Female Sexuality, Sex Positivity, & the Therapeutic World

[cats]

Among topics made taboo to discuss by the guiding Afro-Semitic feminist principles of the new order we find ourselves living under, few are regarded with as much sacrality as female sexuality. By "female sexuality", I obviously do not mean the private workings of the female body; there is nothing Afro-Semitic feminists love more than smearing a woman's bloody discharge on paintings or whatever to remind you of how disgusting their bodies are, removing the traditional veil of ignorance that could facilitate seductivity and romance. Rather, I mean the private workings of what arouses their sexual interest -- because quite a few of them are rather embarrassing for the modern woman who is supposed to be a good feminist.

It is an ancient boomer meme that women are impossible to understand. I propose that they are relatively easy to understand with rote observation (and, in fact, were fairly well understood by men before the onset of Afro-Semitic feminism discouraged pattern recognition in general), provided you have the time and the stomach for it. I don't think I have to mention PUAs and incels as trailblazers of female sociology (even if I don't think they're completely correct). One could even say that the idea that women can't be understood is a conspiracy theory disseminated by Afro-Semitic feminists to lend women some air of mystery they should not rightfully possess. Once you understand the female as a primarily social creature who is also driven by biological-psychological phenomena that she rarely acknowledges and understands even less so, you can basically "decode" any woman you come across. I imagine this isn't anything new for any of you.

Anyway, have you guys ever heard of trauma? I'm sure you have, and I'm also sure you've heard of sex positivity. I've written elsewhere that sex positivity is, in essence, an attempt to remove all seductive mystery and romantic passion from male-female relationships and make them a legalistic ritual of exchanging the arcane and unknowable "consent" and stinking bodily fluids. But have you ever heard of the very interesting ways these intersect in the heads of young women?


Mouse here is a "survivor". She "copes" by writing underage incest rape fanfiction. Elsewhere, she has stated that a therapist recommended this to her. I hope you see where I'm going with all this.

Mouse is putting out these posts in the context of a great, apocalyptic female culture war of "pro-ship" vs. "anti-ship", of which she supports the former. This topic perhaps deserves its own related thread, but the basic gestalt on a surface level is that pro-shippers enjoy porn that contains themes odious to the modern Afro-Semitic feminist while anti-shippers think such things should be censored. Pro-shippers tend to trend older (and Whiter) while anti-shippers tend to trend younger (and less White), although this changes on a case-by-case basis. Unlike male culture wars, where the two sides represent fundamentally different beliefs that define the struggles of our age in miniature (i.e. Gamergate), this entire debate is an utterly dishonest purity spiral. Essentially, two different generations of Afro-Semitic feminists are clashing: one which believes women should have the freedom to do any degenerate thing they wish, even things that violate Afro-Semitic feminist social mores, and the other who believes these women are revealing their hand, so to speak, and have looped themselves back around to the logic of religious conservatism regarding sex. There's really no side to root for here for a right-winger. Since this is ZOG, both sides are absolutely dedicated to making everything uglier and stupider, and both sides are still opposed to natural White male sexuality, albeit by different vectors of attack. And, despite the fact that they ruin lives over this stuff, a little bit of digging reveals that they both like the same "problematic" things in slightly different ways.


("I would never sexually desire a rapist. I only like creepy, obsessive stalkers who, I assure you, are completely distinct from rapists.")

Naturally, women have no idea what's going on, so they think this culture war is the result of the rise of fascism or something.


("Fascists [read: third worlders who think you ain't havin' a normal one, bruh] and their governments [read: brown theocracies] are attacking me for drawing Creek rape.")

