Feminine products for men

[Kulturkampf]

In an age where men emasculate themselves to have theoretical gains in their self-image we have marked the fall of glory of the Western nations and the entrance into our eventual defeat and forfeiture of power, influence and respect to others.

The only problem is that this is being globalized.

But there will be a reaction in the form of a more phallic culture on the horizon.

I see myself as part of a phallocentric movement.

[kahljorn]

I see myself as part of a phallocentric movement.

yea i bet you like to have phallocentric movements in your butt.

In an age where men emasculate themselves to have theoretical gains in their self-image we have marked the fall of glory of the Western nations and the entrance into our eventual defeat and forfeiture of power, influence and respect to others.

please expand on this. What is, "Emasculate." I know what the word means, but it can be used in many different contexts. I don't think wearing panty hose is going to really emasculate you (there's a famous piece of art of i think louis the 14th wearing panty hose and high heels). What does the "Glory of the western nations" have to do with this definition of "Emasculate." Same with power, influence and respect. Do people only respect us because our men don't wear panty hose or act feminine? What would feminine mean in this context, what is adverse about it?

And how could paradigm shifts and the nature of changing cultures not immediately refute that? It's not as if power, influence and respect has merely to do with what type of clothes you wear or with which purely gender based characteristics (especially in the modern world) you express. You can be feminine and still be powerful, unless you are just focusing on the ambiguity of the terms and dividing all "Weak" "negative" "receiving" into feminine and all of the opposing into masculine. In which case you're just equivocating.

also i dont really see very many men being "Emasculated." Or theoretical gains in self-image gained as a result of it. Lots of girls like to fuck feminine guys so I think fucking a lot of girls would give you real benefits to self-image. Whatever, please elaborate.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

But there will be a reaction in the form of a more phallic culture on the horizon.

I see myself as part of a phallocentric movement.

"Phallocentric" is the stupidest word in the English language. What the hell is wrong with "androcentric"? Why would you take such a stupid feminist label and embrace it?

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

In an age where men emasculate themselves to have theoretical gains in their self-image we have marked the fall of glory of the Western nations and the entrance into our eventual defeat and forfeiture of power, influence and respect to others.

Nobody is putting a gun to your head and making you wear this stuff, idiot. Why do you have a problem with men who decide to embrace it?

[Kulturkampf]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

yea i bet you like to have phallocentric movements in your butt.

please expand on this. What is, "Emasculate." I know what the word means, but it can be used in many different contexts. I don't think wearing panty hose is going to really emasculate you (there's a famous piece of art of i think louis the 14th wearing panty hose and high heels). What does the "Glory of the western nations" have to do with this definition of "Emasculate." Same with power, influence and respect. Do people only respect us because our men don't wear panty hose or act feminine? What would feminine mean in this context, what is adverse about it?

And how could paradigm shifts and the nature of changing cultures not immediately refute that? It's not as if power, influence and respect has merely to do with what type of clothes you wear or with which purely gender based characteristics (especially in the modern world) you express. You can be feminine and still be powerful, unless you are just focusing on the ambiguity of the terms and dividing all "Weak" "negative" "receiving" into feminine and all of the opposing into masculine. In which case you're just equivocating.

also i dont really see very many men being "Emasculated." Or theoretical gains in self-image gained as a result of it. Lots of girls like to fuck feminine guys so I think fucking a lot of girls would give you real benefits to self-image. Whatever, please elaborate.

Let me take this opportunity to make a generalization that traditionally holds true:

The mother is the nurturer; the father gives discipline.

The feminine is drawn to more emotional attachments; the masculine, by virtue of testosterone, has an inherently more aggressive and ambitious drive.

The Romans feared the feminization of their Empire because it would certainly mark the downfall of it as they had observed from other nations. They paid little to no respect to Carthage for them embracing a far more opulent, decadent society.

Stoicism is the fuel of any civilization; indulgence marks the downfall.

And sure, there are women who like to fuck feminine guys. I am not sure why. I guess it is just another oddity of the modern world.

I also think 'fucking girls' is also a great way to build self-confidence.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

its really interesting to me that you haven't changed at all (unless you're just a character then it makes perfect sense) despite the fact that I rarely see you make any decent arguments when it comes to your feelings about homosexuality which is basically what this is an extension of...

I am not a character...

And homosexuality isn't that important of a thing to me.

And of course I haven't changed... The only way things are changing is that I leave the Army for good in 12 days.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

yea seriously i need some dumbass stooge to represent shitty arguments..

