Female Sexual Satisfaction, a Note on "Against the MedGroid Mindset" by Mr. Brucean
Alfred Carlson
Mr. Brucean's article dismantled many of the ideas and moronic arguments of MexBrown, however there was one core aspect which he missed to discuss.
Which was so due to him not having knowledge of this aspect.
What aspect is it you might ask? It is that of Female Sexual Satisfaction and Female Sexuality in general.
This aspect in particular, when examined, breaks down the foundation of MedBrown's view.
MedBrown's fundamental theory can be summarized as follows:
"As all women are now coalburning harlots, you must be the niggest of nigs and make sure you satisfy her desire of being brutally sodomized (as normal and healthy intercourse is not sufficient for her). So that she will not leave you for a nig that is more nigger than you."
Many other ideas come from this foundational view, such as men somehow gaining something out of rampant fornication and other things, which Mr. Brucean refuted quite adequately. 

Female sexuality is almost entirely mental and psychological, unlike men who feel a more physical desire. They do not get aroused the same way.
This is also seen by the consumption of pornography by men and women, where men are the primary users.
As well as the books and other media women consume. There is a reason they will read drivel such as Fifty Shades of Grey despite it not containing any images or anything that would ever arouse a man. Because it speaks to women's psychological desire, not their supposed physical desire.

Leaving that aside however, as it is less important, how they feel sexual satisfaction in real life needs to be discussed.
Female sexual satisfaction does not come from being sodomized in ever increasingly deprave and perverted ways.
They gain satisfaction from a long-standing bond and intimacy.
Seen from the graph presented below:
[Image: 10.1177_0003122412445802-fig1.gif]

This is the reason why so many harlots, despite going through so many "Chads", never feel satisfied. It is a known phenomenon that they will have intercourse but not feel any enjoyment from it. The same goes for actual prostitutes. Their sexual satisfaction comes primarily from having a close bond over a longer period of time with a man.
The study which this graph comes from, also states how there is a massive difference between the event of female orgasm in a hookup and an actual relationship.
Moreover, it specifically shows how different sexual practices (i.e. what MexBrown says one must do) do not have a massive impact on women experiencing orgasm.

"While boosts from individual variables other than intercourse are relatively small, if we simultaneously gave women the relationship means on all the sexual practices, their orgasm rate would move from 13 to 37 percent, clearly a big jump, but still much below the rate of orgasm predicted from these same (relationship) means if we used the slopes and intercepts in force for relationship events—72 percent. Thus, practices explain less than half of the percentage point hookup/relationship difference in orgasm. That practices are important is consistent with the technical perspective. Couples go farther in relationships—they have intercourse more often than in hookups and women are provided much more direct clitoral stimulation—and these factors explain a sizeable part of why women have orgasms more. But, inconsistent with the technical hypothesis, which practices occur does not fully account for the orgasm gap between hookups and relationships."  [1]

What this says is, even if you try different technique and sexual practices that maximize pleasing women, none of it comes close to just being in a proper relationship.
Another study also find that being in a monogamous relationship and delaying the first sexual intercourse improves romantic satisfaction. [2]
In this particular study around 70% of the respondents were women. Further illustrating the points I've made.
You can likely find a lot more information on this topic if you look for it.

While I will not go into the details of infidelity with any studies and such, I will shortly mention it.
The main reason for female infidelity is not being aroused by a man's physical appearance and necessarily lacking intercourse, but out of being emotionally neglected or stressed.
Where a different man can satisfy her emotional and psychological desire, not because he may be "better at intercourse" than the woman's partner.
The inverse is true for men. They will fornicate due to a woman's appearance and a more physical desire, not because they feel emotionally neglected by their partner.

To finish off,
MexBrown's theories and suggestions are not based on any reality. But a perversion he has imagined to be true. The point is clear, engaging in rampant fornication and learning how to be "good at intercourse" will not actually please women and make them stay with you. Engaging in rampant fornication leads to unhappiness, dysfunction, and divorce (as Mr. Brucean's article goes into), with the only real way to satisfy women is through a strong bond and a long relationship.
A.D Leal
Precisely true. These are basically the exact same "insight":

[Image: 346800_2193b61808ff4bbe9f98dd2f56ec7e51~mv2.png]

[Image: 3q326Fl.png]

