The Feminization of Man

Prefix

It is obvious that any differences between males and females are a matter of degree.
Even sexual organs find their corresponding parts expressed in different biological manners in each of the sexes.
A male penis can be found in women as a clitoris, a woman’s ovaries found in males as testicles and so on.
Whatever differences there are between males and females they are slight when compared to the vast similarities shared by belonging to the same species.

Despite this, the alterations in character and psychology caused by hormonal and genetic phenomena, which differentiate males from females, are enough to become discernable even to the fiercest advocate of human equality.
A male nipple may be worthless to a man but a matter of grave importance to a woman.

Those of us acquainted with Chaos Theory are aware that even slight effects can have huge consequences when projected in time.
It is referred to as the “Butterfly Effect”.

Furthermore the terms female and male are not restricted to strictly gender descriptions but will be used, here, as a state of being or becoming that may be used to describe both men and women.
So it will be clear that there are men with female dispositions and women with male ones, even though the majority of us will express the characteristics and psychological leanings of our own sex more often than not.
[I am not only referring to homosexuality here but to a state of mind and a psychological type]

Many will accuse me of generalizing, for this is the favourite defence of those seeking to find an escape from insulting or hurtful premises they cannot contradict directly, but I will remind them that any exception to the rule only serves to prove the existence of a rule.
If it were not so then science itself would be impossible and specific studies would have to be conducted for each and every individual alive on any given time. There would have to be a science focused entirely on me, one on you, and every category and label would be absurd and meaningless.

Yet, general patterns and characteristics are what man uses to construct understanding and the recognition of patterns is a fundamental aspect of consciousness. Through the general assessment of phenomena, and by keeping in mind that they do not fully express the subtle degrees by which each diverges from the general rule and the overtly exceptional circumstances that sometimes lead to a complete non-adherence to a general law, man creates comprehension that benefits him by allowing him to construct abstractions. These abstractions are then symbolized with words and are then used to create strategies.

Even exceptions to rules follow their own rules of exception and chaos and randomness may only be human prejudices caused by the incomprehensibility or complexity of the rules themselves.
But more than all this, the following critical analysis of man and woman within social contexts are based on my personal observations and deductions and will not be defended using popular beliefs, political-correctness, scientific studies, or any third-party sources, even if this is also is possible.
It is up to the reader to test or dismiss my positions or to challenge them, if he or she wishes to do so.

It is clear that one can find a study defending most perspectives making the studies themselves and the way they are conducted questionable.
How popular opinion is constructed and maintained is an issue that does not fall within the purview of this topic; how science has become dependant on wealth and how censorship is conducted in these modern, more sophisticated times is, also, not within this topic’s focus, even if some aspects may be touched upon as required.

Those minds dependent on the assessment of others, to create personal beliefs, inadvertently expose their weaknesses and limitations, and it also exposes the quality and motives of current educational systems as they are but a part of the entire mechanism that attempts to shape and control human destiny.

In areas where direct observation is impossible a reliance on second-hand accounts is understandable.
But in areas where personal experience is possible and sensual awareness is feasible, a personal assessment, is often, more preferable and constructive over a parroted one.

Philosophy isn’t a mere repetition of past hypothesis or a reassessment of previous theories. It is an exchange of critical thoughts and personal analysis as they have been shaped by experience and affected by environment – including the influences of mentors and authorities. It is normal to be guided and influenced by the work of others but to completely become dependant on them and to mimic or imitate them only reveals our own quality in comparison.

What follows is my perspective, based on my personal experiences and observations, using my own senses and mental faculties.
Any similarities with the perspectives of others are coincidental and/or the effect of inspiration, and not of plagiarism.
Any contradiction of popular scientific or other common beliefs is understandable and irrelevant.
Each age has its own ‘unquestionable truths’ and social prejudices, and each mind must struggle to be more than a mere product of its age.

You cannot judge the accuracy of an idea by its popularity but by the strength of its argument, the supporting evidence the ordered reasonable manner by which it is presented and by the accuracy of the predictions that can be formulated using it.

I will expect nobody to take my word on anything, nor will I expect the reader to simply agree with me - I actually expect scepticism and personal supporting or contradicting observations to prove or disprove the precision of my own.

It is normal that the subject of males/females and of sex in general, is going to raise some controversy given the central role sexuality plays in human existence and given the popular sentiments of our western, ‘modern’ world, but my intent is to insight thought and debate, not anger and shame.
When and if it does result in insecurity, fear, resentment and feelings of inadequacy it is unfortunate but natural when considering the pitiful state of the human condition and our modern world full of delusions and illusions.

To dismiss me as being a sexist, a male chauvinist or one suffering from some mental or psychological ailment or sexual dysfunction is to not deal with the subject at hand but to try to redirect the subject using some apparent human imperfections, upon which much speculation can be dedicated.
But I remind you that by using this easy strategy of slander and insult any and every human idea can be dismissed out of hand since all human ideas are the products of imperfect human minds with imperfect psychologies and imperfect senses.

The only way to fight an idea is with another idea and before one deals with the human imperfections that lead to a supposed error, the idea itself must first be shown to be wrong.

One must also keep in mind the constantly changing moral standards and popular beliefs that may make some ideas shocking in one time and within one cultural context, and a matter of common sense in another time and a different cultural context.

One must also keep in mind that the terms modern or future or popular does not always mean better or superior, and are not by themselves argument supporting the validity of a conclusion.
Every position has been at one time or another, a current and a modern one, and it inevitably becomes an old and primitive one.
The idea that the past is inferior to the present or to the future is one with no real substance and a whole lot of subjective reasoning.

Evolution Theory has shown us that genetic alterations often answer to changing environments and make some mutations into advantages. The label of superior or inferior is dictated by the environmental demands of a specific time and place and also based on an ideal.

It is my hope that my own attempts to uncover myths and ailing ideologies should help in this search for power and purpose in a universe where man has neither.

As a pre-emptive response to one of the most common responses to what are deemed sexist remarks I must say that the label of sexist by itself is no response but an attempt to defame the other using current cultural and social standards of agreeable behaviour and thinking.
The fact that certain opinions are disruptive, insulting and/or painful to any one individual or a group of people is not a case against their validity but only a case for censoring them with ulterior self-serving motives.
The error of assuming that reality is positively inclined towards humankind or that nature is in any way interested in our personal preferences and feelings is based on a fearful reaction to an indifferent universe. It is an error that eventually goes as far as to imagine omnipotent, omniscient benevolent parents watching over us or that comes to deny the world altogether so as to escape its awareness.

Reality must be faced honestly and completely before any hope of overcoming it can be ascertained with any seriousness. The tactic of escapism, either through invisible, self-contradicting Gods or through extreme ascetic ideals preaching self-denial and the debasement of the human experience, are the usual effective ones.

Promising relief from the very essence of existence these haters of existence and that which makes them possible mask their death cults behind pretty words with no definitions and practising a form of self-delusion that promotes non-thinking and makes of irrationality a profound virtue.

It is the very desirability of thoughtlessness amongst its members that makes these nihilistic cults into systemic tools, spreading complacency and docility.

The assault upon human sensuality and awareness reaches as far as to discredit the very senses and interpretations that have enabled man to survive in a turbulent and unknown universe.
In an effort to eradicate all remnants of human nature and sense of identity the human is trained to believe that his senses trick him or that his perceptions are superficial and extraneous when they represent the very center of his existential position.

That appearances are ‘skin deep’ or the mythology concerning a deeper, unchanging, unaffected inner core are cultural methods of levelling man into a uniform paste that can then be remoulded into any shape.
Appearance is the very essence of what we are, since the word phenomenon (φαινομενον) is that which is apparent. In it no notion of a thing is present - alluding to an absolute - but only the notion of activity and of movement is inferred.

That we exist is evidently a process culminating in our appearance which is continuously changing and flowing.
Each man and woman, each phenomenon, is the sum of its entire becoming as it has been affected by the forces it has interacted with and has affected in turn.

The female form, the feminine biological type, is not accidental nor is it superficial. It is a product of a historical process motivated by need and determined by every environmental condition that each and every of a woman’s ancestors has faced.
The same holds true for a male and for any other type, be it a species or plant.
Each individual carries with him/her his/her entire heritage in his presence.

If this were not so then the entire evolutionary premise is debunked with a simple denial and the very category of species is made into a human blunder.

Returning to the topic at hand let me first admit that gender roles only make sense within a social context.
But is not man a social animal and are not social unties continuations of natural processes?

The position that man invented gender, and their subsequent roles, is one attempting to exterminate yet another source of human identity and to deny an entire past.
Gender roles and their accompanying cultural limitations, symbolisms and positions of status, are the extension of natural processes and biological roles, as they have shaped our species.

That these roles are currently under attack and being reinvented, for multiple social and cultural reasons, is having many psychological and social consequences which man will be forced to deal with, as he does whenever he dares to intervene in nature’s ways.

The reasons for this will be explored in the following thesis.

The levelling of mankind continues.

Centuries of social engineering and civilization have resulted in a type of human being unlike our ancestors and, still to this day, socialization persists to filter out all the culturally and socially “unwanted” human characteristics, altering, in this way, human nature and degenerating, in my opinion, the human spirit into indistinct oblivion.
The result has been a growing uniformity, producing a desirable, to the system, conformity which is then marketed as a virtue.

There is no conspiracy here, no invisible entity or secret group directing things from the shadows. We might even say that the process is natural, given the circumstances, and the consequence of a normal social progression which started in the tribal unit and has resulted in the emergence of a huge socioeconomic machine, with its own logic and interest, assimilating, conforming, levelling and eradicating everything in its path.

