The 'Female Gaze'
#21
(07-13-2022, 07:52 PM)WelderBomber Wrote: In the middle of writing this and I realised this is The 'Female Gaze' thread and my post would fit better in the Female Sexual Satisfaction thread but I'll post her anyway since I am replying to something in this thread.

Quote:However, I have been so socialized in the worldview of blank slatism vis-a-vis biological sex that even though *I* intellectually understand its falsity and what must be done, it pains me to do it to a woman who I love and truly do respect. Ergo I act unmanly however I move forward. I adjudicate her reasoning like that of a fellow man, and become openly frustrated at her acting like a woman, and she rightly (if unfairly, not that that matters) has contempt for me, and feels disrespected.

Even if you were socialized into having the blank slate worldview, you understand its falsehoods and are on this forum, this should be proof enough that you are no longer socialized into this belief. I think this shares sentiment with something Chud said on his twitter a few days ago, that the greatest curse in being male is wanting your partner to be your equal while knowing that is impossible. I suspect a good amount of 'PUA-pilled' young men have internalized the same problem one of two ways, yours having rejected your superiority over women. I don't believe in the need to declare one sex superior to the other, is the stick that hits the drum superior to the drum? The question itself is absurd as both are essential to playing drums. My guess is you (and I'm using you as a stand in) simply don't want to see women as the most vapid of holes, which is probably why you feel the need to specify that you love and respect the woman you are talking about. This is fine, the problem arises only when you think being equal is a prerequisite for love [with the tendency to declare supremacy of one sex as a remnant of sex equality thinking]. It's true that you should not take everything a woman says at face value, however, it's a game, at least in the context you speak of, and games are played only when not playing games with the other person is unbearable. Being game-free is ideal, so recognize the game and don't play into it but rather take a detached approach. If the game is her yelling at you that you two only talk about what YOU want and what YOU like (even if that is not the case) then she is likely to mean that when her hobbies are the subject you are more interested in knowledge and the general rather than the specific, which is her and her preferences. For example if you're having a conversation about her garden, she would appreciate it more if you asked her "what flowers do you like the most?" rather than "where do these flowers originate from?". Another example: let's say you are married and have one child, one day your wife tells you she's so tired and you should spend more time with the child. Do you think that will make her happy? In the case she is indeed tired it might be intentional and she wants you to say "you're trying so hard and I love you for that", in the case she isn't tired she still wants to hear the "I love you" part.
 
I've seen this problem be rationalized in one other way, in which the superiority of the male sex is embraced. In one particular case I saw a guy was saying how he won't marry because all women are leftist whores with no values that just want to fuck while also saying he will stop at having sex with them (which he had a lot of according to him). This line of thinking enables someone like MedGold, who bases himself on his audience having this line of thinking. A male like this that thinks being male comes with no responsibilities, just benefits and would also think to himself that he is rightfully increasing the Fuck Rate whenever bedding a dirty rag of a woman. Obviously this is not the case, if increasing the (only) Fuck Rate does anything it's create more deranged radical feminist women and men-hating lesbians. You can predict but not dictate better male performance, being a male alone does not mean you are in the same group as inventors, trailblazers, world-renown athletes and so on, just that you're on the winning side of a coin toss.

Quote:A woman who I love has told me that I don't act like a man; rather, that I act like a girl. She is correct [...]

If anything a woman will like/love/respect you more if you assert yourself, they don't mind not giving the orders and they don't mind not "being taken seriously" either if being taken seriously means ending up unsatisfied. As I said above it is best you don't take her at face value in most scenarios, not seeing women as equals does not have to come from a place of hate.
Me being against women's emancipation comes from a place of love for women.
I think the two threads are topically inextricable, so I wouldn't consider either of our posts off-topic.

Yes, you're totally right. I suppose I don't even reject it, really, it's more so that I try to thread the needle between internal understanding and external faux-ignorance of this truth. I do think there is a complimentary nature to man and women rather than a brute superiority, and do want to act in a way that allows this woman and I to fill these roles in the most fulfilling way.

What I guess really rankles me is that this woman has admitted that she understands that men and women are not equal, and that she would be best suited staying at home and raising kids while I stoically weather her (ideally) occasional brat behavior and bring home the bacon. Not to create a reverse oneitis situation, but she actually does admit this and its ramifications to a level I have rarely seen a woman, especially a secular woman, admit before.

What rankles me is how this manifests. It's like the complementarianism which Dalrock long railed against. She wants to dictate both what she "gets out of" our quasi-traditional-gender-role performance, and what I "get out of" it. Because she makes breakfast (which she wanted to do), I am in turn entitled to humor her "most vapid of hole" bratty behavior while not verbalizing the fact that I am doing so (which she wants me to do, and without admitting it in quite those words of course).  I like clearly defined roles and formalized obligations; this, of course, is 180 degrees from the needle-threading that I am attempting.

