Liberalism and feminism want to kill male sexuality.

Liberalism and feminism want to kill male sexuality.

Why do I say that, you ask?

It’s simple.

Because instead of saying that women choose to become porn stars or models because they either enjoy the attention or they enjoy the money, these people blame “men.”

And what is the ultimate problem with these “men”?

That they “objectify” these women. Or, in other words, that they find them attractive.

If a man finds a woman attractive but isn’t in love with her, then he is “objectifying” her.

Of course, is there any individual that doesn’t objectify someone else, whether they be male or female? Of course not.

So these bitches sqwaking only has the effect of eliminating male sexuality, because if a man finds a woman attractive, gets a boner, and isn’t in love with her, then he’s a “sexist pig” and all of these other hyperboles.

It’s quite hysterical-OPE! What was that “disease” that people used to say women suffered from? HYSTERIA?

I think they were on to something there……………………………..

(Of course, I don’t even need to MENTION that these same women ogle attractive men, which, of course, disproves their entire worthless “movement“).

Also, here is another thought: we are told that we should value people for “who they are” instead of “what is on the outside.” First of all, what if women want to be valued for their appearance? No male-female relationship is successful without a man telling a woman how sexy she is all of the time. So why do these women care so much about their appearances? Also, when someone suggests that women “dress up” for men, many of them are insulted and say “I just do it because I like it.” So if she truly believes that she isn’t dressing up for a man, why does she get so much pleasure from making herself look good when “other things are more important” than that? Maybe it’s because-oh, I don’t know-women actually want to look good? So could it be that it isn’t men pressuring these women to look good, but rather they just want to do it themselves, as they say they do?

But here’s another issue. Let’s say that you have several different people, and one of them is smarter than the others, another one is stronger than the others, and another one is more sexually attractive than the others. The one that is sexually attractive may say “I wish to be valued for things other than my attractiveness.” Fair enough. But if the smart person is smarter than this person, then if you need someone who is intelligent, you are going to go to the smart person. Likewise for the strong person. But here’s another thing: all of these things are at least partially genetic. Intelligence is almost entirely genetic (intelligence being defined as the ability to advantageously adapt (and this doesn’t mean that you don’t learn things from your environment, but intelligent people always learn more quickly than those that aren’t)), even if two people had the exact same workout regiment, one of the two would be stronger than the other based on where their genes started out from in comparison to each other and how their genes are able to react, and the same goes for sexual attractiveness: you can eat healthy, but even if people had the exact same regiments, one of them would be more attractive to a larger number of people than the other, more than likely, even if there were some outliers that thought the opposite of the norm.

There are a couple of points here: 1) that genetics make up a significant portion of who you are, whether you be intelligent compared to others, stronger than others or more attractive than others, and 2) you can’t control how you are perceived. You may wish that someone valued you for other things than your physical attractiveness, and you can try to convince them to value you for other things, but ultimately, you can’t control other people: you can only attempt to persuade them (or, unjustly, coerce them). But one ironic thing here, which is the main point that I’m getting at, is that even if you wanted someone to value you for your emotions and your intelligence, these things are still genetic, just as your physical appearance is. So basically, you are asking for people to value one part of your genetics rather than the other. That is your right, and it makes sense, but I just find it interesting how people say “It is what is on the inside that counts” when it’s all shaped by genetics. I don’t understand that distinction except to say that emotional states are involved when deciding which part of your genetics you want valued more than the other. But ultimately, there is no physical difference between them (aside from chemical differences, etc.) except for the emotional values placed upon these sets of genetics. And it’s perfectly legitimate to want someone to value you for one part of your genes than another, but ultimately, you can’t control how you are perceived except through persuasion, which is what these groups are trying to do.