We might also say that this ‘natural’ process has its roots in human physical disadvantage as it confronts reality, causing psychological insecurities which make the cooperation of individual beings a forced necessity.

But this degradation of man, besides being a typical consequence of interdependence and socialization, demanding a certain sacrifice of individuality for the sake of survival, has been exacerbated by the infiltration of slavish moral systems into a human psyche that has already been demoralized and undermined by extreme scepticism and mental fatigue – particularly amongst the intellectual elites - and by interbreeding between a growing intellectual subclass and a continuously diluted intellectual upper-class that finds itself incapable to resist social and religious pressures and socioeconomic prerequisites.

The growing need for resources, requiring hands to forage, cultivate and maintain the infrastructures man has become reliant upon, makes it inevitable that more and more mediocrity will be produced and then flattered by making it into a virtue.
These growing populations, in turn, require organizing and to be made malleable and disciplined.

No surprise then that moral systems and religious dogmas, which accomplish and promote just that, suddenly appear, as if by chance, and then spread amongst the masses like wildfire.
That they then find ready fuel, for their fire, amongst the meek that “shall inherit the Earth” and are then quickly taught as an “enlightened” state, is also quite understandable.

Natural selection implies the elimination of any substandard organisms so that a few can then pass on their more fit traits.
Once the process of evolution is diverted or when nature is “corrected” by human ingenuity, guided by some idealistic principle or other, and when man intervenes, producing many more unforeseen, side-effects, then the very weakness that was eliminated is made to flourish and then to dominate, out of sheer numbers.
The consequence of this intervention, as it is motivated by a specific ideal and a specific mindset, shaped by particular environmental conditions, and then promoted by particular mythologies, moralities, and cultural manipulations, is what this thesis is all about.

A fundamental characteristic of weakness, as a concept, is its willingness to sacrifice a part of itself to save its entirety. Weakness is furthermore characterized by its inconspicuousness, its ability to blend and vanish into the multitude, its non-confrontational incorporation within more powerful entities, its expendability, its commonness, its malleability, its reliability and willingness [when conscious] to conform and, so, adapt.

The ‘If you can’t beat them join them’ strategy is one most often practiced in nature and in our universe. What cannot survive on its own inevitably either perishes or winds-up as a part of something bigger and stronger, by means of consumption, via having its parts absorbed, or assimilation.
It is this fundamental principle that is primarily responsible for the constant state of flux and fluidity, we experience as change and time, and which characterizes our state of being and our perspective of reality.

Man, as an isolated individual being outside any group, is certainly a weak creature when compared with other beasts, making his cooperation with others, of his own kind, a requirement and his participation within unions of need, a matter of survival. But despite mans physical weaknesses he possesses the gift of intelligence, self-awareness and abstract thought that can lead to an alteration of environmental conditions and the revolutionary redefinition of what is weak and what is strong within them.
This human ‘gift’, which can take advantage of external resources through the application of the imagination and the utilization of man’s providential opposing thumbs, has produced the need for social units of vast scale and intricacy and has resulted in the added need for an adaptation to human environments that have replaced or surpassed the importance of natural ones. In addition to this, human psychological insecurity and physical frailty has imposed the need to armour mans feebleness with technological artifices that place a wall between man and his true spirit and distances man from himself and from nature entirely, by means of self-contained artificial systems.
{The concepts of artificial and natural are used, in this thesis, as a designation between environments that pre-existed humanity or that are independent from humanity, and those that are a direct result of humanity}

This artificial ‘wall’ is the source of man’s current sense of separation and feeling of uneasiness that is expressed through the arts and through politics as the demonization of technology and the machines we’ve created but that now we’ve come to serve.
Machines and the machinery of modern social existence, in fact, function as our surrogate targets of hate, anxiety and fear in place of the real culprit of human enslavement: modern society, religion and culture, that engulf us in this unconscious, invisible matrix of artificiality and superficiality in order that we may serve its requirements by undermining our individuality, our essence and our uniqueness - all the while, in true Orwellian newspeak, they claim to do the exact opposite. As this engine of civilization grows its parts lose value by becoming expendable and disposable (uniform) and man becomes an insignificant wheel in a huge engine (alienation).

Like with all closed systems, a social system has its own methods and mechanisms by which it meets its needs and creates environments and participants which ensure its continuance and its health. In doing so each system replaces or mutates past systems and refocuses and redefines their premises.
This, too, mirrors the natural process of consumption and assimilation; of creation/destruction.

In human cultures and civilizations the struggle between the present and the past environmental demands, upon the individual, manifests itself in great psychological strain and in sometimes contradictory behaviours. These behaviours are trained into the human animal and are reinforced by using intimidation tactics, such as religious dogma and the rule of law. When these behaviours are detrimental to the harmony of the group they are diverted and defused through the entertainment industry, sports and political ideologies.

By trying to replace or restrict the influence of past natural environmental affects upon man, by promoting human characteristics that are desirable and restricting those that are detrimental to the social or cultural group’s premises, each system reshapes its parts into particular types, ideal for the given group’s fitness.
This is what I call specialization and it is the result of indoctrination, mind control and compartmentalization.

By controlling resources the system makes of itself a monopoly the individual must bow down to before it can be rewarded for his/her loyalty and surrender.
The innate desire to survive makes every mind easily swayed by anything that promises its own continuance, either in the short term or, as in religious promises for eternal life, in the long term.
Thusly, the training of the mind, which is already of a questionable stock as we’ve mentioned earlier, to use different standards and different reasoning so as to maintain its focus on its own well-being, becomes an easy affair.

We can witness this affect on human behaviour by studying the specific systemic types created by different cultures throughout history and in how each utilizes, or utilized, sexuality, human nature and psychology through institutions and moral codes in similar manners but with distinctly different orientations and dissimilar results.

The usage of direct threats and force has given way to more subtle methods of a constant state of anxiety and the method of training the mind, from an early age, as to what to think, rather than how to think.
Making the slave believe he is the master or that he can be the master, is just the modern way authority imposes itself on the weak, during these, modern times.

All human cultures may use familiar methods for parallel reasons but each has a noticeably different motivation leading to diverging human ideals, guided by each cultures ethical standards and value systems as they are inherited, through time, from ancestral backgrounds, historical experiences and philosophical/ideological pasts.

This is what I refer to as essence.
The essence of each man, for example, is the sum of each and every environmental effect and of how his accentors reacted to them, culminating in his presence.
Each organism represents this culmination of effects. Its biology, behaviour, needs, traits, appearance is this end result.

In cultures where paternalistic dominance is still prevalent, such as in the Middle-East and India [And only until recently in the west], social engineering is still controlled by males that are governed by their particular cultural perspectives and it is facilitated by the supremacy of religious dogma, by existing totalitarian political systems and by the subjugation of females to the culture’s demands.
In the west, where centuries of world domination and due to its contamination by Judeo-Christian ethical systems and altruistic ideologies, the paternalistic system has eroded enough to make equalitarian impoverishment and spiritual degradation possible.

Democracy is the result of weariness, caused by the constant conflict and uncertainty of previous political systems, and the natural consequence of population explosions that enabled individuals, of questionable quality, to unite and achieve political relevance through the strength of numbers.
It is also the expected result of increasing demands for resources, caused by a prospering civilization, shrinking spaces and a human psychological predisposition for peace and stability.

This social circumstance, caused paradoxically by the very natural tendencies that eventually become dangerous and unwanted {survival, dominance, control, violence, selfishness, arrogance, procreation, power; all sexual male drives} unleashed upon the world by the unburdening of the human mind from matters of immediate survival, through prosperity, and from primitive religious myths and superstitions through intellectual enlightenment, lead to a western world dominion that exponentially increased populations and the accompanying need for resources and made it necessary to then suppress these very same instinctive drives in order to maintain stability and social harmony.

This trend towards larger and more malleable populations, existing within smaller spaces and dwindling resources, has made equalitarian, servile moralities essential and vital.

The more complacent, unaware and gullible a population is the more governable and controllable it becomes. It is therefore understandable why unsettling ideas must be quarantined and eradicated, why free thought must be restricted and why defiance and uniqueness must be controlled and punished as an example to be avoided before it becomes one to be emulated.
In our modern western world this dummying-down of the masses has resulted in populations that, despite their relative affluence, information access and general prosperity, display the apathy, ignorance and naïveté of the less fortunate in third-world countries.

The complete indoctrination of man into artificial [manmade] environments, sometimes demanding behaviours contrary to more primitive natural ones, has moreover been facilitated by the gradual diminution of man through unnatural sexual selection, re-education and the slow eradication of the, before mentioned, human characteristics that made man a natural dominator and a survivor in a threatening universe.

It is derisive that the very intellectual superiority that resulted in human dominion is also contemporary society’s greatest foe, that must be controlled and even narrowed, and the very male spiritual attitude that knelt to no natural demand and accepted no holy authority is now to be atrophied and warped.

In the west socialization/institutionalization/domestication, population control and mind manipulation has taken a distinguishing subtle, subliminal and indirect approach, to maintain the illusion of free-will and individuality, upon which all of western culture is based.

Unlike the more direct and obvious controlling practices in other cultures, it is more difficult to always perceive where and how we have been manipulated into thinking and behaving in certain ways. For many the current state of affairs, in the western world, is taken to be the epitome of human achievement, the height of human development and the worthy successor of a cultural revolution that began on the rocky Aegean shores of ancient Greece and has reached for the distant Martian plateaus in our time, but they neglect to consider the true spirit of this ancient stance towards life and only judge it from its superficial constructs and external facades.

