You're right, they're not happy with themselves. Out of spite, selfishness and delusion they made the choice of rejecting men as a whole, only to find that they are forever incomplete and unalterably alone. Women cannot be a companion for women, any more than men can be a companion for men.
In the case of women however this is not necessarily the result of perversion as it is in men. Women are too malleable to actually have a "sexual orientation" beyond an innate preference for height. It is the result of conditioning. Women grow up with media and culture inculcating them into the idea that each and every one of them should be treated like they were a princess. Untempered expectations like this have fairly obvious results.
You're right, they're not happy with themselves. Out of spite, selfishness and delusion they made the choice of rejecting men as a whole, only to find that they are forever incomplete and unalterably alone. Women cannot be a companion for women, any more than men can be a companion for men.
In the case of women however this is not necessarily the result of perversion as it is in men. Women are too malleable to actually have a "sexual orientation" beyond an innate preference for height. It is the result of conditioning. Women grow up with media and culture inculcating them into the idea that each and every one of them should be treated like they were a princess. Untempered expectations like this have fairly obvious results.
I would replace “companion” in your argument with “mate” or something similar, as male companionship is well-documented. No homo!
I would argue that the more accurate term would be camaraderie.
Well said.
Fraternity perhaps, like a Roman legion or a monastic order.
Like, some kind of Band of Brothers?