What's important to note here is the inherent dishonesty present on both sides, but especially the "pro-ship" one. As I stated earlier, women are primarily social creatures with biological urges they very rarely understand. With that in mind, I find it very interesting that Mouse apparently writes underage rape porn to "cope" with being touched as a child. In fact, I might go out on a limb and say that isn't true at all. Do Japanese women who write and draw similarly deranged rape porn do it as a cope for being raped? Perhaps on the Japanese subway, where five bazillion Japanese women are raped every day? Marquess de OMOCAT made excuses about her old posts about being attracted to shotas, but even she is too Asian to lie and claim that Omori was made to deal with trauma. I propose that Mouse writes underage rape fanfiction because it scratches a sexual itch which is fundamentally anti-feminist to have, something which she and people like her desperately try to cover up with the tactical employment of therapeutic language.

Therapeutic language, through which the modern woman understands the world, is one of the strongest tools women possess in the War on Truth. I believe that psychology is a legitimate field filled with illegitimate work produced by neurotic women and Jews, and their employment of this kind of language preserves no aspect of any psychological truth. The therapeutic world is a great charade act to hide uncomfortable truths from you.

Here's another, more popular, way women deploy therapeutic language.




This Instagram post is about Wilbur Soot, one of the Minecraft YouTuber heartthrobs I briefly discussed in the pooner thread. Notice the really stupid therapy formulations here. "Love bombing". "Emotional abuse". Even a charitable reading of this only proves that Wilbur is somewhat unpleasant and self-obsessed, and that's only providing anything here happened as our unreliable narrator says it did. Even the "rape" narrative at the end -- if you even believe women getting themselves drunk and then having sex is somehow "rape" -- seems to imply that the narrator said no in a drunken stupor and Wilbur obliged. This woman is using therapeutic language to obfuscate the fact that she is vindictive and jealous that her dark-eyed English boy broke up with her and started talking to other girls. His fans are joining in because they, too, had to experience this heartbreak when Wilbur first announced he had a girlfriend. Perhaps this is the fate of all girl YouTubers who do not live like monks.

This thread is a bit all over the place, mashing together a few independent observations I've made over the past few months, and I don't really have a satisfying conclusion for it that wouldn't already be obvious. I suppose you could combine this with the pooner thread into a general thesis on how, after the onset of Afro-Semitic feminism and their ascendance to power, females are experiencing a sort of "honesty crisis" among themselves, and how this has knock-on effects on their poor, mistreated serf: the average male. Therapeutic language allows for the maintenance of these lies and delusions. Any thoughts you all have on these matters are, of course, very much appreciated.

[Sakana]

The more recent Minecraft Rape Case is more interesting than Wilbur's. A Minecraft streamer, GeorgeNotFound, who looks like a gay man, was recently "accused" of sexually assaulting a woman. How did he sexually assault her? By tickling her belly and putting his hand under her shirt. She just turned 18 (which he didnt know, because she didnt tell him, but it's on the man to check if there arent any MOFUGGING problematic age gaps therefore its basically his fault), so it's double rape AND basically pedophilia.

Modern gynocracy allows for women to essentially have a veto for any sexual experiences they disliked. It's not a shifty one night stand, no, you were RAPED so it's not real sex. Women want to be in control of themselves, but they have impulsive urges that they can't control, and when they come to afterwards they have to save face and change the narrative so that they were secretly not in control of being fucked. Obviously the woman accusing George wasn't actually traumatized by this, she just hated the fact that he looked like a faggot, so she decided to have a re-do on her first sexual experience. Don't we love gynoZOG, wrehs?

[cats]

Modern gynocracy allows for women to essentially have a veto for any sexual experiences they disliked. It's not a shifty one night stand, no, you were RAPED so it's not real sex. Women want to be in control of themselves, but they have impulsive urges that they can't control, and when they properly come to they have to save face and change the narrative so that they were secretly not in control of being fucked.

Yes, absolutely. "Consent" as it is understood now is completely fake, an ever-shifting non-concept that women can use to destroy men at any moment, whether they committed some ill or not. Not running afoul of this completely arbitrary rule means being the most henpecked, craven longhouse slave possible -- and even then, that's often not enough. None of the Minecraft YouTubers strike me as being particularly "alpha". They probably did everything right and got destroyed anyway, because women are jealous creatures and the communitay decides your fate now.