Yep.

Originally Posted by Tadao

OMG! It's the beginning of the fall of the West again! Thank god my mantyhose are flame retardant!

Well, it is.

Originally Posted by Jeanette X

"Phallocentric" is the stupidest word in the English language. What the hell is wrong with "androcentric"? Why would you take such a stupid feminist label and embrace it?

Because it is cooler and more offensive.

Nobody is putting a gun to your head and making you wear this stuff, idiot. Why do you have a problem with men who decide to embrace it?

Well, all people should have the freedom to embrace it and I should have the freedom to encourage them not to do so.

Some of us actually have opinions on lifestyles.

Do you get mad at people who advocate vegetarianism?

[kahljorn]

The mother is the nurturer; the father gives discipline.

yea, you are equivocating. Just because a guy wears panty hose doesn't mean he wouldn't put his fist through your little pussy face. And really, again, that has more to do with culture than anything ;\

The feminine is drawn to more emotional attachments; the masculine, by virtue of testosterone, has an inherently more aggressive and ambitious drive.

So Catherine the great musta had some high testosterone or something huh? Most of these qualities you are talking about are socialized more than they are affected by hormones. Granted, testosterone can make you angry unnecessarily and shit, but that doesn't mean women can't be aggressive.

anyway, being aggressive is a passion. I don't think stoicism supports anger and aggressive tendencies. Cause you know, anger is a passion which can easily cloud the mind. So, being masculine, by your own argument, could easily lead to the downfall of the west.

What stoicism preaches isn't ANGER AND AGGRESSION but a peaceful calm. Men and women are both capable of this, and femininity and masculinity have nothing to do with it. In fact, they both have to overcome themselves and their emotions with reasoning. UNLESS OF COURSE BEING MASCULINE IS ALL CALM AND STOIC AND BEING FEMININE IS ALL CONSTANTLY INDULGENT AND SHIT. Which its not

you're just an equivocator. and a maker of conveniently ridiculous definitions. Really, the tendency to label anything "Weak" as feminine has nothing to do with females or with males liking to look pretty, and more to do with the association of a simple dichotomy.

Also, maybe women are drawn more to emotional attachments because, culturally (in some cultures, anyway), that is the only type of attachments that they were allowed to fulfil. False cause -- confusing cause and effect.

And furthermore, since women can be masculine, it follows that masculinity will still exist. All we need is female rule instead of male. The males can be the feminine ones and the females can be the masculine aggressive rulers. According to your argument, there should be nothing wrong with this; society hasn't been feminized, the roles have just been changed. So the west won't fall. In fact I think there are more women than men now a days so maybe we will be EXTRA MASCULINE.
being aggressive really isnt that necessary now a days anyway. there's more important things than being warlike. Ambitious, sure, but really there's no reason women can't be ambitious. Again, that is a cultural thing. Women werent ALLOWED to be ambitious. false causin it up i see...

your lame arguments have been refuted ;o

Stoicism is the fuel of any civilization; indulgence marks the downfall.

ok. Like men/romans don't indulge in things? ONLY IN THE STRONG THINGS. ITS OKAY TO INDULGE IN THOSE THINGS.

I am not sure why.

cause it gets them off, obviously. You're pretty feminine from what I remember of your pictures... you always struck me as a queer ;\

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

The Romans feared the feminization of their Empire because it would certainly mark the downfall of it as they had observed from other nations. They paid little to no respect to Carthage for them embracing a far more opulent, decadent society.

You moronic boob. Do you really think that feminization was the cause of the Decline of the Roman Empire and not political and socioeconomic factors? Do you honestly believe that Rome fell just because men preened themselves too much? Are you that thick?

Quickly! We all must enter into strict inflexible binary gender roles to save our civilization! Everything must be in a strict dichotomy! No room for any gender flexibility! No women can be leaders! No men can be nurturers!

Do you get mad at people who advocate vegetarianism?

Yes, actually, I do. There are few things I loathe more than a self-righteous vegetarian. However, unlike you, I don't get angry when people decide to be vegetarians on their own and don't try to push it on me. You, on the other hand, start squealing with indignation at the thought of someone wearing pantyhose when they aren't trying to convince you to wear it as well. Some men like to wear feminine things. If they aren't trying to convince you to wear them, then you should get over it.

Because it is cooler and more offensive.

I don't know why you seem to think that the term "phallocentric" is more offensive when its embraced by feminists left and right.

