Why is everyone and their pet author/philosopher afraid of female sexuality?

>Would men ever want to be seen in a demonic way when it comes to their sexuality?
There's many ways to be demonic. Women are easy to forgive because of their womb/sex value, men are more difficult. Everybody appears acceptably demonic when they can be forgiven. Though 'demon dick' exists, and women fantasize about dangerous men, bullies, pirates (scum and villainy) and werewolves, so I say men are 'demonized', and it's mostly harmless. Sure, some innocent ones in the age group 15-24 may have low self-esteem and high suicide rate because of it, but it's not like anybody cares.

It's a complex thing. However, if we want to grind it to simplicity, it would be that the base building block, or cells of societies are not individuals, they are families. Functional cells perform better. Sexual morality exists to bring balance and validity to both sexes, not a total domination for one. In fact, men have to suppress the rape urge just as women have to suppress the whore urge.

There's literally no one afraid of female sexuality.
All men can see through the soul of a woman when he is truly desired, the feeling he gets is pity and a knowledge of his own superiority.
Women, to feel better about themselves, knowing they are second rate, try to transvalutate this judgement from pity to fear, like the asshole with no friends who convinces himself that he is "intimidating".
Every man who was truly sexually desired in this day and age knows this truth

Attached: 1556518747635.jpg (500x683, 89K)

I‘m not entirely sure how to express what i want to express. I‘ll try. With „demonized male sexuality“ i didn‘t mean the kind of alpha male fantasies some women might have about men. I mean more the raw and animalistic power of uninhibited sexuality and that exists in both genders. It seems like the male uninhibited sexuality is more socially accepted than the female equivalent, thus making a demonized masculine sexuality almost impossible or at least less frightening. The kind of „don‘t you dare unleashing the beast“ sexuality.
My question is if men take pride in being seen as sexually unleashed or uninhibited or if that isn‘t something they want to be associated with in general.

>bring balance
But what makes you so sure that the raping and whoring wouldn‘t bring it‘s own balance? Why is the artificial balance favored?

>There's literally no one afraid of female sexuality

Patriarchal traditions worldwide, maybe?

>It seems like the male uninhibited sexuality is more socially accepted than the female equivalent, thus making a demonized masculine sexuality almost impossible or at least less frightening. The kind of „don‘t you dare unleashing the beast“ sexuality.
My question is if men take pride in being seen as sexually unleashed or uninhibited or if that isn‘t something they want to be associated with in general.
It's actually the contrary, and you are terribly naive if you don't know this

Wolves are monogamous, dogs are polygamous. Wolves live in small groups guided by the oldest couple, dogs live in huge communes were they don't even know who their grandfather is.
Think very carefully about what is "natural "and what is imposed by a sovrastructure

The pity you feel when you are truly desired is because you don‘t see yourself worthy of being desired or loved. The fact you see the ones desiring you as inferior further cements this theory. „no woman desiring or loving me could ever be worthy because she desires and loves something unworthy“.
It‘s not a mark of the inferiority of women, it‘s the mark of a man who knows his faults and thinks that one can only love and desire something immaculate.

Well, that could be. Or it could be that I'm not the one on my knees with cum all over my face begging to be called a whore.
Women are not-threatening

>It's actually the contrary, and you are terribly naive if you don't know this
Why should i be naive for asking? Because this seems very strange to me. Male ideal sexuality is portrayed as wild, uninhibited, unleashed, yet you tell me they want the exact opposite. Women‘s ideal sexuality is portrayed as timid, pure, gentle, yet from my experience, that‘s the opposite of what women want their sexuality to be seen as. Why is this?

>yet from my experience, that‘s the opposite of what women want their sexuality to be seen as.
>Why is this?
Because you have very little experience with women

This image is only degrading if you see your own cum as something dirty and defiling. Why do you feel that way? Shouldn‘t it be seen as something worthy of worship?
It is also only degrading if again, you think worshipping you or your body is something only people not worth respecting would do.

Begging to be called a whore is a desperate attempt from a woman to free her sexuality. She WANTS to unleash, but she can only do so when she can find pleasure in being socially degraded. A whore. The worst a woman could be if you ask moralists. Worse than being a murderer.
Because as a woman you only have two options. Castrate yourself sexually or be a whore. A woman begging you to call her or be your whore has chosen the later because she could no longer bear the first. There would be a third option, but humanity has long left this one behind.

>Because you have very little experience with women
I am one myself and i have seen this in many other women too. I‘m also not the only one who observed this.

Sounds like a faulty analogy to me. there are all sorts of things if you want to compare humans to wolves and dogs, that you haven't taken into account, such as scarcity of resources, etc.

I did learn something about wolves though, and that is worth something.

How do you want your sexuality to be seen?

Give examples from books.

>She WANTS to unleash, but she can only do so when she can find pleasure in being socially degraded.

My god this is a 21st century post if I ever read one.
In the past women used to 'free' their sexuality by committing to a man emotionally and then using her body to produce him children and pleasure when not working.
This scenario is not degrading.

Why modern women have it in their heads that sexual freedom means you have to be like a rockstar groupie and get (((pissed))) on, is beyond me.

As both pure and unleashed. As wild and gentle. As a force of nature and a quiet exploration. As loving and animalistic. As careful and consuming. As everything it could be instead of what some ought it to be.

This historical conception of chastity is a myth. Reread the post on wolves and dogs.
While the worshipping part, the god knows to be superior to the worshipper.
He can judge, and either have pity/mercy or condemn. We generally don't condemn.
Women are generally bad at externalizing.
See pic related
Domesticated wolves while keeping their wild temperament start having the same disfunctions of dogs: strict non parental hierarchies, polygamy, lack of parental investment.
Dogs who became wild again, after a certain number of generations, lose those disfunctions

Attached: The-Elephant-Rope-300x203.jpg (300x203, 15K)

Attached: 06ED5EF3-AABF-48AF-98A0-EC8C62B6C0FC.gif (188x174, 490K)

>Male ideal sexuality is portrayed as wild, uninhibited, unleashed

No it isn't, maybe in porn, but not in the real world. Idealised male sexuality is simply a man who is successful a lot, anything else is a vast exaggeration who assumes more than 10% of the world are club-goers who grope strangers.

Different mating strategies. Ideal = long-term. Current = short-term/hybrid.

OH puhlease. In so sick of vapid women glorifying their sexuality endlessly. We get it, it's all you have to offer

It's Yea Forums, not a literature board.

>wamen wamen wamen wamen wamen
if they are so worthless then stop talking about them constantly you frigid larping faggots

>using her body to produce him children and pleasure
at least you‘ve put free in quotes...