Acting like what the world, and its women, need is simply a good fuck is an incredibly silly and frankly cargo culted analysis of the roots of sexual frustration and related social dysfunction.
Corvid
These are interesting findings, and they certainly go well with the settled science of women with fewer, longer-term relationships being happier than those who sleep around. The Noah Smiths and MedGroids of the world are fake scientists and degenerated retards respectively. They routinely get everything backwards and we are worse off as men, women, and collectively for it.
Brucean
All that energy being spent by hordes of sluts, towards acts that give them no lasting satisfaction, may very well be the cause of most of our problems. This general dissatisfaction leads to seeking it elsewhere, into the "surrogate activities" outlined by Kaczynski. A cycle of non-achievement, anger, and reseeking fulfilment. Of course this is played out sexually, with hook up culture, but also politically. How did all those women that you see screeching, demonically possessed, become so deranged and dispossessed? At least BAP has it right when he says if you want men to take marriage seriously you have to give them power over wife and kids. MedGroid, for all his theories, doesn't provide any power to men since he is asking you to accept the conditions of the female game and buy into it. For us, we should be ambivalent about female pleasure except under what conditions it is used to further our goals, and considering that more sexual partners for a spouse increases the risk of divorce (and the gynocentric legal system), ever accepting women like this is just signing your own suicide. Don't do it. MedGold only says it because he's a washed up loser with an ugly wife, who wishes he could RETVRN to the good old days of banging whores. He is a normie, pining for that hedonistic bliss he once tasted, but like your study shows, he will never achieve it.

On the fact that women cheating is a totally different dynamic to men, I remember reading something once that the "It meant nothing" line from a woman (who simply uses it to satisfy some emotional impulse) is deeply insulting to a man, who expects that if you are going to cheat at least it should be for a good reason, but women don't think like that.
anthony
I think the "become the biggest unfeeling nigger ape so you can compete" bit is the key problem with all of BAP's twitter hanger-ons who don't understand him at all. This concession is how culture dies. It's the foundation principle of underclasses, ghettos, and caged animals.

Every good psychologist who has investigated the roots of extreme first world violence has found this exact complex at the root of it. Low IQs simply aren't a sufficient explanation. There are retarded pygmy tribes who for the most part live in steady longhouse bliss. They might practice some extreme infanticide or whatever, but they don't come off as psychopathic in day to day interactions with each other. What creates a culture of truly violent and unfelling antisocials is this chronic *NEED* to be unfeeling, which is fuelled by *INSECURITY*. The, tragically in their case, correct, assessment that to feel is vulnerability, and if they do they can't survive because they belong to a culture that can only value hardness.

A Mednigger might call this heroic or warrior-like, but that's because they're retarded. If the crips were right Mednigger would call them the new Spartans. But the Spartans would call them retarded savages. Sensitivity, feeling, and depth of feeling are necessary preconditions for complexity, which is necessary for the cultivation of further power and potency. A nigger only looks powerful if your view of the world is so narrow that you can't see the bars of the cage around him (and probably you too. God help you if you're sharing a cage with him). Who's really powerful? The gorilla or the zookeeper?

The psychs I have in mind for this thinking are Gordon Neufeld and James Gilligan. Neufeld works with children, and his work is devoted to studying how schools and similar environments naturally engender these complexes in people. And Gilligan works with prisons, and works backwards from extreme cases to figure what's going on. Both of them identified the same patterns and behaviours and feelings independently in their respective subjects. Mednigger is proposing that these complexes responsible for the extreme ruin of lives and turning countless people into socially unsalvageable broken subhumans should be held up as an ideal. He isn't just stupid, he would destroy civilisation if listened to. Once a critical mass of people start seriously thinking like this in a community or society you get the nigger. That's what medgold wants for the human race. These ideas don't bring about the flowing of the human spirit and heroic actions. They bring about spontaneous mass shootings at barbecues, serial killer pimps, shaken babies, and murders committed for the approval of whores.




I haven't seen this but it might be of interest. I read one of Gilligan's books and it was great stuff. Also read some Gordon Neufeld. I think that the amputation of human sensitivity is a disaster wherever it takes place, and any culture that embraces it on a wide level is finished.




Also something to consider. This is what it's like trying to feel inside one of these zoo-cage societies.
Alfred Carlson
(06-28-2022, 10:54 PM)anthony Wrote: I think the "become the biggest unfeeling nigger ape so you can compete" bit is the key problem with all of BAP's twitter hanger-ons who don't understand him at all. This concession is how culture dies. It's the foundation principle of underclasses, ghettos, and caged animals.

