Don’t take a female intellectual too seriously. They are “bipolar.” They are mostly only good for stimulation. If she doesn’t even look good, don’t waste time looking.
Just because something is natural, that doesn’t make it good. Cobras are natural. Doesn’t mean we want them.
A kink is something that diverts. Whores who call themselves “kinky” concede the point, a kink having a twist. Although I have my own fetishes, none of them have anything to do with violence. It is all based, disregarding the “sub.” connotations that a deluded aesthete would have, by the original context of a fetish – an object of stimulation.. I always use the word fetish of the context of the original meaning. If we consider fetish by the original context of an object of stimulation, we conclude that female sexuality is vastly different because it is simulation/role oriented much more so. Women are contaminating the social dynamics.
The literary critic: Camille Paglia makes the assumption projected from the feminine that sexuality is mainly aggressive. She is wrong. Brain chemicals released during sex, such as oxytocin, causes males to put “women on a pedestal,” for a lack of a better description. Most feminists don’t even desire proper sex. Camille Paglia might have been fooled by the first waves of Feminism – masks. Paglia, another idiot, believes the female idea that sex is about “power”, when it’s really about giving & receiving. Society is the source of sexual violence: the busy lives of competition/ego-seeking causes stress: stress causes hostility. Males were persuaded by external forces to find food, etc.. A.P.S. lists irritability & out-bursts of anger as one symptom of hyperarousal. Society has a tendency of inhibiting the gazing/fetish based nature of masculinity for the power-displays for whores. Just because rude sexuality can unite in a complex male mind, & appear fine, doesn’t mean it is the masculine indication.
Camille Paglia, you ugly fucking faggot, you are not objective or a scientist. You are an aesthete, & I know “faggot” sounds “wrong” of this context for using it to a female. It’s a metaphor. It originally meant a bundle of sticks.
These philosophers (like Jordan Peterson) are pretentious, lame, pseudo intellectuals & pop. philosophers. Aesthetic analysis & Jungian Archetypes are inflated & a waste of time. Sure, there’s some truth, but it’s not necessary, & they’re over-inundating actual good, quality philosophers & scientists. Aesthetics is pretentious, & I’m not stating that to be inflammatory. It’s just an objective definition: The process of creating aesthetics is imagining another world. You are pretending when you do this, so people who start long discourses on the validation of aesthetics without even realizing that just proves how preoccupied they are.
Some ( like J.P. ) have the idea that order & chaos, good & evil, etc., are for each other – that you “can’t have order if you don’t have chaos.” This is false. Good & evil is created because we have the choice. You can make good or bad choices. It’s simple: If we make better choices, we cancel chaos. If we make bad choices, we have more fear-based mentalities of callousness & vain inconsistency that women have & of being grabby & greedy & “loud”, etc..
As women complain about wanting to get paid equally to men for not doing work that men do – more hours, dangerous jobs, etc., there is a homologue of the exact same thing: the shaming to “beta” males, which doesn’t have objective meaning, implied by whores is just males giving to females when they complain, etc.
The taboo of women infatuated for criminals is actually more common than thought .
A local artist of Portland Oregon, which I have chosen to keep mysterious to reduce slander issues, has gained money for the purpose of donating books to prisoners. This was captured on social media before it could get lost with the shuffle:
There is a pattern I have noticed with female collectives of which when fathers give too much to their daughters, they contribute to the next generation of the above phenomena  – whores with stupid plans, picky mentalities to the point of bad selection, etc..
What a clever deception. You are not a “mystic.” You’re a slovenly piece of shit, & that is the valid Jungian archetype. You’re also a failed alt. girl because, if you weren’t, you would be jaded with all of that. You are attracted to degeneracy, & you are just waiting for your pathetic boy-friend to fail to be replaced by a savage.
I knew that money collector. She is using fake virtues, that is the most exciting to her which sustains her attention, whilst maintaining excuses for her immature sexuality. She told me that she cheated on a past guy because he “put her on a pedestal,” which the REAL reason is obvious. My rhetorical question is: if she’s willing to save convicts this way, why wouldn’t she be willing to save that other guy who supposedly had a “flaw”?
Contrary to what some might believe of female rape fantasy being a result of directly only to be due to repressed sexuality of females – to have men take the stress away, which is a Feminist theory that female rape-fantasy is due to repressed urges due to slut-shaming, professional researchers found the apposite: women who are more confident have more of a fascination with rape & more arousal level to rape fantasies.
