And these people are always more sex obsessed than anyone, they just only approve of it when it involves weird gross shit, or children’s cartoon characters.
The thing I find interesting is they're so blasé about sex, but in the same breadth go on about the evils of rape and sexual harassment and stretch the definitions of those terms to the point of meaninglessness.
Personally, I think sex is a big freaking deal and it has consequences; physical, mental, emotional. They obviously acknowledge that at some level with the lifting up of any sexual harassment of any sort (be it real or imagined) as nigh worse than death. Despite that though, they refuse to see how the casual (pun not intended) treatment of it at all levels of our society leads to people getting seriously hurt.
What predilection shares a number of traits with androgyny? They want the women to look like boys, and the men to look like boys, and eventually just want to replace them with boys.
It's one of those hilarious things to watch as people try to suppress themselves to weird corners, and then act like they can cope. Back in the day, there was an art critic who was also a Catholic Nun. Her book was about art and how it was displayed. Just about every art piece mentioned sex in some way.
Why?
Because all of the other art books talked like that, even when the art itself was only triangles.
A loooong time ago, in another life I dated a woman slowly turning sjw. I saw it happening and was basically just fucking with her head at that point. She has since turned into full on, shaved head, muh patriarckee, muh soggy knees, blm fruitloop.
She would always sneer at the narrow jeaned, beared hipster soys around her.
Despite being their female counterpart she thought they were scumbags for how they treated women. She was pretty open about how they used it as a cover to do shit worse than any eighties frat boy movie.
Tomboys have been a thing before feminism. Jordan from the Great Gatsby was a tomboy, that novel was written in 1925, feminism debatably started in the 60s.
feminism has convinced women stop attempting to become first rate women and instead strive to become second rate men.
well said. feminism is a symptom of social failure.
women typically do not have an internal moral compass that guides them. they follow social cues, external social pressures, to guide their morality.
If you look back at society before feminism [and also the birth control pill], the attractive but deadbeat men were socially shunned by both men and women. Sure women may have lusted after them, the James Dean types, rebel without a cause types, but they knew that such a man wouldnt be a good father or a father at all if she had his child. And those men were chased out of proper society by decent men.
Only at the failure of society was feminism allowed to take hold and turn women into what they are today: wannabe men with female privilege and the responsibilities of neither - the worst of both sexes.
Sort of like the "right wing bigots" of the 80s, who were really just run by the same groups, headed by the same people, and pushed into the limelight by the same media that now pushes in the opposite direction.
They gave people a reason to hate on Christianity and conservatives, and then pushed them to the hard left. Not a new generation, not a different group, the very same people.
Agreed. My GFs birthday is coming up and I browsed Victoria's Secret to look at some fun things. 3/4 of the models they have, if you can call them that, are now fat and/or ugly tubs of lard. It turned me off completely.
Yeah, VS stuff is inexpensive, I would now call it woke trash. Some of the higher end stuff Agent Provocateur, Felina [also now using fat/ugly models], Cosabella.... are much more expensive. I may just find some things on Amazon. Any recommendations?
This tactic was apparently pretty common in Soviet Russia too. They make things intentionally ugly to demoralize people, making them easier to control. It certainly explains the brutalist architecture of the Soviets, and the modern push to promote bland and ugly everything over beauty. It also hints at their philosophical leanings. Pursuit of beauty parallels the pursuit of perfection, which requires prioritization of truth above all else. These people are antithetical to truth, pursuit of perfection, beauty, and self improvement. They're liars, and hate everything that is true and good in the world.
Sex is not only a human condition, it's an animalia condition. Everything from particularly complicated microbes to elephants, all of them would go extinct were it not for sex.
To preach against it categorically, is to preach extinction. You literally have something wrong with you, if you derive no pleasure from the concept of reproduction, and evolution will write your genetics out of existence for it.
Strictly speaking, the meaning of life can be boiled down to sex. You are a processor and carrier of genetic code, to be melded and reproduced. Those outside this system exist to support those within it, and those who are a danger to the successful system are removed from it. This is true not only in humans, but all societal life forms from lion prides to horse herds, it isn't a socially created phenom, it's a biologically created one.
Is it any wonder that the most long-lasting, oldest, and most successful arts have mostly been towards this purpose?
