Ejaculation And The Ability To Pursue Higher Activities
#1
Right now on Twitter there is lots of debate on the concept of inceldom, having sex, "increasing the fuck rate", etc. I think we need to be honest about most people's idea of sex, they want to enjoy it, it's a hobby to them, it's something that is normal and not participating to them is not normal, most people are not interested in the idea of breeding an army. To me, this form of sex is no different from masturbation yet those that participate in it feel superior to those that masturbate. Even the sex positive libtard chapo "men" would look down upon you for masturbating instead of hooking up. To them and the vast majority of people, it's cool to have sex, even if no reproduction is involved. 

I want to talk about the natural/traditional side to being sexually desired by the opposite sex, why it's a positive trait to be desired by a lot of women, and the downfall of being in this state and giving in to the women, either as a Chad or someone that's wants to prove to himself that he's a Chad, above other men. You are close to success in nature if you're sexually desired by beautiful women of the opposite sex, you succeed in nature if you reproduce with one of them, or multiple of them. Being in this state of being close to naturally successful or achieving it is a state of happiness and winning. It will make you see life in a different light. The problem with giving in to all of the women that desire you is the amount of time you have to spend on them, and you lose some of your own energy. You can't get away with using the situation of being desired to your own advantage to fix your own spiritual insecurities. This was true before and even more true today. You can't get away with impregnating a woman and leaving. We have all seen the result of children raised by single mothers and having absent fathers. Whether they are truly absent or have forgotten their role as a man does not matter.

Back on the topic of inceldom, anime profile pics, vidya players, etc. These people have better and more radical, truly contrarian ideas than chapo "men" but the chapo "men" feel above the anime profile pic self proclaimed incel because they are doing what has been cool since the beginning of time for the reasons stated above, but the women they have sex with are the lowest tier and because of the normalization and legalization of birth control, abortion, they are able to get somewhat regular sex without producing dysgenic offspring. The typically secular chapo "men" place the most value on worldly things, that is why they worship sex without reproduction and are able to see themselves as successful in some regards, even though they are usually low testosterone genetic trash. I believe that because incels are not strongly participating in the hookup sex system, they can see it for what it is and look at normies that are in love with getting easy sex yet have no children of their own as subhuman.

Almost everyone has a completely warped view on sex, whether that be sports watching normies or Medgroid, it's more for their own worldly validation than it is for reproduction. They still feel sexually superior to those that make themselves ejaculate even though they are bringing others into their own mental illness and spiritual unfulfillment. We all have sex drives and those that choose not to retain their semen choose between masturbation, fake sex, and real/condomless sex with a wife. The wife route is typically preferred when you have a high sex drive because it's more secure, or at least it was back then. You could release your sexual tension with her and then pursue other activities.

I used to think that the amount of time you focused on girls depended on the last time you ejaculated, I saw nofap as fasting, your body chasing reproduction. I no longer see this as fully the case. There is a spiritual deficit needed to be women obsessed and or pornography obsessed. I think that ejaculation can temporarily free you of being women obsessed but not for as long as I initially thought. Those like Medgroid don't wish to or don't have it in them to pursue higher activities. Heaven to them is having their main focus in life being on a harem of women. I would see semen retention of men like him as even more detrimental. it would strengthen their perversions and make them even more unbearable.

I think men that are not in such a state would be able to free their mind of women with ejaculation, semen retention would not necessarily be bad for them but if they're like me, within a week or two, they're mind would be fogged by the thought of women again.
#2
Just because norwoods have (or pretend to) sex does not mean being a virgin or w/e is based and redpilled. This is just low IQ counter-signalling. While socializing may be not virtuous ( or genetically determined or w/e), I think we can all agree that in most cases , for normal people it increases long-term life satisfaction. Idolizing isolation, deviancy, and hatred for "society" cannot be too good when taken in excess. My critique is that you are viewing this in a left-wing lens: there is this "society" or micro-economic "norms" which are wrong and need to be re-engineered. This is typical cultural marxist worldview, or perhaps post-marxist mass communication theory as devised by OSS-adjacent figures such as Harold Lasswell.
#3
(09-14-2022, 08:29 AM)Guest Wrote: Just because norwoods have (or pretend to) sex does not mean being a virgin or w/e is based and redpilled. This is just low IQ counter-signalling.