I might contend that women, especially an 18 year old, are in full control of their faculties and whether or not they get drunk and have sex with a certain guy. The fact of the matter is that they have the power to give and then retract consent as they please. It's ridiculous. One really shouldn't have to wonder why young men are increasingly completely disinterested in relationships and sex.

[ourokouros]

I will chime in on the therapeutic nonsense by saying that there is another direction "therapeutic language" can take. When one of my exes started going to therapy, she started shutting down any discussion pertaining to how she could improve her life - or on anything that wasn't trite bullshit honestly - with some variation of "I'm not going to discuss this right now" or "I don't have to talk about that if I don't want to".
So instead of blaming their bad behaviour on other things, they can also simply clam up and pretend to be above things. Hope it works out for her when dealing with employers, public institutions and others who don't have time for this nonsense.
This therapyspeak also comes out very often as some variation of "My therapist told me I have to put myself first" whenever someone tries to check their solipsistic urges.

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

Mouse is putting out these posts in the context of a great, apocalyptic female culture war of "pro-ship" vs. "anti-ship", of which she supports the former. This topic perhaps deserves its own related thread, but the basic gestalt on a surface level is that pro-shippers enjoy porn that contains themes odious to the modern Afro-Semitic feminist while anti-shippers think such things should be censored. Pro-shippers tend to trend older (and Whiter) while anti-shippers tend to trend younger (and less White), although this changes on a case-by-case basis. Unlike male culture wars, where the two sides represent fundamentally different beliefs that define the struggles of our age in miniature (i.e. Gamergate), this entire debate is an utterly dishonest purity spiral. Essentially, two different generations of Afro-Semitic feminists are clashing: one which believes women should have the freedom to do any degenerate thing they wish, even things that violate Afro-Semitic feminist social mores, and the other who believes these women are revealing their hand, so to speak, and have looped themselves back around to the logic of religious conservatism regarding sex. There's really no side to root for here for a right-winger. Since this is ZOG, both sides are absolutely dedicated to making everything uglier and stupider, and both sides are still opposed to natural White male sexuality, albeit by different vectors of attack. And, despite the fact that they ruin lives over this stuff, a little bit of digging reveals that they both like the same "problematic" things in slightly different ways.

This remains one of the most insane things I've read: https://fanlore.org/wiki/Anti-anti

Honestly though, I don't see much that is sinister about this. Obviously it's revealing of some concerning underlying differences in the way that women behave and they shouldn't be allowed to vote, but I find it harmless and amusing that something I can barely care enough about to make sense of on a basic level, is so crucially controversial and important to them.

They're wasting their time, but is it really a big deal if women do this? The only thing a young woman ought to be doing instead is becoming a mother, and I doubt that fandom nonsense would be the thing that specifically stops them from doing so. I think Afro-Semitic feminism is ubiquitous enough in all normaltard communities, that I would not single out these groups for merely being conformist. If women could be aligned with more reasonable ethical defaults, it would probably be a good thing if they fought over shipping and stayed away from real world jobs and politics. Women gossiping over irrelevant nonsense is Lindy to a degree, although this has escalated beyond that.

This is a great case study offering insight into the female mind. It's hard to imagine any man exploring this side of the internet and returning to claim that the behavioral differences between men and women are wholly environmental. There is absolutely no practical benefit to caring about any of this useless shit. It would even seem that suffering is being directly created on purpose for no good reason. Any party could walk away at any moment and be no worse off, but apparently the urge to infight over literal fiction is too strong. I'm glad they're at least writing or drawing some of the time while participating in these communities.

[anthony]

The Mysterious Woman is as much of a poisonous and retarded myth as the Smarter Woman (cultural assumption enabled by bias of schooling structure towards rote time-wasting and institutional loyalty until the internet allowed unemployable burnout men to kick all their asses at everything again).

As in every other issue I believe that rather than fleeing or denouncing we should be going all in on psychology. This is a fight we win. We have the interesting things to say. The sane conclusions all work for us. Let's study women.

