Right action.
Obviously writing, thinking and speech are actions.
I’ll tell you something… don’t worry about the studies and research. You’ll get my level of access someday, and then you’ll know even more than the studies. Until then, just ignore me. Seriously. It won’t change the outcome for you, but I cannot ask you to place faith in experts of the field or studies you haven’t conducted yourself.
You speak in absolute terms which is why I know what you say is not true. Though the real reason is that you apparently believe everything you say in
your You Tube videos and most of it is total rubbish. If you do believe it then you have seriously managed to deceive yourself given how ridiculous the
subject matter is. I would be interested to know how long you have been thinking like this and what exactly triggered these thoughts in the first place
Hmm… I read this message that was posted under the surreptitious57 handle.
It’s actually a form of dominance to tell people there are no absolutes, which triggers contradiction frequency, which causes females to like you.
You never saw my last video, because I never posted it here.
It’s basically saying that I outgrew my former videos and that there’s no point making additional ones.
I think it’s titled, “my last YouTube video” and wasn’t that great anyways…
You do realize that I’d have to teach you for thousands of years just to catch you up on basics.
Also, I haven’t perfected myself to my own satisfaction, which is honest, but NEVER an excuse!!
Most people say that as an excuse!!
I am glad that you stopped posting those videos since they had virtually nothing of any value in them
Hardly any one bothered watching them which defeats the reason for making them in the first place
Here’s my last one …
m.youtube.com/watch?v=mVfsOSiE4OM
ahh… yes, social conditioning tactics. how cute of you!
I want to make this point too…
Do you have even the slightest clue what it means for women to take responsibility for their actions??
It’s unconscionable !!!
You’d literally have to be pure evil to let that happen!!
It’s unspeakable!!
Thats not the answer!!
And I’ll explain something else, this planet and it’s treasures are rotten at the core …
When you get into the eternal damnation sequence because of women, the only possible light is a philosophic zombie universe. If there is a grand creator or goodness inherent, hat’s the only loophole for escaping the eternal damnation of all heterosexual men, the Easter egg of grace …
Everything else is hypocrisy for heterosexual men!
There is hope, the cosmos actually has room to save heterosexual men!! Once you start to realize that only hypocrisy gives you lots of women or any woman, and it’s hypocritical to punish them for it, you see hell in every direction as a heterosexual man…
Except!! Pz heaven universes… hypocrisy just vanishes
It’s not all doom and gloom …
That’s the hope that the cosmos holds for the hopeless.
Jesus was an angel encased in human flesh.
Some men make women feel unsafe. Some men make women feel safe. It can go either way. A beautiful and attractive woman will feel more unsafe in general, since she is more lusted after than average or uglier women. However all women, of any beauty, must defend against unwanted sexual advances. There is a noticeable and significant lack of education in the u.s. about sex and gender in this regard. In the 90s, the debate was between schools teaching sex, parents, or church. The issues are still unresolved, and so, leaves children to figure it out themselves, which leads to mistakes as well. No system is perfect. I lean toward parents educating their children, since children are property of parents, but then again, a lot of parents are simply bad parents, single parents, poor, or stupid. The church has potential, but tend to be weaklings, obsessive, and delusional. So religion has flaws. And state schools are neglectful, and don’t want to broach sex since it’s too politically correct. Thus public schools tend to favor liberal approaches and teaching “all colors of the rainbow”, which is also wrong.
Sexual education is very important, because a boy ought to know the consequences of his hormones, and a girl ought to know how to screen males and mates better. Uneducated boys can harm girls, become violent, and mishandle their self-control (suppression). Uneducated girls tend to lose virginity sooner than others, make mistakes, can become depressive, jaded, and/or suicidal. Then there is peer pressure, boys among boys, bragging about getting laid often, or girls among girls, shaming each other for slutting around.
Ecmandu has a point, thus far. A predominant amount of “slut-shaming” occurs among girls. Girls are competing among each other too. Girls learn to control the sexual game from an early age, and use hedonism to your own advantage. It’s easy within civilized and suppressed environments, to manipulate males, using sex. But that makes the average female lazy, intellectually. Her intellect then focuses on social affairs to compensate, lacking a proper male idol.
