Sunday, April 24, 2011

girls, relationships and tests

loveless relationships...
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 18, 2011 - 1:37am.

"I have friends who grew up in loveless marriages that have battled with relationship problems."

Loveless marriage and relationship problems would be symptom of the new society. Meaning men and females aren't displaying "properly" because of new social "condition-ings" and that is destroying attraction, desire love. (Thus the relationships are "loveless".)

Jeez. You don't pay attention well. Also you are willfully blind most likely motivated by a lifetime of political condition-ings which profit you. (You respond to someone who says "divorce was caused by feminism" with... "No, divorce was caused by loveless-ness", while ignoring that the modern "loveless" condition --lacking in attraction, desire and compatibility-- was caused by feminism. Ie I accuse you of childish tautology.)

And lastly, if feminism hasn't been the one major tremendous force creating the new social "condition-ings", then what would have done it? And WHY would any honest observer choose to ignore the tremendous force of feminism as that main driving force for change in our social sexual displays?

innate human tendencies
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 18, 2011 - 1:56am.

"It's "pretty obvious" there is a market, but extrapolating innate human tendencies from the existence of some websites is ridiculous."

Pretty neat coincidence that our human porn and erotic markets mimic to a tee the most numerously occurring mammal "ethological" (social sexual) mating rituals, huh? And further, pretty neat the way our male and female human biochemistries and lower brain structures mimic to a tee the other mammals' too?

Wow... That patriarchal social engineering is all powerful: it even "victimizes" the other mammals...

like teats on a bull...
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 18, 2011 - 2:16am.

The crossing of displays and desires (including femdom) was touched on by the article. (Go read that section again about the latent potentials in both genders --like nipples on male mammal.)

It isn't that complicated. And it especially should be understandable at a psychology venue, since psychology specifically deals with the numerous varied ways that "environmental constructs" (nurture syndromes, social condition-ings, "epi-genetic stresses") effect the individual --his chemicals, glands, nerves etc --as he/she matures.

Or if one chooses to remain _conveniently_ ignorant [ie politically motivated] and simply recite the glib cant of "genes", these other crossed-role types can be said to be simply genetic "outliers" on the successful-breeding bell-curve-chart. (Ie freaks.) _They are variants that can only survive now because of the NEW and recent selection pressure niches unique to modern human civilization (just like runty dogs are outlier wolves and can only survive now because of man's unique new selection environments)._

Not rocket science people.

[equal] partner...
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 18, 2011 - 3:52am.

You are not in self aware tune with what you actually want in a man. You keep your definitions purposefully vague in your own head. (See my final paragraphs below.)

Your ill defined "I just want someone with male genitalia"...

Those male genitalia would thrust into you (with none of that pubescent fumbling around), and he would hold your hips good an tight doggy style, put all his weight on you missionary and grunt viscerally when he cums, with lotsa confident eye contact. (Lets not even get into that he should make plenty of forcefully expelled cum, and pre cum and be 6-1/2 to 7-1/2 in size --things which are testosterone generated and therefore can vary based on environmental conditions.)

Also when sex is not occurring, the male you would be attracted to and even tolerate --especially if you are high sex and /or young and attractive (ie girl with "options")-- would have an assortment of "competencies" and strengths you lack (he'll also be taller than you). [The fact that females have gender-specific strengths/qualities that males need or desire is not relevant.]

You can deny that all you want --or misdefine it by entering the vague "partner" --but I guarantee it.

_The thing that you are --and all the nay sayers--and the society at large is-- not getting --the thing the title of the article tried to convey-- is that modern socialization is [not to mention modern selection pressures such as those created by 'criminal justice' are] rendering the male incompetent, low and unattractive to females at a base level._

That is especially true during ovulation. During that time, females look for higher male "strength" and they "test" / sass cruelly to see if bo or hubby has it. If bo or hubby has been raised by modern feminist conditions --notably single female parent or modern schooling --chances are he could fail the tests, causing all manner of "loveless-ness" to grow in the relationship.

You're the only one saying "[whips and crazy role-playing]" and defining things as cat stomper vs nice, equal guy. Ie strawman.

You have simply misdefined things in your head. That misdefining protects you. (Like it would for a computer on old star trek from being tricked into blowing itself up through exposed contradictions.) This mis defining and strawman is typical of most satisfied-- ie attractive, comfortable-- young modern urban westerners. (see SWPL)

intromission's point of entry
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 18, 2011 - 11:00pm.

"[There is no contradiction. A woman might want to be ravished in the bedroom and respected in the boardroom.]"

