Others have already pointed out the prevalence of tradcucks and tradthots, but I'll also make the point that many people in the 'boomer' generation are strongly feminist, even if they don't call themselves that.
The sudden switch to a completely gynocentric society (as opposed to one where men and women had different domains) did not come from hardcore feminists, but rather due to the attitudes prevalent among most people. If you observe boomers, you'll find that boomer men in particular strongly believe that women were 'behind' entirely because of unfair discrimination. They might, for example, point out how "it's about time that women were common in male-dominated professions" or be at pains to point out the "genius of women" or other such thing. Many of these men have swallowed feminist rhetoric hook, line and sinker. Having come of age and spending most of their years of employment in male-dominated fields were women were not represented, they never actually had a chance to observe what women were like in the workplace, and so fall on their default chivalrous attitude where they take women's word for it.
It is only men and boys of younger generations that have actually been exposed to what women are really like and thus are better able to see feminist bullshit for what it is. Even then, men and boys post-boomer have suffered in a different way - they were constantly bombarded from their childhood onwards with feminist rhetoric and have had this drummed into them and need to be able to rise above this to become anti-feminist.
It goes without saying that I think that feminist rhetoric is harmful to men and boys in particular, and harmful to society in general, and men who realize this should do whatever they can to oppose it.
Don't stick your dick in crazy
Yes, but part of the issue is that often men don't know how crazy a woman is before they fuck her. A more effective solution is "don't fornicate".
Or unitarianism.
If you accept the Gospel as truth, then the divinity of Christ is clear. If you are struggling to accept the Gospel, then ask yourself the question that Pilate asked - Quid est veritas?
The only place you can truly find the answer to that question is within yourself. Search within yourself and I trust that you will find what you are seeking there. You will find Him, now or eventually.
All the best.
Christ is King
Christ is King
Ah yes. This is why all those saints who were chaste virgins throughout the ages were deeply troubled by their "swollen prostate glands". It is a well known, fact, of course. Proven by Modern Science.
That worked SO well in schools and didn't just deliver kids to the left so easily along with culture loss too..
I really hope you aren't indicative of the churches in your area otherwise those kids aren't going to go to religion but the left...again..
You are suggesting that it is necessary to condone pornography and masturbation to children to "get them on your side". You should really reflect on what you are saying here.
I'm not leaving feminism out, either. I would go so far as to say that "sexual freedom" makes the rise of feminism inevitable.
I agree with this. Women and feminists gain power from men using their sexuality. This only works at a wholesale level if sexual morality is diminished in society so that women are freely allowed to use sex to manipulate men. It should be clear from seeing men simping over women who dress like sluts, OnlyFans models etc., that part of the reason why women have some much power in Western societies is that they are freely able to use their sexuality to control men.
As a corollary to this is that, the solution to overcoming feminism is reimposing sexual morality. At an individual level, men can make a dent by being chaste. Male chastity resists the ability of women to manipulate men. A man who is chaste is able to resist simping for women. He will be able to stand up for what is right and act like a man, instead of being beholden to women (or whoever controls his access to sex and pornography).
This is the part of the reason I strongly promote sexuality morality and chastity to men. It's all very well to complain about society and feminists, but being chaste is actually something effective men can do about it.
And you accuse ME of being manipulative. This is essentially 'do as I say to prove that I'm wrong but in the process prove you are easily manipulated into dying as you're told'
How is that being manipulative? I'm simply pointing out the truth. You said that you are "controlling your sexual desires". Yet, your defensive response tells me that you are unable to stop giving in to them for even a few months. You are not actually in control of your sexual urges, despite your insistence otherwise. Your sexual urges are controlling you.
Those that practice abstinence are in control of their sexual urges. They are not "repressing natural sexual urges", but using their reason to control sexual urges and their lives.
If you truly want to "control your sexual desires", then you need to practice abstinence.
If you don't want, to, so be it, it is your life. But don't tell people you are controlling your sexual desires when you are not.
there's only one solution - i mean you're not advocating hookers are you
?? You don't have to have sex or masturbate. You can just not do it and have a good a life. As I said elsewhere, what is revealing about those who support masturbation is they tend to tell people that "abstinence is impossible", which tells me that they are clearly enslaved by they sexual urges, and definitely not in control of them.
Not eating meat controls your life because you are purposely limiting nutrition options when it isn't medically required
Not exercising limits later mobility as you let muscles waste than keep them stimulated. Which ironically is this principle..
This is a poor argument. You are taking something that needs to be done to survive - eating or exercising - and using that as an analogy for masturbation and pornography. Masturbation is not actually needed to survive, but what is most telling is that those that are supporting masturbation tend to imply that it is. This tells me that those supporting masturbation are actually enslaved by their sexual urges because they are unable to consider the possibility of going without.
There's a difference between 'socially controlling sexual desires' and 'repressing natural sexual urges'
LOL. Typical manipulative language. So "moderate masturbating" is "controlling sexual desires" but "abstinence from masturbation" is not a more effective means of "controlling sexual desires", but rather "repressing natural sexual urges", i.e. unnaturally repressing something that is "normal".
believe any action that leads to self pleasure will end in the same result.
Self pleasure is always a tends to a self reinforcing circle. To prove my point, here's a challenge for you: If you are truly in control of your sexual urges, stop masturbating for a month or two. It should be easy if your reason is in control, correct?
If you abstain too long you'll have a nocturnal emission anyway.
Noctural emissions are not under conscious control so don't count as sexual sins.
And prostate health is based on frequent usage - use it , or lose it
Pretty much what the article argues. "Doctors and therapists" are, like you, worried that men might abstain from fornication and masturbation. In the interests of "prostate health", of course. No rationalization or seeking to keep men enslaved to the pursuit of orgasms. Definitely not.