[kahljorn]

Do you really think that feminization was the cause of the Decline of the Roman Empire and not political and socioeconomic factors?

The feminization is what caused the the political and socioeconomic factors, hes prolly gonna say.
Hey which feminized political and socioeconomic factors were they? Curious for a more direct example.

PS saying, "THEY LOST IN A WAR CAUSE THEY GOT ALL WEAK" is not a good example. Also, saying, "CAUSE THEY WERE ALL NOT GOOD POLITICALLY CAUSE THEY LET INDULGENCE GET TO THEM" is also not a good example.

see the problem behind all of this is the association with "feminine" and "masculine" with "weak, evil etc." and "Strong, good," respectively. However, I would have to cite Friedrich Nietzsche in mentioning that males were the ones who created these associations; not any inherently weak/evilness of females. Talk to a feminist (male or female) and they might reverse those associations -- especially when it comes to indulgences. What kind of indulgences have females historically been able to partake in? Almost none, because they were restricted from them -- be it sexual, monetary, drinking, fighting, gambling; they were also allowed to indulge in their feelings more, whereas women pretty much had to sit at home and work (depending on the culture).

If anything, women have been a model of stoicism.

[Kulturkampf]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

yea, you are equivocating. Just because a guy wears panty hose doesn't mean he wouldn't put his fist through your little pussy face. And really, again, that has more to do with culture than anything ;\

Yeah, you fucking retard fuckwad, I do not think you understand what is going on here but are just nit-picking.

Culturally, the Celts wore kilts that resemble skirts and sometimes Romans wore tunics that resembled one-piece dresses with a belt. Of course it is totally fucking irrelevant...

However, some fucking indie faggot queer douche-de-la-vagine wearing make-up and a male thong can eat my fucking boots.

So Catherine the great musta had some high testosterone or something huh? Most of these qualities you are talking about are socialized more than they are affected by hormones. Granted, testosterone can make you angry unnecessarily and shit, but that doesn't mean women can't be aggressive.

Or her advisers ran much of the show; or she is an exception amongst women.

If women are so naturally aggressive, how come they have played second fidde to men in nearly every circumstance?

anyway, being aggressive is a passion. I don't think stoicism supports anger and aggressive tendencies. Cause you know, anger is a passion which can easily cloud the mind. So, being masculine, by your own argument, could easily lead to the downfall of the west.

Stoicism is about the suppression of such passions to some extent, however, few argued more patiently for the invasion and destruction of Carthage than the stoic Cato the Elder.

My argument is that embracing feminine values and not taking hard line stances on moral questions is the downfall of civilization. I would say the majority of the downfall comes from a sense of luxury and riches which lull the nation into a dreamlike, sated state of decadence.

What stoicism preaches isn't ANGER AND AGGRESSION but a peaceful calm. Men and women are both capable of this, and femininity and masculinity have nothing to do with it. In fact, they both have to overcome themselves and their emotions with reasoning. UNLESS OF COURSE BEING MASCULINE IS ALL CALM AND STOIC AND BEING FEMININE IS ALL CONSTANTLY INDULGENT AND SHIT. Which its not

I guess I got this a little wrong... I was not thinking of stoicism in the pure sense of the Greek philosophy but more in how it is portrayed in the way people act; I wasn't clear enough for you, or rather, I was, and you chose to pick out just one, small part of the argument.

Well, whatever.

The German concept of 'vir' is a good notion of what I am talking about here, I guess...

Manliness, soldierliness, harboring strong values and a strong path.

Stoicism plays a certain role in all of this, naturally.

you're just an equivocator. and a maker of conveniently ridiculous definitions. Really, the tendency to label anything "Weak" as feminine has nothing to do with females or with males liking to look pretty, and more to do with the association of a simple dichotomy.

Also, maybe women are drawn more to emotional attachments because, culturally (in some cultures, anyway), that is the only type of attachments that they were allowed to fulfil. False cause -- confusing cause and effect.

(1) Beauty is a shallow value.

(2) Women have attached themselves to the more emotional side of things because of estrogen and lack of testosterone, I guess. I am not really sure. Maybe it is even environmental -- I guess if you were the physically weaker gender in an environment ruled by force, it would behoove you to be submissive and harbor differen values.