The existence of male virginity cannot be empirically proven, it's a made up phenomenon. It'd be much better if people stopped obsessing over it, but no end seems to be in sight.
#4
(09-14-2022, 01:42 PM)Guest Wrote: The existence of male virginity cannot be empirically proven, it's a made up phenomenon.

Low IQ statement. I guess it must be explained to you that some words refer to tangible items, while others refer to states of affairs, historical events, and other things.
#5
(09-14-2022, 06:25 PM)The_Author Wrote: Low IQ statement. I guess it must be explained to you that some words refer to tangible items, while others refer to states of affairs, historical events, and other things.

Neither of which are applicable in this case. The historical concept of virginity is applicable exclusively to women since in their case it's something that's tangible, measurable and observable. Go back to shilling your crude and soulless religion.
#6
(09-15-2022, 06:25 AM)Guest Wrote: Neither of which are applicable in this case. The historical concept of virginity is applicable exclusively to women since in their case it's something that's tangible, measurable and observable. Go back to shilling your crude and soulless religion.

"A virgin man is a man who has never had sex"

"No it isn't"

"What?"

"My great great great great great great grandfather used the word virgin differently"

You have only to ask yourself if it is possible for a man not to have sex, and if the word "virgin" applied to a man now refers to that, which it does.

Akshully "faggot" is derived from Latin "fascis", a bundle of sticks, so therefore no man can be called a faggot who is not a bundle of sticks.

Your IQ is too low, and your propensity to thoughtlessly imbibe retard RW propaganda such as this is too high, for you ever to receive the sacred, numinous, divinely wise doctrine of Wotan and the other gods. At least, not until there are enough Templists to trigger the norm-following part of your retard brain to accept whatever we say, doubtless the same mechanism through which you have accepted the virginity-meme here.
#7
(09-15-2022, 10:13 AM)The_Author Wrote: "A virgin man is a man who has never had sex"

Again, how do you measure it? What do you use to determine whether he has or has not had sex? All you have is his own word. If he says he has, how do you know whether he's lying or not? Even if, what kind of sex are we talking about? Everyone knows that a virgin woman has her hymen intact, but what in the case of a man? Does receiving oral sex count or not?

The initial claim I made was that "male virginity" is impossible to prove through empirical means, while female virginity is extremely easy to prove, which makes the former a very shaky concept that (very plausibly) exists only to shame men who are unwilling or unable to participate in sexual marketplace. You cannot make your own point without throwing insults and platitudes like a nigger, which is enough of a proof that you're not worth talking to. That is all.
#8
(09-15-2022, 01:50 PM)Guest Wrote: Again, how do you measure it? What do you use to determine whether he has or has not had sex? All you have is his own word. If he says he has, how do you know whether he's lying or not? Even if, what kind of sex are we talking about? Everyone knows that a virgin woman has her hymen intact, but what in the case of a man? Does receiving oral sex count or not?

This is the best you can do, "that which is hard to prove in a certain case is a made up concept". Actually, this is self defeating. You know for certain that some men do not have sex. You say that you cannot be sure if any given man has or has not had sex. "Virginity" does not refer to "certainty that a given man has or has not had sex", it refers to "a man who has not had sex". The point you are making here is really "I am not sure if a given man is or is not a virgin", hence you are admitting to the concept of virginity. You may very ignorantly wish to deny that the concept you are referring to is called "virginity", but it clearly is called this now by everyone everywhere, and you know that that concept is a real phenomenon whether or not you can autistically verify that it is present in any given case.

There is also, of course, no need whatsoever to be so autistic as to require a "source???" for a man's virginity. If a man says he is a virgin then he typically is, if he says he isn't then he typically isn't.

The power of Wotan has overcome yet another feeble Amarnite, dominating him with superior reasoning, reducing him to straw grasping weakness, helping to define the low caste Amarnite from the high caste Amarnite. Yet, he is always eligible to come into Wotan's fold, if only he accepts his feebleness and his proper subordinate position, which position is not laudable but is totally acceptable.
#9
(09-15-2022, 01:50 PM)Guest Wrote:
(09-15-2022, 10:13 AM)The_Author Wrote: "A virgin man is a man who has never had sex"

