70% of unreciprocated violence is female on male. Lesbians have twice the domestic abuse rate as gay men and almost twice that of heterosexual couples. Feminized men who act purely on emotions are more violent. Men raised by single moms are the largest indicator for violent crimes.
Because lesbian relationships are based on hate of the other (men), not love of each other.
The lesbians that don't hate men are the so-called 'lipstick lesbians' or 'high-femme' lesbians, treated by the male-imitating bulldykes as oddities, because they cannot comprehend the idea of being attracted to a feminine body.
The only reason the masculinize themselves is in an attempt stop men from being attracted to them.
A similar parallel can be seen in the men who look for 'twinks' with 'boipussy', crossdressing as anime girls - these men aren't actual homosexuals even though they're fucking eachother, they're failed heterosexuals resorting to one another out of an inability to attract women, or a contempt for the shit tests and mind games they play.
Same as femdom and dominatrix shit. All just an excuse for women of a certain set of beliefs to get off hurting people.
Femdom and dominatrix shit is specifically a bunch of women who failed to find a chad and can only stomach beta males if they get to make a mockery of them.
I guess it's variable. I used to be with other women, but not because I hated men, but because I wanted to be one myself.There was never any violence in these relationships, but they all ended with the women wanting to have children at some point. In retrospect, understandable, because I always tried to be the man women secretly really want. But of course I unfortunately couldn't make children with them.
However, there is no denying that the genus you describe exists. But you probably only know this one, because it is the loudest and most unpleasant.
My personal opinion on the subject is that there are actually very few people who get gender identification problems due to congenital hormone problems. I was born with too much testosterone in my blood, I grow a few whiskers, I have a rather dark voice for a woman and I had strong difficulties identifying myself as a girl as a child. My appearance is quite androgynous and has often been the cause of speculation in public as to whether I am a feminine man or a masculine woman. But such people are indeed the exception in the gay and lesbian scene. The majority of these people have serious problems with their parents and a disturbed self-perception induced by this, basically similar to anorexics. Fear of touch and contact in the family or the stark perverted opposite of this is usually behind people having conflicts with their own self-perception. These people usually realise relatively late that they are homosexual or prefer to belong to the opposite sex, may have an artificial hormonal imbalance induced by medication and then, to a certain extent, start thinking about clinical mutilation of the reproductive organs. And a very small proportion of them, in turn, simply have an amputation fetish, but those are the exceptions at the other end of that line.
Personally, I've just kind of accepted that I'm both and I would never think of having my genitals mutilated to feel exclusively male. Because of my congenital hormone imbalance, I can feel like a man without a penis when I'm not having my period, that's weird enough and a sex change operation wouldn't make me a real man, but just a mutilated woman.
they all ended with the women wanting to have children at some point.
This is quite confusing here, because were these women lesbians or just experimenting?
Going into a same-sex relationship automatically entails there's no possibility of having kids, it's basic biology 101. So why exactly did they enter the relationship knowing they couldn't have kids with another woman? Or was it only something they discovered they wanted after ending up in the relationship?
The women I was with were usually heterosexual women who were frustrated by unsatisfactory relationships with men. Since I wanted to be the "man" myself in these constellations, heterosexual women were my main target. I always had a certain style of dress and demeanour that reminded women of Jack Sparrow and basically acted like I could have any one but only want that special one. To get this feeling is the true desire of every woman. However, this desire is genetically encoded and programmed to find a permanent partner for breeding. And so all these women naturally wanted to breed with me at some point, but unfortunately the word "strap-on" doesn't read "no-parts" backwards for no reason. :D
. I always had a certain style of dress and demeanour that reminded women of Jack Sparrow and basically acted like I could have any one but only want that special one. To get this feeling is the true desire of every woman. However, this desire is genetically encoded and programmed to find a permanent partner for breeding.
Ah okay, that makes perfect sense. There have been some men who have said the exact same thing about how they would woo married women using an identical tactic.
One guy in particular.... when the women would get serious about wanting to leave their husbands for him, he would bail on them or make up some excuse to end the relationship, and then move on to the next woman.