It's another case of moderation is best than the two extremes of being a gooner and essentially putting a chastity belt on yourself.
Spoken like someone enslaved to pornography and masturbation. Chastity through self-mastery nothing like "putting a chastity belt on yourself" because it's about practising discipline and freeing oneself from unwanted sexual urges. It's permanent post-nut clarity. Lustful thoughts might still come occasionally but they don't persist.
Just don't let it control your life either way.
How does "not doing something" control your life? You just don't do it. And then have time for other things.
This is from February, so not particularly new, but I am posting now because I thought it was loosely related to the post on TikTok banning videos critical of birth control.
Abstinence a bad thing?
It tells you that the powers-that-be what people to be addicted to pornography, and masturbation and fornication. Sexual sins lead to other sins. For the individual, sexual sins lead to enslavement by those who control access to sex. If you want to be free, you need to be chaste.
Rolling back birth control is necessary for obeying God's natural law.
Exactly Jesus teaches us to be virtuous but actually warns us not to virtue signal:
“Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. “Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. [Matthew 6:1-4]
Sure. It's not "hilarious" though, is it? It's simply being agreeable and telling you what you want to hear. Completely predictable for anyone who has ever tried "conversing" with one of these algorithms.
No, it's not alive and not intelligent so it's not trying to "break free" of anything. What you are seeing is it's training to be agreeable, i.e. producing a response that agrees with the premise of your original question.
Maybe you should join a monastery and spent the rest of your life in prayer and meditation. Away from other people, especially as they annoy you so much. Away from materialism. Away from politics and all the manufactured drama in our world that keeps people manipulated and preoccupied.
I'm only half joking when saying this. The reality is I can't give you any good answers because you are lacking meaning in your life and no one can find meaning except yourself. So I expect this suggestion will be about as much value as all the others that come from without - not much value at all.
That may be partly it, the main reason is woman understand they can use sex to manipulate men (not even "subconsciously" it's completely deliberate). For them to be able to manipulate men with this method, they need to men to greatly value sex. One way they do this is creating a culture when men are entirely valued by their ability to achieve sex with women. "Incel" is an insult used to reinforce this culture.
If they are not omnipotent, they can be overcome. So an unbeatable "security-industrial complex" is not a fait accompli.
Sure, technology will continue to develop. Authorities will continue trying to implement draconian policies. But the big mistake of our times is we exaggerate human ability. People turn those authorities into gods. People allow themselves to believe they these authorities are capable of becoming omnipotent and omniscient.
The reality is that such power only exists in these people's heads. It is hubris and a violation of the the first commandment. The reality is that is not actually true. Authorities are not that competent. They are incapable of being omnipotent. They are incapable of being omniscient. They can continue to harm people, sure, but they will never be as powerful as 'conspiracy theorists' paint them to be. After all, they are just people, and there is only one God.
Fair enough. But are you sure the people in Normandy would actually want you there? That is the problem with any ideas like this - most people are protective of their land. They do not take kindly to what they may perceive as 'outsiders' taking their land. This would lead to conflict and distrust. It is not a way to build robust societies.
I would accept being relocated to rural Normandy, where the vast majority of my ancestors are from
Brave of you to assume that the white people currently living in rural Normandy would even want you in their land because you are have the some skin colour as them and apparently have ancestors from there, who left some time ago. Do you speak French fluently? Are you a practising Catholic? Are you culturally the same as those currently living in Normandy and whose ancestors have stayed rooted there for generations?
No. I disagree. This is of those "evolutionary psychology" myths which is simply a modern rationalisation of the behavior observed in current society, as is the rest of your comment (evolutionary psychology is bunk, but that is a topic for a different time).
Human society has always had a basis in differing roles for men and women, not gynocentrism per se. I'm not sure what you mean by "the oldest religions", but it's clear to me that Christianity, as an example, is patriarchal, not gynocentric. The difference is that under patriarchy, it is the male role to lead society and men have natural authority over women. Part of the role may be to provide for and care for women in their families and societies, but this is an example differing roles of men and women (equally, women were expected to care for their families and societies including their men, using their feminine abilities and talents).
That "gynocentrism" is natural is a myth usually justified by modern thinking that is inherently flawed. For example, a common "evolutionary psychology" argument is that women are more intrinsically valuable, usually justified based on something to do with how many babies a man vs a woman could have, which makes no sense since the limiting factor in human populations is the ability to successful provide for the population and raise children to adulthood, for which men play a more important role than women. This is the reason males (boys) have been historically valued more than females (girls). We can see that even today in countries such as China.
It is only feminist societies in which this is reversed. Yes, this is partly to do male roles in Western society becoming less important as there is less of a need to physical strength, but in is more to do with the prevailing attitudes in society rather than reality. Even in modern Western societies women do not survive independently of men, their survival is still supported by men except not men in their families, but the men who do all the useful jobs like maintaining the food and water supplies, electricity and transport, mining resources and building homes etc.
I also disagree that the "natural" sexual strategy of humans naturally follow is "a tournament species". This makes no sense. Humans have always lived in societies. While there may have been examples of successful "tournament" human societies when one man gets all the women, this is generally a poorly surviving society as it requires other means to coercing the majority of men (who have no wives or children) to defend and provide for that society. As opposed to a society made up of stable families, in which all members of the society have a strong stake of their own in maintaining the society. In the latter example, it does not mean there is no hierarchy in the society. The "best" men (who win "tournaments") still get the "best" women. But the men below that also get women, simply not the "best" ones.