Is sex not always submission for the woman? And thus humiliating for her.
Sex for men is always "conquering", meaning someone must have lost (i.e. the woman). I don't think this is socially constructed though, but the most natural power relationship between humans.
Can any self-respecting woman really ever allow herself to get fucked?
When a women has my dick in her mouth, and she looks up at me. I feel like a god damn king.
In my mind, I see her down on her knees servicing me. When she is bent over in doggy, and she looks back at me, again, I feel like I'm in charge; like I'm owning this.
I can't help but feel this. I just do.It turns me on I suppose, and it seems to turn her on as well.
I'm a woman too and I have been struggling with this. When I am with a woman, I want nothing but foreplay, kissing, heavy petting stuff, no interest in penetration. With a man, I mostly just want him to take total control and "use" me. A lot of the time I specifically want it to be quick.
None of the books or essays on sex that I have tried, by men or women, make any sense to me.
>explain femdom as a whole
A conscious detournment of established power relationships, existing within a safe environment for the submissive partner with the understanding that the general, social order will persist after the session is completed.
It's not really that "empowering" if your real about what's going on.
from my experience with with they always like the guy to take control and be dominant in the bed room, obviously with consent. even when watching porn with women they will want me to find the video. i would even go as far as to say women like me to take control outside the bed room. what confuses me though is that women never actually say it, they just insinuate it.
>Also, explain femdom as a whole
Like most things sexual anything forbidden is sexy, or anything you repress gets out in the bedroom. Women are suppressed, and thus enjoy playing dominant in the bedroom.
But it's always role-playing. The male being the dominant one sexually is always the foundation and the biggest truth. Both partners secretly know this, despite the role-playing.
It's an existential fact.
All sex is powerplay, more or less.
Doesn't make it bad. Both roles can take the sub/dom dynamic, and there's nothing particularly wrong with being either, unless you are really out there with that role.
However I can't work out what cuckoldry is about and how it can fit into my understanding of sex and gender power. But I'm sure there's men on this site who can tell me all about it.
That when I (a man) am fucking a women, I see her in a submissive state and myself in a dominate state. I get off tremendously this way and she does too. She desires this domination and I desire to dominate her. The more I take control, the more I toss her around, the more she loves it, and so do I.
We are all fucking animals. I'm just the male animal. It feels like fucking animal instinct at times.
well in that case, if youre submissive its perfectly fine to feel that way, if it makes you happy or wathever
but generaly its a generalisation to the point of going full retard
even if in some cases operatively the whole sexual dance thing seems to take that form, only naive idiots actualy believe the female partner is ever 'conquered', and in most steady relationships its a absurd notion, again unless its some dom-sub thing where again it takes two to dance
on the notion of someone having 'lost' or being 'humiliated', this would literaly pressupose a rape scenario, or similar coercion or conflict, where the act is one of 'taking' as if by agression
most human relations dont function that way and women actualy desire getting fucked, being humans, and therefore sexual beings with physical needs that are best filled by physical intimacy with loved ones and repeated vaginal penetration
notice also the fault in your 'power relation' logic
while the man can satisfy his urge to dominate and agravate trough hard rough fucking, its the specific consent and willful cooperation of the woman that actualy determins the entire game, to the extent that a woman has the power to withdraw this consent, as shes the one that actualy is in the possesion of the desired fuckholes, thus the power-relation is in fact tilted in favor of the female side
same thing goes the other way if you assume a woman desires cock, but then you have a supply and demand problem, since women can allways get cock, but men have to bend ower backwards to have a steady satisfying sexual relationship
>inb4 hurr force fuck sluts - but, thats not a satisfying steady relationship
On a basic win-loss level, sex is an exchange that benefits both the male and the female as a male gains an offspring to assure the survival of his name and blood. The female gains protection and provisions so she can fulfill the role of caretaker. Both parties also lose from this exchange. The male must share his provisions amongst his family and the female must submit to the male for her survival.
Depending on the context and times, whoever gains the most out of the act can be described as the "winner". On a sexual level, things get vague since you can't accurately gauge pleasure, especially without context. Does a person who gains pleasure from being submissive really lose anything sexually? Perhaps you have to factor the person's social-standing?
because its confusing as fuck for guys. its almost like you're trying to fight against your nature and we dont know what to do. this is why you have really feminine guys now a days really confused because they think being nice is enough to get women. this is why i haven't went out with a women or even slept with one for over a year. too much drama and confusion. women also always expect the man to say a certain thing with out us being aware, its like you get pissed off with us because we are not controlling enough. i dont even get it. i just want a house wife that loves sucking dick.
>Women want men to be in control because of their sexuality
>Feminism is a political doctrine that says women should have control of the state or be equal to men
Make up your minds: do you want what you want or do you want political power?
As far as my first time (I'm male), I was pretty stubbornly abstinent (Christian highschooler). My girlfriend at the time (freshman in uni) was the one who coerced me to take each others' virginities, "...because we're going to get married anyway." So, I felt pretty submissive being enveloped by her (she was on top) when she put me inside her. Any thoughts?
Sex is only "submission" if you're with a brain dead woman who just lays there like a dead fish.
This is probably the greatest problem with feminism: in making women eternal victims it takes away any agency from them and makes them feel unable to be anything BUT a victim.
Sex isn't some violent act of submission ala Andrea Dworkin's wet dreams. It's a dance requiring two people and is made better by both parties participating. Instead of being so stuck up about roles and sociology in your fucking fucking, why not just fuck? Men have a penis. Women have a vagina. Do what feels good. Sex is natural in the most literal and objective sense. There is no vast conspiracy involved in men thrusting. Even dogs do it. Are dogs part of a vast conspiracy too?
That isn't philosophy, that's a vague assertion resting on a number of unstated assumption. You haven't even formed a syllogism. Even if you did that there's the whole is/ought problem, which the person you're replying g to commits anyway.