I think that is YOUR image of freed female sexuality. And that‘s exactly what i meant in my op post. You think that if you wouldn‘t domesticate females, they would all resort to degeneration. And for some, that would surely be true. Just as some men resort to sexual degeneracy. but the opposite of domesticated female sexuality isn‘t degeneration.

The problem here is your hyperbole of 'animalistic activities'. Which is not attractive to men at all, despite what you've read.
I find upfront women attractive but only because they're honest. Anything 'overtly wild' screams STDs and I will immediately assume you're trash wife material and have fucked several drug dealers.

is this a rupi kaur poem?

Slutty girls that acknowledge that they’re slutty and have no shame about it are fun and cool. That’s sexual liberation done right.

The problem is sluts who deny that they’re sluts. These types tend to be insecure and unstable.

The question should be 'Why are people in favour of monogamy'?

Prove it

>Which is not attractive to men at all
Maybe that‘s because i don‘t do it to please men.
I have also never implied that inhibited female sexuality is synonymous with adultery.

I‘m honored. Sort of.

And why do you think that monogamy and freed female sexuality can‘t go hand in hand?

I honestly don't know what to tell you, completely submitting to a men sexually within a committed, mutual relationship is the peak of female sexuality.

If you honestly think there's anything more liberating for a female soul than that, you're honestly broken or dreadfully naive. The opposite of domestication (which is not what I'm talking about, that would not be mutual attraction and would actually be more objective and sterile) is "free love" which we actually know from the fallout in the 60s that it provided the highest divorce rates, the most STDs, the biggest wave of women unable to bond with their partners. You're literally turning your back on thousands of years of 9 month demanding emotional attachment.
Any woman in a sexual relationship for less than 9 months and without the expectation of long-term livelihood for it is broken. Don't dodge it. Just like a man whose body count is upwards of 10 is actually a whore.

Not her, but "free love" is the product of domestication

What do you mean by "deny being sluts"? Why would a girl want to admit to being a slut? Especially since the word has a history of being used to police women.

I'm talking about the hippies in the 60s, don't be dense

Hippies in the 60s are the product of domestication

The female gaze is sexual selection itself, if men understood it en masse and women were aware of its utility and social power there would be an incredible tumult in the mating market and lots of lower status males would kill themselves, women would go nuts with sexual behavior and society would basically fall into a sexual stasis, or socio-sexual arms race.

Men can be accentuated publicly, you can campaign against or for male sexuality. Female sexuality is immolationist, it is totally emulsifying and will capture, digest and annihilate the psyche of the species. Male and female are not the same. Men rape with their gaze, women castrate. Castration is worse than rape and this is why there are more female ancestors than male.

you are a woman so you aren't very good at externalizing, even if i were to send a killer reply about monogamy and 'freed human sexuality' you will disregard everything and respond with halfwit, so the problem here isnt the question but the woman trying to find answers. you are not seeking answers, you are just bad at externalizing and want to tell men how to think and feel because you yourself are a ~liberated~ woman lmao.

why are women so afraid of domestication, is it like Zizek says that you want "love without the fall", why do you fear control and systems when without it you would be completely lost (unprotected, no lineage, no family, no resources, no food.)

You are delirious and disgusting

>. Female sexuality is immolationist, it is totally emulsifying and will capture, digest and annihilate the psyche of the species
Why?

We are under control of the system, though.
Free tribes in the paleolithic, where humans are the most similar to how wolves are in nature, don't know the concept of "masturbation". They find sex a sublime experience and love the pleasure they get from it, yet they know the purpose of it it's procreation, and are monogamous.
It's only when we are domesticated and caged that we see rampant sexual disfunctions like we see today

Wait, the man is immolated? How? I thought it was the woman. Unless the woman is in the active role, and man in the passive.

It is a measure by which men are judged, and it's is out of control of either an individual or the society as a whole.

I could not have produced a more retarded paragraph if I tried. Holy fucking shit.

I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't answered
for example.

Because you are dumb and naive as OP.
You are misguided as fuck. There's no such a thing as "women's liberation" it never happened, and never will

What's wrong with sexual liberation?

How young is this poster.
Grow up, when you discover physicality without bonding is completely functionless and only serves to hollow people who consider sex to be functionless in the first place.

It displaces the vast majority of non-high tier males. The frustration this causes creates an islamic-like culture of violence amongst them - including suicide bombings.

We're waiting.

>The frustration this causes creates an islamic-like culture of violence amongst them - including suicide bombings.
Almost no "incel" committed any of those. You are misguided

One can only be surprised at your oblivious implication that female sexuality isn't powerful.

By that, I basically mean a girl sleeps around, is open about the fact she sleeps around a lot and doesn’t care if people have a problem with that. Basically a girl who acknowledges a casual fling as a casual fling.

A slut in denial in this context would be a girl trying to disguise the fact that she sleeps around.

Traditional sexuality is a social technology. It's like throwing out your main firewall just because it's outdated - literal insanity.

suicide bombers are lured by promises of virgins ... when they die. Let that sink in.

I don't think you know islam that much, and I'm an islamophobe

Because it's mindless

The first is just an upper-class female who can do whatever she pleases due to her class. The second lives in the high pressure environment of the lower classes which is a direct result of scarcity prevalent there.

This
>There's literally no one afraid of female sexuality.
and this
>Most of it is actually women gossiping and destroying 'easy access' competitors
I remember in school we boys were always told not to slut-shame girls and so on, but nobody would have anyway -- we thought the loose girls were great for obvious reasons. It was the girls who called each other sluts, gave each other bad reputations and so on, simply because the girls who had been popular before didn't want to put out, but also didn't want to lose their social status and be relegated to third-rate girlfriends.

what's female sexuality

Who are you thinking about? Schopenhauer and his poodle? Who else?

Sex is fun
They wouldnt date the non-high tier males anyway
How?

Please correct me

>I mean more the raw and animalistic power of uninhibited sexuality and that exists in both genders.
Well, consider that men evolve faster due to the bottle-neck caused by women. We have twice as many female ancestors as male. Female sexuality is 'demonic' because it lags behind.
There are ways for men to make their sexuality evil, via porn, pua, slave harems, emasculation (cutting off the balls/foreskin) or the like.

> I mean more the raw and animalistic power of uninhibited sexuality and that exists in both genders.
I think the litany of 'no's' from women kill that off pretty quick. If you are from a culture that values a woman's "opinions" (they aren't expressed in words, ever).
>But what makes you so sure that the raping and whoring wouldn‘t bring it‘s own balance?
It would, but that's not a groundwork for a society. It's more like the ghettoes of negroes.

