i feel that in the western world, woman have a profound self-hatred and self-awareness in regards on their relationship with men. men don't regard women as intelectual equals and their relationship with women is only supported because they expect a sexual ex-change. women are very aware of men only relate to them because sexual atraction and that makes them really insecure both externally and internally. internally because they enjoy being desired and are biologically wired to it and externally because they feel a deshumanizing pattern on regards to their male counterparts. basically these last decades there has been a great deal on how women can break free from this dynamic, by being whores, or appealing to super-conservative spaces (i am one of the guys) or deshumanizing men in a narcisistic behaviour all in the sake of self-control or "empowerement" wich relays on capitalistic lies. whatever is the case, this dynamic cannot be broken down because it exist from a biological standpoint, not a cultural one (regardless of whatever they teach in class these days). men are really not different, because the lack of woman warmth opens up a very specific oedipus complex in wich they become agitated because their sexual needs are not fullfilled. they do not feel deshumanized as women do (though they mostly are by far, culturally) but feel this strong biological ache that makes them function very poorly in intersocial relationships. this board is the provethe only place where a woman and a man can understeand each other in a more or less cohesive way is on a emotional background. the problem here is since we live in such a predatory society, we often guard or emotional well-being with all our secrecy because we dont want to be hurt, and in a world where both gender are preying on each other, this is every day more and more difficultthere is more nuance, but i dont have space to writte it down
>>85097964not reading all that shit by you, happy for you thoughor sorry that happened
>>85097966don't worry, i understeand
>>85097964>>85097985Given your tone I assume you're female.
>>850979641-Poor English2-You sound like a normalfaggot , thats how they talk3-Superficial point of view on relationships , inaccurate opinions .
>>85098011>women can break free from this dynamic, by being whores, or appealing to super-conservative spaces (i am one of the guys)She already admitted to being a foid, though I doubt it. Actually, maybe it's plausible, only a foid has the nerve to say the obvious and pass it off as deep or philosophical.>understeand understand*Also please capitalize your sentences and stop writing in run-ons, it's getting hard to read this slop.
>>85097964>woman have a profound self-hatred and self-awareness in regards on their relationship with menWomen have a profound self-hatred and awareness of their own value despite that hatred, yes. We live in a society that covets and reviers the feminine. A feminoidolatrious society, if you will.>men don't regard women as intelectual equals and their relationship with women is only supported because they expect a sexual ex-change. And for status. Men want to have a gf to not be losers. The foundation our society runs on, patriarchy, only works because women can be sold to men as objects of worship and idolization. Hence why patriarchy hates gay men specifically and has "benevolent sexism." Feminoidoletry is to blame for women being objectified. We need to 1. Allow men to be valued the same way women are, and 2. Value women less simply for their feminimity. Fags are WAY more taboo than lesbians.>women are very aware of men only relate to them because sexual atraction and that makes them really insecure both externally and internally.Back in the day, maybe. But these days, what's a man gonna do? Leave and find another gf? You could peg his ass and he'd still choose to stay with you, to not have to go be alone forever again, short of you cucking him.>internally because they enjoy being desired and are biologically wired to it and externally because they feel a deshumanizing pattern Right, so feminism made you think having sexual value is dehumanizing, when you'd never say the same thing about someone who's only valued for their art or work or money. Yeah, being rich is suuuper dehumanizing. And being rich is dehumanizing, sure, but that's not the whole story otherwise you'd just stop being rich or stop being pretty.>this dynamic cannot be broken down because it exist from a biological standpoint,Not true. The reason it persists is because society doesn't idolize men. Women are the ends, and patriarchal men are means, and this ruination is the consequence.
>>85097964i agree with you, anon. >womeni've observed the same thing you're describing. women experiencing the awareness that male attention is primarily sexual, while also being wired to need and enjoy that attention puts them in an uncomfortable psychological position. hypersexuality, conservative frameworks, preemptively dehumanizing men, are all ways of managing that biological/psychological tension. they're coping strategies for something that is pretty much out of their control and hard to escape. >menattachment research shows that male bonding needs get routed through sexuality when there's nowhere else for them to go. unmet warmth produces that specific agitation that gets expressed as sexual frustration, but it is much deeper than that. >emotional background biological drives create the initial pull, but they also create most of the dehumanization on both sides. the interactions that actually work, that produce genuine recognition rather than transaction, are the ones where both people are emotionally connected. which requires exactly the kind of openness that a predatory social environment makes increasingly dangerous to offer. don't let anons nitpicking you get you down. i think this is a great observation and that you were fair to both genders in your assessments. you didn't demonize anyone or anything.