Every good psychologist who has investigated the roots of extreme first world violence has found this exact complex at the root of it. Low IQs simply aren't a sufficient explanation. There are retarded pygmy tribes who for the most part live in steady longhouse bliss. They might practice some extreme infanticide or whatever, but they don't come off as psychopathic in day to day interactions with each other. What creates a culture of truly violent and unfelling antisocials is this chronic *NEED* to be unfeeling, which is fuelled by *INSECURITY*. The, tragically in their case, correct, assessment that to feel is vulnerability, and if they do they can't survive because they belong to a culture that can only value hardness.

This is only tangentially related to my note, but it is something that could be elaborated on.

Being "unfeeling", "hard" and "cold" are good things in principle. However, this is not what is common of the Negro culture. To them only hardness is valued in this sense, not being unfeeling and mature. They have no maturity or self-control, which is why they are insecure. Violence to them is haphazard and based on an emotional whim, not for a purpose.

Traditional society has always been vastly more "hard" than today. There was always a strong social pressure to be mature and stoic, even in those places one would consider more emotional and such, like Spain and Italy. The show of emotion there was not a show of vulnerability and sadness, where being a crybaby would not go down well.

Valuing vulnerability and showing emotion, in the modern sense of the word, is how you get the suicidal tranny. But valuing only hardness and ignoring the very necessary emotional and moral maturity is how you get the Negro hoodrat. It is this maturity and aspect of self-control, delayed gratification, and low time preference is the crucial thing which BAP sycophants like MexBrown hate.

This topic deserves a thread of its own...
Svevlad
Lack of emotional control - almost nobody knows how to interpret their own feelings anymore, what they even are as concepts. This either means everything is deflected - deliberately trying to be as unfeeling as possible, which increasingly becomes like wearing full plate armor in quicksand, you become irritable, constantly worn out; or everything is taken in fully and savored, left to ferment, turn sour. Every bad feeling is amplified 100x, so is everything good, you basically get pseudo-bipolar characters this way. Many troons and adjacents are like this, and eventually the built up garbage just explodes them and they kill themselves or whatever.

However, with true "emotional literacy" - feelings are felt, but let to pass through, like small particles. This seems to have been the usual state for most of human existence, and it needs to be discovered what caused the current change.

Re: blax and their mentality, I remember a post or a thread somewhere by, a sort of therapist or counsellor of sorts who deals with prisoner rehabilitation, trying to adjust ghetto niggers to normal life and such - he notices that the overarching black neurosis is a ridiculous parochialism, and a constant feeling of being threatened as a result. In that manner, it is confirmed that it isn't just the low IQ that causes such a ridiculous crime level in them. The man said that their reactions to being told that someone looking at them at the street or a normal innocuous interaction ISN'T some sort of trickery or threat display or aggression was that of total and utter disbelief, as if their whole lives were a lie. Because literally everyone in the ghetto always acts as if someone else is obsessed with getting them somehow (the spread of this mentality to, well, all populations in increasing levels is to be noted, and the implications implied). Notably, *this* worked, because of everyone who he worked it, a vast majority never went back to prison again.
BillyONare
(06-29-2022, 05:03 AM)Alfred Carlson Wrote: This is only tangentially related to my note, but it is something that could be elaborated on.

Being "unfeeling", "hard" and "cold" are good things in principle.

Why?

Quote:However, this is not what is common of the Negro culture. To them only hardness is valued in this sense, not being unfeeling and mature. They have no maturity or self-control, which is why they are insecure. Violence to them is haphazard and based on an emotional whim, not for a purpose.

Traditional society has always been vastly more "hard" than today. There was always a strong social pressure to be mature and stoic, even in those places one would consider more emotional and such, like Spain and Italy. The show of emotion there was not a show of vulnerability and sadness, where being a crybaby would not go down well.

Source?

Quote:Valuing vulnerability and showing emotion, in the modern sense of the word, is how you get the suicidal tranny.

How?

Quote:But valuing only hardness and ignoring the very necessary emotional and moral maturity is how you get the Negro hoodrat. It is this maturity and aspect of self-control, delayed gratification, and low time preference is the crucial thing which BAP sycophants like MexBrown hate.