>They wouldnt date the non-high tier males anyway
They'd wouldn't be able to without dire repercussions.

Casual sex? You don't have feelings of emptiness?

If you have casual sex and you don't feel bad, congratulations, you're broken and will never be happily married.

Well, there's many reasons. Mostly because the processes of courtship would be predictable and transparent in both results and execution and would overall exact an influence that would help achieve certain goals of the system - such as production of children, getting male investment in society, etc.

I do but they dont
What do you mean?
Some just want to have fun

Having fun is unsustainable. Luckily I hate the West and don't really want it to be sustainable.

>It seems like the male uninhibited sexuality is more socially accepted than the female equivalent
Yes, it changed during the 19th century in the West. Before that, women were viewed as the ones that couldn't control themselves, while men were made of pure reason.

I mean women get fucked and corrupted, society degrades and becomes much weaker and then we have to clear up everything, usually by blood, it's not fun you know.
Consequences are always on men.

It's kind of annoying that people first always accuse us that we're just scared of "strong women", and then when everything goes to shit, they start screaming how we have failed, that the right has failed, that we're worthless garbage that can't get anything done. Sorry to tell you, at this point nothing can be done.

P.S. There was never any serpent to begin with, it's yet another lie of hers.

I'm actually looking forward to Sharia Law in the UK at this point, I've made a complete 180 thanks to tinder.

Yeah I would 100% support Sharia in Europe. My position in society as a male would skyrocket.

Female sexuality is everywhere. Best-selling books, the most popular TV shows, Hollywood, the entire music industry, even goddamn commercials for fast food joints. Where does the idea of people being "afraid of female sexuality" come from? People that want even more promiscuity than we already have?

How is it not sustainable? This is a myth.

>This image is only degrading if you see your own cum as something dirty and defiling. Why do you feel that way? Shouldn‘t it be seen as something worthy of worship?
>It is also only degrading if again, you think worshipping you or your body is something only people not worth respecting would do.
This logic is terrible, typical womanish fallacies all over the place and an internal self-contradiction to boot. If my cum is worthy of worship, then the worshipper is still beneath me. It's inherently degrading to be the worshipper rather than the deity. Seeing myself as filthy and defiling is in no way requisite for any of this; on the contrary, I might say that if I see my bodily fluids as something that ennoble and elevate a woman, then I must *necessarily* see her as beneath me to begin with.

The pity stems from there not being any challenge in that person. It's akin to post-coital depression in that sense. There's no fun to be extracted out of a person who submitted to you.
This fits better to women than men thou, as they experience this pity much more frequently.

Just look at any pop star. Most die of drug overdose and/or get depression because they had too much fun, and when the fun stopped, they had nothing else in their lives, leaving themselves with a huge void.

Why is it a myth? There's far more examples in support than against. In fact many long-lived societies developed institutions such as marriage completely independently.

You think if people get abortions or have lots of sex suddenly the population will die? lol

No, I do not.

>we thought loose girls were great for obvious reasons
This.

I never saw slut shaming from men on a large scale until I came here. I remember the mentality being when I was younger was that the more experienced a girl was the better. I think I even thought that have sex with a virgin would be awkward because how much of a mess the hymen would make.

Meanwhile, I think I remember the girls calling eachother sluts even before we learned what sex was.

>I never saw slut shaming from men on a large scale until I came here
Where are you from if I might ask

The guys that were slut-shaming were the ones who were succesful with women. What I mean is they didn't insult women because they were sluts, but didn't commit to them. They indeed commit to non-sluts

UK. Funny I know.

Maybe I was too young as a kid to have noticed all the men judging women, but not only do I remember only the most immature men insulting girls with “slut”, but when I first came here I was genuinely baffled as to why anyone would prefer a virgin over a girl with experience under her belt.

truth

>a girl with experience under her belt.
No man wants that.

Because it scares most men. A female that's comfortable with her sexuality and isn't ashamed of it, is dangerous to the patriarchal traditions that prevail. It would mean a woman could leave a husband if she's not sexually satisfied or if the husband isn't open to communicating with her about their sex life. They just don't want women to have that option and to remain sexual servants. That fits their established roles.

slutshaming has always been class warfare between and younger women (or uglier) women

but the project of modernity is completely based on:
new > old

so you can't have that social restriction anymore and youth worship will get unleashed more and more

I don’t really care either way honestly. Past relationships are only a red flag to me if she’s had a long string of unstable relationships.

Some men are scared of such women, and some are sexually reserved themselves. Those men don't want that. An experienced woman is actually less likely to be unfaithful since they don't feel like they're missing out on anything, while an inexperienced woman would.

Every girl that I've met who admits they're a slut is an absolutely insufferable cunt. It's also usually a sign of some sort of mental illness or severe daddy problems.

Admitting to being a slut can be liberating actually. No one can hurt you with that word anymore.

What if she had sex with 30 men but decided you were the one she wanted to have children with?

>liberating
C O P E
O
P
E

With what?

Not them, but 30 isn't much imo.

How many people have you slept with?

Statistics suggest the exact opposite.

Like?

Yeah. That’s exactly what I meant when I said that. Plus, brutal honesty and self awareness tends to be a sign of a good and/or strong character in my experience. I’d respect a girl who’s had sex with 10+ guys and is open about it far more than a girl who cheated on her bf and tries to act innocent about it.

How about not respecting both, dimwit?

I'm only 19. Not to sound like a whore, but I really don't remember because of so many drunken encounters. About 9?

Depends if they were casual things or if they were committed relationships gone horribly wrong. If the latter, that’s a red flag since it suggests that either she’s really bad at judging people or that she’s the problem in the relationship.

If the former, it’s cool as long as she doesn’t have any STDs.

You are a 19 woman or man? That's a strange lifestyle to live. You might be baiting me but 9 bodycount at age 19 is pretty insane to achieve, even if you were super chad and went on tinder.

Attached: Bgzo6qBCAAAKyr3.jpg (1223x1570, 244K)

>not to sound like a whore but I fucked an indefinite number of guys while drunk
kek, based

>An experienced woman is less likey to be unfaithful
Got a source on that, bud? Or is that just how you feel?

How is that insane? I'm not a Chad. You're talking casual sex right? I'm only 5'10" but I have a pretty face. Going out on weekends?

Kek this pic is always amazing, number 1 and 2 are basically tautologies

These stats aren't about unfaithfulness though.

>Going out on weekends?

ah, never done that due to being homeschooled and not having any friends, i guess that makes it easier, but still 19 is very young to do that.