There's a difference between observing and understanding reality and creating overly reductionist and generalizing political ideologies that are not based in observation and fail to describe or understand reality.
You can look at it however you please but
the truth is in principle
recieving and giving
both happen simultaenously and cannot exist without each other
woman gives herself to man
man recieves her
man gives himself to woman
woman recieves him
To think that one is inferior to the other is a failure in thought and ignorance of the ultimate unity, or oneness, of the eternal dichotomy.. Yin and yang
Yea of course people are able to have sex for multiple reasons, hell to take it to extremes how is necrophilia related to power? no one would argue that this is 'natural' but it happens, even in other animals, just because you can experience it as dominant and submissive doesn't make this intrinsically related to sex (even if it is common).
submissives gain wastly more than domminants tho
the dominant is actualy servicing the sub, providing the sub with specificaly the conditions and relations and interactions that satisfy and please the sub, that apparently the sub 'serves' is just the explicit form of the game
its basicaly the same in any non-abusive sadomasochistic relation, sure the sadist gets off too, but the masochist is relieved of the whole burden of willpower and identity, the sadist liberates, uplifts, and does all the 'manual labor' like screaming orders, aplying constraints or dealing out pain
in short its a game in which 'weak' piggybacks on 'strong'
It is only humiliating in a specific modern male mindset which I would argue is the dominating one, even for women. However you said "always" but this mindset was not always the dominating one or at least not in the current configuration, and it is not dominating everywhere in society, there are always fringes. This guys post: >>676708 wasn't that stupid in this regard.
What you are arguing was discussed in the 70s feminist theory but is wildly disregarded nowadays. You could dive deep by starting Foucault (The history of sexuality) or with something light (I would recommend Laurie Penny but not because I like her but because she included hints to other theorists I value).
Yeah I know but the only other authors I know writing about this (Andreas Reckwitz) write in German and their stuff is not yet translated.
If you are wired to think this way so am I and this post is only the result of a biochemical reaction. Bringing biology as the determiniating factor of human behavior into a discussion about human behavior renders the discussion pointless since every statement would (after we except the assumption of biology as the determinant factor) be determined by biology.
We can only discuss human behavior if we accept that there are social, cultural and historical factors influencing it.
Have you read anything by him? I don't cheer him but he always uses a massive amount of historical sources to make his points. My only basic claim was that sexuality and the way in which it is perceived changes. >>676819 is totally wrong.
Even if you don't accept Foucaults conclusions (or get totally ad hominem) you will still end up with the knowledge of a variety of sexualities in history, which I though would be a good point to start.
Not that anon, but maybe because even if no one is inferiority, one person could perceive themselves as inferior, even though it isn't intrinsically humiliating someone could perceive it as being humiliating.
There is no meaning inscribed in the sexual act itself (Lacan). Sex is not just penetration but includes and always included a lot of activities that can't be described as "giving" and "receiving". I mean I like your train of thought but like the biology guy you "eternalize" stuff that was always in flux.
Rereading your post. Maybe you are not "totally" wrong (which btw would mean that some early feminists are right saying there is an eternal element in penetrationional sex which led them to the claim that hetero sex is always bad) in saying there is a ying-yang aspect. Still I would argue that there are parts that are not eternal and that these are the (only) aspects we can talk about.
How does that have any effect on the truth? You need a man AND a woman to procreate, not simply a man. To the philosophical mind, the only thing that distinguishes submission and domination is intentful approach. Not the physical act alone.
Inhale and exhale are both acts of breath.
The way I typed the post has no bearing on the truth presented.
i dont, that is why it is discombobulating at times. normally though its just stuff like choosing what to do for a date, and being the one to make suggestions. i hate the way its like this sometimes but often i like to be in control because from my experience women have shit taste. last time i was on a date with a girl, she put in the worst film i have never seen. i was put off straight away.
>How does that have any effect on the truth
(I'm the guy who has the bio degree, I didn't write this >>676768 but I can see the angle).
Sex isn't always restricted to procreation (even dolphins have recreational sex), I don't think there is any inherent inferiority involved, but to deny the subjective experience and interpretation would seem to be an incomplete picture of the situation.
You're confusing penetration with dominance.
I'm a bisexual man. When I have sex with men, I am mostly a bottom although I have topped. In all the encounters with men I have had, I have never felt as though I was submitting to or being dominated by them. It was just sex. I like getting fucked, they like fucking.... that's it.
When I have sex with women, I feel the same. I might have her tied up with a ball gag in her mouth, but I'm not dominating her. If she wants it to stop, it stops.
Anyway, yeah. ITT: Wizard-level virgins proselytize on sex.
That's an interesting viewpoint and describes who gains more pleasure by gauging the effort put into pleasuring vs. receiving said pleasure. The sub gains more while performing less but when the dom gains pleasure from the effort put into dominating, doesn't this question turn into a sort of chicken and egg dilemma? I agree with the fact that the sub doesn't need to put in as much effort as the dom but you can interpret who gains more pleasure from multiple viewpoints.
Alright then, well let's leave biology out and go over the sexual, social, cultural and historical factors. As OP asked, having sex as a woman i.e submitting means losing but if a woman gains pleasure from submitting to a man, does she lose anything? I'd argue that it's all contextual and can be interpreted differently whether it's sexual, social etc.
>To think that one is inferior to the other is a failure in thought and ignorance of the ultimate unity, or oneness, of the eternal dichotomy.. Yin and yang
I was more so talking in relation to
>To think that one is inferior to the other is a failure in thought and ignorance of the ultimate unity, or oneness, of the eternal dichotomy.. Yin and yang
I'm just giving my opinion, I'm not an expert.
this anon >>676907 knows a lot more than I do about the topic.
>Alright then, well let's leave biology out and go over the sexual, social, cultural and historical factors. As OP asked, having sex as a woman i.e submitting means losing but if a woman gains pleasure from submitting to a man, does she lose anything? I'd argue that it's all contextual and can be interpreted differently whether it's sexual, social etc.