The Hellenic spiritual revolution, which we now call western civilization, was not an external one where great monuments are built in the Egyptian style or where man is judged by his material creations [Although even this is a part of it, it is not the goal] or his discipline to greater forces, the true spirit of western thought was in how it perceived the individual, man’s place in the universe and in how it judged mans value and potential.
Evidence of how western ideals have been mutated and subverted through time is in how we, at present, perceive the world around us and from where we accept our own self-worth and meaning.

For instance, many of us in the west, influenced by marketing practices from an early age, find it obvious that certain product name-brands are associated with a particular ideal and that the acquisition of certain products and the image constructed to go along with them, is of the utmost importance and relevance and the means by which we advertise and express our own self-worth and quality to the world. Owning a BMW or a Mercedes or a Versace or a Rolex, is how we exhibit our social status, as capable consumers, and it is how we try to attract others, especially females, to our genetic potency dictated, in this case, not by natural symbolism but by a socioeconomic one. Guided by an ideal, we have accepted as our highest, we buy into the system. The quality of the products we own and consume must supposedly symbolize our personal quality, whether it is actually present or not.

But why these particular products of human ingenuity, no different than many others, are associated with a specific image and why, is for most of us unrecognizable and just a matter of ‘common sense’ that is mostly undisputed. Yet, here we can find evidence of how we have been manipulated into believing that mercantile quality is equal or a fair substitute for substantive quality and that external objects can fill in for an inner void to, at least, hide it behind the glitter.

The current popularity of spirituality and the rediscovery of past spiritualism, particularly amongst urban populations where the distance between man and nature is the greatest and where the fruits of mans labour are mostly of an impersonal nature, is a symptom of this systematic, capitalistic redefinition through abstraction of value and self-worth that serves the socioeconomic system by forcing a continuing striving for materialistic acquisitions. This, in-turn, drives modern economies, and maintains a constant state of tentative hopefulness for material wealth, that is supposed to be the ultimate answer to boredom, meaninglessness and misery, and keeps the masses working and dreaming. Despite the odds being stacked against them by the overall interests of the system itself which seeks to preserve the status quo of class disparity and hopeful need, the masses have been sold hope by raising hopelessness.

Most of us do not question the ideals of our chosen value system but only discipline ourselves to its premises and, in true female fashion, we become simple mirrors of the world around us.

Material wealth, that was meant to symbolize the quality of an individual by his access to resources in a natural system, has now come to symbolize, not only the physical or mental excellence that leads to abundance but the total obedience and compliance of said individual to a larger whole that is rewarded, with superficial riches, for his/her submission.
He is offered an identity when he has eliminated or suppressed all remnants of his previous one.
This is his proof of loyalty and dependence.

In a system where materialism prevails, consumerism reigns and where the preservation of already acquired status is desired, wealth is most often inherited than earned.
When earned it is frequently at the price of an entire lifetime’s toil, making the enjoyment of the consequent privileges, once again, a matter of heritage for later generations that can never fully appreciate what they themselves have not earned and therefore do not deserve.

Here we can also find the causes for the current generational gap and the roots of this recent pampered undisciplined naiveté and unmerited over-expectation of western urban youths that has resulted in them not respecting or valuing anything, including their very own selves.

Deconstruction and/or destruction often precede construction and so the individual must first be ‘cleansed’ of his heritage and sense of self, before he is fertile ground for a new ‘awareness’ and sense of self.

Nihilism is more than a product of this process of re-education, but it is also a result of unjustifiable safety, leisure and the ensuing ennui this results in.
Life loses value when all have a ‘right’ to it, just as love loses value when all deserve it.
Self-examination is not flattering to all, and very few can fully appreciate or accept what this examination uncovers or is unable to uncover.
The phenomenon of nihilism is not a rarity, as many would like to think, but it underlies most of today’s major spiritual dogmas.
The preaching of self-hatred is often masked behind love, just as the eradication of individuality is often purported by those pretending to be defenders of it.

This obsession with materialism, particularly in the west, has come at the expense of all other human endeavours and, serving the demands of a particular system, has resulted in a loss of human identity, spirituality and natural interconnectedness. We no longer relate to each other as thinking, feeling human beings, connected with all of creation intimately, but we relate to each other as consuming owners, protective maintainers of that which we own and covet and egotistical misers that take the things that they buy to be what defines them as individual human beings.

The very concept of possession, that results in affluence and privilege and through which all modern civilization is made possible, is based upon a myth, the myth of ownership. In nature there is no such thing as ownership. Not even life is truly owned by an individual but is only ‘leased’, metaphorically speaking, and temporarily enjoyed.
Life is an aggressive act of will that reacts and maintains itself tenuously for a brief period.
In the end all must be returned to the primordial ‘soup’ from which new creations will spring forth and new unions will take place. Reality is a work in progress with no final destination, making the very idea of ownership a ridiculous farce.

Like all manmade concepts it, ownership, suffers from the desire to usurp natural rules, for practical and psychological reasons, and so requires a remoulding of human nature.
Man is forced to redefine his place in the universe in order to overcome his physical and mental weaknesses by taking advantage of the power of numbers and, in so doing, loses the intimacy and interconnectedness of existing according to his true individual spirit.

Modern man has lost his/her pride in himself and in his/her true nature and, now, substitutes the cavernous emptiness in his/her soul with matter of dubious certainty, titles and affairs of outer origin and thusly forever detaches personal value from the self.
Even the personal names man associates himself with become a generic stamp shared by many that possess no intimate relation to distinction; Tom, Dick and Harry just non-specific labels of non-distinctness that can be easily replaced by a simple number representing a statistic; Mary, Susan and Helen names saying nothing about the individual besides her participation within a particular cultural and religious group.
Here we see uniformity in practice.

Modern man is more likely to find self-worth and self-importance in external (material) sources than internal (spiritual) ones as he desperately seeks for a connection with his real nature and searches for evidence of his real identity. This, in my view, is due to the steady decline of man as an individual personality, which makes it obligatory to substitute personal quality with an adopted external façade of quality that can be shared by multiple individuals who inevitably begin thinking and behaving in imitation of each other.
We call this pop-culture in the west.

The methods by which man is shaped and sculpted in social environments contain natural instinctive drives and manmade imaginative institutional inventions that either take advantage of aforesaid drives or totally subvert and suppress them.
One of these human inclinations, that are blatantly manipulated, is the sexual instinct.

The fundamental human compulsion is to mate and to procreate. This biological standard of personal success is still in man, despite his self-asserted evolution beyond primitiveness, the major source of acquiring his self-meaning. It is also the means by which the natural system, the original system of human emergence, has controlled and shaped our behaviours in the past and still maintains a dominant grip on our psyche in the present.

Because of this, sexuality is the major motivating factor behind all human actions and creations. We may say that mankind is obsessed with sex and procreation because mankind is constantly preoccupied by his own mortality, making life merely a constant struggle against death.

Sex is the central focus of all individual thought, whether we know it or not, and it plays an important part in how man is guided and moulded, not only by nature, but by culture and civilization that now uses and mutates it to its advantage.
In this game of sexuality, played by mortal beings, the basic participants of male and female archetypes [Keeping in mind that there might be other gender types in our universe] are elemental and worth analysing further, for it is through this interrelation and ‘dance’ of sexuality that man comes to be and his quality and nature is determined.

To say that women are the weaker sex is to not do justice to their entire natural role and it ignores the true power women possess within social groups where, like all individual weakness, it procures strength through numbers and finds safety in groups.
In fact a woman’s place within a social group is a privileged one, as we will see further on, and it has been man’s intervention and imposition of authoritarian, paternalistic socio-political systems that has stripped women of the full extent of their power, as expressed through female sexual choice and the feminine unobtrusive mirroring of cultural norms, by subjugating them to cultural and religious dogmas that inhibit natural mechanisms and corrupts human instincts.

Left to her natural devises, a woman plays the part of genetic ‘gatekeeper’ and social ‘filter’ that propagates the ideals and values of a group and weeds out unwanted physical, mental, social, cultural, religious or psychological traits.
In natural environments women’s sexual choices are guided by natural motivations, in social/economic/cultural/religious environments a woman’s sexual choice is further complicated by other considerations that battle with the pre-existing natural ones for domination.
Through a woman’s choice, and how this choice is focused and determined by natural inclinations and social upbringings, a woman acts as an instrument of selectivity that dictates the future of mankind and his destiny.

This ‘gatekeeper, ‘filter’ role is made possible by the female’s two basic characteristics:

Social Dependence

A woman is nothing outside a group. Her entire self-worth and value is derived through her participation and her position within a group; her entire self-worth is derived by how desirable and appealing she becomes to the opposite sex and, as a consequence, in how she becomes a willing and capable social and cultural tool. She finds purpose in how effectively she can be used as an instrument and a means to an end.

As such her power is achieved in how well she understands, manipulates, is assimilated, conforms and reflects the morals, values and virtues of the group she participates in and in how close to a physical aesthetic ideal she reaches that exposes her fertility and genetic history.

A woman, in essence, has no real individuality but plays any part she deems is attractive and necessary to achieve her goal of belonging and reproducing.
It is for this reason that women are often at the forefront of social trends and tend to look-down upon males who often resist or exhibit a more timeless sensitivity.
The natural propensity of females to grab upon new leadership and ideals is based, primarily, on their biology.
Resistance would be detrimental to their biological function; therefore they accept new things more easily as their main interest is to belong to the one’s promising the most potential for dominance.
Their power is one of association and so they seek out to associate.

It is noteworthy that in marital unions it is mostly the woman that is asked to change families, adopt a new clan and the name that goes along with it or is forced to change her religious and cultural life and rarely is it the man that is expected to do so unless he has been sufficiently emasculated and deprived of his unique identity and personality.