>9 bodycount at age 19 is pretty insane to achieve
definitely not hard if you're chad, and my country is generally more prudish than anglo/northern european one.

fucking hope this is bait, jesus christ what a trainwreck

How is it not hard? Even if they are all one night stands, its pretty difficult.

>Why is everyone and their pet author/philosopher afraid of female sexuality?
Cos all women swing both ways.

Dude, people fuck when they're 13 or 14. Go to party one night, fuck another. Go to another party, fuck another. Get a girlfriend, fuck her. Have another girl eyeing you, fuck her. Obviously, not every single engagement will lead to success, but normis fuck A LOT.

Not all, but women are more open to experimentation than men.

Lol you think you just go to a party say 'lets fuck' to a girl and then you get laid? Even normie soullets dont fuck like that.

>Not all, but women are more open to experimentation than men.
That's cos lesbian sex doesn't lower status inside the moment of scissoring. In gay sex, somebody has to be the bottom.

I'm speaking from experience, I have a couple of chad friend with which I used to go out so I observed these dynamics. For example, let's say you're a chad and it's summer. During summer you go out every
almost every night, going to a club or to a party one of your numerous acquaintances organized. Summer vacations here last more or less three months (since we're talking about people less than 19 years old, they most likely go to high school). Let's say you go out 5 days of the week out of 7 (20 days in a month, 60 in total) and you manage to have sex with a different girl every 10 days, which is not an unrealistic rate for you, the chad, that leaves us with 6 girls at the end of the summer. Now, add the other 9 months of the year, repeat for 3/4 years and you see how for a chad it's not hard at all to reach of bodycount of 9 before turning 19.
There's also other factors to considerate, like the fact that girls in touristic locations are particularly slutty and if you're particularly handsome girls will seek you out instead of only you seeking them, and in numbers.

Lesbians rarely scissor. That's mostly a male fantasy.

...

Not you-- Him--

...

>Lesbians rarely scissor.
My point was in gay penetrative sex, somebody has to be the bottom. Somebody has to be fucked in the ass.

>But that would just be natural selection at work
go back to Yea Forums

I know. I was just saying.

>Even normie soullets dont fuck like that.
They do man. I was with a co-worker of mine at a bus stop and there was this pretty woman with fur scarf. He literally goes up to her and sort of barks at her, and she barks back. They talk and get on the bus and disappear into the distance while I'm contemplating my faulty genes and upbringing at the bus stop.

Not that poster, but the population is dying and people are having less sex than ever.

The problem I have, and this isn't in particular with female or male sexuality, is that the secularization of society has destroyed the Fetish of Romance and Sexuality. Everything in society takes the form of modern currency, abstract, replaceable and infinitely reducible, exchangeable, etc. In pre-modern societies the capital economy was a small part of a greater social economy, and courtship reflected this: children being married off very young, often under the guidance of families for expressly interpersonal reasons, having many children, etc. Now in our industrial and post industrial society, it is increasingly being reduced to a cataloging of potential sex partners, who are instantly available and replaceable.

Part of this is the sheer speed of the dating market and social media makes many of the rituals necessary for imbibing significance impossible. Where is the room for small gestures, the sensuality of distance and longing, when men and woman are constantly bombarded with messages (from advertising companies, and increasingly the news media) tying their worth (commercial, social) to their success to sexual conquest/desire. When girls are bombarded with dick pics, where is the room for mystery?

It's not something that there's any easy solution to. Most people seem to opt for a dual mating strategy of lots of hookups, then looking for a partner to "settle down" with, but this presents multiple problems. First the very idea of "settling down" is antithetical to any positive sense of a relationship, which would rather view the relationship as a space for mutual sensual exploration and physical being, and the start of a life rather than the end of one. Increasingly relationships are portrayed as a form of castration (or are actively becoming so- horny single people are better targets for capitalism, and so the family is increasingly pushed to the fringe of society), rather than a meaningful entrance into society. There's also the jealousy that comes with it, as is obvious by anyone who's spent a lot of time on Yea Forums. Speaking personally, learning my partner had been with men more attractive, muscular, richer, better endowed, and so on was a painful and alienating experience. It's easy to chalk that up to vain ego, but isn't love exactly an exercise in vanity?

Finally, sexuality (and particularly male sexuality) is becoming increasingly sanitized these days. Anglo-American prudes are really on the war path to demonize men who fail to express their sexual desire through the proper channels, while also making a point of deconstructing those very channels. It's a very dreary situation.

There's no easy solution. Capitalism must be destroyed if love is to survive. Tinder should be shut down as a prostitution front (since it is, albeit an information era incarnation). Representations of the human body should be made illegal in advertising.

Attached: alis-art-work-1171.jpg (1240x926, 254K)

My pet is, I'm not.
He is my pet and I understand his accomplishments and his flaws. I will learn from both.

>people are having less sex than ever.
Liar, everyone else is having sex but me. Even the faggot furries have laid more women than me.

Attached: Aurora--.gif (270x480, 2.28M)

I totally agree, but I feel greater sexual openness is the answer. Drop the taboos surrounding sex and fetishism— Let everyone sleep with whoever they want, whenever they want. But, and this is the important part, for this to work we need to do away with social alienation and start forming real human connections again.

I often wonder what the decadent orgies of the 19th century were like. Yes, people were fucking eachother like rabbits, but they were also using g that opportunity to hang out as friends and generally have a good time. In order for a sexually perverse society to work, I feel that it needs to have a real sense of community and belonging rather than just isolated encounters existing in a vaccum.

>our current system is repressive of sexuality, so we should substitute it with this differently repressive system
hm, that ain't gonna do it champ.

You seem to romanticize third world traditions. It's not as simple as you think. You think the people that have their marriage arranged by their parents are happy? I acknowledge that subtlety and sincerity is great. But that's just me. I don't judge someone that sleeps around. That's just the way they want to live their lives and most use it as a distraction from their problems. Dating market is disgusting. I agree with you there, since it encourages you to judge people according to one photo in 5 seconds, rather than meet them face to face.

That's why I said 'suggest'

This will not work because of how sexual selection works in the human animal. In fact it's an extremely ignorant viewpoint.

Attached: 243EACE300000578-2885308-image-a-35_1419374854246.jpg (632x629, 88K)

Exactly. I admire the free love hippies. They had the guts to be open about their sexuality in a time when people didn't even know what sex was until they turned like 15.

>Not that poster, but the population is dying and people are having less sex than ever.
>Than ever

You mean post war? Where the 50s-70s were built on the back of a 1000 year engima?

WOMEN...

