The gayness of a woman's body
- Thread starter SentinelSlain
- Start date
Master_Yoda77
Juggalo
Onder
Active Member
- Apr 10, 2006
- 11,386
- 2,033
- 113
I understand that it's a tradition and all in the places where it originated, but I can't get over some czechs trying to celebrate Halloween and shit. Next thing we'll celebrate thanksgiving, sure as fuck.
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 153
- 63
Onder
Active Member
- Apr 10, 2006
- 11,386
- 2,033
- 113
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 153
- 63
I did it in bed to the russian girl I was seeing. She squealed and said "oh no, but I'm not czech, I hate czech people, urgh!"
Here's what I don't get about women. First of all, why does everything that happens have to have a response that relates to their sexuality? Say you're selling magazines door to door and a 17 year old girl answers the door, it's no longer about magazines, it's about how confident you seem and how that confidence or lack of it, resonates with her clitoris.
Whenever they are being "moral" or rather, morally driven in a situation, it's all about feelings, wet, soppy, pathetic feelings. It's awful that someone said something mean, that someone made someone feel awful. It's never about battering out how society should be in some kind of a debate and if it is then it's always done in the worst possible way. So instead of being like that greek philosopher, that was destitute but dedicated, they would create some shitty circle of bitches and just say that everything is because of the white male and their penises, but they would fail to come up with anything or do anything would help anyone in a real way.
They almost orgasm over the idea of cultural relativism. The idea of being some wild person's bitch turns on every sensory organ in their body and makes them feel alive. They can't turn that off and have a serious think about how the world should be, that aspect of them will always affect their every whim or thought.
They metamorphosize into strange beasts at a later stage in their life. Losing a lot of the bitchiness and sillyness but also most of their sharpness. After this change, they are doomed to wander around shopping centres with cabbages in their bags, with simple facial expressions, making "hmmmming" noises and looking confused or unduly happy. They become like living, female garden gnomes. Women minus sexuality.
They never take life seriously and have a general philosophy of "not thinking that's the case", with their womanhood supposedly making such an opinion a worth response to any argument or suggestion.
When they procreate, they never see the child as another human being, with all that that might entail, but as a both an extension of themselves and as a cradle of emotions, which would of course not exclude positive emotions and fuss that may become directed towards them, as the child is an extension of them.
Onder
Active Member
- Apr 10, 2006
- 11,386
- 2,033
- 113
I laughed three times, thanks. I highlighted the parts that i found especially amusing. I have something to say about women getting dull later on, but I can't be bothered right now. Maybe later.
Dak
mentat
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 153
- 63
should there be more traditional style rules for women to obey? would this be part of establishing a better society?
how often do they shave their toes?
how often do they shave their toes?
Onder
Active Member
- Apr 10, 2006
- 11,386
- 2,033
- 113
They just have nicer legs all in all bro. But their asses start being really squishy soon. Soon after they're The Butt's girl's age, who (butt) is really lucky actually but people still make fun of him because he's ugly. Would you switch places JAGE? Would you trade your face with his and caress that young girl's feet like there's no end? It's no MILF, it's a real young girl.
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 153
- 63
I wouldn't trade my beautiful face for the world. Wherever there is an honest mirror, I can know no doubt, no shyness or depression.
....
You're so lucky having all the kurvas to play with. I do miss the Czech and their souls of delightful snobbishness and anglophilia.
....
You're so lucky having all the kurvas to play with. I do miss the Czech and their souls of delightful snobbishness and anglophilia.
Onder
Active Member
- Apr 10, 2006
- 11,386
- 2,033
- 113
Oh czech girls. They smile and talk. You get them drunk and they're oh so playful.
Vimana
Member
- Mar 2, 2007
- 11,671
- 20
- 38
SS, I'm 99% you're joking, but I'll respond as if you're serious anyway:
Ever stop to consider that you're not in their heads nearly as much as you're in yours? If you stop dividing humans into men and women for a second and stop thinking about sex, you may notice that they think about a ton of things the exact same way men do. I'm not talking about philosophy, politics, or whatever (which they probably do, despite some differences in the percentage of which gender adheres to whatever political view), but normal, mundane things.