I agree but I hyper-agree with you.
>having sex as a woman i.e submitting
It is perceived this way let's say in the mainstream. I argue that even the idea that receiving is submission has a certain historical place and is by no means inscribed in the act itself.
Hey mate if you had read the thread you would know that I would have agreed with you in sort of did in previous posts.
Sex is never just sex. You need phantasy, desire etc. to gein sexual pleasure. Those fantasies and pleasure are (partly) the result of your social, cultural and historical context. You didn't invent those practices (tying up, gagging etc) you took them of of a certain setting.
The very idea that submission/domination is bad is the result of the a society that describes itself as democratic. In ancient Rome there was nothing wrong with being dominant.
I am not trying to say being bi is wrong or anything but just because you don't think about what you are during sex doesn't mean there are no subconscious processes influenced by your personal experience (which again is influenced by external factors) going on.
>People unironically quoting Lacan in this thread
Why are you doing this and why is nobody reminding you that Lacanianism is a cult? Even if he makes philosophically interesting observations there's no reason to believe that what he says is true.
>inb4 'muh what is truth?'
Fuck off, this is all I'm going to say about the matter. Anyone who takes Lacanianism seriously has already abandoned the road of reason.
It is a social construct, which does not mean "arbitrary". But it certainly is a social construct. Understand what the term means before dismissing it since fat chicks with blue hair like to use it left and right.
Clearly power relations ARE a social construct, since it is a complex behaviour that CANNOT be genetically determined. Doesn't mean any culture could see it any other way (well theoretically it could but doesn't mean it would)
it is the opposite, women engulf men like they are eating them and absorb their life energy which travels to their womb and becomes a person which they later poop out (like what happens to food)
>Is sex not always submission for the woman? And thus humiliating for her.
you look like a typical 20 yo ....
you do understand that women love sex, love to love sex and men are desperate to make women wet since they feel validated and attempt to pathetically turn the table because they despise knowing that they are tools to ease life of women ?
>You know like men has self-awareness and culture and dogs don't?
Can you point to the anatomical feature that endows humans with self awareness, and demonstrate that dogs lack it? Is a dog pack any different from a human society?
Mate. Just read and try to understand >>676874
If you still want to argue biology you can go full compass circuit but without me.
>Is a dog pack any different from a human society?
>no tradition, no artistic expression, no technological progress, no laws, no preservation of knowledge, no rituals, etc.
Nah, it is pretty much the same. You win.
inb4 nitpicking like
>but muh dog pack has a social order
This is not law.
I might easily argue you find sex with these men exciting because it lacks the cultural burden of marriage which would just prove that your sexual activities are partly the result of your social and cultural environment.
But that doesn't answer his question. You still haven't shown that sex is some bizarre power dynamic. If dog sex is different from human sex, what makes them different? Because humans are "smarter"?
I don't think you've actually thought or read much about this subject. I encourage you to stop thinking in terms of rigid political dogma and start examining things.
To the woman, there exist two types of accessible men : the lover and the confidant, the entertainer and the provider. The woman desires the most entertainment from the men whom she covets, with the fewest judgements from and responsibilities towards mostly every person from whom she cannot be satisfied, unless she has some fantasies about them : the impotent, the ugly, the destitute, the weak, the virgin. Each woman knows, even explicitly claims!, that she is not on earth to be prude, just as much that she knows that there is always one man more devoted, than the others, to her : her challenge is to know whether she can win even better than this goose, in seeking the ideal stability of a few relationships, more or less explicitly open, as well as the excitation from all the fun and drama expected to be offered by superior men. In one word, the woman seeks the men providing her with the playgrounds which are the largest and safest for her to enjoy her histrionic nature.
In being turned towards pleasures, the female fantasized about the life of men which would have been nothing but about pleasures, without any hardship, or at least more enjoyable than her “enslaved” life. The female has never been “liberated”, since she was never been caged concerning her love life, even though, for millennia, knowing intuitively how she behaves without supervision until her menopause, the men expected her to control herself a minimum. Her supposed novel “liberation” was nothing but a response, full of merit and pride according to her (quite expected knowing her), from the contrived prudishness of the previous generation — well, not the generation of aristocrats, for those have always been liberated, therefore fighting, through their notion of merit, against their lassitude, for decades if not centuries. After having for decades demanded from the society various perks, the woman market becomes, to those who can access it, instantly wider as well as more liquid. The questions become thus “why to enter this market?”, “how to enter this market?”.
The woman constantly follows her desires, especially those leading her, she expects, to many refined pleasures; thereby, the men whom she appreciate can push the limits of behaviour towards her, whereas the lesser men, the poor, the ugly, the impotent must follow rigorously what is socially expected from them in each encounter with every female; in general, those men must not interact at all, at risk of being pegged as a pervert and accused, more or less explicitly, of assault, even before they have done anything. Can be shamed, sometimes publicly, about their virility, even the men whom she does not despise beforehand, but failing somehow to please her.
Once pegged, by at least one woman, as litter, these men will be irrelevant to any other female around at the time of the pegging : her essence being sexual, the female does not hesitate to discuss, amongst her female friends, her lovers and their performances, their perks and their drawbacks wherewith they come. Indeed, in order to grade the men, with respect to their potential ability to satisfy her, a female relies on the personal experience as well as on the members of her species, by pure mimetism : when she sees another female accompanied, she believes that the man must be worth it, worthy precisely because he apparently manages to satisfy one woman; the man is viable. A man making her believe that he is her boyfriend can notice such a situation when he attaches himself to her and suddenly notice that who seeks satisfaction from him is at least one other female, possibly even more relevant than the present one. The more a man manages to make a herd of females believes that he satisfied many other such creatures in the past, the higher ranked the man is, all more so as an entertainer, by each woman.