Mason calls this harmless, I disagree. Where Cats didn't go in his OP is that this class of neurosis has effects that extend beyond the realm of writing about cartoon character rape. How do you think these girls deal with actual boys and men? On one hand they're psychotic anarcho-tyrannical commissars teaching intelligent and skittish outliers that any thought or feeling they have towards a girl is rape to such an extreme extent that the boy troons out to square the circle and be allowed to have some feelings again. And on the other hand girls torn by this aversion to their own nature are just going to go skittish and check out of life. The world is tainted and impure so don't deal with it. That's another potential quality human lost to the future.

This is about a deep dishonesty regarding our own nature which has taken root in girl cultural spheres that's making them crazy. I'm actually angry at the idea of "no practical benefit to caring about any of this useless shit". Why don't I just delete the fucking forum so we can all run off and play foomeler on our homesteads or something? What the fuck is "practical" to you? Fuck off.

The more that women are demystified and revealed for the stupid hysterics they are, the more plain their motivations and inner workings are made, the less power they have. There's a shocking tendency among men everywhere to default to extraordinarily charitable readings of women whenever there's a gap in understanding. Any time you're not sure what a woman is doing they're practicing perfect instinctive eugenics and have an IQ of 750 and don't respect intelligent online men because mistress is bored by how lowstatusdysgenicsunchristlikeungallant they are.

No. These people are fucking idiots and we're going to have a thread on that. If you want to be practical go make a practical thread. Fuck you.

Fucking hell. I'm too angry to think much more now. I'll come back to this thread.

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

Mason calls this harmless, I disagree. Where Cats didn't go in his OP is that this class of neurosis has effects that extend beyond the realm of writing about cartoon character rape. How do you think these girls deal with actual boys and men? On one hand they're psychotic anarcho-tyrannical commissars teaching intelligent and skittish outliers that any thought or feeling they have towards a girl is rape to such an extreme extent that the boy troons out to square the circle and be allowed to have some feelings again. And on the other hand girls torn by this aversion to their own nature are just going to go skittish and check out of life. The world is tainted and impure so don't deal with it. That's another potential quality human lost to the future.

I can see the argument that these subcultures inflame women's neuroses around "rape" that can affect their attitudes towards real world relationships, fair point, but as a man I don't feel affected by this at all and can easily ignore it. I think academic, institutional, Anita Sarkeesian-type feminism that corrupts systems of power and influences media and policy, is more relevant. The intelligent boys you're talking about are probably more negatively impacted by what they're taught in school and what they see in movies. When this ideology trickles down to regular internet-using women, it becomes self-defeating because they largely weaponize it against one another.

Back to the OP, I'm also not particularly concerned by the observation that women are rejecting truth, I don't expect women to be honest and I don't think they ever have been. Their dishonesty can loop back around to helping them accept their own nature, such as in the case of the rape fics. When women's confused rationalizations are inconsistent with feminist doctrine, they're usually self-serving in some other way. There's a silver lining here in that they're controlled by their own biology in ways that are sometimes helpful.

This is about a deep dishonesty regarding our own nature which has taken root in girl cultural spheres that's making them crazy. I'm actually angry at the idea of "no practical benefit to caring about any of this useless shit". Why don't I just delete the fucking forum so we can all run off and play foomeler on our homesteads or something? What the fuck is "practical" to you? Fuck off.

The more that women are demystified and revealed for the stupid hysterics they are, the more plain their motivations and inner workings are made, the less power they have. There's a shocking tendency among men everywhere to default to extraordinarily charitable readings of women whenever there's a gap in understanding. Any time you're not sure what a woman is doing they're practicing perfect instinctive eugenics and have an IQ of 750 and don't respect intelligent online men because mistress is bored by how lowstatusdysgenicsunchristlikeungallant they are.

I was referring to the woman's object-level interest in drama as 'useless shit', but I can see why that was unclear. I agree that it's worthwhile for us to talk about this.