A department store opened in New York City that sold men and a woman decides to visit it in search of a husband.
At the store’s entrance, there’s a sign outlining the department store policy.
The first rule states that you can only enter the store once.
There are six floors and on each floor you can choose a husband or elect to move on to the next floor.
You cannot visit a floor more than once other than to leave the building.
The woman visits the first floor.
The sign reads:
· Men with jobs.
She moves on to the second floor:
· Men with jobs that adore children.
She moves on the the third floor where the sign reads:
· Wealthy men that adore children and are very handsome.
She thinks to herself, "that's a very good deal" yet moves on to the fourth floor:
· Wealthy men that adore children, are very handsome and help with the household chores.
She decides to move on as things are constantly improving:
· Wealthy men that adore childern, are very handsome, help with the household chores and are very romantic.
The woman is about to make her purchase but can't resist moving on to the sixth floor.
There the sign reads:
· You are visitor number 31,456,012 on this floor.
· There are no men here.
· This floor exists as proof that it is impossible to please women.

& MEN…

Opposite this department store, another department store opened that sold women. The sign on the first floor reads:
· Women that love sex.
On the second floor the sign reads:
· Women that love sex and are wealthy.
On the third floor the sign reads:
· Women that love sex, are wealthy and have large breasts.

Not a single man has visited the fourth floor.

>Drop the taboos surrounding sex and fetishism— Let everyone sleep with whoever they want, whenever they want. But, and this is the important part, for this to work we need to do away with social alienation and start forming real human connections again.
But have you stopped to consider that human connection is formed exactly at the point of mutual differentiation from society? It's exactly through this taboos in which sex acquires transgressive value, which is itself holds social potential.

Do you think that the decadent orgies of the 19th century were conducted simply because the feeling of fucking a cunt loose and dampened by another mans sperm or trying to suck two cocks at once is really such a purely materialist utilitarian pleasure? No! The decadent orgies of the last century were enabled precisely because society was strong enough to allow an area of decadence.

To put it differently, man needs a concept of sin to find pleasure in transgressing it. I agree that the real sense of community has died.

Repressive how? Many civilizations have banned portrayal of the human form from the public sphere. Call it puritanical, but it's a liberation (or at least a step in the right direction) from a concept of self which is entirely negotiated by mass media and corporate interests.

>You think the people that have their marriage arranged by their parents are happy?
No, of course not. But it was shaped by completely different power structures than those that govern the world today. Structures that placed a premium on social connection, and located the individual within a larger community of familial interests.

Banning things is literally what repression is.

Familial interests should overlap with individual interests, right? If you marry a rich guy, congratulations, you've secured yours and your families' future. But should that be the reason to get married? That doesn't seem like a good way to find a life partner. Sex is more important to our lives' than you think.

I'm not making a moral judgement, I'm making a sociological observation

It goes further than that I feel, it’s known in some circles that certain groups would often sexually “share” eachother with one another and fuck eachother in turns. Some groups would have a girl who slept with everyone in the group and would be passed around in the same way a joint gets passed around today. I’m sure there were other sexual set ups among these underground groups as well.

That sounds so much more gratifying and fun for everyone involved rather than just coldly assessing someone’s Tinder profile like it’s a job application.

I don’t disagree that that excitement needs to be there. I’m more just talking about not making it a legal taboo. Something could still be a shameful kink, but indulging it is perfectly legal. My biggest problem is how capitalism has taken all the bonding out of casual sex. If we’re going to have a society of perverts, then it makes sense that we indulge our perversions in such a way that makes us develop empathy and some kind of connection with eachother rather than the detached system we have now.

Marriage has never, ever been about sex or love.

In most cases, it isn't. But it should be about love.

Most men don't practice antifragility, that's why. So when they encounter a beautiful woman, they're ruined by her.

I remember reading an article stating that there was a lot of pressure on members of Kommune 1, who were practitioners of free love, because there was an implicit obligation that each sexual act had to be at least as pleasurable as the previous one. Those orgy shenanigans are probably less fun than you think. Try taking your gf to one and reevaluate how you feel about it as she gets all her holes filled while you're pressured into sucking some random guy's dick because you don't want to look like a square.

Why?

Because marriage is technically supposed to be a union till death. You don't get into it thinking about getting out. And love is important to not want to blow your head off, living with the same person for the rest of your life.

lmao, this perspective reeks

The pressure sounds like a bad thing. That seems like borderline rape. In an ideal scenario, you wouldn’t be forced into anything. I’m not going to pretend I have a perfect system for this in mind, but old school orgies between friends sounds much better than what we have now. As a side note, I’m suprised we don’t hear more about “fuck buddy” arrangements in this day and age. It seems ideal for sexual gratification with no strings attached.

undefeated

>I’m not going to pretend I have a perfect system for this in mind
Of course not, if there ever arises an occasion where a preference has to be stated, everything falls to pieces.
>I’m suprised we don’t hear more about “fuck buddy” arrangements
maybe you don't :^)

Fuck buddies are more common than you think. But people are afraid of unrequited feelings. Tinder capitalizes on that.

The problem with focusing solely on love, is that it takes the onus of responsibility off society. Relationships work best by providing tangible social and economic benefits. The marriage of one estate to another, in which both couples have the full support of their family, as well as gain access to the economic and social capital necessary to support people in starting a family.
Marriage might be a union unto death, but love isn’t NECESSARILY that. Not to mention that emotions, especially love and desire, can’t be forced without negative effects. As a purely intellectual exercise, try to imagine a system of marriage in which: A. Romantic Love, as it’s socially envisioned, is entirely absent; and B. The tangible benefits from the relationship make it a worthwhile endeavour regardless.

Yes, love is wonderful. What’s also wonderful is raising a family, having social capital that will support you in life, building an estate, having a position of privilege and status in society, and so on. None of these things are inherently connected.

Another fun thought experiment, can you imagine a stable lifelong marriage in which love is the goal being undertook despite not being inherently or initially present? How does this compare to a romantic love in which stable lifelong marriage is the eventual goal being undertaken?

brainlet take

It's the literal definition, but ok

ITT: Woman wants to have sex with lots of men for fun without looking like a whore.

Sex and the City has ruined women.
Not even "player" guys are fun to be around.

Based

Interesting you mention Sex and The City.

I’d recommend you read The One Dimensional Woman by Nina Power, since it makes this exact observation. In fact, it covers a lot of what’s been discussed in this thread about how capitalist alienation sucked the fun out of sex.

>Why then demonize female sexuality?
Who does this? I'm just annoyed because it's hard to find a halfdecent partner. You pushing 'sexuality' is as the key only shows you don't understand anything beyond simple sexual exchange. Anyone who thinks like that is not fit to have adult relationships.