Unlike a man, a woman does not fully carry the tag of her genetic history but can be traded and swapped between different clans or tribes or cultures, like a valuable commodity; a practice she submits to, willingly and easily due to her temperament.
A man, reversely, is forever associated with his original national, racial, tribal or cultural identity and is forever a representative of his creed since he can only function as a reproducer of his own kind.

A female is a social chameleon that mirrors the colors of her surroundings and blends into the background with little or no distinctive quality. In fact, her success is determined by how thoroughly she takes on the characteristics of the ideal female role of her immediate environment and in how successfully she reproduces the ideals and ideas of her group.
In this willingness to accept unquestioningly and completely any dominant power and finding in her ‘belonging’ her highest achievement, women become the tools of indoctrination and genetic engineering.

Sexual Selection

A woman possesses the most valuable and desirable part of an ephemeral human existence; she produces and controls the human ovum which ensures and directs the propagation of the species and decides its destiny.

Where men can produce billions of sperm in a lifetime and impregnate thousands of women, women produce, in comparison, a scant amount of eggs and can only gestate a minimal amount of offspring in the course of a lifetime.

Through her sexual selectivity she ensures the continuance of specific traits and characteristics while it condemns others to eventual extinction. In her mind a woman believes she is making a logical, free-willed choice based on well thought out reasons and/or personal tastes, when she chooses a mate.
In fact she is merely following her genetic drive, her instinctive motivations and her cultures prejudiced virtues.

It is this female ovum that males fight to control and to inseminate and through this control to ensure their own continuance. This is one of the fundamental principles of evolutionary mechanics.
It is therefore a woman’s aesthetic appeal that reveals her physical health, her fertility and her mental faculties to bear and raise capable, fit offspring. It is this physical appeal that men find irresistible and makes their devotion and sacrifices towards women possible. It is also through this physical appeal and the ends to which men will go to acquire access to a healthy, fertile ovum that women achieve their highest power through and the means by which they manage to control men of often higher mental and physical strength than themselves.

These two female ‘powers’, if left unhindered by male intervention elevate women to a privileged position of social strength as a valuable ‘asset’.

The female propensity to willingly and completely adopt the value systems she finds herself in and in her overall control over who she will be impregnated by makes her a ‘custodian’ of social conformity and a tool of genetic manipulation.
In the exceptions to this rule one must seek out sexual dysfunction or her surrender to alternative ideals.

But a woman’s choice isn’t as easy as it first may appear. If she isn’t a part of a culture where her choice is taken away or restricted by male dominance, she is further troubled by two forces battling over her attentions:

1}Intellectually, and if sufficiently indoctrinated within a cultural framework, she is pulled to the socially acceptable and upwardly mobile male who, like her, has adopted and completely conformed to the social/cultural/religious norm and by doing this has ensured his social success giving him access to resources restricted to the unlawful and socially undisciplined.
These resources are essential for women that are forced to live through a long gestation period, making them more helpless than they would normally be, and a following infant maturation process that takes decades and capital to be considered a success.

2}Physically and instinctually she is still bound to her genetic predispositions and still instinctually attracted to the archetypical male ideal, who through his natural inclinations may appear violent, vulgar, arrogant, proud, confrontational, and unyielding when judged according to our ‘modern’ standards, when compared to the more effeminate, docile, socially indoctrinated, tolerant and passive ‘modern’ male, that is most valued within larger populations where individual traits and talents are less decisive.

In this mix we must notice the distinctive differences in sexual selection between older and younger females. This is often attributed to an increase in awareness, attributed to the older female that now ‘knows what she wants’.
In actuality the younger female is the more uninhibited by social and economic considerations and so her behaviour is all the more authentic, whereas an older female must balance her instinctive natural desires with more practical considerations and under the influence of decades of social pressures.
This compromise is romanticized so as to make it more virtuous and less of a concession – a settling down.

By all means the idealism of a monogamous relationship must be sheltered against reality, even when it inevitably turns into tolerance based on dwindling personal potentials and comfortable habituation.

In many species the male has been completely eradicated from the social group and only plays a provisional role of inseminator. Then he is destroyed to preserve the more controllable, submissive, female, maternal, socially stable environment [Ants, bees, termites, wasps etc.]. Interesting also that where female dominance reigns, such as in the before mentioned species, an absence of individual personality and an instinctive mindlessness is the prevailing characteristic.

The previously mentioned two female sexual considerations are what play a part in the misunderstanding and incomprehensibility of women to the average male that cannot reconcile what women say and what they often do. It is the cause of this supposed female ‘mystique’, caused also by a general male indifference as to the inner workings of a female mind. This gives women an advantage considering their insatiable appetite for the inner workings of a male’s mind and her preoccupation with being accepted and appreciated by others.
A woman’s superiority can be found in how she establishes and maintains relationships and in her practical application of knowledge and experiences.

It isn’t, so much, that women are smarter than men when it comes to psychology and social relationships but that they devote more of their brainpower and time to these concerns. It is for this reason that females develop faster and acquire better communication skills early on. The quickness by which she reaches child-bearing maturity makes her relevant and her skill in linguistic expression and understanding allows her to evaluate the underlying social mechanics and her methods of adapting to them which establishes her position and social status.

But the total devotion of a female mind to the immediately perceptible and practical gives them an added advantage in social matters. A woman is subconsciously adept in understanding body language and in interpreting psychological states through the perception of external details and subliminal messages. They call this ‘woman’s intuition’.
She is always a step ahead of males in picking up and interpreting the minutiae of physical information, freely given off by all of us and that are needed by her to read personalities, qualities and interpersonal relationships. Her total commitment to appearances also makes her superficial and completely uninterested or unaware of abstract concepts or underlying realities.
Her world is immediate.

A man’s role within a social group is a more precarious one.

He is both expendable and an intrinsic part of the health of the whole; he can be a definer of what it means to be human or be a mere failed attempt at it; he can be the epitome of greatness or a symbol of degradation; he can be a leader and guider of a group or relegated to a peripheral role; he can be the goal or the error.

The demands upon the male intellect, because of the aforementioned, are greater than in females. He must be flexible and stringent, disciplined and free-willed, strong and compassionate, proud and humble in a balance dictated by the form of the group he wishes to become a successful, respected leader of, and dictated by the environment he is forced to exist within.

A man’s mind is divided between the necessary perception of appearances and the need to find advantage by evaluating and perceiving the non-perceptible, through the abstract.
If a woman is the buyer of genetic potential then a man is inevitably the seller and as such possesses the creativity, imagination, mental flexibility and abstract thinking of one that must consistently prove his value to the whole in order to ensure his relevance and importance.

But these necessary characteristics of a successful male are also the source of his natural domination and lead to the eventual control over the forces of nature.

A man’s natural inclination is to inseminate as many females as he possibly can and then guide them and his offspring with his strength and power into copies of himself. Modern day practices, of man as caretaker and homemaker, are the direct result of man’s feminization where he has submitted to authorities more powerful than himself and accepted a certain mode of behaviour that is expected of him while being contradictory to his normal inclinations.

The male type is governed by his need to control, to possess, and to be independent and self-reliant; he is a natural sceptic and adversary of all that binds him, restricts him or attempts to dominate him. It is this unyielding, courageous male attitude that has lead to human dominion over nature and to mankind’s unquestionable success. It is this that has opened up frontiers for human exploitation. Ironically it is also this success that has made maleness expendable and unwanted within growing social systems where a more disciplinable, humble, demure, malleable type is more desirable.

Where there is uncertainty and fear, males become intrinsic, but where there is safety and predictability males become detrimental to harmony and uniformity. Where there are un-chartered frontiers and unconquered worlds, men become vital, but where there is un-inquisitiveness and limitations imposed upon human action and thought, men become dangerous and garish.

Unlike women, men are not just born into value and importance by just being a member of their gender but must earn any respect and privilege or perish in the effort. It is this that drives men to higher and higher levels of mental and physical perfection and has stretched human existence to such an extent that it now threatens to separate him from his roots and through this stretching has thinned out his spirit.

It is this creativity that is harnessed by ‘modern’ societies by making all men investors in them by allowing them to procreate. An accomplishment achieved, by the way, by the subjugation of women.
Man himself is responsible for the condition of his species, since women will go along with any moral or spiritual decision that dominates the minds of men, and because of this he becomes the creator of his own demise.

Is the male archetype a primitive expression of the human condition destined to become extinct or marginalized? That remains to be seen, but one thing is for certain, where maleness is extinguished so is the spark of individuality, creativity, personality and un-harnessed potentiality.

Marriage

The institution of marriage was a fundamental necessity in the emergence of cultures.
The integration of males within a group makes it crucial that the natural feminine sexual choice be curtailed and controlled so as to prevent male strife and stop the marginalization of masses of unfit males who would then become disruptive to social cohesion.
The promotion of monogamy, using tradition and morality, has been a fundamental aspect of social cohesion.
Polygamy is but a variation of the basic principle by which a male and a female are prohibited from exhibiting their natural sexual promiscuity, placing a cap, so to speak, upon the amounts of sexual relationship one can indulge in.

The man, with his traditional leadership over a family unit, also becomes an integral part in spreading his culture’s ideals and is made responsible for what he sows.
In homogeneous societies a male becomes a representative of the monopolizing male authority the institution symbolizes. He is the hand of the King/Queen or of God or of government and he passes on to his offspring his own heritage as it reflects the common one.