And so all these women naturally wanted to breed with me at some point, but unfortunately the word "strap-on" doesn't read "no-parts" backwards for no reason. :D
Also, not to pry, but I was just thinking about that last part....
How did the women feel about the whole toy thing? Did they just go along with it until they realized they couldn't get pregnant or did some of them actually "nope" out at the concept of it?
How do we know that story isn't just a cheating woman with a very active imagination?
That's actually addressed in the bible. When Mary said that God made her pregnant, Joseph's first instinct was to assume she's a lying whore and went to divorce her. But then an angel showed up and was like "my man, it's all real" and everything ended up fine.
Well not fine, but you know. Relatively good, minus the part where they tortured his son to death.
Guys, unless you’re Catholic you won’t get it. We venerate Mary as the Theotokos (Mother-of-God) because she is Jesus’ mom. Since Jesus was a man, but also God, he would have the utmost respect and love for his parents, his Father is Himself (as the Father) and his mother is Mary.
It’s because of that doctrine that we believe Mary is a woman of borderline supernatural levels of faith, and so she is to be respected and many women (and men) do devotions to her to help them grow in their faith. For the womens devotions it naturally will focus on connecting them to her femininity, but for male devotions it’s primarily focusing on her faithful steadfast nature (aka the more masculine traits).
Are we really pretending that Catholics haven’t made sacred cows of everything but god? Saints, Mary, Popes, all are held with more fervor than god or the Bible.
Imagine thinking reverence is dictated by capitalization. That is the epitome of Catholic worship, all pageantry without substance. Catholics worship the Vatican, they worship the church, and they worship idols.
I’ll stick with my Jefferson Christianity. The downfall of Christianity was the worship of man that the Catholic Church started. Ever since then it has been used repeatedly in all tenants.
As someone who converted to Catholicism later in life after being a dyed in the wool Protestant, you don’t know much about Catholic doctrine. I mean no disrespect, and if you’re willing to hear me out PM me and we can have a conversation!
How many thousands of images are there of people literally falling to their knees and worshiping the pope? How many millions of saint medallions are there that Catholics pray to? Your religion is pure fallacy, no man is god, yet Catholics follow the priesthood repeatedly over the Bible.
While it may be tempting to think Jesus is half man half God (this is the Nestorian heresy), the mystery of the incarnation is that Jesus is both FULLY man and FULLY God. It is a hard thing to wrestle with, and this has lead to many prior heresies dealing with people putting too much/too little emphasis on one of the other natures of Christ.
We venerate Mary as the Theotokos (Mother-of-God) because she is Jesus’ mom.
This is similar to Dependapotamus Syndrome, where the female civilian spouse of a military officer feels entitled to be treated with the same deference and rank as her husband.
Wouldn't this notion be incongruent with Christian myth canon?
This example, with "royalty" used as a stand in for "divinity", would endow Mary with divinity by the sole act of giving birth to a divine being, god incarnate.
In canon, she is certainly 'blessed" and "holy", her motherhood itself is certainly considered divine, but not Mary as an individual herself .
Sure, with the exception that church doctrine from day 0, including actual verses of the Bible, call Mary “Highly Favored (by God)”. It’s pretty explicit that Mary is favored by God, but in no way has any authority nor does she claim any. It’s reverence given to her out of respect for her Son (in the same way a Queen Regent would be respected). She’s like the moon, reflecting the light of her Son.
This is the idolatry part of the problem. There are numerous people in the Bible “highly favored” by god. However the reverence only falls upon Mary and the saints. Catholics do not just pray to god, they pray to Mary, and pray to saints. This is all worship of man, even if god is considered the overall supreme, Catholics have created deities of worship aside from him.
Unless you think the destroying feminism you preach means you are now just as lacking integrity as "bring back masculinity" types like Cuck Jack Murphy.
Just the same as a people and their government are not the same, unless you want the UK's feminism to represent you.