Her quest being to “feel the most alive”, as the industry of leisure sells it, her moaning, her orgasms being such a epileptic seizure, her little brain sparkling such as a firework, offering thus the highest hedonistic yield, it is no wonder that the female thinks sexually, wants sexually, does sexually, exists sexually. This strange little creature knows thus without a doubt why she is on earth, what her nature is; she wants to feel alive, to “live her emotions” without serious danger, nor risk, nor effort. The woman blossoms the most not in pure sex (all the more so a few years after her menopause), but rather, first, in the divorce-separation, second in the sterility-nulliparity, in the infanticide-abortion, then in the sex, in the birth, and lastly in the seduction.
We see thereby that two types of woman exist : the woman public in public, the woman public in private; the one already feeling empowered in assuming her hedonism; the other one dreaming all day long about it, dreaming to be liberated by a man without any negative judgement (especially public); to be, more or less secretly, a frivolous little minx, if only in dilettante. This second woman is submissive in appearance; she is passive, fantasizing about waiting for at least one man who would reach her true self, for a few to the extend that he would irremediably unlock her, through what she would felt as a rapture. She remains the most nihilist of the two, for she wishes to live, to be woman, only on her terms and conditions, only when it suits her. Yet, she finds a few manners to live.
Indeed, the woman wishing to be more woman makes love mostly with her mouth, through the kiss, whereas the woman who is far more advanced in her being, do not hesitate to involve the rest of her body, to the same extend of her mouth, if not more. Unfortunately for her, most men fail to acknowledge how important, for her, is her mouth.
A second illustration of the crucial divide between the two happens during the separation, sooner than she expected, between her and one of her lover : for the woman existing as woman as much as she can, a early separation is sign of defect on her part, more so if the man went for another woman, leading her to wonder what went wrong on her side for him to go away so fast; for the woman dreaming to acknowledge her nature, fantasising her will to be woman, the early separation is a sign of a fault of the man, especially if he left in the first weeks of the relationship, be it due to her or another one; the woman wishing to be potent moves away rapidly from this failure in thinking that this man is nothing but a good riddance — not to worry, she will find new lovers in a blink of an eye.
The woman lacks the reflexivity bringing a lack of equanimity as well as of efficiency about her behaviour; she is a pure actor in the world, she cannot pause, she cannot take time to stop herself in order to reflect on what she thinks, what she says, what she does. Sometimes, a sudden reflexivity comes by pregnancy, when not aborted, which remains caused by her eternal ignorance, her incapability of introspection beforehand and too often, the woman is at sea when strikes this minute observation on her existence which leads her to not be able to inquire further : to reflect on her reflections, discourses, actions, to put forth always more space between what she feels and what she believes is her self.
In being so close to what she desires and feels, the woman naturally believes that what she does is sound, coherent with her “finding herself”, “finding love”, that she is not ego maniac, or even that it is altruistic, that she searches for her happiness just as much as she wishes others to be happy : if she feels good, it can only means that others involved in doing what she does feel just as good.
Naturally, all hedonistic that she is, sooner or later, the woman faces the difficulty that is the lassitude stemming from her wealth of emotions; a difficulty undermined for a moment thanks to the easiness of obtaining a diversity of attention from the herd of most men, especially once that the she manages to pass as a powerless creature tormented by the men. By her lack of reflexivity, the female however remains in the hedonist pendulum : she swings from sheer satisfaction towards a sadness, only to swing back, once a new man in sight, towards a pleasure more or less already lived, but different enough to be worth living.
Many men claim that, contrary to the men, the female is the least rational creature, whereas the men would be the least emotional. In reality, the exact converse holds : the woman perfectly knows what she wants; her hedonist stance is the more logical for, after all, everybody loves their pleasures just as they show aversion towards their pains; however, she fails to notice that her hedonism remains inefficient, by its fruits hardly permanent, due to her lack of reflexivity. And the swan song for the woman is found in the forty-year old divorcee, not so cliché, believing to emancipate herself such as in her twenties, alas remaining unable to even give the men an erection, once she denudes herself.
It is not rare that, all exhausted by a few decades of living in what she conceives as the “present moment”, in order to better live, a new life begins as the female approaching her menopause calms herself, in discovering a mild state of ataraxia blended in a longing for the golden times, believing to have reached thus a new liberation leading her to discover her truer spiritual side, less egotistical, and leaving her a bit perplex. Even the young female taking the holy orders does so only after a few years of proud liberation, where she stumbles upon a spiritual path after thinking that she is disenchanted from the men, from the emotional life.
Most men remain, on the other hand, completely emotional towards their existence in general, towards the woman in particular. They lack the notion of efficiency, if, by some miracle, they manage to know what they want.
Does a female love a man as a man loves a female? No; the female does not love the man; at best, the woman loves to be loved as well as adores to love to be loved. Most of the men love a woman such as most of the females loving their children, up to, for too many men, talking to the female in puerile manner in public; whereby most of the men completely failing to understand that a man must take a female with detachment, such as an owner loving his dog, such as the scientist towards his experimental subject. The lovers plays along, play her game precisely for he is not egotistic, but only narcissistic.
Her lack of reflexivity renders her the most untameable creature that so many men attempt, drawn by her, to domesticate only to perish faster than a moth on a night lamp, due to their innate failure to seek a reality outwards themselves, something that the inwards attention of the female prevents her to endure. Her nudity is the force of the woman : she makes her lack of apparent shield the most powerful one, so that the woman never lies to who takes the moment to observe her, yet without hesitating to crush every man whom she judges cruelly unworthy of her. So much power appears as beauty itself but, naturally, once that the higher man reaches her, he understands at the same instant her vacuity, or rather, the debilitation of his original quest.