However, it can only have the effect of what I have stated above and thus, is not beneficial on the whole. Even if women do want to be valued more for intelligence or other things instead of their appearance, they can’t really control that except to try to persuade people (as they are doing), it’s all genes and their emotional states are what dictates what they want to be perceived for (which is just an interesting observation that I made that it’s all ultimately genetic valuation any way you go), and in practice, “objectification shaming” can only kill male sexuality except in place of marriage, which is absurd. There’s no way that men can go around not finding other women attractive. To try to change this is to ultimately kill male sexuality. And, once again, you may wish that men valued you for other things, but you have no control over other people. The only thing you could do would either be to try to change something about yourself which may change their opinions of you, or you could try to persuade them, but that is no guarantee. And if it isn’t guaranteed but you still want to change them really badly, ultimately, all you can do is eliminate their sexuality by threatening them with violence (or using something like government against them) to eliminate their sexuality and thereby decreasing their attraction to you and their valuation of you for your physical appearance (which, again, is all genetic, as is the emotional states which decide what you want to be valued for).

I just find all of this interesting and I just wanted to point out practical implications of this. Persuasion is fine, although it isn’t guaranteed. But crossing over that line into coercion (such as using government) has the effect of killing male sexuality, which is insane. It has that effect because if you don’t just ignore the horny men and instead want to use government to curtail male sexuality (or female objectification) then ultimately you are killing male sexuality. If, on the other hand, you only try to persuade your point of view, then it’s still up to the men to decide whether or not they are going to do what they are doing and thus, this is a legitimate way to get your point of view across.

But even if you do want people to value you for other things, I only wanted to point out the genetic side because I thought that was interesting. But, if you want men to value you for your financial achievements, or your intelligence, or your strength, first of all, you have to be better at these things than your peer groups, and if you are better at things besides these things than your peer group, then that is more than likely what you are going to be known for, and you can’t control other people’s perceptions of you except for changing something about you with the hopes of changing their mind or persuading them. Changing something about you would have to mean that you lift weights at least more than other women (which most women don’t want bulging muscles anyway (which is a choice, and I don’t see how men make women make that choice unless you want to kill male sexuality)), or spending as many hours starting a business as men do (and having kids necessarily takes time away from that business that single men don’t have to spend, thus meaning that single men have to make more than mothers unless the mother is willing to take on even more work than the man is, which is unlikely), or dressing in disgusting clothes (and not wearing clothes that get men to check you out, which is another issue. Feminists don’t seem to understand that some women just like attention and like being desired, but they believe that these women are just passive, weak creatures that are brainwashed by the man whom is more powerful than they are (which he would have to be if he has this power over these women, which the feminists ultimately argue by blaming men for female’s choices: that means that men have power over women to make these women make these choices and they aren’t strong enough to make choices out of the influence of men, which makes their argument contradictory as they argue that this isn’t the case (but we see what it means in practice, as I just said)).

Obviously, rape is a different issue. Rapists should be prosecuted, and no one agrees that women should be raped except for a rapist. And a rapist is one who rapes: that means physically forcing himself onto a woman without her consent. (There is no other definition of rape). If a woman is drugged and has physical intercourse, that is still rape. But if she decides to inebriate herself and then decides to have sex, that isn’t rape even if she regrets it the next day. No one forced her to drink and even though it may be a questionable decision to have sex while drunk, no one forced her to do that. So even if a man has sex with her and enjoys it and she’s drunk and he is not, then he didn’t rape her because she consented, even though she was intoxicated while doing so. She decided to drink and she decided to have sex, so it isn’t rape. To suggest that it is rape is to suggest that deciding to drink and deciding to get behind the wheel of a car afterwards wasn’t the drunk drivers fault. Ignoring this logic makes you ignorant. Why? Because in both cases, someone decided to drink and in both cases, the drunk person decided to make a decision while drunk. Therefore, either both have to face the consequences of their actions, or neither of them do. To blame the man for having sex with a drunk girl is like blaming the driver of the other car that the drunk driver hit. “The man having sex with the girl should’ve known better” is like saying “The driver of that other car should’ve known better.” Although the driver of the car does not need permission from the other drives to drive, whereas when it comes to sex, all parties have to consent, if a woman has consented to drinking and she has consented to having sex, the legal consequences of both this instance and drunk driving have to be the same, because each person made the decision to drink, and each person made a decision while drunk. Just because another party is involved does not change this fact unless he did something to her without his consent, like drugging her or touching her after she has clearly said “No” (which, of course, legally could be difficult if a woman did in fact say “No” but meant “Yes”, as is the case when people are being playful. Sometimes, a girl will say “No” when she wants the man to get rough, but it’s usually obvious to tell when she really wants you to stop or when she wants you to keep going. A girl saying “No” but meaning “Yes” is common in roleplay involving dominance and submissiveness. “Rapeplay” is its term, and some women enjoy it (in fact, there’s probably more than I realize that enjoy it). Of course, all of this is difficult to determine in a court of law because a girl might be looking for some kind of vengeance, or she could’ve in fact been raped, and because of the consequences of each ruling involved, most of the time, the court sides against the accused rapist).