"Oh no, some asshat unscrewed the cap of the salt shaker and now my food is covered in salt. This sucks."
"I don't get why that guy working in customer service was so snappy. It's not like I was trying to murder them."
"Shit, I have gum on my shoe."
Etc.
Women are not aliens. They're socialized differently, sure, but they have the same emotional spectrum men have, just functioning differently. Then again, I can't really know this because I'm not a woman. I'm just going off the fact that I have lots of conversations of the same sort of nature with people whether they're men or women.
Ever stop to consider that you're not in their heads nearly as much as you're in yours? If you stop dividing humans into men and women for a second and stop thinking about sex, you may notice that they think about a ton of things the exact same way men do. I'm not talking about philosophy, politics, or whatever (which they probably do, despite some differences in the percentage of which gender adheres to whatever political view), but normal, mundane things.
"Oh no, some asshat unscrewed the cap of the salt shaker and now my food is covered in salt. This sucks."
"I don't get why that guy working in customer service was so snappy. It's not like I was trying to murder them."
"Shit, I have gum on my shoe."
Etc.
Women are not aliens. They're socialized differently, sure, but they have the same emotional spectrum men have, just functioning differently. Then again, I can't really know this because I'm not a woman. I'm just going off the fact that I have lots of conversations of the same sort of nature with people whether they're men or women.
Dak
mentat
uhhhhmmmm4
Jesus Machine
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 153
- 63
Vimana you sound strangely rational and detached from any weird gay middle class feelings of superiority in your liberalism.
Well, yeah, not to sound too much like one of Gaddafi's books, but yes, women are perhaps not so different from men in some ways. Maybe.
The clincher, for me, is that as far as I can tell, women mostly don't detach their sexuality from their philosophy on life and on knowledge sufficiently. Basically, they think that if they find something repulsive, sexually, then that means that it isn't real, or that they can destroy it's "realness" by rejecting it. That basically totally atomises any worth they might have in analysing things. You can see why or how this might make sense to them, perhaps on some kind of subconscious level, because they bare the gift of life in a way, they can, at least in societies organised in a way which empowers them to some degree, decide upon who's genes are furthered and who is, ultimately, born. So somewhere in the back of their brains, they're hardwired to understand that reality is determined by the whim of their sexuality and it's hard for this to be reasoned away. It can be limited by there being a very male dominated society to coerce them into sexual repression, however.
Well, yeah, not to sound too much like one of Gaddafi's books, but yes, women are perhaps not so different from men in some ways. Maybe.
The clincher, for me, is that as far as I can tell, women mostly don't detach their sexuality from their philosophy on life and on knowledge sufficiently. Basically, they think that if they find something repulsive, sexually, then that means that it isn't real, or that they can destroy it's "realness" by rejecting it. That basically totally atomises any worth they might have in analysing things. You can see why or how this might make sense to them, perhaps on some kind of subconscious level, because they bare the gift of life in a way, they can, at least in societies organised in a way which empowers them to some degree, decide upon who's genes are furthered and who is, ultimately, born. So somewhere in the back of their brains, they're hardwired to understand that reality is determined by the whim of their sexuality and it's hard for this to be reasoned away. It can be limited by there being a very male dominated society to coerce them into sexual repression, however.
Vimana
Member
- Mar 2, 2007
- 11,671
- 20
- 38
Based on an obsession I used to have with evopsych, I'll give the ways I think men and women are different. They're not as disparate as society would have people believe, but there's differences.
When it comes to sexuality and love, men are the go-getters, the ones who find the treasure or the prize, and women are the prizes.
In the stage at which Austrolopithecines were starting to resemble what we could call hominids, these mindsets would be advantageous. For a male to pass on surviving offspring, he would have to be pretty involved. The level of involvement would only increase as hominids evolved, since childhood became longer and subsequently the need for paternal investment, as our heads got bigger, we grew slower, and had more sophisticated mental development.
