07-03-2023, 10:31 AM
Rape everything that exists! A greek view of sexual power
Nietzschean Sex:
Nietzsche came up with the idea that sex is power (also Freud, the copycat). To love is to exude power onto an object. The lover has power and uses it on his beloved, as a male spends his semen. Sex and Love goes from high to low, the lover being superior to the beloved. A man’s domination over a woman, the stronger exercising his natural right over the weaker as well as the weaker offering a willing and proud submission. (And we all know women prefer to yield to those who care nothing for their preference or consent.)
The opposite is in Plato (the phoencian ass-kisser that he was), in which sex is not power but attraction, not from high to low but from low to high, the beloved being superior. Love is a dependency, even an enslavement.
Some deranged femcels and feminists distrust love when felt by women. A woman in love justifies and invites the oppression of the man she loves by giving him power over herself: better to have the “autonomy” of an open marriage with many lovers, or homosexuality, or—well, not celibacy - because they can't control themselves. Marriage is civilizing for the women and an entrapment for the man.
Aristotle:
Aristotle discussed the concept of "active" and "passive" roles in copulation. He believed that in most species, including humans, the male played an active role in the process, while the female took on a passive role. This is part of the hierarchy of nature. His view is also more broadly stated in his theory on hylomorphism where form, supplied by the man, is superior and prior to matter, supplied by the f-void.
Machiavelli on raping (fortuna):
"I conclude, thus, that when fortune varies and men remain obstinate in their modes, men are happy while they are in accord, and as they come into discord, unhappy. I judge this indeed, that it is better to be impetuous than cautious, because fortune is a woman; and it is necessary, if one wants to hold her down, to beat her and strike her down. And one sees that she lets herself be won more by the impetuous than by those who proceed coldly. And so al ways, like a woman, she is the friend of the young, because they are less cautious, more ferocious, and command her with more audacity."
A dominating person could make use of the ability to seem caring - the reverse with not be possible.
Spatial ability is related to aggression, which is self-centered. But to be self-centered, you need to be free or make yourself free from the environment in which you find yourself. Men orient themselves more objects, the object of their desire, their will. Women look to the environment, the milieu, they don't will, they are prone to submit to their circumstances.
To free yourself, you need to be able to abstract yourself, you need to be able to think abstractly, to see things as they might be in different contexts or without a context. Aggression and abstraction are two forms of being single-minded. Women can't rape because they aren't single-minded enough, they are fundamentally more enslaved by the world, the context, which they are given.
BAP on rape (veils it in the context of soyence):
"...it depends on a state of the mind where the perceiving part of the intellect is absolutely focused, limpid, yet driven by the most relentless energy, an energy to penetrate. Direct perception is already “intellectualized” and in fact much closer to the innate “intelligence” of things than cerebral syllogisms. No scientist worth anything has ever felt pride at using algorithms or trial-and-error to solve a problem. Yes, feminists are right that “science” is patriarchal in this sense, that it is a “rape” of nature. Real scientists like Galois are monsters of will, and the preponderance of
men in the hard sciences is explained by this orientation of character, as also by the fact that the minds of men more than of women are capable of sustained focus on one thing (women are better at multitasking). There are women who were great scientists, but, like women who were great chess players, or poets, they are probably spiritual lesbians."
Civilization relies on male supremacy to liberate human beings from their enslavement to biology. Liberal sensitive males also need to re-enslave women with romantic delusions - if they want civilization to continue...
Controlling superior men, and men with arms, liberal men have "libertarded" their women, who are now deranged feminists, who want to larp as men while simultaneously behaving in their typical low mode of gossip and shame.
Yet isn’t it better to be wooed insincerely than beaten up, you dumb bitches? Kill Praxagora, if you want liberalism to continue.
This post is largely informed by Harvey Mansfield's book on Manliness.
Nietzschean Sex:
Nietzsche came up with the idea that sex is power (also Freud, the copycat). To love is to exude power onto an object. The lover has power and uses it on his beloved, as a male spends his semen. Sex and Love goes from high to low, the lover being superior to the beloved. A man’s domination over a woman, the stronger exercising his natural right over the weaker as well as the weaker offering a willing and proud submission. (And we all know women prefer to yield to those who care nothing for their preference or consent.)
The opposite is in Plato (the phoencian ass-kisser that he was), in which sex is not power but attraction, not from high to low but from low to high, the beloved being superior. Love is a dependency, even an enslavement.
Some deranged femcels and feminists distrust love when felt by women. A woman in love justifies and invites the oppression of the man she loves by giving him power over herself: better to have the “autonomy” of an open marriage with many lovers, or homosexuality, or—well, not celibacy - because they can't control themselves. Marriage is civilizing for the women and an entrapment for the man.
Aristotle:
Aristotle discussed the concept of "active" and "passive" roles in copulation. He believed that in most species, including humans, the male played an active role in the process, while the female took on a passive role. This is part of the hierarchy of nature. His view is also more broadly stated in his theory on hylomorphism where form, supplied by the man, is superior and prior to matter, supplied by the f-void.
Machiavelli on raping (fortuna):
"I conclude, thus, that when fortune varies and men remain obstinate in their modes, men are happy while they are in accord, and as they come into discord, unhappy. I judge this indeed, that it is better to be impetuous than cautious, because fortune is a woman; and it is necessary, if one wants to hold her down, to beat her and strike her down. And one sees that she lets herself be won more by the impetuous than by those who proceed coldly. And so al ways, like a woman, she is the friend of the young, because they are less cautious, more ferocious, and command her with more audacity."
A dominating person could make use of the ability to seem caring - the reverse with not be possible.
Spatial ability is related to aggression, which is self-centered. But to be self-centered, you need to be free or make yourself free from the environment in which you find yourself. Men orient themselves more objects, the object of their desire, their will. Women look to the environment, the milieu, they don't will, they are prone to submit to their circumstances.
To free yourself, you need to be able to abstract yourself, you need to be able to think abstractly, to see things as they might be in different contexts or without a context. Aggression and abstraction are two forms of being single-minded. Women can't rape because they aren't single-minded enough, they are fundamentally more enslaved by the world, the context, which they are given.
BAP on rape (veils it in the context of soyence):
"...it depends on a state of the mind where the perceiving part of the intellect is absolutely focused, limpid, yet driven by the most relentless energy, an energy to penetrate. Direct perception is already “intellectualized” and in fact much closer to the innate “intelligence” of things than cerebral syllogisms. No scientist worth anything has ever felt pride at using algorithms or trial-and-error to solve a problem. Yes, feminists are right that “science” is patriarchal in this sense, that it is a “rape” of nature. Real scientists like Galois are monsters of will, and the preponderance of
men in the hard sciences is explained by this orientation of character, as also by the fact that the minds of men more than of women are capable of sustained focus on one thing (women are better at multitasking). There are women who were great scientists, but, like women who were great chess players, or poets, they are probably spiritual lesbians."
Civilization relies on male supremacy to liberate human beings from their enslavement to biology. Liberal sensitive males also need to re-enslave women with romantic delusions - if they want civilization to continue...
Controlling superior men, and men with arms, liberal men have "libertarded" their women, who are now deranged feminists, who want to larp as men while simultaneously behaving in their typical low mode of gossip and shame.
Yet isn’t it better to be wooed insincerely than beaten up, you dumb bitches? Kill Praxagora, if you want liberalism to continue.
This post is largely informed by Harvey Mansfield's book on Manliness.