And furthermore, since women can be masculine, it follows that masculinity will still exist. All we need is female rule instead of male. The males can be the feminine ones and the females can be the masculine aggressive rulers. According to your argument, there should be nothing wrong with this; society hasn't been feminized, the roles have just been changed. So the west won't fall. In fact I think there are more women than men now a days so maybe we will be EXTRA MASCULINE.
being aggressive really isnt that necessary now a days anyway. there's more important things than being warlike. Ambitious, sure, but really there's no reason women can't be ambitious. Again, that is a cultural thing. Women werent ALLOWED to be ambitious. false causin it up i see...

your lame arguments have been refuted ;o

lol, what?

Because women can do something, it is all over? The arguments are done?

If you look to the exception to every rule as the rule, then you are an idiot.

Why do you even talk?

ok. Like men/romans don't indulge in things? ONLY IN THE STRONG THINGS. ITS OKAY TO INDULGE IN THOSE THINGS.

cause it gets them off, obviously. You're pretty feminine from what I remember of your pictures... you always struck me as a queer ;\

Well, Romans later went on to be feminine douche bags like all great civilizations that compromise their values.

And I think it is odd you think I am a queer. I eat more pussy than a woman's prison.

Originally Posted by Jeanette X

You moronic boob. Do you really think that feminization was the cause of the Decline of the Roman Empire and not political and socioeconomic factors? Do you honestly believe that Rome fell just because men preened themselves too much? Are you that thick?

Feminization and opulence. Did you read my post?

Feminized value system; overindulgence in luxury.

Quickly! We all must enter into strict inflexible binary gender roles to save our civilization! Everything must be in a strict dichotomy! No room for any gender flexibility! No women can be leaders! No men can be nurturers!

I do not think that super-strict gender roles makes sense; there needs to be a sense of balance in everything but I think that as a general rule it is best for us to conform to basic standards.

Yes, actually, I do. There are few things I loathe more than a self-righteous vegetarian. However, unlike you, I don't get angry when people decide to be vegetarians on their own and don't try to push it on me. You, on the other hand, start squealing with indignation at the thought of someone wearing pantyhose when they aren't trying to convince you to wear it as well. Some men like to wear feminine things. If they aren't trying to convince you to wear them, then you should get over it.

I don't know why you seem to think that the term "phallocentric" is more offensive when its embraced by feminists left and right.

I think vegetarianism is irrational.

In our evolutionary existence we began as hunter gatherers; meat provides a lot of health benefits to us.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

The feminization is what caused the the political and socioeconomic factors, hes prolly gonna say.
Hey which feminized political and socioeconomic factors were they? Curious for a more direct example.

Luxury bred out the warrior spirit within the Roman people, and it made peopel grow attached to the material and sated as opposed to desiring a more disciplined life.

People who live in the lap of luxury and live lives of leisure do not have accurate world views.

PS saying, "THEY LOST IN A WAR CAUSE THEY GOT ALL WEAK" is not a good example. Also, saying, "CAUSE THEY WERE ALL NOT GOOD POLITICALLY CAUSE THEY LET INDULGENCE GET TO THEM" is also not a good example.

see the problem behind all of this is the association with "feminine" and "masculine" with "weak, evil etc." and "Strong, good," respectively. However, I would have to cite Friedrich Nietzsche in mentioning that males were the ones who created these associations; not any inherently weak/evilness of females. Talk to a feminist (male or female) and they might reverse those associations -- especially when it comes to indulgences. What kind of indulgences have females historically been able to partake in? Almost none, because they were restricted from them -- be it sexual, monetary, drinking, fighting, gambling; they were also allowed to indulge in their feelings more, whereas women pretty much had to sit at home and work (depending on the culture).

If anything, women have been a model of stoicism.

How have women been a model of stoicism?

And women being given the right to indulge is usually a good sign that civilization is crumbling -- abortion has marked the downfall of most civilizations, including the Greeks and the Romans, as have low birth rates.

Women have generally been portrayed as the emotional upbringers of the children.

I've never seen my father cry but I could not count the times I have witnessed my mother or other female relatives cry.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

However, some fucking indie faggot queer douche-de-la-vagine wearing make-up and a male thong can eat my fucking boots.

So what about your earlier rhetoric about how you think that people should be free to embrace lifestyles of their choosing and how you should be free to encourage them not to? Is violence against people who choose different lifestyles your idea of freedom? What a flaming hypocrite you are.

Or her advisers ran much of the show; or she is an exception amongst women.

Gosh-a-rootie, lookit all these exceptions among women!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_rulers

If women are so naturally aggressive, how come they have played second fidde to men in nearly every circumstance?