But this function becomes damaging to social cohesion within heterogeneous societies.
As societies grow into global systems they must integrate populations with diverse backgrounds and with often contradictory ideals and beliefs.
Because of this all heritage must be degraded in importance and the authority of the male over his family becomes a threat to the system’s authority.

The child must be influenced and trained only my one authority, teaching particular morals and ideals, and so all competing sources of knowledge and identity has to be made secondary or eliminated altogether.
We see here why the current deterioration of the family unity as well as an increase in feminism goes hand in hand.

The woman being a more docile and easily indoctrinated member of a social group is more apt to pass on the teachings, ethics and beliefs of the system itself.
The male must follow suit or be excluded from the possibility of reproducing his genes.

The masculine institution is an abstracted symbol of the male archetype, just as money is an abstraction of value or resources, making it possible for anyone to become its representation since the sex of the individual representing it only matters due to psychological reasons.

That males have been traditionally the symbols of the masculine institutional power is due to these factors: 1} it is normal that any progression would be rooted in the past and that, early on, it would reflect its origins more prominently.
The abstraction of male authority through the institution, being a continuance of natural phenomena, would obviously exhibit this connection.
Males are therefore the sole acceptable representations in more primitive social groups where the abstraction has not reached the level of sophistication and man has not distanced himself from nature to the extent that later social unities have. The psychological, biological bonds with our origins make it, even today, difficult to accept a woman in these symbolic posts although habituation, coupled with effective training/educating is quickly making this resistance to human intervention less forceful…} the relative primitive state of technologies would still maintain more primal balances and relationships intact, whereas with the progression of technology the obsolescence of these primal balances eliminates even this necessity. For instance, the need for warriors with brute muscle power to defend and expand the influence of a group made the maintenance of males as dominant over females essential to the health of the group. With the later progression of technologies this need diminishes, making it unnecessary for males to hold symbolic, representative dominion over females or over the family.
This essentially makes the family an obsolete human invention and it eventually results in the emancipation of women not from masculine authority, since the institution still remains the sole masculine entity allowed, but it is the emancipation from the secondary symbolic roles males have played as representations of this sole masculine authority.
Feminism is basically the female drive to eliminate males, emasculated males, as an intermediate symbolic representation and their attainment of a direct contact with the institutional power, allowing them to gain the possibility of becoming this symbolic representation themselves.

It is the elimination of even the pretence of masculinity from biological males that are now relegated to equal status, with women, as feminine subjects of the system.

As a consequence the social phenomenon of hyper-masculinity emerges as a reaction to this social trend. Emasculated males, trying to save the pretence of maleness, exhibit exaggerated displays of male prowess, often using the very abstractions the system provides them with and the values and ideals the system has indoctrinated them with.

In their haste to prove themselves worthy of procreation, the modern male uses the symbolisms of his own decline and displays himself by using the very evidence of his capitulation to show off his merit.

The entire sexual game then becomes an act of female compromises and male duplicity.

The game of sexual attraction is an intricate dance of flirtation and insinuation that hides a deeper practical motivation.

Steven W. Gangstad PhD said on the matter:
“Flirting is a negotiation process that takes place after there has been initial attraction.”

For women the ‘game’ of sexual attraction has additional complications and considerations. For her the implications and consequences of a sexual relationship will have far reaching results for her and her progeny that makes her decision making a more complicated one.

Her natural instinctive inclinations, as I’ve already stated, attract her to the archetypical male. The physical and mental strength that will be inherited, through her, by her offspring, makes these natural attributes precious and irresistible to her. But the further consideration of being impregnated by a male with access to material resources, that will make her long gestation comfortable and the following years of infant rearing successful, is essential to a female’s choice.

In natural environments the physical and mental prowess of a male went hand-in-hand with his resourcefulness and his access to the essentials whereas in our modern world this is rarely the case.

In a “modern” social environment access to resources and material wealth is mostly accessible to males of a conforming predisposition that have been assimilated within the cultural frameworks and adopted the ideals and values of their environment. This ‘female’ predisposition has enabled most males to pay the precious price [time and effort] of social ascension to reach goals given to them by external sources without question or hesitation and has facilitated their assimilation and subjugation to a stronger entity [that of society] as women do. This is more evident in crucial position of social status such as political posts or positions through which information and therefore indoctrination is disseminated, such as the media. Here we can see the promotion of individuals that more closely mirror the ideology of the governing elite or the morality and value systems of the power centers acquiring quick access to positions of power and influence and rewarded with affluence and privilege as a consequence, whereas those diverging from the status quo or exhibiting any free-thought are conspicuously left behind, eradicated or ignored.

Furthermore, the demands of social progression exact such a high price on the individual male as to make any dedication to physical and mental development, impossible or rare. Men and women are so stressed and occupied with daily concerns of economic survival, consumerism and social ascension that the ‘self’, the only thing that truly matters, is neglected.
Man begins associating himself with the group and in so doing finds comfort in the loss of responsibility and the absence of free-will.

In modern social environments where physicality and intellectual power is not as relevant to survival and where, inversely, it is a female psychology and easy indoctrination that enables success, the sexual choice demanded from women is made even more difficult.
Her femaleness is still fascinated by maleness and all the attributes that go along with it but from a practical point of view, she must take into consideration her mates social status, wealth and conventionality as to ensure the well-being of her future offspring.
A further aspect of the sexual attraction game that sheds some light on how female choice is made and what romantic love is many times based on, is, what I call, the ‘bad-boy’ factor.


The Bad-Boy Factor

It is well known that confidence is a very attractive attribute, especially for males, but few really comprehend why this is so.
The founding principle of confidence is indifference to specific particulars and a poise derived by the certainty that eventual success is attainable in the general.

For example, when attempting to find a job confidence is derived by the self-assurance that a job will be found eventually despite any particular, specific failures, whereas non-confidence is based on the desperation of being dependant on the acquisition of a single, particular job position which becomes exaggerated in significance. This confidence, in turn, gets translated to physical composure, mental focus and efficiency of movement which desperation, through panic and anxiety, lacks.

That confidence rests on a foundation of indifference may be a difficult concept to accept, especially in matters of sexual intimacy where ‘love’, ‘compassion’, ‘trust’ ‘respect’ and ‘dependence’ are considered to be the romantic ideal, but nevertheless I believe evidence abounds as to its veracity. The ‘bad-boy’ factor is a case in point.

It is evident, to all that understand the characteristics of the ‘bad-boy’, that the brash, swaggering and often abusive confidence, that makes them irresistible to females, is rooted in a general indifference caused by an overabundance of sexual options. For certain men, that can have their pick of women, the specific individual woman becomes irrelevant, making them confident and arrogant enough to display their true male character and individual personality with little regard as to the consequences.

Confidence and independence also expresses an abundance of choice caused by access to superfluous resources that makes a specific supply of marginal importance.

For females, that are genetically predisposed to seek out resources and genetic health, this aspect of maleness becomes attractive because it also reveals a males marketability and desirability. When a male has multiple sexual options then he must be an asset worth considering, when he has limited choices then his obsession with a particular female, far from remaining flattering, becomes unattractive and even repulsive.

This will also explain the phenomenon of adultery where males that are married or attached somehow become more attractive to females just because they are taken by other females and it sheds some light into the phenomenon where women remain in often abusive relationships.

It is ironic that women find men attractive that are relatively indifferent to them specifically and find men unappealing that are infatuated with them specifically [The ‘nice’ guy they want to remain friends with].

It is also noteworthy, that in a more general application of the indifference rule, that we become more successful in the things we do not really need, desire or obsess over and less so in the things we badly yearn for. Life itself, when the matter of death is overcome and a general indifference to mortality is achieved, becomes more enjoyable and rewarding but when we frantically deny death and find clever ways to ensure immortality through religion, we display the desperation and anxious strain that restricts life and limits our existence.

To ‘not care’ does not mean to ‘not value’ but it does mean to be ‘independent from’. This independence displays itself in confidence, pride, self-reliance and contentment that others will perceive intuitively, and wishing to share in it, will be inevitably attracted to.

Given, the before mentioned gender archetypes, it is relatively clear that the ‘perfect’ type for social participation is the feminine one. The female, with her instinctual need to belong and to maintain cohesion and harmony, with her complete reliance on external reflections for self-realization and her willing and total adaptation to shared ideals and ideas, makes her the ideal type for large social environments such as found in modern civilizations and nation-states.

The male, on the other hand, with his independent, uncompromising individuality, rebelliousness, imaginative creativity and prideful psychology makes him more ideal for smaller social groups where individual personality and distinctiveness plays a more important role in group survival.

It is therefore not surprising that distinctly female traits are idolized and the human mind is inseminated with the female ideal in our present day world of mounting populations and diminishing resources.
Where peace and stability are of the utmost importance, being female or ‘feminine’ is an obvious advantage.

But beyond this social influence and cultural prejudiced leanings, women as sexually selective powers become the guarantors that the socially acceptable human characteristics that are rewarded with privileged positions of social status, will also be rewarded by their reproduction in future generations by selecting males that exhibit the right mixture of female and male predispositions, even if instinctively and physically they are still more attracted to the more “primitive” male archetype.

The gradual extinction of the male started in the human species when human physical weakness forced man to evolve social sensitivities in order to improve survival odds. It was later speeded up through genetic degradation which resulted in fatigue and a psychological ineptness to accept nature, and her cruel ways, as the order of things, leading to a general disillusionment with life and existence, as expressed through nihilistic religions in the east and in philosophical nihilism in the west.