I'm not trying to make this conversation solely about my struggles getting on the same page with this one woman, so let me attempt to pivot to making a generalization. When you can seemingly get whatever you want, of course you're going to take advantage of it. This is true of all of our Oppressed Groups who are given license to stand on as many crates as is necessary to see over the fence into the baseball game without playing. It's also true of individual people of all creeds, colors, sexes, and stations in life. You're right that I should assert myself more, and that I would be respected more for it. This is mirrored in how hard-ass, openly bigoted White men are much more respected by the Black underclass than their low-T wimp libtard counterparts. As Moldbug would say, power abhors a vacuum. I do need to sack up and operationalize that power, because otherwise it flows to her, and having it is impossible to resist in a given situation but ultimately makes her miserable overall. Thus, the current hegemony of the female gaze is rooted in the fact that the latest generation of boys aging into adulthood (but not becoming men, exactly) are so inculcated in gynocentric thought that they don't realize women don't actually find fulfillment in the power and influence they have been given. Rather, they are hoarding it for themselves in the absence of any concerted effort to remasculinize society.
#22
women are a vacuum, and must be filled. the eyes are like the lights on a modern vacuum telling you "IM READY TO SUCK".
#23
Roughly three laws totally shape the sexual marketplace. Up until about the 20th century, to have sex, you had to be married. To get married, you had to convince a father of a woman to marry her to you. To stay married, you had to either not die (no divorce) or not be ridiculously abusive (roughly like child abuse laws now, disciplinary, not "kinky", wife spanking was practiced until 1960 in the West, just as spanking children is still legal in most countries but burning them with cigarettes is not). There was no concept of "marital rape" until about 1960. To have sex, you merely had to have a wife. To have a wife, you merely had to get one from a man with a young daughter. At no point did you have to cater to women. Being catered to by a man was a privilege (that was often enjoyed by women), not a right.

Now, to be married you have to beg the woman and the woman alone to want to marry you. To stay married you have to keep begging, because of no fault divorce. And who cares about marriage anyway? "Marital rape" was invented as a concept and sex before marriage was normalized -- to have sex now, you must convince the woman and the woman alone to "want" to have sex with you. For the first time in human history, we are doing sex like birds, spiders, and bugs. In chimpanzees, and for all of human history, women are property of strong men. As discussed above, women have evolved to want to be property. They have not "freed" themselves -- this wholly unnatural state of affairs is entirely the result of elite hedonists and Jews, who control the political order.

Peacocking for women is not normal. It is learned by young men that it is the only way to get sex in a totalitarian environment where practicing one's instincts ends in death. It is a compromise of slaves. If one is lucky they will find a woman that has relinquished her unnatural "rights" -- she might be very religious or otherwise very interested in submission. Many men will not be so lucky. It is okay to make the compromise in order to reproduce -- what is not okay is confusing the compromise for the ideal. Then you are a traitor to your children, because you condemn them to slavery. Every self respecting man will support ending sex before marriage, abolishing the concept of "marital rape", abolishing no fault divorce, and making women be subject to their fathers before he decides who they marry. Any man who does not support these things should not reproduce, because he lacks the intelligence and moral fiber to understand what I have said.
#24
(10-20-2022, 11:48 AM)AryanGenius1488 Wrote: Roughly three laws totally shape the sexual marketplace. Up until about the 20th century, to have sex, you had to be married.
Laughable, even before you consider the increased frequency of prostitution.
#25
(10-20-2022, 06:28 PM)capgras Wrote:
(10-20-2022, 11:48 AM)AryanGenius1488 Wrote: Roughly three laws totally shape the sexual marketplace. Up until about the 20th century, to have sex, you had to be married.
Laughable, even before you consider the increased frequency of prostitution.

Dumb reply. I'm speaking de jure. De facto, rape happens today. So by your standards "to have sex now, you must convince the woman and the woman alone to 'want' to have sex with you" is "Laughable, even before you consider niggers".
#26
(10-20-2022, 07:13 PM)AryanGenius1488 Wrote:
(10-20-2022, 06:28 PM)capgras Wrote:
(10-20-2022, 11:48 AM)AryanGenius1488 Wrote: Roughly three laws totally shape the sexual marketplace. Up until about the 20th century, to have sex, you had to be married.
Laughable, even before you consider the increased frequency of prostitution.

Dumb reply. I'm speaking de jure. De facto, rape happens today. So by your standards "to have sex now, you must convince the woman and the woman alone to 'want' to have sex with you" is "Laughable, even before you consider niggers".

What does this even mean
#27
(10-20-2022, 07:43 PM)capgras Wrote:
(10-20-2022, 07:13 PM)AryanGenius1488 Wrote:
(10-20-2022, 06:28 PM)capgras Wrote:
(10-20-2022, 11:48 AM)AryanGenius1488 Wrote: Roughly three laws totally shape the sexual marketplace. Up until about the 20th century, to have sex, you had to be married.
Laughable, even before you consider the increased frequency of prostitution.

Dumb reply. I'm speaking de jure. De facto, rape happens today. So by your standards "to have sex now, you must convince the woman and the woman alone to 'want' to have sex with you" is "Laughable, even before you consider niggers".

What does this even mean

It makes sense to me. Now granted in cities and behind closed doors there was a bit more licentiousness "back then" - it was not perfect. But sex outside of marriage was not "normalized", it was done quietly. It will be very hard to ever return to that stage - you can't unbake a cake.


[-]
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)