Catholicism was always huge on the cult of Mary. Here in Poland they even made her the Queen of Poland (this is actually said in prayers) who personally saved Poland in several crucial battles, most recently Warsaw 1920.
70% of unreciprocated violence is female on male. Lesbians have twice the domestic abuse rate as gay men and almost twice that of heterosexual couples. Feminized men who act purely on emotions are more violent. Men raised by single moms are the largest indicator for violent crimes.
The lesbians that don't hate men are the so-called 'lipstick lesbians' or 'high-femme' lesbians, treated by the male-imitating bulldykes as oddities, because they cannot comprehend the idea of being attracted to a feminine body.
The only reason the masculinize themselves is in an attempt stop men from being attracted to them.
A similar parallel can be seen in the men who look for 'twinks' with 'boipussy', crossdressing as anime girls - these men aren't actual homosexuals even though they're fucking eachother, they're failed heterosexuals resorting to one another out of an inability to attract women, or a contempt for the shit tests and mind games they play.
Femdom and dominatrix shit is specifically a bunch of women who failed to find a chad and can only stomach beta males if they get to make a mockery of them.
I guess it's variable. I used to be with other women, but not because I hated men, but because I wanted to be one myself.There was never any violence in these relationships, but they all ended with the women wanting to have children at some point. In retrospect, understandable, because I always tried to be the man women secretly really want. But of course I unfortunately couldn't make children with them.
However, there is no denying that the genus you describe exists. But you probably only know this one, because it is the loudest and most unpleasant.
My personal opinion on the subject is that there are actually very few people who get gender identification problems due to congenital hormone problems. I was born with too much testosterone in my blood, I grow a few whiskers, I have a rather dark voice for a woman and I had strong difficulties identifying myself as a girl as a child. My appearance is quite androgynous and has often been the cause of speculation in public as to whether I am a feminine man or a masculine woman. But such people are indeed the exception in the gay and lesbian scene. The majority of these people have serious problems with their parents and a disturbed self-perception induced by this, basically similar to anorexics. Fear of touch and contact in the family or the stark perverted opposite of this is usually behind people having conflicts with their own self-perception. These people usually realise relatively late that they are homosexual or prefer to belong to the opposite sex, may have an artificial hormonal imbalance induced by medication and then, to a certain extent, start thinking about clinical mutilation of the reproductive organs. And a very small proportion of them, in turn, simply have an amputation fetish, but those are the exceptions at the other end of that line.
Personally, I've just kind of accepted that I'm both and I would never think of having my genitals mutilated to feel exclusively male. Because of my congenital hormone imbalance, I can feel like a man without a penis when I'm not having my period, that's weird enough and a sex change operation wouldn't make me a real man, but just a mutilated woman.
This is quite confusing here, because were these women lesbians or just experimenting?
Going into a same-sex relationship automatically entails there's no possibility of having kids, it's basic biology 101. So why exactly did they enter the relationship knowing they couldn't have kids with another woman? Or was it only something they discovered they wanted after ending up in the relationship?
The women I was with were usually heterosexual women who were frustrated by unsatisfactory relationships with men. Since I wanted to be the "man" myself in these constellations, heterosexual women were my main target. I always had a certain style of dress and demeanour that reminded women of Jack Sparrow and basically acted like I could have any one but only want that special one. To get this feeling is the true desire of every woman. However, this desire is genetically encoded and programmed to find a permanent partner for breeding. And so all these women naturally wanted to breed with me at some point, but unfortunately the word "strap-on" doesn't read "no-parts" backwards for no reason. :D
Ah okay, that makes perfect sense. There have been some men who have said the exact same thing about how they would woo married women using an identical tactic.
One guy in particular.... when the women would get serious about wanting to leave their husbands for him, he would bail on them or make up some excuse to end the relationship, and then move on to the next woman.
Ahahahaha.....wow I never thought of that before.
Also, not to pry, but I was just thinking about that last part....
How did the women feel about the whole toy thing? Did they just go along with it until they realized they couldn't get pregnant or did some of them actually "nope" out at the concept of it?
I would say that they were actually quite happy with that. The good thing about a rubber dick is the fact that it never goes limp.