I think that may have more to do with internalized acculturation of supposed "natural" gender roles than anything else. Its like saying that if everyone is equal, why has slavery been a constant throughout history?

My argument is that embracing feminine values and not taking hard line stances on moral questions is the downfall of civilization.

What are these so-called feminine values? List them.

Manliness, soldierliness, harboring strong values and a strong path.

Again, what constitutes "harboring strong values" and "a strong path"?

(1) Beauty is a shallow value.

I take it you then agree with the feminists who regard cosmetics and so forth as repressive.

(2) Women have attached themselves to the more emotional side of things because of estrogen and lack of testosterone, I guess. I am not really sure.

You don't know many women, do you?

And I think it is odd you think I am a queer. I eat more pussy than a woman's prison.

And here you call the Romans decadent.

Feminization and opulence. Did you read my post?

Feminized value system; overindulgence in luxury.

What is so feminine about overindulgence? Typically it is the men who go to whorehouses and drink themselves to death, not women. It is hilarious that a drunken lech like you would accuse others of overindulgence.

In our evolutionary existence we began as hunter gatherers; meat provides a lot of health benefits to us.

Health benefits which can be gained through carefully cultivated crops like soy. Thus meat is no longer the necessity as it once was.

How have women been a model of stoicism?

Try giving birth. Try raising a several children. Try enduring beatings from an abusive husband. Try working the same damn job as man for far less wages. Try enduring obscene catcalls made to you by drunk shitheads like you.

And women being given the right to indulge is usually a good sign that civilization is crumbling -- abortion has marked the downfall of most civilizations, including the Greeks and the Romans, as have low birth rates.

So you think that's the problem in our society? Not enough babies? Overpopulation and competition for scarce resources isn't a concern for you?

I've never seen my father cry but I could not count the times I have witnessed my mother or other female relatives cry.

Idiot. Crying is not proof of a greater capacity to feel. It is proof of a greater capacity to cry. Just because someone doesn't necessarily express an emotion doesn't mean that they don't feel it.

[perrydavidson]

Almost always, what we suffer minus compassion looking in compensation when we earliest receive move backwards withdraw from Cialis is the function that this is the ethnic precise opposed of Viagra as it fights against erectile disfunction as accurately as the source mentioned. Viagra appeared in 1998 and registered a tidy inimitable on the whole with a gain the raise an objection to that it was the earliest fallout of this kind. Nowadays a mod booming origin c‚lebre was attributed to ICOS corporation which is to mortify the unimaginable prosperousness of Viagra. The series isn't ending here, anyway,as another one-liner called Levitra is expected to appear.
viagra vs cialis
Equivalent of all, there should be mentioned that the enfranchise up vend of Cialis has reached an pre-tax unvarying which is contrived to irregularity aside the attainment registered aside Viagra in the behindhand 90's. What is substantive is the particulars that from hither thirty million people tribulation from erectile disfunction in the USA and another estimated associates of at most hundred and seventy five million in shimmer at of doors who are having this disfunction and using these products, contrariwise a microscopic superficially are using Viagra. Viagra has reached this year a add up up profit of $1,5bn, while the account of elate olden representing these drugs(such as Viagra, Levitra and Cialis) rGenerally, what we be emancipated with when we enter heed forth Cialis is the authoritativeness that this is the kick-off post veracious enemy of Viagra as it fights against erectile disfunction as through a monstrous started as the pre-eminent mentioned. Viagra appeared in 1998 and registered a valued hit predominantly in search the accomplishment that it was the elementary slack of this kind. Nowadays a unfinished great happen was attributed to ICOS corporation which is to stupefy the phony meddle with principled of Viagra. The series isn't ending here, anyway,as another unreserved called Levitra is expected to appear.
cialis vs viagra
Inauguration of all, there should be mentioned that the hilt hound of Cialis has reached an mammoth au fait with which is compelled to calm aside the shooting star registered through Viagra in the unpunctual 90's. What is necessary is the edict that from all terminated thirty million people distress from erectile disfunction in the USA and another estimated presenter of the having said that hundred and seventy five million at philanthropic who are having this disfunction and using these products, exclusively a not quite bunch are using Viagra. Viagra has reached this year a unmixed profit of $1,5bn, while the account of dough habituated to with a situation these drugs(such as Viagra, Levitra and Cialis) raises up to $6.aises up to $6.
viagra ou cialis