A video game, movie, comic, novel, folktale, or play that features ideal genetics and reproductive fitness humans will generally be more successful than one featuring those who are not. Post-puberty but pre-middle-age humans who are physically fit with healthy secondary sexual characteristics, symmetry, and high energy (who is probably great with kids) are attractive, and biologically, we want them to succeed in their quest because we want them to reproduce. Their villain, a post-middle-age human who is physically infirm in some way with asymmetry and disease-marked (and probably not the best with kids), we do NOT want to reproduce, and thus want to lose to said attractive hero.
It's a cheap shorthand to establish Goodness and Evilness via Attractiveness, but it works, because humans ultimately are still animalia.
To go against this trope not as a one-time Aesop example, but as a way of life, is to deny humans their humanity. It is to reduce them to machines, unthinking, unfeeling, uncaring. And anyone that into dehumanizing not only their enemies but their allies as well, should never be given ANY kind of power over ANY life form.
It's the total inversion of all objective values. It's the natural end of a Postmodernist philosophy. It's a rejection of beauty itself. A woman can be beautiful without being sexualized. Most art of the Virgin Mary is a good example. But they would never accept something like that, because they aren't concerned about women being objectified. They just want to see the world a little more ugly. There's a reason postmodernists are so miserable.
Slave morality exists by taking the master morality and flipping it upside down such that whatever the master morality values as good the slave morality values it as bad and whatever the master morality values as bad the slave morality values it as good.
We're in the process of a social change where traditional master morality rooted in Christianity, Enlightenment Liberalism and Ancient Roman/Greek values is being subverted by the slave morality of "leftists" which one could describe as Secular Humanism.
The attack on beauty and the promotion of ugliness is a specific attack on the traditional moral values of the society. Once the traditional morality is defeated by the new morality, you'll see a new solidification of a "master morality" that will look different than the old one.
Its called grooming and yes it is disgusting
I think their leaders are the same, except for the very disciplined and dedicated elitists and influencers at the top that we rarely hear about.
And these people are always more sex obsessed than anyone, they just only approve of it when it involves weird gross shit, or children’s cartoon characters.
Massive overcompensation.
The thing I find interesting is they're so blasé about sex, but in the same breadth go on about the evils of rape and sexual harassment and stretch the definitions of those terms to the point of meaninglessness.
Personally, I think sex is a big freaking deal and it has consequences; physical, mental, emotional. They obviously acknowledge that at some level with the lifting up of any sexual harassment of any sort (be it real or imagined) as nigh worse than death. Despite that though, they refuse to see how the casual (pun not intended) treatment of it at all levels of our society leads to people getting seriously hurt.
Male feminists are the most egregious example of this.
What predilection shares a number of traits with androgyny? They want the women to look like boys, and the men to look like boys, and eventually just want to replace them with boys.
On the other hand, actual tomboys are no longer allowed unless they are defined as non-binary.
Because even a "tom boy" can still be feminine and attractive. Can't have either of those.
It's one of those hilarious things to watch as people try to suppress themselves to weird corners, and then act like they can cope. Back in the day, there was an art critic who was also a Catholic Nun. Her book was about art and how it was displayed. Just about every art piece mentioned sex in some way.
Why?
Because all of the other art books talked like that, even when the art itself was only triangles.
And a mermaid, and an 80 year old man, and a guy who was possibly part beaver.
A loooong time ago, in another life I dated a woman slowly turning sjw. I saw it happening and was basically just fucking with her head at that point. She has since turned into full on, shaved head, muh patriarckee, muh soggy knees, blm fruitloop. She would always sneer at the narrow jeaned, beared hipster soys around her.
Despite being their female counterpart she thought they were scumbags for how they treated women. She was pretty open about how they used it as a cover to do shit worse than any eighties frat boy movie.
leftists, in line with feminism, do not value femininity at all. They see it as a weakness.
Tomboys have been a thing before feminism. Jordan from the Great Gatsby was a tomboy, that novel was written in 1925, feminism debatably started in the 60s.
feminism has convinced women stop attempting to become first rate women and instead strive to become second rate men.
well said. feminism is a symptom of social failure.
women typically do not have an internal moral compass that guides them. they follow social cues, external social pressures, to guide their morality.
If you look back at society before feminism [and also the birth control pill], the attractive but deadbeat men were socially shunned by both men and women. Sure women may have lusted after them, the James Dean types, rebel without a cause types, but they knew that such a man wouldnt be a good father or a father at all if she had his child. And those men were chased out of proper society by decent men.
Only at the failure of society was feminism allowed to take hold and turn women into what they are today: wannabe men with female privilege and the responsibilities of neither - the worst of both sexes.