>Sex and the City has ruined women.
It's beyond that. Ever think about how Sex and the City has less of a social stigma than Twilight appears to have? Even though Twilight promotes much better values for relationships.

Based

>All men can see through the soul of a woman
Lol.

>ITT:Sex-havers

Based

For real. This board is obsessed

It's a coping mechanism. In the early days, men blamed not getting any on "much female mystery". Now, it's "all women are whores".

Maybe some of these obviously dimorphic behaviors exist on a bell-curve, and every time you generalize the sexual behaviors of a gender, you're always going to find at least one person who exemplifies the opposites of these behaviors. Is it naive of me to to want to keep these generalizations as a truism, but to view each individual as a unit who can internalize any values they wish, even if the discipline is less common among the fairer sex?

Yup. It's naive.

'Splain.

It's this really. Women decide who gets to reproduce, who is validated sociosexually, who receives social proof, etc. It is a position afforded onto them by their own biology. Men can rape, but women are the genetic filter. As user said, they choose who is man to them, and those that aren't are castrated by sociosexual invalidation.

Attached: 2d54a3d27c51770219d0729c591a7357.jpg (473x574, 37K)

Nope. Your post is a contradiction.

Women need seed to reproduce. Men may be oversexed monsters, but they won't just fuck any woman that wants to fuck.

How so?

>Women need seed to reproduce. Men may be oversexed monsters, but they won't just fuck any woman that wants to fuck.

You don't get it because you're not male.

What makes you think I'm not a male?

If I said "rule of thumb" instead of "truism" would it still be contradictory?

never post on this board again

You're asking if it's okay to have prejudices?

Only a woman thinks and talks like that. I'm not even that poster but it's obvious as shit.

I was actually asking if it's sound to discard my and other's prejudices in a way, but you do raise an interesting point. Is it still a prejudice if the process would be to observe first, then tenuously relate my observations to all these theories of social hierarchy and dimorphism, while still keeping my judgement reserved, just as an exercise? Is that possible? I would think it's prejudice only if I viewed my relationship to these ideas as internalized, but now you're making me feel like the very act of entertaining the ideas being espoused in this thread is, in fact, prejudiced.

Okay I see I'm conceding in my original post that women are less likely to act against societal pressures. I agree that's unfair and I would say I spoke out of hand there, but I don't think it was necessarily contradictory.

Prejudice would imply judging before interacting. But if you interact with someone, then form an opinion on them, based on your knowledge of these ideas, then I guess that's not really prejudice. But is it okay to judge anyone at all? Not everyone has had an idyllic life you know?

He said men, NOT boys or males. And by your immature reaction we can pretty much know what you are.

>all these incels discussing feminine sexuality

Kek

Attached: 1540214810018.jpg (1960x1288, 1.16M)

Stfu I get a blowie every morning. While an active sex life helps participate in weighing in on these ideas, it is not entirely necessary and you're also making baseless presumptions about stranger's sex lives and then weaponizing them. Go non-contribute somewhere else you absolute fucking waste of breath.

Same reason people have reasonable fear of banks and bears. They're powerful.

It's not sexuality that is "demonized" it is female sexual promiscuity that is morally wrong (in the same way that cowardice or laziness in a male is morally wrong).

Of course now everyone in the west is inundated with the message that white males are opressingly trying to keep women down, which should tell you something about how they don't control the messaging.

>Stfu I get a blowie every morning

Bestiality doesn't count

based

>Extinction of the individual maybe.
WIth few exceptions, the individual is the most important human decision maker. Very rarely does someone sacrifice themselves for the collective.

Because girls mature first and women pass on the secrets of sexuality to daughters. Men are at an extreme disadvantage. Also lobsters.

>Victorian Gender Roles

Do you think Schopenhauer ever thought his poodle how to win arguments? Did the poodle ever come to win a debate against his master?
These are the real questions humanity should be asking herself.

>women pass on the secrets of sexuality to daughters.
I've seen this in person but the most I could make out was an older relative of mine telling this young girl to conceal her cleavage a bit more and 'smile because you're beautiful', kinda shit.
What secrets are you talking about?

>women pass on the secrets of sexuality to daughters.
Not really. It's usually girls that explore it themselves.

>What secrets are you talking about?
How a girl goes from an adorable innocent cuddle bug to teenage queen. Hormones do a majority of the work, but elders pass on social norms and not just taboos but also co-witness to many initiations: earrings, make up, titillating undergarments, menstruation, sex and morals, what is love. Most people are absolutely shit parents. Just complete shit.

Why don't these old people get called out for this shit?

>t. had shit parents
Well obviously (hopefully) girls discover masturbation themselves, and they have friends to share experience with about many things, but mothers have a looming presence over all of it. They are judge and arbiter of what is allowed.

You might be overestimating the mother-daughter bond. Most kids don't listen to their parents, especially when it comes to sexual discourse.

>kids don't listen to their parents, especially when it comes to sexual discourse.
Teenagers are not kids, user. We're talking about girls, and their social advantages over boys, not teenagers.

I really don't know. It took me 24 years as a guy to get a genuine compliment from a stranger about my looks and that's after I started training much harder.
Girls have it so easy it's not even funny. When I imagine what could of life I could have had as a teenager with people regularly cheering me on in all activities, it makes me so angry.
Men are just left in the dirt to figure it out for themselves, and then women complain when they become dependent or completely aloof. My father would only respond positively when I didn't disappoint him, that was the best I could do, not disappoint, let alone, succeed. Honestly it's a miracle I or any teenage guys I knew at school didn't commit suicide looking back.

Okay, teenagers. They don't listen to their parents.

Man I wish I was that snake.

We're just weary, in most cases female sexuality does more harm than good.

Attached: that's kind of sad.jpg (1224x1060, 259K)

no one's afraid, women just refuse to be understood.

make sexuality is simple stimulus and response
women have stimuli and response, but their sexuality is caught up in concepts that react to their own observation; women can never be contented sexually in the way a man is with imagery and physical stimul, women crave power, devotion and often love with their sex, and these terms are hard to define and describe

Women are vile. They have poison juices inside of them. Stay pure, user.
Don’t let them contaminate you with their vile juices.

>Muh female mystery

>women can never be contented sexually

Do you ever get that nagging feeling that you might be wrong

>make sexuality
male sexuality

doesn't/shouldn't everyone?

Not phobia. Disgust.

>everything in life is about sex, except sex, sex is about power
And certainly not a quote from a woman (Wilde).