Is it really? I thought he was just dumb and preoccupied with sex. I also thought black people were just stupid. What is this stuff about "maturity"? Sounds like some corporate human resources crap.
Leverkühn
(06-29-2022, 05:03 AM)Alfred Carlson Wrote: Traditional society has always been vastly more "hard" than today. There was always a strong social pressure to be mature and stoic, even in those places one would consider more emotional and such, like Spain and Italy. The show of emotion there was not a show of vulnerability and sadness, where being a crybaby would not go down well.
While I hear things like this all the time, I fail to see much evidence for it. As it stands it's impossible to discover how the average Ancient Greek+Roman dealt with emotions, or the average medieval Norman peasant, so most of what we have to go on is the literature of the period: poems, diaries, letters, histories and so on. Speaking for the Greeks and the Romans, these were people who were very given to expressing their emotions. Greek heroes weep and lash out in unthoughtful anger all the time, Achilles is the example par excellence. Many times you hear of ancient and medieval aristocrats brought to tears upon watching tragedies or hearing retellings of historic events by court poets. I actually think such people were much more feeling than we are today. You can even look to the English, oh so commonly trashed for being cold unfeeling people, and see how much earnest feeling is contained within their popular writings. The depth of desire and love for the world and compassion for the natural world extends far beyond anything you'll find written today by our sniveling, therapy-attending novelists in 21st Century America. As to stoicism, I think stoicism became so popular for the very reason that these people were so emotional: it was a counter-balance to their feeling nature that they might adopt a philosophy that in some way helped them contain these all-too-common impulses. A nation of people who truly don't FEEL wouldn't need to painstakingly argue why one should attempt to FEEL LESS. 

People hide their emotions now and let them bubble inside, they seethe about them online and eventually they blow up on some 'acceptable target.' But many centuries ago such people would have just given into violent outbursts: why else would the payment of Wergeld be so thoroughly documented if the killing or maiming of other tribesmen wasn't so common? These were people who seriously cared about Honor, both their own honor and that of their extended family/social community. In polite (White) society today, you're supposed to take it if someone insults you or your family. To react to provocation is a lowly thing, it's something White trash does. CONTROL YOUR EMOTIONS, YOU DON'T WANT TO CATCH A CHARGE DO YOU? People's emotions are completely kept in check by a judicial system that punishes any White men expressing their inward feelings in an outward manner. Such people have become cold and unfeeling. It's not the ancients and the medievals who were COLD and HEARTLESS, it's us. The constant talk of emotions and such bullshit is just a veil for the fact that few people, if any, express genuine emotions in an outward manner. Just because people go to therapy in such high numbers doesn't mean they have any kind of genuine feeling or compassion. In fact, it likely means they don't have such feelings at all. They're entirely self-centered.

The issue is that niggers are the only ones who are allowed by our judiciary to express such emotions in an outward manner. And being niggers, they do it in a stupid manner. But the fact that dumb niggers act on their emotions in a dumb niggerly way doesn't mean that they're the only ones with feelings, or that to act with feeling is niggerly. They're of an entirely different category than us.
Coyote
First non-virgin ITT.
BillyONare
YNBAW
Coyote
(07-01-2022, 10:35 PM)BillyONare Wrote: YNBAW

At a loss for what to make of this comment, if it's directed at me.  I guess I should make effortposts about why fucking is bad?
Oldblood
Every time I see Medgroid's account I check his last five or so tweets to find just one that isn't about women. His slavish obsession over them, whether fond or otherwise, I think is characteristic of his pedigree. I tend to unfollow accounts that talk too much about gender and sexual dynamics, to me it's an acutely midwit (if even that) topic that I occasionaly indulge in as a guilty pleasure.
It's funny when these people spout about ignoring women and working on yourself yet the sum of their output is devoted to pleasing them, indirectly or not.
Not unlike the MGTOW or Andrew Tate types who I see debating onlyfans whores on podcasts, nigs love these videos btw. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlDY0D7C...NDOMISIERT
A D. L
(07-06-2022, 08:05 PM)Coyote Wrote:
(07-01-2022, 10:35 PM)BillyONare Wrote: YNBAW

At a loss for what to make of this comment, if it's directed at me.  I guess I should make effortposts about why fucking is bad?

I don't think "fucking" is bad, but it is not necessarily a positive thing in and of itself nor a panacea for what ails society for people to have more of it in any context. Joe Sobran noted way back in the '70s that it was a sign of cultural rot that there was even a word -- "sex" -- that purports to objectively taxonomize the monogamous (really marital) conjugal act, fornication with a random broad, and patronizing a prostitute as all the same thing.