The fantasy enjoyed with this research was the male expresses attraction & communicates to her. She is unresponsive. Then after refusing him, he overpowers & rapes her. She is resistant, but the coercion is enjoyed.
This not only proves the hypocrisy of the “me too” phenomena, but also proves how it manifested: by cancelling good communication skills, she calls whatever impulse of males she likes winners/dominant, whatever she doesn’t like to be harassers. No wonder women are anti-science, etc., which is ultimately anti-civilization.
A total of 62% reported to having these fantasies (exploring other aggressive fantasies.) Considering that this research also proved that women are anti communication skills, there’s probably a secret percentage that is more.
Again, a result of that study was that women who want rape-fantasy have high self-esteem. So much for the idea that they are just timid, little submissive creatures – no: they are egomaniacs selecting more egomania.
The ultimate correlation is not women “wanting men to lead.” Ultimately, the correlation is that women are immature, prone to sin, & hate (OR USE) rationalism.
Of course, that study on female rape fantasy was “stuck in a little box”, as the author made an opinion that these whores were “fine,” because they failed to realize the next:
The celebrities & aesthetes who could assume the public would accept an immoral, slovenly life were also violent, had narcissistic personality disorders, were cruel, & dirty.
Unsurprisingly, these aesthetes & inflated losers had other women gravitate towards them.
Jean Paul Sartre, professional philosopher, had the Feminist Simone de Beavoir with his credo of “travel, polygamy, transperancy” – inconsistency, just like their philosophies. He boasted of his affairs, proving that, regardless of the mask women use, they promote barbarism, & that most of what women say isn’t even real.
It’s interesting of the mindless hypocrisy of the feminist: S.D.B. claiming to “know” masculinity as the “toxic, oppressive” force, yet indulging with that very thing that is only a small percentage of masculinity.
Ernest Hemingway, with four wives, was abusive & alcoholic, & was a notorious liar.
Pablo Picasso, acclaimed as the greatest artist of twentieth century, was also abusive. He was an expert manipulator. With an interview, he stated: “I am only a public clown… I have understood my time & exploited the imbecility , the vanity, the greed of my contemporaries.”
Picasso was faithless & cruel to all of his mistresses, & brutally beat his mistress Dora, even making her unconscious many times. He burnt another mistress of his with a cigarette, & even refused to take her to the hospital for birth, telling her to find her own way because he had to go to the 1949 World Peace Congress.
There are others, & it just proves that whatever “flashy” facade a bad man has, women will go to it like a fly towards shit.
Egomania is not masculinity. Women just promote more & more of that by being with these few & then inflating it.
The problem is not women as servants. The problem is women are prone to be that to the wrong men. This is what happens when women are allowed to monopolize.
It should be known though that trad-con women like Phyllis Schlafly might be anti-feminist, but they are pro male disposability. It’s questionable what trad-con writers like Phyllis Schafly would do if they weren’t critics. Would they have the same exact tendencies? Probably so. because the truth is is that Feminism & the female ego are the same thing with different masks, &, proved earlier, female linguistics is not real, & they, in fact, hate proper communication, so next time you hear of this “bullshit,” as they would say, of the so called “friend zone,” & that the guy was “too nice” or a “beta,” realize the REAL reason of it.
1: fetish – dictionary-dot-com
2: The Brain That Changes Itself, Norman Doide,
M.D. ,pg. 350
3: Stress Effects – stress-dot-org
4: Anger, Hostility & Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in Trauma-Exposed Adults: A Meta-Analysis, Ulrich Orth & Elias Wieland, .p 1
5: Jordan Peterson – Why is chaos symbolized as feminine? – youtube-dot-com
6: Professional Victim Culture | Tommy Sotomayor & Stefan Molyneux – FreedomainRadio-dot-com
7: Why women really DO love bad boys: Females are more likely to lust after people with criminal records than males, study finds, Ryan O’hare, dailymail-dot-com
8: SHOCKING! Former Feminists Ticking Biological Clock Causes Major Panic! | Stefan Molyneux – FreedomainRadio-dot-com
9: Women’s Sexual Fantasies – The Latest Scientific Research, Dr Raj Persaud & Dr Jenny Bivona – PsychologyToday-dot-com
10: Feminist Fantasies, Phyllis Schlafly ,p. 67-72