Also, if you try to compare someone being drunk and making decisions to those that are mentally handicapped legally not being liable for their actions, then once again, you could not legally punish drunk drivers because of this simple equation: if drunkenness + decision = legal handicap status (in a rape case), then drunkenness + decision = legal handicap status (in a drunk driving case). Also, if being drunk is akin to being mentally handicapped and thus you shouldn’t legally face consequences for your actions, then if you chose to get drunk and chose to shoot someone while drinking, then you couldn’t legally be charged for murder.

But getting checked out isn’t rape. Rape involves physical force, which is coercion, which I have stated I am against (the fact that feminists are so quick to defend the existence “rape culture” is just an absolute JOKE. It’s as idiotic as Marx’s “exploitation of the workers”).

Women make choices and it’s foolish to believe that men constantly control women’s choices just because we get horny every now and then.

It’s ridiculous.

Obviously, none of these feminists have been married because clearly wives have power over their men because men get horny, and every rational wife understands this.

(Of course, if a woman actually is violently prevented from doing these things, then its illegality is justifiable. However, non-violent male sexuality is not equivalent to violent rape. Checking someone out is not equivalent to physically forcing yourself upon someone else. Even if it makes you uncomfortable, it is in no way equivalent to using violence to rape someone, and the legal consequences cannot be the same. In fact, I’m not sure that “feeling uncomfortable” is a justifiable claim to prosecute someone legally. Because all of us are made uncomfortable by someone else because of what they have said or done. I don’t think that is a good enough claim, even if a man says something sexually to a woman that doesn’t want to hear it, because if saying words that make someone uncomfortable is to be illegal, then a lot of religious speech would have to be illegal. Physical touching is a different matter, however, and that can justly be illegal. Women should carry guns just in case a man does try to do something to her. But making words that make other people uncomfortable illegal is not a good idea).

Julie Borowski.

Thomas Sowell Dismantles Feminism and Racialism in under 5 Minutes.

Evan Sayet – Understanding How Modern Liberals Think.

Stefan Molyneux – Not All Women Are Like That! Estrogen Based Parasites Criticism – Rebutted!



How liberalism “works”, if you can call it that.

I’m going to start keeping track of some illogicalities within liberalism and feminism in a numerical order. Hopefully, I can organize this properly. If I remember, I’ll try to edit this and add more when I think of them so you understand that this simply isn’t “bias”: this is OBJECTIVE.

A Short Message on the Idiocy of the Concept of “Overthinking” Based on Different Definitions of the Word that I Think Are Correct Based on Experience and Reason. How Do I Know if I’m Right or Not? That is the EXACT point of this piece. So take heed of it completely, if you can.

Things that I have for sale on Kindle.

Where you can financially support me if you so desire.


2 thoughts on “Liberalism and feminism want to kill male sexuality.

  1. Pingback: The role of “the Left” is to completely eliminate passion from the sexual lives of heterosexual couples. | Cody Alan Reel's Writings

  2. Pingback: From the 8th chapter of Murray Rothbard’s “Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature”, entitled “The Great Women’s Liberation Issue: Setting it Straight” | Cody Alan Reel's Writings

Don't make an ass of yourself for the whole internet to see. No pressure ;)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s