The nature of the woman leads to a masculine discrimination of men with respect to their behaviours towards the female. The most common kind of men is naturally the beta, in other words, the men devoted to the female; the men seeking, from the female, some “meanings to their lives”, some faint relevance, validation of their existence, to grasp their existence by the reaction of the reality onto themselves, with sex, they think, yielding the best result for this purpose. Since the female herself seeks the men from whom she expects the most pleasures as well as the least displeasures, the first kind of men divides into three sub-kinds : the first sub-kind is the man who attempts to proudly content the female foremost via the flesh, in betting on his appearance as well as his performance, for, irrespective of her beauty or age, the woman is explicitly no longer in the habit, if she ever was, to compromise on her desire of sex; the second sub-kind is the man who attempts to satisfy the woman foremost via the mundane amusements, in betting on his finances, typically in offering her various activities; the third sub-kind is the man who tries to provide the woman with comfort, either material or emotional — the famous emotional tampon. These are the three sub-kinds of the beta man; each one of these men offers his services to the woman and wait for her to accept him or reject him; all of these men take a passive stance and completely depend on the woman each day of their lives.
The three betas are disposable by their nature and by their number in the world : the betas are a cheap commodity which is not scarce at all. Let us be clear : the men do not enjoy sex for sex, only the female is able to do so. Every man understands perfectly that the sex is, at best, a surge to unload as swiftly as possible which is not worthy of a dedicated life. The woman appears thus, crucially, as far more : given her nature, she is the easiest manner to go beyond the surge and even though most men go beyond it, they do not go beyond the female itself; not even the seducers who long, more or less secretly, for a relationship. They are right since any territory beyond her remains uncharted; it is a field of possibilities.
The betas create themselves a hierarchy of men, which revolves around the degree of satisfaction of the woman from the betas, since those are devoted to her. These men know perfectly that the woman is sexual, which puts the kind of men seeking her sensual pleasures on the top of the hierarchy. The lowest beta is of course the one furnishing the emotional comfort, since this comfort provides the lowest one and is no longer about the direct pleasures, but about the easing of her pains.
In this hierarchy made by the betas, the beta attempting to gain the attention of the woman through her amusement lies between the first and last kind of betas. In taking for granted the striving towards the woman, therefore making it implicit, these same men believe that the explicit financial wealth of a man is what distinguishes, even more, him from its peers. They fail to notice that many empires have not arise and many have fallen due to a single woman.
The lowest betas are denied the access to the woman, which only leads them to build resentment, not towards the female (since they praise her unconditionally), but towards the seducer who “does not respect the woman” from which the female adopts, still according to those confidants, the disappointment from all men. This tactics permits the lower betas to keep a hope to please the woman of their dreams, in a vain attempt to show her that “not all men are the same”...
The female creates also a punishment for those men who fail her, an humiliation on the virility of the men at her disposition; for instance, in disclosing to the failures themselves, the performance of her other lovers, former or current, or more subtlety their names at the right moment, in order to keep the interested, to strengthen their dependence and the competition : they might have not met the standards expected by the woman, nonetheless she still refuses that they leave her sphere of influence.
She can prevent those men depending on her to depart towards other truths in ridiculing them about what she makes them believe is their essence, the essence to seek a relevance of their existence through her existence. No wonder why she dares to demand and generally obtains a faithfulness from most of her lovers — the woman demands the faithfulness because she is not faithful herself, thus knowing the danger, towards her interests, that this behaviour represents.
Once ended her various love stories, until she finds new ones, the good little boyfriends-husbands-fathers must be dedicated in providing a safe net for her, in listening to her life at diner, in sharing, day after day, the chores, the bills, the rents, the care of the children and, of course, her states of hysteria, more or less pronounced. The playground provided must be the largest possible; the best boyfriends sanctify her, up to the point to being proud of, for instance, not even thinking of touching her handbag nor of manipulating her telephone. In being devoted, once in some relationship, the betas tend to think the mother-whore dichotomy; these men accept that the girlfriend-hood or the motherhood is a redemption for the female, from becoming a “sinful whore” after she looses her virginity. They equally take pride from letting the woman to act as she desires. Nonetheless, more or less consciously, a few boyfriends acknowledge what is the nature of the woman, without hesitating to share the girlfriend, notwithstanding a behaviour going from a will to be seen under a favourable light, up to a touch of bitterness taking the form of an assertion, more or less explicit, of power over her lovers, especially when those do not come form the circle of friends of the couple, rarely over the girlfriend itself. The man in free relationship thinks he has the advantage, over the temporary lover, for the he would permits the temporary lover to indeed be a lover. The boyfriend chooses to forget that if his couple itself picked up this lover, other couples and other females could easily pick up this lover as well.
>mirror test for dogs
You're taking animals with extremely poor eyesight and asking them to compete with primates and dolphins, who do you think will come out on top?
You can't recognize your own scent, therefore you must not be self aware.
t. Doggy armchair philosopher
The female knows that the good lover appears as selfish towards her, in bed or not, just as much as she is towards the other men, if not more. The lover and the female match, click, the relationship sparkles to better enliven her. This new kind of man is the second and last sub-kind : the man who is not devoted to the female and even less to her sensual quest; a man having such an independence form her, that she senses it quite easily. This man belong to the alpha kind. The alpha man naturally turns the table with the woman : all indifferent that he is when he must deal with her, it is now the woman who must show that she is worthy of him, typically in hearing that she is wrong in behaving in such or such manners which makes her strive after that she thinks that the alpha man betters her; whereas, when it comes to men seeking validation through her, the betas proudly do not demand anything from the woman, the woman waits for the first men, amongst the flock of all the betas, who complete her list of requisites. If the beta dares to negate his docility suddenly, the woman will drop him or punish him. In one word, the beta is primarily devoted, the woman is primarily egotistic, the alpha is primarily narcissistic. The woman confuses the narcissism of the alpha and her egotism : she is drawn to him.