Socrates was the first, well known, victim of this trend and the culminating focal point of Hellenic degradation. The final blow was struck when the western body, weakened by centuries of decadence and comfort [due to unforeseen success] was eventually infected with the moral/ethical systems of a people condemned, by history and chance, to be outcasts and the slaves of more powerful civilizations. The attraction to this slavish moral system to the unfortunate growing masses of the underprivileged, multiplying consistently due to mans survival superiority, domination over nature and past spiritual nobility, is understandable. Along with it came equalitarianism, complacency and uniformity caused by the numerical superiority of the weak and the intellectual and spiritual fatigue of the strong caused, in turn, by the unceasing struggle and the stifling effects of exaggerated intellectual scepticism.

In more recent times, in the west, with the emancipation of women, the role of maleness and manhood has been further diminished. We see signs of a western hermaphroditization in the changing aesthetic male ideal physical form as promoted by popular culture. The slim build and the adolescent, almost girlish, look, the hairless torso all reveal the feminization of manhood; the emergence of homosexuality, once a source of social stigmatization, as a viable life choice alternative, a cute, amusing quirk of nature awaiting its own emancipation also reveals the feminization of man and the drift to his eventual extinction. In nature any display of homosexuality is one of dominance and not of affection or sexual attraction. Many have taken this natural display of authority as evidence for the ‘normalcy’ of homoeroticism.

We must remember that nature is efficient and nothing exists without a purpose, or else it atrophies and disappears like the human appendix or a muscle that is never used. It is then perplexing why homosexuality would exist in nature, since it has no purpose and the act of sexual interaction, existing to facilitate propagation, would be practiced between members of the same gender.

In truth homosexuality is a distinctly human mutation and an extreme result of human male degradation.
Female emancipation that resulted in the flattening of gender differences is now followed by a drive towards homosexual emancipation, where male/female distinction will be further eroded making gender roles and gender divisions of no relevance.
Mankind is on the road to a hermaphroditic existence where procreation will be conducted in test-tubes and sex will become a matter of entertainment with little spiritual or procreative significance.

The levelling of man continues.

Quote :

Even the stoic attitude and manly virtue amounts to this -- that one must maintain and assert himself against the world; and the ethics of the Stoics (their only science, since they could tell nothing about the spirit but how it should behave towards the world, and of nature (physics only this, that the wise man must assert himself agaisnt it) is not a doctrine of the spirit, but only a doctrine of the repelling of the world and of self-assertion agaisnt the world. And this consists in "imperturbabiltiy and equanimity of life," and so in most explicit Roman virtue. - Max Stirner

This "manly" (manliness) against the world, this resistance, movement away from uniformity, a towards distinction, self-realization, consciousness looking back at what is left behind, excluded and known, is the metaphysical basis of this antithesis to it, which is feminization.

The eastern doctrine of non-resistance, acceptance, total unconsciousness so as to cease resisting and surrender to the flow - to stop feeling life and so renounce the experience, the full experience, of living - this is nihilism at work.
The doctrine of defeat and the call of weakness.

Self-Annihilation.
The elimination, through denial, of that which is made conscious of its own resistance, its own discriminating exclusion and desire to create self by excluding what is alien and unwanted to it and by it.

The defamation of all that increases resistance and so increases the sensation of being alive - ego, consciousness, self.

To this does not science and philosophy stand as a renunciation of the unknown, the fight against dominating natural, the controlling? Is this not a masculine discipline?

The Feminizaiton of Man manifests itself though these ideals and ideologies of nihilistic despair.
What woman does not want to surrender to what is more powerful than her?
God, Emptiness, Somethingness/Nothingness, Universe, One?
What's the difference what you call it?

Do you feel this woman inside you, crying for relief, begging for an end, dreaming for a white prince to rescue her from her misery?

Let us pray or let us meditate.
Ooooooiiiieeeemmmmmmmm

The numbness washes over us.
No thinking - be in the moment - no questioning - stop thinking - no suffering and no need - be unconscious.
No, not through empowerment...but through inebriation.

Hallelujah!!!

To this I answer thusly.

Beware you slimy beasts, for I’ve had enough of your surrender and the deceit you perpetrate to deny it.
You worshipers of death and embracers of emptiness; you make of life a sham to not live up to it.
It is you that empties reality of all its worth, so as to deny it to those that shame you.
You charlatans, with your smug faces and docile words; you humbly arrogant pretenders, putting on your softness to make your weakness into a strength.

Your highest goal is to not be born again. You make of it a virtue and waste your days seeking the experience of unconsciousness, when it is your unavoidable end.
I, for one, do not harbor such resentments; I wish to be born again and again and again…and then again.
I want to taste the sweat and feel the need coursing, like fire, in me; I want to feel.
I want to forget and start over again.

Silence! you despicable cowards, for I’ve grown to despise your lies and your promises.
You claim enlightenment, by casting consciousness into the beyond; returning it into the sea where you wish to go back like maggots and be nothing but a universal farce - what a homecoming that will be.
You are already a joke.

Look at you trying to avoid pain by flooding your brain with delusions and slandering the world that made you be.
Look at you proclaiming your own living death as your ultimate goal and then contradicting yourself with a faked acceptance, you call balance, the middle way.
Look at you with your theatrics, your wardrobe, your soothing chants and your scripted words.
Look at you seeking redemption where none is needed.

If you are truly a perspective of the One then you are a necessary one.
How dare you push your inability to cope with the vision, with this rare opportunity, as an overcoming.
Death becomes you, for you are already dead in all but your staged mannerism and your self-contradicting continuous breathing.
That endless respiration that makes the words that come of it all the more vile.

If a return to the source is your desire then give the form its due where your mind has already surrendered, and be done with it.
Do you fantasize about merging with the void in some kind of conscious embrace?
How selective you are in your assessments of awareness, that you have to cast it as a transcending thing to save it from its ephemeral necessity.
It must make you feel special to be a part of what you fail to be.

You need, like all weaklings, a purpose to life, and being unable to bow low enough to the other childish dogmas you offer the end of life as its pinnacle of reason.
How comforting, for you, to know such a self-defeating “truth”. The idea that you are more must be pleasing to your selfless egoism.
A wonderful way of avoiding the responsibilities of accepting your past as your essence.
No, you are more, because that is the excuse all the feebleminded use to justify the injustices of their own existence.

You offer no real hope, you pathetic actors. What you offer is a whimper of anguish in the cold, dark possibilities of reality.
You offer non-existence.

I do not accept.
I reject, your pacifier!!!
I am highly selective as to what I put into my mouth and swallow.

Let this "hell" of existence, which you denounce as an illusion, be my just rewards unto eternity.
Let me suffer!!!

Emasculation runs deep.

Nature tells her little boys & girls bluntly that they are not meant to reproduce. -- why?

Quote :

Even after years of infertility treatments, Monica and Steve Klein couldn't get pregnant. And while they were busy trying to create a new family, they forgot about the one they already had--with each other. Our relationship expert helps this couple find their way back to the intimacy they once shared.

Not ironically, the superficial context is ignored by this report. The 'couple' is the only thing that matters? -- or does it? Will their marriage last when they cannot conceive together? (the true purpose of marriage in the first place) I wonder who is the infertile one ... the male, or, the female?

I wonder if she would volunteer for a little "science experiment"?

Unreasonable wrote:

Emasculation runs deep.

Nature tells her little boys & girls bluntly that they are not meant to reproduce. -- why?

Quote :

Even after years of infertility treatments, Monica and Steve Klein couldn't get pregnant. And while they were busy trying to create a new family, they forgot about the one they already had--with each other. Our relationship expert helps this couple find their way back to the intimacy they once shared.

Not ironically, the superficial context is ignored by this report. The 'couple' is the only thing that matters? -- or does it? Will their marriage last when they cannot conceive together? (the true purpose of marriage in the first place) I wonder who is the infertile one ... the male, or, the female?

I wonder if she would volunteer for a little "science experiment"?

Exactly!

It is the institution that matter.
In this case the institution of marriage.
An institution that is becomnig more and more obsolete and even dangerous in a technological over-populated world.

Reports in support of my thesis.

Report #1
Does anyone doubt the power of hope or that millions are rendered stupid by their own existential fears, even when claiming to feel nothing at all.

Satyr wrote:

Reports in support of my thesis.

Report #1
Does anyone doubt the power of hope or that millions are rendered stupid by their own existential fears, even when claiming to feel nothing at all.

If we consider this video as evidence that the end of Christianity is near (because religion is a farce), then one must ponder the implications of their own declarations regarding the End of Days, the Antichrist, and the Apocalypse. These things are a self-fulfilling prophecy that predict their own inevitable doom. Christ must be torn down, because he has outlived his usefulness as a Moral Authority. Because Christ no longer applies to the global 21st-century A.D. world, then a new "Antichrist" rises as a Moral Authority. The edifice, the Idol, of Christ, must be torn down before a new god can be built...

The reason for this is necessitated by the fact that unchecked Hedonism simply will not, nor cannot last on the face of the Earth.

The consequences for Hedonism bottle up and those pressures shatter the bottle from the inside-out.

Unreasonable wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Reports in support of my thesis.

Report #1
Does anyone doubt the power of hope or that millions are rendered stupid by their own existential fears, even when claiming to feel nothing at all.

If we consider this video as evidence that the end of Christianity is near (because religion is a farce), then one must ponder the implications of their own declarations regarding the End of Days, the Antichrist, and the Apocalypse.

The end of Christianity, not that it will ever happen as long as there are stupid weaklings in the world, does not necessarily mean the end of spirituality or the end of the world.

Quote :

These things are a self-fulfilling prophecy that predict their own inevitable doom.

It can be a self-fulfilling prophecy only when the majority are blind followers of prophecy.

Quote :

Christ must be torn down, because he has outlived his usefulness as a Moral Authority.