Most are missing the point. (Here and at the anti-viagra thread.)

Ie feminism has raised men to not be able to ravish properly. That is the contradiction. It has nothing to do with what Boopsy SAYS she wants or thinks is contradictory.

(Your female-human brain is all self entitlement; that is why you don't get what I'm saying... You say to yourself "I want a man to ravish me here but let me lead there; so see, silly there is no contradiction". It is not about YOU[eyeroll] it is about society at large.)

It is not --as feminists would screech-- that men don't like strong women. It is that females don't like the incompetent males feminism's success has created over the generations.

The other article tried to grapple with it a bit: Male intromission reflex (male mammal humping instinct) and female lordosis (butt in air/'heat').

Our society's rearing process has damaged male "intromission" chain reactions. That damage is caused by feminism. (It has nothing to do with what Boopsy SAYS she wants or thinks is contradictory.)

(Now some self satisfied SWPL will challenge telling us how "he and his wife have had 10 glorious years of femdom pee sex together and therefore society is not damaging anything", totally oblivious to the concept of anecdote.

And then some damaged person in the form of a wimmins' studies grad [the true high mark of intellectual academic achievement, ehem] will screed off some litany of rape propaganda and demagoguery.)

Defiying description
Submitted by Sean MacCloud on April 23, 2011 - 5:56pm.

The men that are to go extinct fight back and that fighting back is not some buzz word "misogyny". It is controlling of an important resource(female behavior). Controlling fems is like say building a garden: a very thing that makes us human. Allowing the caprice of female humans to breed swaths of men into extinction would be the primitive thing to do.

Honest interpretation of female character is not some buzz word illness: "Misogyny."

And ultimately your schpeel is rooted in a utopian belief that things will "work out" to some "equal" place --rather than hyena-dom or borg hive-- after Boopsy is allowed to get rid of strains of mankind. (Ie the men she doesn't like -- today.)

Not to mention getting rid of swaths of mankind would be "eugenics." I thought liberalism was going to protect low men. Now it is going to allow females to abuse them into extinction motivated by envy.

Not to mention, most of your post, if not all, is really just... um blech (it defies description). It's just political buzz words (looking for allies)...

"Might makes right" thing.... Please. As though female "emancipation" (ie their right to engage in _rampant non empathic dalliance_ from 12 years old to 40 [along with eugenic purges per your writing]) is not also dependent on a huge might makes right _UNCONSTITUTIONAL_ violence machine that females support every inch of the way.

And what is feminism (and the female instigated and controlled "battle of the sexes" before that) if not females complaining about and controlling any male "desire/choice/path" that is uncomfortable or less than ideal for females?

(On to your next paragraph. I could go through each one like this, cause like I said, what you wrote is... ugh... It is all self entitlement parroting the schtick of the zeitgeist.)

"Looking down on females." Females look down on themselves. Men actual desire and appreciate female um... well turned ankle issues. The looking down thing (your hand eye and other short comings) is your own female self-esteem issue. Meaning a self esteem category specific to femininity itself, given that you all are emasculated creatures by nature. While that stunted reality is not pretty (for nature is NOT), it is rather unavoidable without massive oppressive unasked for change of the human species.

If you mean, that the intelligent strong willed men understand and don't shy from the _fact_ that females are lesser in male aptitudes, well yes they don't, since you have less of important aptitudes than men. Nature is not pretty.

Forcing females "into a role", simply translates to controlling female hammer-swinging behavior (eg dalliance and abusive child rearing --pathology inducing actually [shame on the psycho-babble community for not crying that from its tower!]-- and neo cortex destroying inanity and insanity) before it hurts other people.

Control is exactly what females (and the weak males that define the upper ranks of civilization) want to do to men when... any male "desire/choice/path" is uncomfortable or less than ideal for females (and the weak males that define the upper ranks of civi).

[Regarding the "weak males in charge of civi" thing... You all should go read my site: I aint screwing around here-- I am very special and I am in earnest about solving this calamity that has _befalling_ mankind.]

This controlling of females into "role" obviously wasn't done adequately in the 20th century. _So much for the 'pervasive and oppressive patriarchy' _lie_._

"hating females in one's field." Hate is a strong word; You have evidence for this "hate" right? Competitors don't want the other to win, true; such is competition itself. Females don't understand this because they are used to being given food and sex--ie the core goals of competition-- without actually fighting to the death over said. (Such is nature for men, for nature is not pretty for them too.) [If that was supposed to be some dig against me... know this: I would never work in field that would allow a female to PRETEND she is my equal. Duh... I actually intend on having "hot sex". ;-) ]

Ie Nobody hates you. But there might be some eventual [I hope] actual competition against you all once your self entitled screed starts to take more of a toll on the amount of positions in society that men NEED (unlike females).