(07-26-2022, 06:17 PM)A D. L Wrote:
(07-06-2022, 08:05 PM)Coyote Wrote:
(07-01-2022, 10:35 PM)BillyONare Wrote: YNBAW

At a loss for what to make of this comment, if it's directed at me.  I guess I should make effortposts about why fucking is bad?

I don't think "fucking" is bad, but it is not necessarily a positive thing in and of itself nor a panacea for what ails society for people to have more of it in any context. Joe Sobran noted way back in the '70s that it was a sign of cultural rot that there was even a word -- "sex" -- that purports to objectively taxonomize the monogamous (really marital) conjugal act, fornication with a random broad, and patronizing a prostitute as all the same thing.

(It was  “What Is This Thing Called Sex?,” published December 31, 1980 in National Review.)
Leverkühn
(07-06-2022, 08:05 PM)Coyote Wrote:
(07-01-2022, 10:35 PM)BillyONare Wrote: YNBAW

At a loss for what to make of this comment, if it's directed at me.  I guess I should make effortposts about why fucking is bad?
Not so much that fucking is bad, as our Guesposter pointed out, just that bragging about not being a virign (if it's even true) is a pretty retarded thing to do on a right-wing (incel) forum.

Now onto MedGold. The reason I dislike his obsession with the 'Fuck Rate' is I think he's a rather childish brown man only capable of thinking with his dick, which results in him being able to carry through the consequences of what he says. I'll quote what I see as a key passage:
Quote:This obsession with a woman’s “body count” is naive and overblown. There are indeed women out there who have no standards and will fuck any guy that gives her attention. That’s another matter. They hate themselves and have issues with their father. Those are the girls you "practice" on to get good at sex, but otherwise stay away from with regard to pursuing a relationship.
MedGold's whole 'solution' to the Fuck Rate is men need to get out there more and, as you guessed it, fucked. By getting good at sex and picking up women, man can progress from fucking sluts with high body counts to 'trad girls with a few bodies.' And how are men going to get good at fucking? Well he's said it in the passage above, they go for the numerous sluts with no standards who will fuck any guy that gives her attention.

So the Universal Prescription offered is that the vast majority of guys will go after low-standard sluts to up their 'game' and 'fuck skills,' and then use these to score a less slutty girl. But he never thinks through the consequences of this kind of behavior. He himself says earlier in the article that 'women are fuck machines' and above all else 'want to feel sexually wanted.' So what's going to happen when every man is lusting after sluts? Obviously, in an effort to be more desirable, more and more women are going to act like sluts. MedGold seems to be following some retarded, idealistic worldview where the number of Pure, Well-Adjusted Women is a completely static figure: you just work your way through the sluts and that pool of Untainted Women will be there unchanged when you've gotten your fuck and flirting skills upgraded. But this is far from the truth. Women aren't so retarded that they can't follow trends, or don't notice what will get them male attention. More men going after blatant whores=more women become whores for attention. This isn't some bold claim, and it's not just the case with fucking; women en masse adopt dressing styles that men find attractive, hence the rise in women dressing like slutty egirls. They know men find these things attractive and lust after these types of sluts, so they begin to emulate them for attention. 

MG's Universal Prescription is more likely to create a society where even more women are whores. Of course, this would (I guess) solve 'the fuck rate,' which is what he seems to care about. Every incel will have be able to have sex with some girl with a 3-digit body count, isn't that just great? If you want to create a world with more women worthy of marrying and having children with, which is infinitely more important than THE FUCK RATE, people are going to have to simply stop lusting after whores. In lieu of this, you shouldn't put yourself through the torment of chasing after sluts, there's much better uses of your time. I wouldn't even recommend going for prostitutes, just invest that money in stonks in the hopes it will help you build wealth. If you're rich enough you can buy your own loli (from the future Flancel Laboratories) or seduce some naive highschool girl.
Coyote
(07-27-2022, 09:27 PM)Leverkühn Wrote:
(07-06-2022, 08:05 PM)Coyote Wrote:
(07-01-2022, 10:35 PM)BillyONare Wrote: YNBAW

At a loss for what to make of this comment, if it's directed at me.  I guess I should make effortposts about why fucking is bad?
Not so much that fucking is bad, as our Guesposter pointed out, just that bragging about not being a virign (if it's even true) is a pretty retarded thing to do on a right-wing (incel) forum.

Ah, yes, the implicit right-wingism of never getting laid.  How could I forget?