[Guest]

I can see the argument that these subcultures inflame women's neuroses around "rape" that can affect their attitudes towards real world relationships, fair point, but as a man I don't feel affected by this at all and can easily ignore it. 

What about #MeToo? I don’t think anyone has pointed out this connection yet.

[cats]

I've been meaning to make another longer reply to this thread to address a few things, but have this for now. Debated about whether I should put this in the pooner thread or this one:


I don't claim that intrusive thoughts represent any important aspect of a person's inner desires psychologically, but it's clear from the interaction above that even these are suppressed as violations of Afro-Semitic feminist taboos. Like I said, the Honesty Crisis.

[MisterHerrSenor0]

Mouse is putting out these posts in the context of a great, apocalyptic female culture war of "pro-ship" vs. "anti-ship", of which she supports the former. This topic perhaps deserves its own related thread, but the basic gestalt on a surface level is that pro-shippers enjoy porn that contains themes odious to the modern Afro-Semitic feminist while anti-shippers think such things should be censored. Pro-shippers tend to trend older (and Whiter) while anti-shippers tend to trend younger (and less White), although this changes on a case-by-case basis. Unlike male culture wars, where the two sides represent fundamentally different beliefs that define the struggles of our age in miniature (i.e. Gamergate), this entire debate is an utterly dishonest purity spiral. Essentially, two different generations of Afro-Semitic feminists are clashing: one which believes women should have the freedom to do any degenerate thing they wish, even things that violate Afro-Semitic feminist social mores, and the other who believes these women are revealing their hand, so to speak, and have looped themselves back around to the logic of religious conservatism regarding sex. There's really no side to root for here for a right-winger. Since this is ZOG, both sides are absolutely dedicated to making everything uglier and stupider, and both sides are still opposed to natural White male sexuality, albeit by different vectors of attack. And, despite the fact that they ruin lives over this stuff, a little bit of digging reveals that they both like the same "problematic" things in slightly different ways.

And here I thought I was the only one on the DR who found the "pro-ship VS anti-ship" thing in fandom circles interesting. Cringeworthy and disgusting, of course, but still interesting. Mostly for how cringeworthy and disgusting it is. Both sides have such a fundamentally demented view of right and wrong that it's comical.

I think this debate is noteworthy since it represents an internal contradiction of Prog ideology. You see, the Prog desires to make the world a "safe space" for every "marginalized" group. But some of "the marginalized" make each other uncomfortable, and segregating them would, too, make them uncomfortable. The Prog endorses everything that disturbs "hegemonic" (read: masculine, White, aristocratic, or even just healthy) sensibilities, but what if they disturb each other's sensibilities, too? This is made worse by how many Progs are sadomasochists, and how a growing stream of Prog ideology sees limiting sexuality to the bedroom as restrictive. It's a purity spiral where nobody involved actually understands what "purity" in their ideology even entails to begin with.

But perhaps the most fascinating thing in all of this is that both sides accuse each other of misogyny. The "antis" think the "pros" are too willing to accept the sexualization of masculine dominance, and the "pros" think the "antis" are calling for a puritanical body-controlling moralism. They cannot understand how the opposite position could possibly arise from Prog ideology. So they both see each other as a scheme to force women back into the kitchen. Hilarious.

[Lindenbaum]

Since we're talking about female sexuality, don't you think its interesting that some women seem to have a thing for criminals? I emphasise some, because I think many women are so conformist that criminality might be a huge turn off for them, if the criminal transgresses the public morality. 

There's the obvious example that everyone knows about - Ted Bundy, the serial killer with a huge "female following" I suppose you could say. He would famously receive letters from women trying to marry him while he was in prison, and lots of women tried to convince everyone that he was innocent even after he admitted to being guilty. But there's another more recent example of something similar, which is the case of Cameron Herrin, an 18-year-old street racer who in 2018 crashed into and killed a mother and child while speeding. He was subsequently sentenced to 24 years in prison.