It is with the alpha man that the woman “feels alive”, “feels like a woman” the most, by her work that she must furnish in order to be even considered. The alpha man rewards the woman when she has proved that she merited him. It is this man who gives “meaning to the life” of the woman; she knows that such a man is exceptional, thereby that he is worth it, just as the woman knows that, as she wishes, she has the power to make the three betas feel relevant in their lives. For once, she knows that a man is above her, that there is better than her, that she can be relevant towards somebody for once, only if she is good enough.
The alpha man knows that the absolute liberty plays against the liberty itself, whereas the woman only knows this through an intermittent intuition. He gives the woman a frame of restrictions wherein the woman can plays in liberty and it permits her thus to develop her faculty to enjoy herself and the world, to attain the most jouissance, to be what she thinks she is. For him, each female is, at best, a springboard for a new woman. A woman lives in a network of other women who wait to be taken. Once more, this situation goes in the opposite direction than the case of the beta males, which the woman knows that they come and go, that they are easily affordable, easily replaceable since they let her do what she wants. The beta has faith in the absolute.
We could expect from the woman that, by her existence naturally revolving around the tragedy and the drama, she would become an artist, a creator, an inventor, but that would be missing the evidence that the female does not live through such excruciating lives. The woman remains poorly creative, precisely for she has an interest in art, for she believes that she has “something to say”. Her interest for the expression is personal, always directed inwards her.
On the contrary, the masculine angst brings some abilities, themselves leading to creativity : mostly as males who seek the feminine approval through the mundane activities as well as the comfort, the men are not interested in the drama nor the tragedy, even less when their lives are filled of events of these natures, but those few at ease with communication becomes the perfect artist, inventor or creator, which attracts, incidentally, the female. The lesser exposition towards the female of the alpha men leads those rare men naturally to a strong intellect, or for the fewest, to wisdom, foresight, in particular once equipped with equanimity.
It becomes manifest that this kind of man knows that there exists a life beyond the seduction, contrary to the first kind of beta male, knows that there exists a life beyond the entertainment, contrary to the second kind of beta male, knows that there exists a life beyond the woman, contrary to the third kind of beta male. There exists a famous saying : the difficulty is not to come in the brothel, but to come out of it. If they must apply a dichotomy towards the female, those rare men choose the whore-saint one : they take the woman for what she is, a public good, her only pure state being a virgin.
Sometimes, gifted with reflexivity, such men have a strong degree of equanimity which permits them to appear infinitely more detached around her. These higher alpha men leave, without resentment, such a binarity as the whore-saint; happily they accept the woman for what she is; they do not expect anything from the woman, they do not blame the woman, they do not despise the woman, there would not even be a relevance to do otherwise. He understands that the female is a different creature from him, as he understands that an order between the female and the man remains unbecoming.
Contrary to the three kinds of beta males, the alpha man cherishes more his time and serenity; he leaves the woman, her quest for pleasures, her worries, to the other men passing after him; in having none dependency towards her, the alpha man understands that, as nice as it is to take a female when he desires one, it is even more delightful not to have a woman when he does not desire any. The alpha man understands that the woman is a sheer amusement.
On earth to be shared, in heat all year long, the woman is a whore, as so many say often bitterly, but the whore is equally a woman. In living so essentially for, by, as well through the histrionism, the pleasure, the frivolity, the superficiality, the woman knows why she is on earth, shows herself as she is, to such an extend that nothing remains more beautiful when she rests in her purest state, the one where the female acknowledges and strive to coincide with her nature.
hahahhahahah what a virgin perma beta youa re
This post is a dumb post.
>if we admit biology has any effect on our social interactions, it must be the sole driving force, and everything ever done by any human is 100% biologically hard-wired
That's a blatant false dichotomy and you know it.
>tfw it takes me like 30 minutes to come
>tfw my dick gets so hard that sex actually hurts
>tfw only have sex once or twice a week and i'm a skinny DYEL so i get tired and sore
>tfw my gf wants to have sex a lot more
But the average feminist probably thinks I'm a sex-crazed maniac who lives to violently penetrate their vaginas in an act of masculine self-fulfillment. Fuck that shit, man.
Personal relationship depends on individual personality. Most dominant relationship is submissive women/aggressive man. However there are Aggressive women and submissive man, both aggressive/submissive woman/man.
Although I should say, 100% of my experience comes from hentai. A wizard's knowledge is limited in the normie world.
Those are much rarer though.
People are berated with this meme from birth so most people are indoctrinated in without even noticing and just assume its nature
This fucking meme has brutally murdered my sex life
fuck this meme
If sex is always female submission, then an army falling back and allowing a salient to form must be considered a failure.
Envelopment =/= Embrace
Penetration =/= Assault
Go back to Man Hating 101.
>Sex for men is always "conquering", meaning someone must have lost (i.e. the woman).
Jesus Christ what retardation. The ones who lose are those who lose access to the resource (i.e. the other men).
When the USA conquered California, did the land lose? No, the mexicans did.
I never used the term power dynamics or bizarre. I never even used the word "power". The fact that you argue in the way you do pretty much proves that you are projecting something onto me that isn't there. As for me not answering your questions: You didn't address any of the points I made and since I am not, and I assume that you are neither, I refuse to debate you on a neurological level. Your (implicit) claim that the human brain doesn't differ from the animal brain is plain retarded though.
> Marc Bekoff developed a scent-based paradigm using dog urine to test self-recognition in canines. He tested his own dog, but his results were inconclusive
It is literally in the article.
Also I made more point that self-awareness. You are nit-picking.
Mirror test nonsense. Pigs pass this. Do pigs have sexual 'phantasy'. From which setting did they take their sexual practices?
Isn't it amazing that every other mammal has sexual desire independently from cultural cues, apart from homo sapiens who are some kind of evolutionary oddity? Bizarre how this evolutionary oddity just happens to coincide with a particular ideology
Women test men, because meek men are incapable of providing.
Should men be able to *prove* themselves viable mates, by a display of confidence/skill/strength/ingenuity, then they have earned the respect of the woman. Thus she feels comfortable with him.