What about imitating the Virgin Mary and stopping being absolute whores? Too far?
That's actually addressed in the bible. When Mary said that God made her pregnant, Joseph's first instinct was to assume she's a lying whore and went to divorce her. But then an angel showed up and was like "my man, it's all real" and everything ended up fine.
Well not fine, but you know. Relatively good, minus the part where they tortured his son to death.
Guys, unless you’re Catholic you won’t get it. We venerate Mary as the Theotokos (Mother-of-God) because she is Jesus’ mom. Since Jesus was a man, but also God, he would have the utmost respect and love for his parents, his Father is Himself (as the Father) and his mother is Mary.
It’s because of that doctrine that we believe Mary is a woman of borderline supernatural levels of faith, and so she is to be respected and many women (and men) do devotions to her to help them grow in their faith. For the womens devotions it naturally will focus on connecting them to her femininity, but for male devotions it’s primarily focusing on her faithful steadfast nature (aka the more masculine traits).
Damn, someone better tell Martin Luther, because he agreed with the Catholic doctrine even after the reformation.
Are we really pretending that Catholics haven’t made sacred cows of everything but god? Saints, Mary, Popes, all are held with more fervor than god or the Bible.
Imagine thinking reverence is dictated by capitalization. That is the epitome of Catholic worship, all pageantry without substance. Catholics worship the Vatican, they worship the church, and they worship idols.
I’ll stick with my Jefferson Christianity. The downfall of Christianity was the worship of man that the Catholic Church started. Ever since then it has been used repeatedly in all tenants.
As someone who converted to Catholicism later in life after being a dyed in the wool Protestant, you don’t know much about Catholic doctrine. I mean no disrespect, and if you’re willing to hear me out PM me and we can have a conversation!
How many thousands of images are there of people literally falling to their knees and worshiping the pope? How many millions of saint medallions are there that Catholics pray to? Your religion is pure fallacy, no man is god, yet Catholics follow the priesthood repeatedly over the Bible.
You were right. I didn't get it. Thanks for the explanation.
Mary would be Jesus’ biological mother.
While it may be tempting to think Jesus is half man half God (this is the Nestorian heresy), the mystery of the incarnation is that Jesus is both FULLY man and FULLY God. It is a hard thing to wrestle with, and this has lead to many prior heresies dealing with people putting too much/too little emphasis on one of the other natures of Christ.
Great question though!
This is similar to Dependapotamus Syndrome, where the female civilian spouse of a military officer feels entitled to be treated with the same deference and rank as her husband.
Wouldn't this notion be incongruent with Christian myth canon?
This example, with "royalty" used as a stand in for "divinity", would endow Mary with divinity by the sole act of giving birth to a divine being, god incarnate.
In canon, she is certainly 'blessed" and "holy", her motherhood itself is certainly considered divine, but not Mary as an individual herself .
Sure, with the exception that church doctrine from day 0, including actual verses of the Bible, call Mary “Highly Favored (by God)”. It’s pretty explicit that Mary is favored by God, but in no way has any authority nor does she claim any. It’s reverence given to her out of respect for her Son (in the same way a Queen Regent would be respected). She’s like the moon, reflecting the light of her Son.
This is the idolatry part of the problem. There are numerous people in the Bible “highly favored” by god. However the reverence only falls upon Mary and the saints. Catholics do not just pray to god, they pray to Mary, and pray to saints. This is all worship of man, even if god is considered the overall supreme, Catholics have created deities of worship aside from him.
Yes because the moral integrity of the Christian faith is so important to you.
A faith and an institution is not the same.
Unless you think the destroying feminism you preach means you are now just as lacking integrity as "bring back masculinity" types like Cuck Jack Murphy.
Just the same as a people and their government are not the same, unless you want the UK's feminism to represent you.
Catholicism was always huge on the cult of Mary. Here in Poland they even made her the Queen of Poland (this is actually said in prayers) who personally saved Poland in several crucial battles, most recently Warsaw 1920.
A more communist pope