Men fight to the death to win the kind of status females are being given on a platter. (Men --and males across nature-- must have status --where some win and most lose-- or they will not breed, unlike females who are playing at career as part of their "make it more difficulty for males to get me" test).

You actually have yet to be competed with fairly; your "strides" in the 20th cent are conference, that males would never allow each other. While you pretend you are under siege from a dark force called patriarchy, that is all a part of the big lie. That big lie is indeed part of the sexual dance of this species: females complain and sound alarms[even cry wolf] from a high-leverage sexual place and men protect and provide).

[You all should go read my site: I aint screwing around here-- I am very special and I am in earnest about solving this calamity that has _befalling_ mankind.]

Next dissection of female open callosum...

"believing that how "women should act" according to whatever world-outlook one has (religious, evolutionary, whatever...) should be forced on women regardless what they ACTUALLY want to or do act like."

Strawman. Hint don't talk to christians/protestants or americans in general. I'm deadly serious: a failed meme and race of moronic delusion-oids.

I have nothing to say to your strawman other than the general stuff I have said here.

I don't believe religion or evolution tells me how females should act. I know --from looking at nature--that the utopian cults you rely on for your "strides" --and to be taken seriously with nothing more than a self entitled litany of buzz words (while you attempt to breed portions of mankind into extinction)-- are santa claus cult and will never, ever, never work out like you suppose or pretend they will. AND THEREFORE there is no reason for me /men to abdicate. Ie there is no moral presumption that would cause me to think I'm bad for taking the swinging hammer out of boopsy's hand. And even if there was some moral presumption, Boopsy's desire to take swinging tools[ehem] away from me, would void the 'moral presumption contract' anyway.

Females are just as desirous of controlling and "role-forcing" men as men are of females. The lack of vocabulary --ie lack of human brain wiring-- for dealing with this calamity['feminism'] (for it is a selection pressure that apparently has never happened before) simply allows Boopsy's self entitled hypocrisy to hide behind male libido and the complexities that have developed in modern "civilized" male human competition (ie utopianism beliefs[wishful thinking motivated by fear] and modern democratic politics [staving off vulnerabilities by buying allies]).

"basically, MISOGYNY is HATEFUL DEHUMANIZATON OF HALF OF HUMANITY to JUSTIFY oppressing or even enslaving them trough DISCRIMINATION and VIOLENCE - and the only ones who wish this are basically socipaths and mediocre-to-loser men who realize they don't have a chance with women if women actually have no fear of them and are free to work and survive without them."

You have no evidence for that (other than "hetero-normative" "rape culture" demagoguery which might as well be from Mars).

Meanwhile our society is a giant caste structure held together with hateful dehumanization of men (wimmins studies material, pressure group rhetoric, TV and advertising) motivated by irrational [and dualistic ally desired] fear to justify oppressing and enslaving men (men work and provide more for this society, enduring more of the burdens of that and getting less profit from it (including being 'bred into extinction' while still doing the work or being mocked for shirking) despite the debunked propaganda about '77 cent on the dollar') through discrimination (AA, draft registration, court law [despite the BS that it is "gender blind"], title IX, and the profound unspoken though very real emotional /psychological plane males exist on) and violence (police and other dudes who are already cowed and brainwashed and bombs for Arabs et al) --and the only ones who wish this are basically sociopaths (lesbians and ugly ducklings) and those with self esteem issues specific to femininity (ie inherently emasculated submissive reactionaries), the ignorant dames (ie most girls who can't think things through to conclusion as they play their instinct-motivated games), and the RUNT males who thrive and profit in civilization who realize that if they don't use females/feminism as a shield and grenade to get rid of better males that they --these runts [the males you are forced to endure wherever it is over privileged upwardly mobile chicks hang]--will be the first to become extinct in a world where NORMAL healthy un-oppressed masculinity prevails (you know the very stuff you fantasize about) and the girls who fear that without special unconstitutional discriminations benefiting them and without exploiting privileges --rooted in the underlying previous chivalry of the very patriarchy that is irrationally feared -- that they would not be able to work and survive.


"When "might makes right" go out the window, the genes of males who only can get girls in an environment of violence and fear, eventually go extinct - and good riddance :D"

An "environment of violence and fear"?!

Oh you mean the boys you like the best :D