The division between gender is huge. Females are the pregnant ones, and usually the caretakers of children. That is very different.
To claim that “gender is not that different” reminds me of children, before puberty, ages 5-12. Prepubescent children are more “equal” you could say. Boys and girls can be around the same size, competitive, and as violent across gender. But then puberty and adolescence change everything. The hormones demonstrate the differences of gender and body, males develop different bodies and muscle-mass than females. Women grow tits and the hourglass figure, shape.
However, even from a young age, the general social rule “do not hit women” is put into effect and enforced on the playground. Girls are not supposed to be hit, punched, and kicked, brutally, as boys do to boys. Then comes the phrase “boys will be boys” after the fact. After the rule is put into effect. Girls are protected from violence. I’m not saying it’s good or bad. I’m saying that what society -is-. And thousands of years of history and evolution are put into this ruling.
Perhaps, a society or group could teach girls to be “just as violent” as boys, or boys to be just as “psychologically manipulative” as girls. But why? To what end? To prove a point? To prove liberal-left ideology true, in spite of the obvious, and in spite of history? And then how would such a society sustain itself? But this is hearsay. It’s a moot point, useless.
Instead, tradition dictates the norm. Feminine females will win out in the end. Masculine males will win out in the end. And the further people stray from the norm, the more backlash there will be, and more correction will be required, to come back to the “true path”.
Feminine women have a very powerful allure and self-respect. A high self-esteem. They’ve not fucked around, like average women, not been so easily seduced, pulled into lies and seduction by creeps and cretins. Very selective. High selection and choosiness denotes higher intelligence and sophistication. A female who lets few, or one, in, is much more highly respected by everybody.
I think it was pointed out by one of the women here that guys like to get laid to prove how canniving they are. This is a female way to look at it. You can’t trick a man into having sex with a woman. Everyone knows that having sex with women is to trick them.
I will tell you straight up, there is no guy who really thinks women or men are sluts for having sex with lots of people. This is 100% female. The only reason men will say this, is to get sex from women, not because they believe it. The dickheads, the men who only think with their dicks, force themselves to go to church, watch sports, defend female psychological hypocrisy… even Urwrong is doing it, by stating that women who choose one man is more respectable, more intelligent… he’s contradicting himself to puff himself up in the wild to show he can survive while destroying wealth (logical consistency in this case), which is the only thing that sexually compells a female towards a male. He criticizes slut shaming, and then unequivocally does it. Men are programmed by female sexuality to contradict themselves to get the social standing necessary to secure a sexual resource. Self contradiction in the human species IS EXACTLY like a bird singing a song, or a male peacock spreading its feathers… females will NEVER fuck a male peacock who NEVER spreads those feathers, EVER!
This is important! The lower the contradiction frequency of a male, the desire to not destroy wealth, live off false flags and planned obselesence and just polluting etc… human females see NO spreading of the feathers!! They are EXACTLY like a peacock to this degree. Females are extremely simple sexually in the human species. A male HAS to destroy wealth AND show that he can survive it, survive contradicting himself and the whole species. If he doesn’t get hurt by it, he’s seen as fit to a human female. That’s it. That’s exactly how female sexual consent works. It’s a basic broken computer program, there are no exceptions in this species, just like a female peacock has never mated with a male who never spread their feathers etc… or other male “song” - type species.
On the contrary my logic is solid as my vision has depth. It’s as simple as a child. Imagine the perspective of a child, whose mother is a whore, versus the child whose mother is a saint? Which child has it better or worse? That the other children, and adults of the tribe, know the child of the whore. Other children will make fun of and bully the whore-child. The whore-child will probably be single-parented, father absent, which marks shame. The saint-child will have an easier life by comparison, call it “privilege” if you must. The saint-child probably has a married mother and more cohesive, loyal family.