It's one of the absolute reddest flags that you're dealing with a pedophile.
It’s the Victorian age all over again
Sort of like the "right wing bigots" of the 80s, who were really just run by the same groups, headed by the same people, and pushed into the limelight by the same media that now pushes in the opposite direction.
They gave people a reason to hate on Christianity and conservatives, and then pushed them to the hard left. Not a new generation, not a different group, the very same people.
When did they start doing that?
Agreed. My GFs birthday is coming up and I browsed Victoria's Secret to look at some fun things. 3/4 of the models they have, if you can call them that, are now fat and/or ugly tubs of lard. It turned me off completely.
Victorias secret has ties with Epsen, also don't be supprised if they promote woke shit
Yeah, VS stuff is inexpensive, I would now call it woke trash. Some of the higher end stuff Agent Provocateur, Felina [also now using fat/ugly models], Cosabella.... are much more expensive. I may just find some things on Amazon. Any recommendations?
This tactic was apparently pretty common in Soviet Russia too. They make things intentionally ugly to demoralize people, making them easier to control. It certainly explains the brutalist architecture of the Soviets, and the modern push to promote bland and ugly everything over beauty. It also hints at their philosophical leanings. Pursuit of beauty parallels the pursuit of perfection, which requires prioritization of truth above all else. These people are antithetical to truth, pursuit of perfection, beauty, and self improvement. They're liars, and hate everything that is true and good in the world.
Sex is not only a human condition, it's an animalia condition. Everything from particularly complicated microbes to elephants, all of them would go extinct were it not for sex.
To preach against it categorically, is to preach extinction. You literally have something wrong with you, if you derive no pleasure from the concept of reproduction, and evolution will write your genetics out of existence for it.
Strictly speaking, the meaning of life can be boiled down to sex. You are a processor and carrier of genetic code, to be melded and reproduced. Those outside this system exist to support those within it, and those who are a danger to the successful system are removed from it. This is true not only in humans, but all societal life forms from lion prides to horse herds, it isn't a socially created phenom, it's a biologically created one.
Is it any wonder that the most long-lasting, oldest, and most successful arts have mostly been towards this purpose?
A video game, movie, comic, novel, folktale, or play that features ideal genetics and reproductive fitness humans will generally be more successful than one featuring those who are not. Post-puberty but pre-middle-age humans who are physically fit with healthy secondary sexual characteristics, symmetry, and high energy (who is probably great with kids) are attractive, and biologically, we want them to succeed in their quest because we want them to reproduce. Their villain, a post-middle-age human who is physically infirm in some way with asymmetry and disease-marked (and probably not the best with kids), we do NOT want to reproduce, and thus want to lose to said attractive hero.
It's a cheap shorthand to establish Goodness and Evilness via Attractiveness, but it works, because humans ultimately are still animalia.
To go against this trope not as a one-time Aesop example, but as a way of life, is to deny humans their humanity. It is to reduce them to machines, unthinking, unfeeling, uncaring. And anyone that into dehumanizing not only their enemies but their allies as well, should never be given ANY kind of power over ANY life form.
I find it "creepy" when they argue against drugs and self expression.
Start using "Big Switch" to refer to this period we just went through (1990-2020) when identitarian minority communists took over the DEC.
Democrat circa 1990 Champions free speech and non-conformist individuality, fights globalism / corporations ("The Corporation", Klien, AdBusters, etc)
Democrat circa 2020
Embraces censorship (ACLU celebrating cancellations), tribal conformity, anyone anti-globalism is a racist nationalist.
It's the total inversion of all objective values. It's the natural end of a Postmodernist philosophy. It's a rejection of beauty itself. A woman can be beautiful without being sexualized. Most art of the Virgin Mary is a good example. But they would never accept something like that, because they aren't concerned about women being objectified. They just want to see the world a little more ugly. There's a reason postmodernists are so miserable.
Slave morality exists by taking the master morality and flipping it upside down such that whatever the master morality values as good the slave morality values it as bad and whatever the master morality values as bad the slave morality values it as good.
We're in the process of a social change where traditional master morality rooted in Christianity, Enlightenment Liberalism and Ancient Roman/Greek values is being subverted by the slave morality of "leftists" which one could describe as Secular Humanism.
The attack on beauty and the promotion of ugliness is a specific attack on the traditional moral values of the society. Once the traditional morality is defeated by the new morality, you'll see a new solidification of a "master morality" that will look different than the old one.