Similarly to the Ted Bundy case, lots of women (in this case I think it was more teenage girls than women) came out to plead mercy for Herrin, saying that since it was an accident, he should be given less or no prison time. Another similarity with the Ted Bundy case - just by looking at pictures of the guy, you see these girls true motive in defending him. It is interesting to me how many women will use morality as a tool, and drop it whenever they deem it necessary. Women wouldn't be coming out to argue that Bundy was innocent or that Herrin deserves leniency if these two guys were ugly, but they always frame it in such a way that would make it seem to a naive observer that these women just really really care about making sure that justice is served properly and fairly.

On a related note, I see that the Wilbur Soot controversy has already been mentioned in this thread. I believe that Shulby (Wilbur Soot's ex girlfriend who caused the whole uproar) was probably lying about being abused by Wilbur. If you listen to her big public announcement, she spends half the time talking about what a bad boyfriend Wilbur was, how he made her feel unloved and how he broke up with her when she clearly didn't want to. This was her real issue, the "abuse" stuff simply served as her weapon of revenge and her casus belli, her justification to the public and possibly to herself for why she was now trying to ruin Wilbur's life. I think women have a powerful ability to convince themselves of their own bullshit, because Shulby seems to have convinced herself that she really was abused by him, she says in her big "coming out" video that for a long time she didn't even know that she was being abused, and that only upon further reflection did she realise what had happened. In other words, it was only afterwards that she came up with and convinced herself of the abuse narrative. I think the Shulby/Wilbur thing is a great example of women using morality as a weapon, and it proves that women are at once the more moralistic and yet less moral sex.

Back to what I was saying about the Cameron Herrin thing. Cameron's masses of teenage adorers ended up getting a hashtag going, #JusticeForCameron, and it got the attention of internet drama Youtube channels, who ended up whipping up their own outrage about the IMMORALITY of teenage Tik-Tok girls. There were maybe 4 common types of comment under these videos.

1. Complaining about the immorality of Tik-Tok girls: "Humanity is evolving - just backwards" ... "Tik-Tok made me lose faith in humanity" 

2. Revenge rape fantasies: "These girls like him because he's pretty, well that won't help where he's going" ... "Don't worry, I'm sure he will be just as popular in prison as he was on Tik-Tok"

3. Complaining that ugly people are oppressed: "They only want him freed because he'd handsome, imagine if he was ugly" ... "Pretty privilege is real, and it's disturbing"

4. Trying to justify his imprisonment: "He didn't CHOOSE to kill people but he did CHOOSE to drive recklessly"

Most of the comments fall into one of those 4 categories, and often they fall into multiple. On videos that just show Cameron's reaction to his sentencing, you get a lot more sympathy and a lot more sadism in the comments. So, now we have a side that hates Herrin, and a side that loves him, and therefore we have a conflict.

It is interesting to me to observe just who makes up the two sides of this conflict. On the anti-Cameron side, you have what could be described as "The normal person". They are "reasonable" (or so they like to think) and adopt all of the societally approved moral positions on things, which means they're anti-racist, anti-extremist more broadly, and they often complain that the internet is turning people crazy "its giving people brain-worms". There's also another group of people on the anti-Cameron side, the spiteful ugly ones, probably mostly men. These, I would imagine, are the people in the comments complaining about "pretty privilege" and they're probably the ones engaging in rape fantasies. They are likely jealous of better looking people, and they are particularly jealous that this handsome murderer gets more attention from young girls than they themselves do.

On the other side, you have the #JusticeForCameron people, mostly teenage girls. Unlike the anti-Cameron side, they don't really make moral/verbal arguments. Well, yes, they do make these arguments, but they are just a fig leaf. Their real arguments come in the form of what is essentially the female equivalent of a Little Dark Age video edit, with Cameron Herrin as the focus, mostly shared around Tik-Tok at the time. You could actually make intelligent verbal arguments in favour of the #JusticeForCameron position, I can think of a good argument myself, but it wouldn't be considered at all acceptable by the vast majority of society today. 