Men who fail a woman's tests, aren't given allowance. Because they can't get resources, they won't take care, they can't protect, they can't build. Meek men are useless. Not only that, but meek men often have worse health. Poorer genetics. They're weak, depressed, prone to diseases, and allergic to everything. No one wants to have a kid with that.
So women tend to feel good about having sex with dominant men. Because dominant men provide every advantage to a woman.
>woman i.e submitting means losing
>Sex for men is always "conquering", meaning someone must have lost (i.e. the woman).
cant it be that the woman "won" because she has selected a desirable mate according to her criteria and turned down undesirable ones? the man has "won" not in the sense that you "conquered land" but more like passing a test.
if feel like using "won" "lose" and "conquer" dont help to understand the true nature. its simplified and projecting human ideas onto things that arent laid down by human intelligence, much like we call them "laws" of nature but again thats projecting our human society on natural mechanisms.
Every society not fully engulfed in some warrior-based culture/religion knows that women are meant to submit. It's not humiliating in the slightest. Everyone KNOWS they are physically made for it, and the majority of men certainly want it.
You are all fucking WRONG.
Sex is not submission for women, sex is not domination for men. Sex for men embodies masculinity, strength and power. Sex for women embodies femininity, beauty, and desirability. Men get turned on by feeling in control (FEELING), feeling strong, feeling like a fucking man. Women get turned on by being wanted and taken by a strong mate, by being the object of desirability. Normal sex for men and women is supposed to elevate both the man and the woman.
When men watch porn they want to fuck the girl, when women watch porn they want to watch the girl get fucked. Men and women have different, but mutually beneficial desires in sex. These are often confused with control, domination, rape culture whatever but that is all bullshit.
I'm also a female for anyone curious. Girls that say that penetrative sex is dominating, humiliating, or 'rapey' are brainwashed adult children who don't understand anything, they accept the stupid reasoning their college professors impose on them instead of reaching actual maturity because they've never had to before.
Nietzsche talks about how the Ubermensch should have only a "basic" interest in sex and marriage and I tend to agree. Sex for pleasure or self-validation is a bottomless pit. The only redemption sex can have is when it is used for political and social purposes, i.e., to act as a formality for the purposes of bringing otherwise unrelated families together, increasing the social cohesion of communities, creating home environments optimized for the successful development of children. Marriage exists so that people can utilize sex to its fullest potential.
Sex can never be artful or wonderful or amazing except for the people who are doing the act, but as creatures of community everyone else who witnesses it must necessarily be disgusted by such a stupid and violent physical act. For this reason there can never be a philosophy of sex just like there is no philosophy of eating. Biological functions are just that, functions, and when they are divorced from their simple utility the result is an uncomfortable proximity to the ever-present fact that we are at our most fundamental level crude and vulgar animals.
For these reasons, I implore any young people reading this to forgo pornography and casual sex and instead focus on more elevated pursuits like studying or the arts. Use sex in the context of marriage for hypergamy, but don't fool yourself into thinking that sex itself can ever have any deep meaning.
dude it's philosophy of sex
women can literally only think in terms of their disgusting flabby cunts
that and shit-tier philosophers
at least Schopenhauer had interesting ideas in his metaphysics of love.
How about a real answer:
According to Firestone, a 70's bra burning 2nd wave feminist, love demands mutual vulnerability. I think, with sex, it's easy to say, " the receptive partner is the submissive one"; that usually being the female, genital wise. When in reality, all actions are guided by intention, and intention is not as simple as "men do this" and "women like that". There is as much vulnerability in the entire process before and after sex for a man, as there is in the sex act for a woman. Likewise, the largest act of trust and vulnerability - even on a biological scale - is on the women to physiologically submitting herself to possible pregnancy. But that is not to say, that all sex is dominance-driven reproductive-intentioned sex.
in that, contrary to a virgins analysis, there are dopagenic molecules producing love, and a sense of affection and emotional expression in vulnerability in the sex act. Contrary to what porn might lead you to believe per-coitus, coitus, and post-coitus is like.
Hobbes believed in a sort of feedback cycle, where by one partner is actually deriving more pleasure not form the physiological sensations of the receptive act, but the mental sensations in what the act means. One partner pleasuring the other by the fact the other is pleasured. That there is more to the physiology of sex and the assumed application of dominance and submissive roles in regard to holes.
IF the girl fucks on top, is she not dominate in proximital relation to the male? In other words, what defines submission and dominance? Is that not in the intention of the agents performing the behavior? If it is not, and it is a matter of physilogy and "penitration" - as sickening third wave circles have come to say - is not nature humiliating?
Further, by what regard are we considering being penetrated social-status submission? By whose standard? If not by the nature and universe giving quality to the "submissive" orifice, who can claim its a 'bad thing'
No man, this is going to cause problems. I'm just killing the canary now. You'll all see. I've seen it happen countless times before. This board'll split and when it does I'll be there, watching, laughing. "I told you so."
/his/ is a combination of three boards people always wanted; history, philosophy and religion which can be connected together that's fine at least for now. Once this board gains enough traction though one of these groups will split apart and get their own board. Or not, all depends on how popular the board gets first as it is.
and don't you forget the connected but still fiercely independent discipline of Political philosophy, which is more politics than philosophy, and most of the time is just people people shitting on communism, fascism, and liberalism, along with failed attempts to define fascism
>Is sex not always submission for the woman? And thus humiliating for her.
Sex is always about submission. Not all women like to be the ones that are submit and not all men like to submit.
Take this feminist theory piss shit back to your containment board.