What do you use to determine whether he has or has not had sex? All you have is his own word. If he says he has, how do you know whether he's lying or not?  Even if, what kind of sex are we talking about? Everyone knows that a virgin woman has her hymen intact, but what in the case of a man? Does receiving oral sex count or not?
The ability to confirm a state of affairs is unrelated to the point of whether such a state could exist or not. If he says he's had sex and he hasn't, he's a lying virgin. Whether or not I know this doesn't change that fact. "A virgin is a man who has never had sex" is true in the same way that "All bachelors are married" is true. The slogan 'male virginity doesn't exist' is just a lazy way of getting at an entirely different point about how male virginity has been treated in history as opposed to female virginity.
#10
(09-15-2022, 10:21 PM)Leverkühn Wrote: [quote="Guest" pid="3162" dateline="1663267828"]

The ability to confirm a state of affairs is unrelated to the point of whether such a state could exist or not.

If you cannot confirm it, then all you have is a hollow term. It literally makes zero difference whether a man has had s*x or not, as opposed by the case of a woman where for them it's a biological fact. If something here is lazy, it is equating a state not observable in reality to one that is. It's merely a confirmation of my point of view that before now nobody has applied the concept of virginity to men since it's counterintuitive.

So we have a state that we cannot ascertain through any empirical and believable means, and a state that creates no visible difference for the affected. Therefore, it does not exist. It's just a meme.
#11
Quote:It literally makes zero difference whether a man has had s*x or not


Lol



Quote:So we have a state that we cannot ascertain through any empirical and believable means, and a state that creates no visible difference for the affected. Therefore, it does not exist. It's just a meme.



We aren't talking about unicorns here. You know that some men have never had sex, you are not denying that. What do you call a man who has never had sex? We now call that man a virgin.



You can, anyway, ascertain the state of virginity by believable means: when a man says "I'm a virgin". When people tell me things about what they have or have not experienced, I don't take them to the lab to look for it in my autist machine.
#12
(09-16-2022, 04:50 AM)Guest Wrote: If you cannot confirm it, then all you have is a hollow term.
False, the term is well defined and the criteria for meeting it are clear. A hollow term would be one lacking content, which this isn't.

Quote:If something here is lazy, it is equating a state not observable in reality to one that is.
If I were to witness a man having sex for the first time, I would be Observing him losing his virginity. Case closed.

Quote:It's merely a confirmation of my point of view that before now nobody has applied the concept of virginity to men since it's counterintuitive.
Not sure what you mean by "now" but this certainly isn't true of the time in our own lives, our parent's lives, our parent's parent's lives, and so on. This again is just shoddy history.

Ultimately this just seems like a Jewish game of semantics, and like such games the point is the contest the objectivity of Truth based on corner cases where empirical confirmation is difficult to come by. Having sex is an observable act, but of course it's difficult to prove people have committed such an act after the fact. A woman gets married, loses her virginity (loss of hymen as observed fact), then goes and cheats on her husband with 100 other men, and no one besides these people find out, they all die without reporting that this happened. Did the woman have sex with those 100 men or not? The obvious answer is yes, but I can use the same formulaic 'we can not ascertain this through any empirical and believable means after the fact.' It's kike nonsense.
#13
You are zeroing in on the "confirmation" angle but the better point Guest alluded to (though did not quite argue) is that virginity is fundamentally a concept about the permanent changes in a woman's body when she has sex, gets pregnant, etc. Virginity answers the grug question of whether or not the daughter you're negotiating to buy may already have been inseminated.

When talking about moral/social/psychological/behavioral matters, chastity is a more suitable concept. Playfully I'd even suggest that women lack the agency and character to really be chaste, as it carries a connotation to my ears of masculine honor and self-discipline; instead they are either virginal or used goods. However that shouldn't be taken too seriously as chastity did traditionally apply to both men and women, and traditional usage of archetypal and metaphysical concepts should always be elevated over sloppy modern conflations and bastardizations.

Hypothetically, if chastity were to gain a foothold over male virginity then it would also render virginity slurs obsolete against men. Bugpeople might have to work a little harder to give chastity a bad connotation when they want to insult you for being based about women. Just a nice incidental.

And finally, spurious arguments not degrading the higher truth, rectifying traditional concepts is NEVER kikery.
#14
P.S. What is the next-closest word to virginity? "Intact". Virginity is metonymous with the hymen. It is the physical manifestation of a spiritual trait. Calling a man a virgin is an insult because you are calling him a woman.


[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Human Verification
Please tick the checkbox that you see below. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)