Keep in mind my use of 'unhealthy' every time I've described repression. One's desires being regulated by the superego is often a good thing.

>Homosexuality can be an equally carnal sexuality
homosexuals are much more lustful than heterosexuals. MUCH more. not even being slanderous or mad at them, it's a simple consequence of two mutually high powered male sex drives. any patrician will value the object higher than sex, plenty of heterosexuals do

also, there is a much greater depth in difference than there is in sameness.

First off, I completely agree that the best way to tackle this (if you want to) is to do the experiments yourself and record results. Everyone is different.

However, is this also not a whole other task taking up mental effort and commitment?

The tendency in response to my point seems to be that people want to think in extremes. It's either, cave in completely and wank whenever you want, or completely abstain and focus only on work.

It's so obviously neither of these and instead about taking the middle path of having kind control over your desires. Not suppressing them and hoping eventually they will go away (more likely they will be sublimated in ways outside your control i.e., journalling about your masturbatory habits instead of doing your work) or caving into them and wanking 7 times in an afternoon instead of doing work.

I think food is a GREAT analogy because like you said, your body needs to ejaculate, and you can make this more or less about conscious enjoyment of the process or not. It would be possible to live very healthily on food that is very cheap and brings next to no pleasure in consumption.

I don't remember exactly what Schopenhauer's conclusion, or whatever collective answer he had to "On Women", but I don't think he wrote anything on women as inspiration in that essay, did he? The whole "muse" aspect of sexual lust which obviously also applied to men, but I think was in general more directed towards women in particular.

I'm not sure why you pasted what some random wrote as well. The part in regards to modern women I don't think holds any particular truth. In the past, women were seen the same way by men, more or less, despite the lack of modern hygiene and whatnot. Women still drove men mad etc. so it's not like it increased through the ages as technology developed. If anything I would say it has decreased, especially since porn became high quality and easily accessible. Now men can look at women, all kinds of different women, naked, whenever they want. I think it has lessened the natural pull women have on men and skewed it towards pure sexual desire, and not so much the general relationship with a particular woman and all the emotions and feelings that come with that.

t. virgin
have you ever met a woman?
they fucking suck, i dated women for years and I hated every single one deep down. I only did it for fishflaps
I started dating men and I found someone who occupied an area of thought that was really interesting and interacted in a really complicated and deep way with my own. Women don't have a fucking area of thought, they're all the same, they're all bland and generally intellectually incapable.
If you're a genuinely intelligent male you wouldn't compromise so much just for pussy. I certainly haven't ascended sexuality but I think I view it pretty differently and I've learned to find men attractive because I realized by 20 that I could never be truly happy in a heterosexual relationship.

So that "greater potential depth in difference" line is catchy but turns out to be bullshit.

>have a desire? give into it, immediately!

postmodernity

So if you say to yourself
>I will not grant myself release for six months
and truly commit to it, succeed, and then continue, won't it become a part of your superego, the internalized norm and morality? On the occasion that you fail and end up doing it, because of ego, wouldn't you feel bad because you failed your superego?

I feel like there's more to gain in the attempt to completely abstain than to either completely cave in or attempt to do it every once in a while. Also consider how difficult it is to simply not do it compared to the other choices. And additionally, when you truly don't even have the time to do it, because of work or school, you're still gaining something from it in the form of the the build up, but you don't have that part of you which says "no", because you simply cannot find the time to do it, also in part to exhaustion. So if considering more or less total will over it throughout most of the day, to do it or not to do it, I think there's something positive to be found by continually denying it, saying "no", and moving on, for a longer period of time. The question is to what extent is it positive, and does it surpass how you feel when you completely give in at every opportunity or frequently.

You trying to say you made yourself gay by thinking?

>he can't make himself gay
It's actually pretty easy. Women do it all the time