No, morality is not dependent on any authority, no matter how much dumb weaklings would like to think so.

Christ has lost his credibility as a symbol.
He, being a symbol of the age of Pisces, and the coming age is the Age of Aquarius, a new symbol must be found as a representation of a mythology.
So, the second coming is simply the coming of a new symbol, a new messiah, ushering in a new age.

Quote :

Because Christ no longer applies to the global 21st-century A.D. world, then a new "Antichrist" rises as a Moral Authority. The edifice, the Idol, of Christ, must be torn down before a new god can be built...

The Antichrist being a symbol not of no morals but of the elimination of an authority on morals.
Freedom.

Quote :

The reason for this is necessitated by the fact that unchecked Hedonism simply will not, nor cannot last on the face of the Earth.

How comforting for you to equate Christ with the opposite of hedonism when the Greeks preaches control over the passions as did the Chinese, way before any Christian messiah came along.

Self-discipline was not invented by religion, nor was morality, it was used s a tool of repression and control. It was made into an end, when the ancients thought of asceticism/athleticism as a means to an end.

Quote :

The consequences for Hedonism bottle up and those pressures shatter the bottle from the inside-out.

How afraid you are of nature.
But the human animal, like all other social animals, managed to survive without your mythologies for thousands upon thousands of years and they did just fine.
They did so well that they overpopulated the Earth and then made it necessary for dogmas, such as the one you cower behind, to come along and suppress the instincts and methods that were so succesful.

You know a forum without a bloody weakling, Christian Nihilist is no fun at all.
Thanks for being you.

Behind the masks.

Satyr wrote:

The end of Christianity, not that it will ever happen as long as there are stupid weaklings in the world, does not necessarily mean the end of spirituality or the end of the world.

I did not say that it did entail this...

Satyr wrote:

It can be a self-fulfilling prophecy only when the majority are blind followers of prophecy.

They are followers of prophecy inasmuch, if not less so, than you are a follower of Nihilistic necessity, old goat.

Satyr wrote:

No, morality is not dependent on any authority, no matter how much dumb weaklings would like to think so.

This is a baseless assertion and obviously one wrought from an ego formed within deep resentment of outsiders.

It reminds me of ... a Christian mentality.

Satyr wrote:

How comforting for you to equate Christ with the opposite of hedonism when the Greeks preaches control over the passions as did the Chinese, way before any Christian messiah came along.

So, what's your point? I already know that shit.

Satyr wrote:

Self-discipline was not invented by religion, nor was morality, it was used s a tool of repression and control. It was made into an end, when the ancients thought of asceticism/athleticism as a means to an end.

So, what's your point? I already know that shit.

Satyr wrote:

How afraid you are of nature.

...another baseless accusation. Do you function on reasoning or just guessing?

Satyr wrote:

But the human animal, like all other social animals, managed to survive without your mythologies for thousands upon thousands of years and they did just fine.
They did so well that they overpopulated the Earth and then made it necessary for dogmas, such as the one you cower behind, to come along and suppress the instincts and methods that were so succesful.

You're wrong. The human animal has always been spiritual and mythological. Any child knows that this is true, including you hypocrite.

Satyr wrote:

You know a forum without a bloody weakling, Christian Nihilist is no fun at all.
Thanks for being you.

You're welcome hypocrite.

I enjoy how you accuse me of being a Nihilist when you can't posit anything more than a piece of shit into your life. You're pathetic.

Satyr wrote:

Behind the masks.

Behind the insinuations, there is an old goat with the mind of a child.

Unreasonable wrote:

Satyr wrote:

It can be a self-fulfilling prophecy only when the majority are blind followers of prophecy.

They are followers of prophecy inasmuch, if not less so, than you are a follower of Nihilistic necessity, old goat.

There is no such thing.

Making things up again?

Quote :

This is a baseless assertion and obviously one wrought from an ego formed within deep resentment of outsiders.

It reminds me of ... a Christian mentality.

What I resent are those haters of life, pretending to be lovers or it, and then trying to infect the world with their disease.
If only you knew how Christian you are.

Quote :

You're wrong. The human animal has always been spiritual and mythological. Any child knows that this is true, including you hypocrite.

And this spirituality is a product of his ignorance; his fears trying to make sense of a world that scares the shit out of him, trying to make it affected by his bribes and grovelling and gifts of surrender.

Did I say that this making of the world into a ghost world is a recent development?
But it did pick up steam with the Judeo-Christian and Buddhist doctrines.

Quote :

You're welcome hypocrite.

I enjoy how you accuse me of being a Nihilist when you can't posit anything more than a piece of shit into your life. You're pathetic.

I see you, little McMiserable.

A liar on top if it all.
Have you no shame?

How many sock puppets did you create to enter under my shadow and enjoy my gaze?

Quote :

Behind the insinuations, there is an old goat with the mind of a child.

I love it!!!

I see you, little brain.
You are all mine.
You are my bitch.

I'm gonna fuck you, and cum all over your face, and then turn you over and sodomize you, and then I will make you make me a sandwich while others watch.

I, particularly, want SilentS to see this.
I want her to see what making men into women results in.

Satyr wrote:

There is no such thing.

Making things up again?

You're predictable Satyr. Think of it as settling down into your old age, old goat...

Satyr wrote:

What I resent are those haters of life, pretending to be lovers or it, and then trying to infect the world with their disease.
If only you knew how Christian you are.

I neither hate nor love anything, especially Life. I leave it undefined for specific reasons.

How Christian am I old goat, you Helene? Tell me. I anticipate your future flattering of me...

Satyr wrote:

And this spirituality is a product of his ignorance; his fears trying to make sense of a world that scares the shit out of him, trying to make it affected by his bribes and grovelling and gifts of surrender.

Did I say that this making of the world into a ghost world is a recent development?
But it did pick up steam with the Judeo-Christian and Buddhist doctrines.

Everybody's ignorant of somethings Satyr; it takes real balls to admit it (which you don't).

Spirituality is reveling in the degree to which a Man is either intelligent/ignorant, and both can be used to their own ends, having their purposes. Remember lad, people count on their higher-ups to think for them. That doesn't make them more or less than the other in general, unless you specifically count 'intelligence' to be the defining factor of a "human being". I do not necessarily do so, because the Physical Body is just as important as the Metaphysical one.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

You're welcome hypocrite.

I enjoy how you accuse me of being a Nihilist when you can't posit anything more than a piece of shit into your life. You're pathetic.

I see you, little McMiserable.

A liar on top if it all.
Have you no shame?

How many sock puppets did you create to enter under my shadow and enjoy my gaze?

The fact that you can't tell me apart from McLaren speaks tomes of (lacking) knowledge about you old goat. Climb out of your cave, if you can.

Furthermore, why don't you redirect me to one Great Claim that you have ever made where you are not positing a negative, Nihilist.

You're a hypocrite to go such lengths to point out others' hypocrisy when you desperately fear your own ... nothing more than a Nihilist.

Do I have to spell everything out to you? I thought you were higher than that old goat! Do I need to lose respect for you now?

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Behind the insinuations, there is an old goat with the mind of a child.

I love it!!!

I see you, little brain.
You are all mine.
You are my bitch.

I'm gonna fuck you, and cum all over your face, and then turn you over and sodomize you, and then I will make you make me a sandwich while others watch.

I, particularly, want SilentS to see this.
I want her to see what making men into women results in.

How erotic!?

I hope she does see it! It would be fun, old (gay) goat. I hope you're not neurotic about your homophobia, though. That would be a cliché.

The truth comes out Satired? I would be tired at your age too if I had to defend my Nihilism for as long as you have!...

Unreasonable wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

They are followers of prophecy inasmuch, if not less so, than you are a follower of Nihilistic necessity, old goat.

There is no such thing.

Making things up again?

You're predictable Satyr. Think of it as settling down into your old age, old goat...

Ouch!!!
Call me somehting more shallow like fat or ugly...old?
I take that as a badge of honour.

I know say that my penis is small.

What a woman you are.

Quote :

I neither hate nor love anything, especially Life. I leave it undefined for specific reasons.

How Christian am I old goat, you Helene? Tell me. I anticipate your future flattering of me...

I've already told you, now I mean to make you show it on your own.

You already have, but I want to expose it further.

Quote :

Everybody's ignorant of somethings Satyr; it takes real balls to admit it (which you don't).

Of course I admit it.
I admit, for example, that I am ignorant of what precisely made you so fucked up and weak and needy and pathetic.

I intend to try to find out. I will let you tell me.

Quote :

The fact that you can't tell me apart from McLaren speaks tomes of (lacking) knowledge about you old goat. Climb out of your cave, if you can.

No I can't. You both seem so similar I cannot tell you apart. The same smell of decaying flesh and stupidity and self-annihilating fear.

Ade, as well. Same shit.

Commonalities:

-All of you display a self-hatred, only McMiserable admit to it but attempt to lessen the sting by casting it as a universal truth.

-All of you display this preemptive desire to declare yourselves victors or right or having landed some remarkable blow agaisnt the opponent. It's like you can't convince the other that you made a good point so you state it, as a fact, to use the power of suggestion.

-You all use the "wrong" repeatedly, and then follow it up with nothing but more declarations. no on-topic arguments, analysis, reasoning...only statements.

-You all think in simplistic absolutist terms.

-You all try to be like me by knocking me down and replacing me. Imitation, adopting my style, using my words in the same way I use them.

-You all have a thing for hypocrites, impostors and so expose your self-hatred as hypocrite and impostors trying to save themselves from the embarrassment by accusing the other of what they fear they are the most guilty of.