It’s simply more difficult to convey a sense of respect and security for a promiscuous woman. Again I’m not saying it’s “bad or good”, as Ecmandu implies. I’m saying this is a matter of -is-. I could be wrong, prove me wrong. But chances are, YOU’RE wrong.
Convince me that a whore-child is more respected, will have “equal” privileges in life, will not be shamed by the community, will not be made fun or bullied in school. Give me real life examples and scenarios. Show me.
One of the central tenants of early religions, Christianity as an example here, was that the Church was best able to record and track who had children with whom. Married in the church, with chastity, virginity was checked by the priest before marriage, and consummation was required the night of marriage. Thus the Church checked female promiscuity. You can argue that women are “equally” as promiscuous as men. But history transpired nevertheless. Churches were erected, in due part, to quell female promiscuity. And so when people abandon churches, common morality, and descend into hedonism, then what is the result of female promiscuity? People don’t know who the father of a child is.
Let me repeat for those who are dense: society at large doesn’t know for certain whose a child is.
Thus there are questions of loyalty, familiarity, lineage, and honor. The Church evolved and developed to fulfill these roles for bastardized children, and then the State has also taken the role of moral leader and patriarchy in the recent decades, called Modernity. Church or State step into the missing, absent father. Again, a third time, because people don’t know whose the father of this or that child. Because modern women are promiscuous.
My perspective is rare because I have a liberal reservation. I believe, could be wrong, prove me wrong, that women can be as responsible as men. Let me repeat, women can be as responsible as men. Thus, the way women choose mates, have children, make families, is their fault. Women are to blame, for the good and the bad. Thus, in my view, a woman who chooses well, rightly, and superior, should enjoy the benefits of such choices. And women do, women who choose, build, and defend good families lead to respectfulness. This is innate. People respect morally stringent, strong families. Because they are harder to undermine, more loyal than average people. Average means an ambiguous degree of morality. Maybe this or that man or woman will betray one another.
Prove me wrong, please.
1.) a whore is much different than a slut. All women are whores, not all women are sluts.
2.) genealogy matters less if children are raised by community rather than tribal family structures - offspring possessiveness to this regard, rather than being the backbone of society, degrades society.
3.) women have exactly as much sex with men as men have with women (duh!). Actually, since women are more bisexual than men, women get more sex than men as a whole. The difference is that women cluster most of their sex to a small percentage of men - which men don’t do to women.
Explain in detail how all women are whores…in detail with facts not your projections EC.
You have to trade for sex with women - sex itself isn’t considered good enough trade for a woman.
Even a homeless guy will fuck most any woman - the sex itself is the trade - he’s not even going to ask for a 5 cent empty can for it.
Men are also unblackmailable in small populations - meaning of you offered him a trillion dollars to fuck another guy, and he wasn’t gay, he’d shrug it off and say no. If you said you’ll chop his dick off if he doesn’t fuck a guy, he’ll shrug it off and say no, if you say you’re going to destroy the whole species, if he doesn’t fuck another guy, he’ll shrug it off and say no. You know why? Because men know the stakes for prostitution have infinite implications FAR more serious than stuff like that. Men can do long term planning, abstract cosmic laws better, can see implications of behavior trillions of years into the future … women aren’t wired that way shrug
Even if a woman takes a serious vow to be chaste, she’s making the claim that all sex is evil necessarily in all instances, forever, which is false - her hypocrisy will gain her material security - monks do the same thing - the topic of nuns and monks is very long actually sigh
Why isn’t it? An orgasm for an orgasm seems fair. If contraceptives are guaranteed, then women desire ecstasy too.
You’re stating the obvious, not the reality. Even women who can’t get pregnant because of infertility require trade greater than sex … men don’t. For men, sex is the trade.
Only heterosexual men are required to be moral agents
You ask me why? Women aren’t moral, and unlike urwrong stated, they don’t have to be.
Both genders are forced into morality. For women though, it tends to revolve around caring for their own children. For men, it’s everything else.
You are not explaining with any evidence these claims you make, about the soul of a woman being evil, about all women being amoral, about women being whore’s…you are not providing anything but your opinion.