Motherfucker, you wanna stand somewhere in life? You missed your chance to stand in the line for egotistical assholes. But since you like the idea of "standing," try standing in another anon's shoes, one who was born to average intelligence from average parentage in an average slice of life. I'm trying to make something more out of the scoop of shit that is my life since goddamn birth - belligerent violent father, alcoholic mother, foster care, dropped through cracks in the so-called "system" that is American culture, shuttled from one place to another being told as long as I could remember that I was an unwanted mistake until I dropped out of 10th grade barely a year before I wound up in prison where my IQ was tested at 138 and I clawed my way to a GED followed by 3 associates' degrees. After I was released I nearly died the following summer from heat stroke at the only job I could get due to having a felony record. The following year I signed up for a 4-yr apprenticeship with a building trade, during which I saved every slimy little penny I could so I could afford to eat while trying to make something more out of my life other than digging ditches or groveling about in a line of work at which you would not only laughably fail but would quite possibly have lost limbs or died, assuming your spoiled little ass would have lasted more than a week. And you want to try to discourage me? I have survived shit in life you probably couldn't even handle in your most terrifying nightmares, let alone live with every day of your pathetic existence, and you have the audacity to tell me not to bother?
this belongs on >>>/tumblr/
Sorry your sex life is shit. Way to project your sexual failures on to the whole of the human race. My gf loves sex. She loves going down on me, she loves riding me, she loves letting me fuck her. Not because she's brainwashed by the patriarchy but because we love each other and sex makes us feel closer to each other.
So shut the fuck up with your "conquering" and "humiliating" theories. Maybe don't have any one-night stands, or don't have sex with someone you aren't in a committed relationship with. Otherwise sex is something beautiful and natural, and I can't believe people like you want to fuck it up for the rest of us.
>Women are suppressed, and thus enjoy playing dominant in the bedroom.
But they really don't. Women who prefer being sexually dominant over being submissive are very rare, something like 10-15%.
two ideas i think are important to this discussion:
1. most women achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation, something many men ignored/denied in various periods of human history. they are also more likely than men to be able to climax multiple times; the refractory period for a clit is typicslly nonexistent. this gives women an amount of sexual power we often joke about when we ask if a particular man is able to satisfy a woman; they can marathon sex so much longer when they want to, and they have a range of specialized toys to cope with the male lack of endurance.
2. the prostate is as comparable to the female G-spot, if not more reliable. a prostate orgasm is much different, physically, from a normal ejaculation. like the G-spot, often all that is needed to reach this magical place is a finger.
so, both men and women have the capicity for pleasure from their phallus being serviced or from getting penetrated.
to me, the ideal heterosexual relationship will see either partner pleasuring the other even when the act (sucking a dick, licking a clit, fingering) serves no immediate gratification for the partner doing the "servicing." it's a great way to bond with your partner before, during, or after "fucking." it demonstrates a willingness to meet the other's needs beyond mere reproduction.
and as for intercourse, it is usually the man who collapses in exhaustion and falls asleep afterward. his genitals are external, vulnerable, while a woman's provide him a safe place to achieve pleasure. who you see as submissive in this scenario depends on context.
postscript: a lot of attention is paid to female rape fantasies but not much is paid to how common male-male fantasies are enjoyed by women, even lesbians. between that and the widespread use of sex toys among women it seems there is something in the way heterosexual sex is socially constructed that is failing to meet the urges of a whole lot of women.
What about the loving union of heaven and earth, yin and yang spiritual energies mimicking the unification of the material and metaphysical at the beginning of creation? None is in control, rather both contribute distinct and co-dependent parts of the whole.
>they can marathon sex so much longer when they want to
It varies from person to person. In my experience, some women (like some men) can marathon sex for hours. Other women get sore or tired after sex. It all depends on the individual.
>It varies from person to person
yes, but the clit is better structured to go again after climax than a penis is. thus the meme of women turning to vibrators when the man is done.
obviously all sexual behavior varies but speaking in generalities for the sake of the thread, women have more sexual endurance.
I'm not even sure that's a reasonable generalization. I'm ready to believe that there may be more women with exceptionally high endurance, but someone would need to really demonstrate to me that this is indicative of a significant difference between men and woman and not just a reflection of masculine insecurities before I would believe it.
Some say that our biology has accustommed us for gangbags
because of the shape of a penis, to scoop out the semen of the competitor
and because of how women can last much longer and their orgasmic organs are out of the way of vaginal sex
threadly reminder that not all societies have the man-provides-for-woman-and-his-offspring model. in some cultures, children are raised by their mother's families, and male children when grown take care of their nieces and nephews, not their children.
when lineage is traced on the mother's side, monogamy and finding a "strong provider" as a mate are not important. the "women want alphas who will protect them" meme is cultural. humans are way more plastic than that.
I wouldn't agree with this statement. I'd say that maybe in early days physiology played a role in dominating sex (in non consensual cases) but in modern times I'd say no. Sex feels just as good for women as it does for men, and is only an exertion of social power in specific cases (in some cases as well it may be the woman exerting the power). Now, most cultures up until very recently looked on sex as am act of male power, but there is very little reason for this anymore.
Memes are usually generated and successful because of nature. This is one of those cases. Sure, in this case it doesn't have to continue , but there's natural/ evolutionary/ genetic reasons that it came to be which need to be addressed rather than thrown under the rug.
>tfw I never new this was a thing
Is there any good torrent for the full game series in english? I couldn't find one.
That's presuming natural instincts are opposed to "civilized" action. How do you know all we built was not just a natural instinct to build shit. As far as we know human beings could be unique in having a natural instinct of making philosophy.
>all I want is a house-wife who loves sucking dick.
Really though, sex is not about power. Sex is not really about anything specfic. It can be many different things to many different people.
I have sex with the person I love most days of the week. For us it is not about power or submission or even getting off. It is more like physical reassurance and connecting, it is about not being lonely by being as close as can be. We often joke during sex and whatnot.
Now I am not saying it is that for everyone or anything, but that is what it is for my partner and I.
Accepting sexual urges as a natural pleasure has nothing to do with hedonism or thoughtlessness. You can enjoy both big cocks and philosophy.