Satyr wrote:

Ouch!!!
Call me somehting more shallow like fat or ugly...old?
I take that as a badge of honour.

I know say that my penis is small.

What a woman you are.

Did you happen to think that maybe I am honored by you, old goat? -- coincidence, hmm?

I never said or assumed your penis was small; you probably have a big unit for all I know or care.

(No thanks, I don't want to see it. Keep it in your pants, that is if you wear any old goat.)

Satyr wrote:

I've already told you, now I mean to make you show it on your own.

You already have, but I want to expose it further.

I admit that I am a Christian at heart, because it runs in the blood, but my father's Atheism did a number on it. It may not recover.

I am hanging onto inclinations of a world that has already gone past, in the past, and it is a hope I cling to.

I am not afraid to make this concession a declaration (of Independence, lol).

Satyr wrote:

Of course I admit it.
I admit, for example, that I am ignorant of what precisely made you so fucked up and weak and needy and pathetic.

I intend to try to find out. I will let you tell me.

I don't think that counts, Oldboy, whateve.

It should be apparent to all by now, as well as with themselves: my mother made me "weak".

As a boy, when I saw another male, I wanted to kill him and my mother told me, "no".

As a boy, when I saw another female, I wanted to fuck her and my mother told me, "no".

As a boy, when I desired to speak the "Truth", everybody and my mother told me, "no".


And then there was silence. Is this a fucking mystery to you and others? Our mothers make men weak, controllable.

If a boy grows up without one, then Society does not show remorse in locking him away from others forever: the "criminal".

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

The fact that you can't tell me apart from McLaren speaks tomes of (lacking) knowledge about you old goat. Climb out of your cave, if you can.

No I can't. You both seem so similar I cannot tell you apart. The same smell of decaying flesh and stupidity and self-annihilating fear.

Ade, as well. Same shit.

So what, why the fuck do I care about that?

Satyr wrote:

Commonalities:

-All of you display a self-hatred, only McMiserable admit to it but attempt to lessen the sting by casting it as a universal truth.

You and others mistake my self-negation for hatred. Just because I would consider ending my life and return to deep-sleep forever does not necessitate that I hate life, to me. It merely tells me that I enjoy a dreamless sleep, nothing more, nothing less. Nihilists share this in common, but it expresses itself different per Individual. In fact, I don't see how men can become Man without some stage of Nihilistic despair. Death, killing, fucking, etc. they all entail negation as the primary motive. And all of this shit is 'masculine'. -- duh.

Satyr wrote:

-All of you display this preemptive desire to declare yourselves victors or right or having landed some remarkable blow agaisnt the opponent. It's like you can't convince the other that you made a good point so you state it, as a fact, to use the power of suggestion.

Sometimes, when you stomp a kid's face in the ground after they challenge you (or you them), you must declare victory even though their ears will be deaf to it.

...too much mud & dirt being smashed into them.

Satyr wrote:

-You all use the "wrong" repeatedly, and then follow it up with nothing but more declarations. no on-topic arguments, analysis, reasoning...only statements.

You are guilty of the exact same thing. Do you even know what "wrong" means???

Satyr wrote:

-You all think in simplistic absolutist terms.

You are guilty of the exact same thing. -- "absent Absolutist".

Satyr wrote:

-You all try to be like me by knocking me down and replacing me. Imitation, adopting my style, using my words in the same way I use them.

Fight fire with fire when water does not suffice us, Satired.

Unfortunately for you, I do not want to be like you, but rather me instead. -- thanks for the offer though, appreciated.

Satyr wrote:

-You all have a thing for hypocrites, impostors and so expose your self-hatred as hypocrite and impostors trying to save themselves from the embarrassment by accusing the other of what they fear they are the most guilty of.

Again, that you mistake my tendency toward Nihilism for self-hate demonstrates to me that you know nothing or little of what you speak.

Try arguing with people on a person-to-person basis rather than a generalization Satired; it may be more effective for your reasoning.

Unreasonable wrote:

I don't think that counts, Oldboy, whateve.

It should be apparent to all by now, as well as with themselves: my mother made me "weak".

As a boy, when I saw another male, I wanted to kill him and my mother told me, "no".

As a boy, when I saw another female, I wanted to fuck her and my mother told me, "no".

As a boy, when I desired to speak the "Truth", everybody and my mother told me, "no".

i knoew you were aching to drop your pants some more.

You want to find your daddy, again.

My mother, and that is why i love her to death, was a yay sayer.
All she told me was "YES".


I hate women, they say, meanwhile the one person I admire and respect the most is a woman.

Quote :

Sometimes, when you stomp a kid's face in the ground after they challenge you (or you them), you must declare victory even though their ears will be deaf to it.

...too much mud & dirt being smashed into them.

Then, even when they stomp you into the ground, you cans till declare victory and save yourself from the shame of having your face rammed into the dirt, repeatedly.

Quote :

You are guilty of the exact same thing. Do you even know what "wrong" means???

Idiot, that fact that you use the same word in the exact same way.
Like identical twins....identical imbeciles.

Quote :

You are guilty of the exact same thing. -- "absent Absolutist".

You do not even understand what that means, do you?

If something does not exist, but only as a mental fabrication, is it not absent?


Get your own personality and stop imitating mine.
It's look pathetic.

Satyr wrote:

Get your own personality and stop imitating mine.
It's look pathetic.

So, you are asking me not to post on your thread again?

I can do that Satyr if you want me to...

Unreasonable wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Get your own personality and stop imitating mine.
It's look pathetic.

So, you are asking me not to post on your thread again?

I can do that Satyr if you want me to...

can't read or you like twisting words around, like all women do in an argument.

You are the feminized male.

What can I possibly say now that you will not deny, fool? Your rhetoric maneuvers are leaving me with no options to say anything at all, which is both predictable and expected. I saw this coming miles away, LOL!!! Yet, you are fundamentally wrong. (And it is fucking hillarious! ) You are so fucking stupid that you believe that the center of a wheel moves... So fucking stupid; I will go ask a one million people if they believe the center of a wheel moves... Guess what they will tell me?

I think I'm done here, with you. There is no convincing the Unreasonable, remember?

You say that I am imitating you; wrong, you are imitating me now, Satired.


Feel free to drop by my threads anytime now, old goat!

Follow the laughter.

Unreasonable wrote:

What can I possibly say now that you will not deny, fool? Your rhetoric maneuvers are leaving me with no options to say anything at all, which is both predictable and expected. I saw this coming miles away, LOL!!! Yet, you are fundamentally wrong. (And it is fucking hillarious! ) You are so fucking stupid that you believe that the center of a wheel moves... So fucking stupid; I will go ask a one million people if they believe the center of a wheel moves... Guess what they will tell me?

And so you are one of those millions. The average. The masses.

If I went back in time and asked one million imbeciles living in the Middle Ages if the Earth was flat, guess what they would say.

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

Quote :

I think I'm done here, with you. There is no convincing the Unreasonable, remember?

Then join with the irrational millions.
If you thnik reality is a popularity contest or decided by a majority vote, then I feel sad for you.

Why would convincing an idiot of anything, matter?

Quote :

You say that I am imitating you; wrong, you are imitating me now, Satired.

This is getting creepy.

What is wrong with you?
You are 25, or so, years old and you talk like a 10 year old, sometimes.

Quote :

Feel free to drop by my threads anytime now, old goat!

Follow the laughter.

The hysterics of a sick mind.

What is wrong with you?

Here's another thing you, relunoriginal, Aidan McMiserable and Ade have in common:

All of you are creepy fucks.
Something about all of you is off.
Weird.
I can't pinpoint the source, but I feel a sense of uneasiness every time I see you post shit like that.
Like your brain is not all there.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!

Have you ever been diagnosed with any mental illness?

Battle over controlling man's destiny.
Annihilate self and lead it anywhere.

Battle over controlling man's destiny. Annihilate self and lead it anywhere.

Slavoj Zizek, The Liberal Utopia, Athens 2007

As a product of this feminization, sex does not only lose its severity and purpose, but it loses its ability to fulfill.

In males that exist and reproduce only because of social and cultural protection and in males who are forces to repress their full instincts so as to retain this protection and this access to reproductive possibility, dissatisfaction with sex comes forth through sexual fantasies and sexual dysfunctions.
Not only are men losing their fertility but they are also losing their virility at an early age.

The absence of culling and the forced monogamy, women lose their sexual choice by, increases not only physical and mental ailments but also sexual dysfunctions and insecurities.
Men express this dissatisfaction and release this repressed energy through their sexual fantasies and fetishes.

In women this sexual dissatisfaction comes forth as an inability to enjoy sex altogether.
They are made to feel ashamed of their sexuality and their promiscuous nature and they are also forced to settle for males that do not inspire them sexually.

This is why most marriages result in a slow deterioration of lust, as the couple becomes more like friends, through habituation, with sexual rights over one another but with a waning sexual interest.

The mystique is lost as seduction relies on heavy doses of lies and posturing and so women fail to be inspired by men that are emasculated and so forced to go to ridiculous ends to gain sexual attentions. They then place women on a pedestal the women themselves know they do not deserve and so they lose interest in the men that act or actually believe that they do.
They may be flattered but they do not respect the men.

In some males this emasculation can turn into a hatred, when their only sense of masculinity is derived through female evaluations and their lack of experience causes them to begin accepting, even if subconsciously, these judgments as valid...which in most cases they are.

Women intuit what men rationalize and so their judgments may not be conscious but they cannot be said to be wrong.
Females have evolved the ability to evalaute a male's genetic potential so as to offer her reproductive sacrifices to the one with the most potential.
This is the female genetic filtering role, that can then be turned into a social filtering role.