Arguably women sexuality could be more complex than that of men but there's also a weird tendency in men to present themselves as simple beings without nuance or layers.

that's because there is little to no nuance or layers in terms of male sexuality

look at porn: an intentionally sexual visual medium honed for and by men. no relevant cultural advances in porn are made (at least intentionally) it is driven by the simple formula of "be more depraved and aggressive." that's as advanced as male sexuality gets. desu kudos to women for being inherently less animalistic and simple in this way

Except for the very fact that the women submitting to the depravity voluntarily are absolutely accountable then for the man's actions admitted to her.

She's getting paid bruv.

>women just refuse to be understood.
It's hard to do so. Women are definitely more sexually complex than men, but I don't think women can't be sexually contented.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. The very idea of watching incest porn for example is that there's a psychological edge that's lacking from the exact same scene without a title implying blood relations. That you're not consciously reflecting on it doesn't mean it doesn't play a role.

Also to be fair I've been with two men so that's not a huge sample size but they definitely had mixed feelings about their own desires, mine, their body and so on. It's impossible to compare to women obviously but it was definitely more than "hurr me man, like boobies".

then I'll refine my statement:
women cannot be contented sexually, FORMULAICALLY in the way men can.
which just goes back to my original, and only, point: no one's afraid of female sexuality (though feminists love to play it that way because it makes them feel edgy) they just recognize the inborn compleity in female sexuality, which ultimately makes them damn good writers to convey the idea

tl;dr OP is a fag/ thread is dicks

as far as I see it, that which extends into the realm of psychology still follows the same formula of depravity and aggression; just because it's mental doesn't make it complex, imo

and, to be frank, I think that if you were to put your make friends in the proper circumstances these feelings would arise. of course I know just as much about the world as anyone else here on this site, so who gives a fuck, right?

A lot of people are afraid of female sexuality. Why do you think they're not?

Its unquenchable when left to its own devices. But eventually the parade must end

because most men still want to fuck women even if they aren't able to do so
also, most men, whether or not they're fucking, are very confused by female sexuality and will admit such if pressed with relative ease

this leads me to believe that this feeling of uiversal confusion is only misinterpreted as fear, but cannot be true fear as it rarely correlates with a desire to stay away from women altogether

autistic enough for you?

Maybe I'm not using the same definition of complex, I am mostly thinking of having contradictory desires and having an inner monologue on what you enjoy and how you feel about that. The first is obviously not strange to men as many many men struggle with both wanting a hypersexual woman and a very demure one and these qualities are rarely found in one and the same person. I also don't think most anyone who has more out there fetishes - and honestly I don't think most anyone at all - doesn't know the feeling of suddenly feeling grossed out or twisted for what you enjoy. The whole feeling disgusted while closing twenty tabs thing. Wondering whether loving to dominate means you want to hurt women in general on some subconscious or denied level. Wondering whether not loving to dominate means you are seen as less masculine. You name it.

Sorry but I'm not sure what you mean with the second sentence. You mean male friends would desire me under the right circumstances? If so, it's no different for me. Surely I would be less likely to actually go through with it but it's hard to say if that is nature or nurture - as a woman you are encouraged to be cautious about sexuality, and to really think about the potential outcome/consequences.

what i'm saying is that your male friends are softening their words when discussing sexuality with you- the "circumctances" to get them to act like the 'hurr me man, like em titts" could literally just be talking with a close male friend with no women around. it's -dare I say it- locker room talk

Fear and desire are not mutually exclusive at all, they can greatly enhance each other.

This is not that relevant but it just makes me think of it, Freud had a theory at one point that men are afraid of sex with women because the combination of the feminine and the sexual union/physically and mentally losing yourself in someone else reminded them on a subconscious level of being in the womb, the idea that because a woman birthed him a woman could swallow him up.
Part of the theory is that men need the closure/boundary of climax to get to their senses and draw a line in the sand. And that the way women can desire to just come again and again and have this fluid, boundless intimacy that has no clear start or finish could be daunting to them.

Of course you don't have to ascribe to this reading to see potential risk in opening yourself up to someone else, being vulnerable, losing decorum opening yourself up to future loss.

Being afraid of female sexuality means not wanting women to explore their sexuality. They claim it's to "protect" women, but it's really just a way to preserve the patriarchal traditions, where women are sexual servants, and whose pleasure is of no relevance. A lot of people believe so. It's okay if you have the same opinions on both sexes and don't encourage sexual exploration in general, which at least wouldn't be sexist.

Absolutely, but I don't think what they told me is less truthful than the more boastful stuff. Rather the other way around. Virtually ever man likes boobs, it betrays nothing about yourself to say it, there's nothing intimate or personal about it. Talking about insecurities or being scared of what turns you on is entirely different.

How can something I don't understand at all control so much of what I do? It's like watching the waves of the ocean and thinking that they're caused by something moving under the water.

okay, with all due respect, that's a load of shit

"fear" as exhiliration- i.e. getting an adrenaline rush when you run from a bull in Spain is not "fear" as I would describe it- and if that's what OP is essentially crticizing as "fear-" that some men decry and profane female sexuality while desiring to get close to it- is simply not what I would consider fear, it's exhiliration which, yes, is tied to sex

if what we're really getting at is "why do men DISSAPROVE OF, or decry sexuality in females-" which is a different question- I'd say it has a lot to do with having a clear insight into their own sexuality. men, as I keep saying, crave depravity and aggression with their sex as they get more sexual. women, who are seen as the 'gatekeeps of sex' who potentially cause a lot of harm if they were sexually desirious in the way men are- not my argument, just the argument of someone who is typically seen as "fearing sex"

>look at me- I make the meanings now
neat
not goading, srs question: do you think mens insecurities and turns ons vary greatly? or at least great enough to imply serious complexity in mens feelings on sex?

>ITT:Sex-havers

It's not. You think an addict doesn't desire and fears what he is addicted to? A lot of people full both desire and fear asking someone out. The bull example is indeed different but it's not because there is no fear but because you most likely don't experience it as fear in the moment. But it is possible to experience both, very much so.

>full both desire
Oh wow, *feel of course.

Yeah I do, I just think they are less likely, especially when young, to be very much in touch with them.

Even just physically men presume a lot more similarity than is there. My first partner requested I (gently) use my teeth during blow jobs and his absolute favorite foreplay was me licking his nipples and playing with them. This is definitely not something I should just spring on an unassuming man.

an addict has those feelings because of a chemical addiction- literally the mechanical functions of your brain being fucked with. I don;t doubt sex addiction but not all sex fans are sex addicts.

also asking someone out has shockingly little to do with sexuality, much more to do with social norms and face saving

my understanding of a man wanting that is that he's DISCONNECTED with his sexuality- that he's essentially overthinking it in a world of oversexed culture that says he should

of course now I'm phsycoanalyzing someone through the an anonymous ice fishing enthusiast forum, so I'm inevitable wrong and probably being an ass, but whatever

They aren't the same things, just comparisons. My only point is that fear and desire can go together.