So this means that a male would have to make a lot of investment in his mate in order to have a surviving offspring, and so he had to be selective. In an environment with dangerous megafauna, scarce food, and other males around, what kind of woman would be the best to pick? Beauty is obviously a factor, since you have to know that your offspring are going to develop properly and be born able to grow up and successfully pass on their genes. The woman also needs to be modest and selective, since wasting your resources and ability on another man's child just sucks. Lastly, she needs to be compassionate and nurturing, as human babies are very demanding and need a lot of attention, patience, and care.
And because of how demanding babies are, women would need reliable men. This would mean a man that would be willing to devote their resources to their child and wouldn't be going off and trying to pass on their genes with other women. If you're pregnant in the Pleistocene and the guy who got you pregnant goes off to take care of another baby, you're fucked, especially since you've probably lost possible investment from any man you come across since they're not going to be very willing to raise a child that's not theirs.
In a modern context, I think this explains various clichés of the dating world.
Of course, sex does feel good for its procreative aspects, and due to contraception and current cultural attitudes, the pleasure of sex can be treated as a recreation, detached from producing children without (as many) dire consequences. Being a player or a slut in the Pleistocene would spell disaster.
Unless prospects of a reliable mate are so bad that your best bet is to just have a child and see what you can do to raise it later. I think in a way, this is behind a self-feeding cycle of sexual promiscuity. Not wanting or believing they can find a reliable mate, one just has sex and enjoys the lack of responsibility and serious emotion. Because of this behavior, one does not want or believe they can find a reliable mate (often because serious emotion by contrast seems stupid), and goes back into being promiscuous. Of course, they consciously tell themselves they don't want children or to bond to the person, but wanting children and/or to bond is much of why humans fuck for so long and with so much intimacy compared to other great apes.
But when men and women are looking to commit, find a person to spend their lives with, and have children with, sleeping around tends to look stupid.
From men, sluts seem stupid, desperate to be the prize that men chase, yet not actually succeeding at being that prize because they're easy to win over. I think this is why men can often find themselves losing all respect for a woman if they're too easy to fuck. I think women play hard to get to avoid this.
For women, players seem stupid, because their regard for the woman ends after they get off, and they are unaware of the joy that can be found in sharing a bond with a person. So they seem not only cold, but stupid.
I have time, so I'll go a bit more into some of my more irrelevant speculation:
I think most sexual selection factors for humans worked equally for both genders. Both genders tend to find intelligence, compassion, and entertainment value attractive. For both genders, this manifests in being attracted to someone if they are witty or funny, or bring about fun activities. As far as compassion goes, the ability to recognize certain emotions in others and act accordingly is obviously indispensable in a Pleistocene environment.
Ironically, I think the last thing is why some women are attracted to assholes. It's not the fact that they're assholes, but their ability to push their buttons displays emotional intelligence, and the fact that they seem to also disregard the emotional reactions they elicit displays a sense of confidence. When a man is quick to hit on a woman, he appears desperate and unable to obtain one, which hints at certain deficiencies he may possess.
I think attraction to cold, dark, or mysterious people is usually a result of a deep, unadmitted, subconscious desperation. One feels so strongly that no one would want them (but still wants to have someone so badly), that they go for the person that wants no one. The rationale is that if they can get the person who wants no one to want them, it proves beyond any reasonable doubt that they are worthy of someone's love. Also, for those who have unfaithful minds or actions, obtaining someone who seems incapable of wanting other people seems like a safeguard.
I think both genders are attracted to skill, but more with women. Picking the man who made the best tools and used them most effectively often correlated with having the most reliable mate.
Of course, I could be filtering this through personal experience.
When it comes to sexuality and love, men are the go-getters, the ones who find the treasure or the prize, and women are the prizes.
