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.

[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

[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...

[Dr. Boogie]

He watched this episode of South Park and thought it was real.


You should come around the boards more often, KK.

[kahljorn]

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

[pac-man]

Crab people, crab people, taste like crab, talk like people.

[Tadao]

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

[kahljorn]

Do you want to see a list of male rulers?

want to see a list of male peasants?

women have little militarist sense and a heightened concept of beauty and vanity.

Most (like probably 99% of) artists, architects and fashion designers (usually people wore what they were told to wear) have historically been men. Women weren't allowed to partake. So I guess its the men with heightened concept of beauty and vanity. Women don't have little militarist sense, they just weren't allowed to be militaristic. Do you not understand the difference?

Where do you get these ridiculously retarded generalizations from? cause all the girls you knew wore makeup and shit?

if we have internalized acculteration why have most societies favoried similar roles of women, with the only exceptions being unsuccessful tribal communities?

Because men were afraid of them, and didn't want them to take positions of authority/have to share power with them.
Man in a way that's just another example of the acculturization ;\ Cultures are shared, you know. Saying what socities do is not an argument, either. Most societies thought that the earth was the center of the universe. Does that mean its right because more than one society shared that opinion? nope.

"only exceptions" is a bit excessive

It is repressive in many ways.

Yea, women have been oppressed by men. It doesn't men they are incapable of roles other than what they have been given. As modern society clearly points out. Women can fill the same roles as men, world-wide. Men aren't any better at these roles. In fact, there are very few roles now a days that even require physical strength -- one of the few advantages that men have.

Isn't the fact that men are starting to be little faggots indications that culture is more important than what is inherent? And that people can change? lol. You're great, i love people who make stupid arguments.

It is no longer a necessity but there is no harm in eating an animal so it is unnecessary to pursue vegetarianism.

Human beings are animals, so there is no harm in eating human beings.

OK, if I could I would.

I guess that's the closest he comes to conceding a point :LOL Good job trying to shift the focus from your failure, fuck pants.

That is not the concern of this thread.

You are the one who brought it up, idiot, as an example of female indulgence. As if men don't indulge in it. Fuck y ou. Jeanette handed your ass to you and these are the lame responses you come up with. Hilarious.

Crying is a symptom of overemotionality.

So is anger. And being overly happy. Some people can be overemotional without ever crying or having outbursts of anger, until they go shoot people.

How is crying overemotionality, whatever the fuck that is.

Do you like Barack Obama? That guy makes me LOL.

That is not the concern of this thread.

[The One and Only...]

I use lotion everyday. It keeps my skin from drying out due to my acne cream.

[Jeanette X]

I was initially irritated that I was too tired from working out to pick apart KK's arguments, then I saw that Kahl is doing quite an excellent job of it. Seriously, I'm very impressed Kahl. I'll be back tommorow to offer input, though Kahl is doing a pretty decent job on his/her own.

[kahljorn]

*shrug* i liked your response too. Short and to the point.

editnm

[Dixie]

[kahljorn]

guess he gave up the good fight in this thread.

STRONG PATH. HARDLINE STANCES.

[Lenor]

HOLY BOTTLE OF VODKA .. CARNI?? wow..

Anyways, I did not exactly feel the need to read the seemingly endless dribble, yes Kahl I am referring to your insist-full nonstop responses that come from your tiny but oh so adorable brain. Did you ever consider maybe he just got bored? Or has that pesky mental disorder cause your narcasist behaviors to become even more evadent over the past couple of years?

O, and yes i've missed you too..

(seriously, am I going blind or is there really no spell check anymore?)

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by Lenor

HOLY BOTTLE OF VODKA .. CARNI?? wow..

Anyways, I did not exactly feel the need to read the seemingly endless dribble, yes Kahl I am referring to your insist-full nonstop responses that come from your tiny but oh so adorable brain. Did you ever consider maybe he just got bored? Or has that pesky mental disorder cause your narcasist behaviors to become even more evadent over the past couple of years?

O, and yes i've missed you too..

(seriously, am I going blind or is there really no spell check anymore?)

Wait....after reading this thread, you call KAHL a tiny-brained narcissist? Not KK?

[Lenor]

Your the idiot reading the thread...

[kahljorn]

Did you ever consider maybe he just got bored?

Did you ever consider that *I* got bored?

[Lenor]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Did you ever consider that *I* got bored?

Why yes, princess I sure did, but than I remembered your consistant behavior to prove how right you are all the time...

[Tadao]

This thread wasn't actually gay until now.