Herrin gets a lot more sympathy than is usual in a case like this thanks to his good looks, but he also gets a lot more hate due to the same thing. Would there be people in the comments engaging in sadistic rape fantasies if he wasn't good looking? I don't think so. It's part of a wider trend in society of hating beauty and hating youth. In fact, if he wasn't white, young and good looking, I bet a lot of the people who are now delighting in his suffering would be arguing that he "dindu nuffin". Living in a civilisation that currently hates everything that is good, beautiful and noble, I think it's heart-warming to know that the TikTok loli-waffen will still jump to the defence of one of the most oppressed groups in society, even if they have done something awful.

[Unformed Golem]

Women like criminals ceteris paribus because criminals are socially dominant.  If a law-abiding man and a criminal meet each other on a narrow path, the lawfollower steps aside.  Criminals take stuff from lawcucks, not the other way around.  If a criminal sees something he wants, he just grabs it; if he encounters a rule that he doesn't like, he just ignores it, usually to no consequence.  If a criminal commits a crime, nothing much happens to him, maybe he does a few months in jail or has a court date or whatever.  If a rule-follower does crime though, he loses his job and property and social circle.  On some places, if a criminal invades your home you are required to cower in the corner and beg for mercy while they take all of your stuff.  Of course you are not allowed to personally recover stolen property from criminals.  If a criminal harms or kills someone you care about, you're not allowed to do anything about it -- even, in fact especially, if your rulers ignore you when you appeal to them for Justice.

This isn't some inherent fact of life, it's just the result of tyrannical government.  The state could reward, or even not punish, respectable men who beat criminals who failed to yield to them on a path or who killed criminals that law-degree-havers decided not to punish, and womens' affections for criminals would mysteriously dissipate.

Me2 and sexual harassment in general are just a denunciation-based social control system.  "Abuse" is a completely and intentionally meaningless term.  These things do have a basis in reality however; the experience of being "pumped and dumped", or even just "breaking up [with someone you've had sex with]" was, until very recently, an experience confined to prostitutes and slaves, including war captives and the like.  The correct thing to tell these women is that their bad feelings are a readily predictable consequence of their own actions which they're going to have to live with.

[Illustrious]

Women like criminals ceteris paribus because criminals are socially dominant.  If a law-abiding man and a criminal meet each other on a narrow path, the lawfollower steps aside.  Criminals take stuff from lawcucks, not the other way around.  If a criminal sees something he wants, he just grabs it; if he encounters a rule that he doesn't like, he just ignores it, usually to no consequence.  If a criminal commits a crime, nothing much happens to him, maybe he does a few months in jail or has a court date or whatever.  If a rule-follower does crime though, he loses his job and property and social circle.  On some places, if a criminal invades your home you are required to cower in the corner and beg for mercy while they take all of your stuff.  Of course you are not allowed to personally recover stolen property from criminals.  If a criminal harms or kills someone you care about, you're not allowed to do anything about it -- even, in fact especially, if your rulers ignore you when you appeal to them for Justice.

Only violent criminals. You already imply you're talking about those cases but let me mention this aside anyway. Women have total contempt for non-violent criminals - the pirate, the tax evader, the scammer. So there's clearly a fixation on violence more than simply breaking established rules and laws. Only when the prospect of violence appears, that is when women feel the tingles.

[Unformed Golem]

Women like criminals ceteris paribus because criminals are socially dominant.  If a law-abiding man and a criminal meet each other on a narrow path, the lawfollower steps aside.  Criminals take stuff from lawcucks, not the other way around.  If a criminal sees something he wants, he just grabs it; if he encounters a rule that he doesn't like, he just ignores it, usually to no consequence.  If a criminal commits a crime, nothing much happens to him, maybe he does a few months in jail or has a court date or whatever.  If a rule-follower does crime though, he loses his job and property and social circle.  On some places, if a criminal invades your home you are required to cower in the corner and beg for mercy while they take all of your stuff.  Of course you are not allowed to personally recover stolen property from criminals.  If a criminal harms or kills someone you care about, you're not allowed to do anything about it -- even, in fact especially, if your rulers ignore you when you appeal to them for Justice.