In the stage at which Austrolopithecines were starting to resemble what we could call hominids, these mindsets would be advantageous. For a male to pass on surviving offspring, he would have to be pretty involved. The level of involvement would only increase as hominids evolved, since childhood became longer and subsequently the need for paternal investment, as our heads got bigger, we grew slower, and had more sophisticated mental development.
So this means that a male would have to make a lot of investment in his mate in order to have a surviving offspring, and so he had to be selective. In an environment with dangerous megafauna, scarce food, and other males around, what kind of woman would be the best to pick? Beauty is obviously a factor, since you have to know that your offspring are going to develop properly and be born able to grow up and successfully pass on their genes. The woman also needs to be modest and selective, since wasting your resources and ability on another man's child just sucks. Lastly, she needs to be compassionate and nurturing, as human babies are very demanding and need a lot of attention, patience, and care.
And because of how demanding babies are, women would need reliable men. This would mean a man that would be willing to devote their resources to their child and wouldn't be going off and trying to pass on their genes with other women. If you're pregnant in the Pleistocene and the guy who got you pregnant goes off to take care of another baby, you're fucked, especially since you've probably lost possible investment from any man you come across since they're not going to be very willing to raise a child that's not theirs.
In a modern context, I think this explains various clichés of the dating world.
Of course, sex does feel good for its procreative aspects, and due to contraception and current cultural attitudes, the pleasure of sex can be treated as a recreation, detached from producing children without (as many) dire consequences. Being a player or a slut in the Pleistocene would spell disaster.
Unless prospects of a reliable mate are so bad that your best bet is to just have a child and see what you can do to raise it later. I think in a way, this is behind a self-feeding cycle of sexual promiscuity. Not wanting or believing they can find a reliable mate, one just has sex and enjoys the lack of responsibility and serious emotion. Because of this behavior, one does not want or believe they can find a reliable mate (often because serious emotion by contrast seems stupid), and goes back into being promiscuous. Of course, they consciously tell themselves they don't want children or to bond to the person, but wanting children and/or to bond is much of why humans fuck for so long and with so much intimacy compared to other great apes.
But when men and women are looking to commit, find a person to spend their lives with, and have children with, sleeping around tends to look stupid.
From men, sluts seem stupid, desperate to be the prize that men chase, yet not actually succeeding at being that prize because they're easy to win over. I think this is why men can often find themselves losing all respect for a woman if they're too easy to fuck. I think women play hard to get to avoid this.
For women, players seem stupid, because their regard for the woman ends after they get off, and they are unaware of the joy that can be found in sharing a bond with a person. So they seem not only cold, but stupid.
I have time, so I'll go a bit more into some of my more irrelevant speculation:
I think most sexual selection factors for humans worked equally for both genders. Both genders tend to find intelligence, compassion, and entertainment value attractive. For both genders, this manifests in being attracted to someone if they are witty or funny, or bring about fun activities. As far as compassion goes, the ability to recognize certain emotions in others and act accordingly is obviously indispensable in a Pleistocene environment.
Ironically, I think the last thing is why some women are attracted to assholes. It's not the fact that they're assholes, but their ability to push their buttons displays emotional intelligence, and the fact that they seem to also disregard the emotional reactions they elicit displays a sense of confidence. When a man is quick to hit on a woman, he appears desperate and unable to obtain one, which hints at certain deficiencies he may possess.
I think attraction to cold, dark, or mysterious people is usually a result of a deep, unadmitted, subconscious desperation. One feels so strongly that no one would want them (but still wants to have someone so badly), that they go for the person that wants no one. The rationale is that if they can get the person who wants no one to want them, it proves beyond any reasonable doubt that they are worthy of someone's love. Also, for those who have unfaithful minds or actions, obtaining someone who seems incapable of wanting other people seems like a safeguard.
I think both genders are attracted to skill, but more with women. Picking the man who made the best tools and used them most effectively often correlated with having the most reliable mate.
Of course, I could be filtering this through personal experience.
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 153
- 63
Similar threads