But speaking strictly for myself, I don't find it a strange thought, desire + fear is my standard cocktail when someone approaches me. Not fear of any specific scenario either.

They’re giving in to the urge to be whores and forgoing purity in its entirety. It’s what people on pol are talking about 90% of the time when they talk about the collapse of western society.

If you want to be a whore get over your own hang ups and stop blaming society

I wouldnt even care that much but the dynamic is still men putting in most of the legwork anyway to get some. HIT ON ME WHORES BUY ME A DAMN DRINK. Women want to have their cake and eat it too. Ill be honest though, some women do do this but its not enough to actually make me say it will ever be the norm

my only real disagreement is that your "desire+fear" is more accurately describe as "desire+curiosity/exhiliration." I'm being slightly pedantic, but only because "fear-" like ACTUAL fear is not mistakable with excitement- sure there is also hear pounding and sweating, but the stomahc sinking feeling like you just shit your liver out and the uncontrollable scream that would bellow forth from unknowable reaches of your lungs would turn people white and you'd know that THAT was fear

sorry to sound edgy but this is basically all I;m getting at, no one makes those kinds of screams when they see pussy

So intimate to the mind and animalistic to body

>that he's essentially overthinking it in a world of oversexed culture that says he should
That says he should what? If anything porn and sexual portrayals in movies suggest that men should not have desires beyond groping and putting it in.

Second guy LOVED when I ran my fingers over his skin so the nails scraped/hurt slightly. He liked that enough to request it of me and obviously responded to it quite strongly.

Again this is 2/2 but still. I have more experienced friends and while I never outright asked they certainly always spoke from the starting point that different men like different things in bed.

Not them, but Jesus, you're dumb man.

that says he should like weird, intrictae and personal things- and no way, go pick up a cosmopolitan or scroll through buzzfeed or vice for all the intricate and bizzarre sexual activities the pushers want you to try

but hey, if he came, fuck me right. I would jsut not be surprised if a tried and true hand job did the same thing, but thats just me

Its weird being a guy with no fetishes besides low iq ones like big ass and tits. People make it seem like im crazy that I have no fetishes. I cant even fully admit that sex just isnt even important to me given the state of societies obsession with it. Im not even one of those le trad fools. Its weird man

clearly you're "not them-" I was actually having an interestig convo with them and you just interjected to let everyone know nothing but you're an insecure child
heres your (You) tho

men don't disapprove of sexuality in females
even "based & redpilled" medieval scholars of eroticism like al-Nefzawi, who basically asserts that women will spread their legs for anyone as long as their dick is sufficiently thick and long, point to the necessity of actually satisfying your wife
society as a whole disapproves of excessive licentiousness, and whereas bachelors traditionally have had the opportunity to go to prostitutes, this sort of conduct would not be adequate for a married man
somebody who spent all of their money on whores also most likely wouldn't have had the opportunity to marry and lead a successful social life
>any man who isn't satisfied with plunging his dick into whatever cunt is offered to him is disconnected with his sexuality
laughable
have you read ANYTHING on eroticism or erotic literature?

>Cumming=Sexual Fulfilment

I don't disagree with your last sentence but I don't agree on the definition no. For me it feels like you describe fearing for your life vs fear in a cocktail of other emotions, period. Just like affection when you're superhorny can add a warm glow to the horniness without changing into tenderness or affection. Fear doesn't have to be the most prominently experienced emotion to be there.

I don't know if it's the best way to describe it but I do understand the use of it. Men can definitely show a discomfort towards female sexuality that seems to go beyond rational arguments about paternity or anything like that. Think of how uncomfortable many men are with the very idea that their partner had a lover before them, or how much disgust the vagina/menstruation can provoke from men. Sure women don't love looking at dicks either on average, but there's no equivalent to "flesh wound" and other terms suggesting vaginas are gruesome.
There's also how much difficulty many fathers have with thinking of their daughters as sexual beings. It's normal to worry more about girls than boys with dating. But there often is an implication that being sexual and having sexual desires makes a woman not a "good girl", that it reflects badly not just on her decision making or self control but on her kindness, intelligence and so on.

sexuality is a functioning in animals to achieve reproduction
how is actively distracting oneself from this goal getting more in touch with "sexuality?"

but please, advise me of some "erotic literature" cause I'd love to hear the logic betraying navel-gazing of a bunch of peoples who's best defense of their argument is "because I FEEL it!"

THESE BOOTS WERE MADE FOR WALKING

>I'm not a biological entity! I'm complex!!!!!
smdhtbh

Cosmopolitan tips cater to women's desire to blow their men's mind, not to actual men. Also it is just a way to keep writing about sex when all the actual good advice has been given out already.

Well the second man I've been with once, I could definitely tell it aroused him more than anything else we'd done but it's hardly conclusive. The first I've been with for longer and I am 100% sure he just really loved this.

I guess I also don't recognize the idea that men would want to be sexually specific. Maybe kinky in the broad sense, but details like this?

i get it but i still just disagree

for me fear is like a whole end of a spectrum of emotion and sex is the other end. maybe love is somewhere in between but fear is fear and lust is lust to me, sorry for being a lizard brained calculator man

and as for the good girl stuff, I think a lot of that is rationalization for modern audiences- I really do think that mens feelings to their daughters exuality boils down to "mine. no one better fuck this." all other fear and confusion comes form the resulting shock of realizing that you kind of have to let someone fuck her.

i pity you if you can only think of everything that humans do in terms of primal urges
anyway, i think bataille's l'erotisme has some interesting parts

You think biological entities aren't complex?

aw, well I pity you too, sweetie
I'll read that and you can go read some Marquis de Sade

>showing up late to the fucking discussion
read, ffs

>but fear is fear and lust is lust to me
It is just odd for me to hear someone say this on the literature board. If I ever had any doubt that men's inner life was as complex as that of women then reading would've taken it away. There's a lot more novels on ambiguity and being pulled in opposite directions emotionally than on feeling first 100% this, then 100% that in neat succession.

Kinks are human nature. You just probably haven't found yours yet.

actually i strongly dislike alphonse-kun's works
i hope you're not lying and take some time to think about bataille's idea about what distinguishes eroticism from the kind of copulation animals engage in
maybe you'll have some interesting thoughts and you'll surely share them with us, right?

>„no woman desiring or loving me could ever be worthy because she desires and loves something unworthy“
This hits hard
How can I love someone who loves me if I can't even love myself? This has been torturing me for some time now.