Only violent criminals. You already imply you're talking about those cases but let me mention this aside anyway. Women have total contempt for non-violent criminals - the pirate, the tax evader, the scammer. So there's clearly a fixation on violence more than simply breaking established rules and laws. Only when the prospect of violence appears, that is when women feel the tingles.

Generally true, although it's not just violence -- it's social dominance.  This is an important distinction both because there are non-violent forms of social dominance hierarchies and because there are two "modes" of violence, dominance and predation.  Corollary: if you ever find yourself in a position of responsibility, you should always transact "hierarchy business" outside the physical awareness of your subordinate's woman.  If your "boss" doesn't do this, he's either totally clueless or, more likely, he's trying to sleep with your woman.

Violence per se isn't a turn on -- women don't get moist by watching something get bombed, and sitting in a cube bombing people won't make you interesting to women [this is the female version of wishing you could retvrn to hoplite].  When it comes to women, you need a way to convert violence into social status, sort of like how the Vikings needed to sell the manuscripts and chalices they looted out of monasteries.

[Guest]

So why do women shriek and cry when criminals gets shot? It's very clearly violence and dominance, but they can't stand it when law abiders or law enforcers kills criminals in cold blood.

[Unformed Golem]

So why do women shriek and cry when criminals gets shot? It's very clearly violence and dominance, but they can't stand it when law abiders or law enforcers kills criminals in cold blood.

My previous post was a general rule -- women like [violent] criminals because they display social dominance.  However I'll happily discuss specific applications.

You must keep in mind is that to women, "violence" means "monkey dominance display violence".  I used the example of airstrikes previously.  But the key is that women don't like predatory violence.  If you're with a guy and he gets bonked over the head by a rival warlord who takes you as a prize, all well and good.  If your man gets eaten by a tiger -- well, the tiger isn't going to fuck you, in fact it might eat you too.  This honestly isn't too hard to understand -- imagine that your gf who's mid but you like her and Ubel pops out of the Frieren manga you're reading, brutally eliminates gf, and disappears.  What a downer!  To the type of woman who shrieks at nigs getting shot, cops are basically tigers.  You'll note that allowing [or forcing lmao] your security forces to consort with "native women" will mitigate this response.

Another thing is that women are really bad when it comes to personally doing violence and they generally know it.  This makes them prone to panicking when observing or even just thinking about scenarios in which their own precious selves are "caught up in" [passive voice] any sort of violent activity.

[august]

imagine that your gf who's mid but you like her

XD

Another thing is that women are really bad when it comes to personally doing violence and they generally know it.  This makes them prone to panicking when observing or even just thinking about scenarios in which their own precious selves are "caught up in" [passive voice] any sort of violent activity.

I once watched a Code Blue Cam video on youtube wherein a female officer had to shoot a guy during a standoff and immediately after she pulled the trigger (as in, maybe 5-10 seconds after) she was hyperventilating and crying hysterically. Other officers had to come to her aid. A real mess I'd say.

[a system is failing]

So why do women shriek and cry when criminals gets shot? It's very clearly violence and dominance, but they can't stand it when law abiders or law enforcers kills criminals in cold blood.

Because they are told to. People need to be a bit quicker with this. Not every single thing women do is indicative of some kind of deeper female nature. Nobody thinks this way about other men, it doesn't apply to women either.

[ourokouros]

Women shriek and cry when criminals get shot because the retardation of niggers and other assorted indigent criminals makes women see them as children that their misguided maternal instinct has to protect.

[Guest]

Women cry and shout when criminals are shot because they find violence scary and when women are scared they shout and/or cry. This is an element for once that really has no deeper psychological aspect. On this note, this fear to crying reaction is almost the exact same in children.