I see that this is being taking in the autistic social media sense.  To remind you and anyone else reading this: it wasn't a brag, it was an insult.  I mean, can you think of a better insult to levy at people writing so much about their rationalization on why not having sex is a good thing?

Had no idea this was an incel forum.  If it is, it doesn't seem to be explicit.  Sorry for your struggles (not being sarcastic) but your excuses are your own.
Leverkühn
(07-28-2022, 08:45 AM)Coyote Wrote: I mean, can you think of a better insult to levy at people writing so much about their rationalization on why not having sex is a good thing?
Being celibate is a good thing, and this isn't even some radical right-wing take, it's a basic precept of pretty much every religious or spiritual tradition, Eastern or Western.  Most people chasing after sex do so because they're slaves to their libido; overcoming desire and controlling one's desires is objectively good as far as I'm concerned.

Sex is only a 'good' in the case of Rape [Will to Power] and Procreation [Eugenics], where the pleasure principle isn't the end-goal of the act.
Guest
The entire concept of male virginity is one of the most successful psyops in history. First, take a term that explicitly pertains to the female and has a biological and cultural basis, second, change how the society perceives it from positive to negative, third, start to associate it with the other sex as well despite lack of any perceivable, empirical data with the sole purpose of discrediting the entire sex or a significant part of it. The outcome is turning everyone's brain to mush, across the board, leftists and rightists, running around screaming that you either should be fucking anything that moves or not fucking at all as a principle.
Michael
It's useful as a sort of sign of coming manhood. Really though it means little. It's obviously a psychological phenomenon with no real difference unlike female virginity. I've not heard it used as a mocking term in a while though. Like how woman used to refer to people as virgins. Honestly I think it's because it's became such a sore topic it's gone past where people can even joke about it anymore. Calling someone incel isn't the same as calling them a virgin
A D. L
(07-28-2022, 08:45 AM)Coyote Wrote:
(07-27-2022, 09:27 PM)Leverkühn Wrote:
(07-06-2022, 08:05 PM)Coyote Wrote:
(07-01-2022, 10:35 PM)BillyONare Wrote: YNBAW

At a loss for what to make of this comment, if it's directed at me.  I guess I should make effortposts about why fucking is bad?
Not so much that fucking is bad, as our Guesposter pointed out, just that bragging about not being a virign (if it's even true) is a pretty retarded thing to do on a right-wing (incel) forum.

Ah, yes, the implicit right-wingism of never getting laid.  How could I forget?

I see that this is being taking in the autistic social media sense.  To remind you and anyone else reading this: it wasn't a brag, it was an insult.  I mean, can you think of a better insult to levy at people writing so much about their rationalization on why not having sex is a good thing?

Had no idea this was an incel forum.  If it is, it doesn't seem to be explicit.  Sorry for your struggles (not being sarcastic) but your excuses are your own.

I’ll charitably assume you’re trolling by saying you didn’t know this forum is, if not explicitly and primarily devoted to incelry as a topic, at least heavily associated with the last stand of implicit incel identity. In any case, I’m not an incel and think sex is great and pleasuring one’s girlfriend/fiancée/wife is a sublime use of time. That is why I posted in this particular thread in the first place (not that I have a problem with incel threads): through the first ten posts, this was a basically sex-positive thread by the standards of this forum.

The thrust (lol) was that “hoeing around” is a teleological dysfunctional activity which women do not actually receive much pleasure from. This obvious truth makes MedGroid Thought a completely intellectually and erotically bankrupt notion which simply serves as his public coom fantasy. I responded that “more fornication to save the nation” is a secular midwit normie cargo cult idea which others who are nominally less embarrassing than MedGroid (such as Noah Smith) also share, and that wanton fornication is indeed not the key to saving society.

It’s also (in my experience) unsatisfying; my girlfriend is the only person who I’ve ever really had a relaxing sexual experience with. It is stultifying to have to be some “hard nigga” or “fuckboy” to convince emotionally denuded holes to let you fill them for a few seconds for no erotic reward of their own. Maybe this is my “sexhaver privilege” talking, but celibacy outside of monogamy is at the very least strongly arguable as better than interacting with vapid women leaning into their vapidness so that you can have a quick orgasm which you’ll regret putting effort into as soon as it’s finished.

I don’t claim this as some mind-blowing insight either; the reason it was relevant was simply that MedGroid was telling RW twitter lemmings that Penthouse Forum LARPing is “based.”
Reply 



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




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)