Private Maleness

Maleness is illegal inside society.
Maleness is legal outside society.

What does this mean? The male sex drive, the penis, represents penetration. Think about this concept, penetration. The sex act is intrusive and invasive. Sex represents an invasion of privacy by piercing the female hymen, virginity. Privacy represents bodily integrity at the very least. Mental privacy is derivative of physical privacy. If something enters your body, and is harmful, then this can be deadly. What enters the human body? Mostly air, water, and food. However bacteria, viruses, and toxens can also enter the human body. In war, bullets can shoot through the human body. A sword can cut through limbs. But in sex, the male sex organ, the penis penetrates the female sex organ, the vagina with hymen still intact.

After a female is fucked the first time, cutting open and stretching her hymen, she is no longer virgin nor chaste. She has lost her "innocence" in judæo-christian morality. Her value as a person, as a thing, as a sex object, is lowered. The more partners a female has, the lower her sexual value drops. This represents cultural values.

But here is the point. In contemporary western society, which will become global in a few more generations, females have sexual choice. This is their "right". If a female has sex, without her permission, then this is "rape" and is illegal. A woman must always consent to sex, for it to be legal in western culture. Why is this? This is a cultural value, again. Why doesn't the male sexual choice matter? Why is it irrelevant? If two young adults have sex, and the male does not consent but the female does, then isn't the female "raping" the male? No, this is a double standard.

Sex, and gender, are not treated equal here. This is a problem with "Equality". If you argue this point against liberals and humanists, then you'll probably get banned for merely raising the subject. All you have to do is point this double standard out, and that's enough to draw negative reactions and "hate" from liberals. Yes, females have choice. Males do not. But why is this, why is it important, how does it reflect society, and what is its history?

These are big questions. I will cut to the chase. Outside society and human intervention, artificiality and civilization, there is no "rape". Consent is "natural". Males impregnate females, in nature, by primarily two means. The first is physical force, by simply subduing a female and penetrating her. The second is "seduction", a mental force. Seduction represents sophistication of biological organisms. Seduction usually coincides with cohabitation and cooperation, inherent within species and gene heritage. Some organisms are more cooperative than others, and therefore, will have higher and most advanced forms of seduction.

Philosophy, like science and religion, or any other intellectual specialization, is a form of human seduction, representing a mate value.

So these topics can be simplified into "brute force" and "intelligence", body or mind. Some organisms use physicality, others use mentality. Of course, there is always a balance. Maybe an organism is 20% physical, 80% mental. Maybe another organism uses 93% physical, 7% mental, to survive, live, thrive, and breed. These are quantifiable.

A large organism tends to have physical superiority, and therefore, will not need to actively seduce targets. Strength and smarts do not always mix. Because specializing in one offsets the other.

The basic point is that males must use either Strength or Smarts, in order to achieve sex, and penetrate a female. But society and civilization overrules these male sexual strategies. Civility steps in and dictates the manners in which males are restrained and restricted with respect to sexuality. Some males are unwanted in society. Or, most males are unwanted. As a general rule, females have an intrinsic social value, while males have little or none. These inherent sexual values will cause conflict and strife within civilizations.

As mentioned, now females in western culture, and eventually global culture, humanism, will spread "universal human rights" around the world. Eventually, all females in the world, across the globe, will have the "right" to "own" their sexuality. If any female, across the world, does not give her implicit and explicit consent, then this is rape. And any and all males will go to jail, or worse, for such crimes. Why is this cultural, moral trend, so powerful and widespread?

Because it represents an underlying socializing, civilizing, colonizing force of nature. Female power. Females find power in and through sexuality. Whereas males find power outside the realm of sexuality. These basic, inert, inherent biological values cause an interplay in biology and all species. The male and female gender, sex itself, is at war for power. With respect to "society" and "civilization", there is a steady trend across time. Females eventually gain more and more power, by uniting in group-think, as females are prone to do.

Females instinctively identify with "We" whereas males instinctively identify with "Me".
Male = Me.
Female = We.

When a global civilization dominates the world, male sexuality will become illegal across the world. There will be no place, on earth, where a male can "choose" to have sex. Because it is never a male "choice". A man cannot walk around on the street and "choose to have sex" with any female he sees. Nobody even thinks this way, nor imagines this possibility. It is not his "right". It is her right. It is a female right.

Within society, females control sexuality. Outside society, males are "closer to nature", which represents a form of barbarism, anarchy, or tribalism. Paganism opposed to secular humanist, judæo christian, culture and morality. Outside of society, there is no "rape". There is nobody to call the cops on. There are no police. And so females fear "nature". Females fear "male nature".

The male instinct, to have sex, is therefore illegalized within society, as a premise of civilization.


I'm aware that this post is loosely written and jumbled. But, I merely want to start the topic and ideas flowing. I know a lot of people here are enemies, not friends, allies, or accomplices. I know that many of you want to sabotage my threads, instead of adding to them. And I'd spit in your face if I could. But, bear with me. These are important points, topics, and ideas that we need to discuss, even though you hate me. Put aside your hate, and use your brain for a little bit. Discuss these ideas objectively, like adults. No more derailing my threads. No more off topic bullshit. Instead, contribute, for once.

Since male sexuality is inherently criminalized within civilization, then a shame tactic is applies to male sexuality, but not female sexuality. Females do not need to bear any shame in their sexuality, with the exception of the "slut" and "whore" labels. A promiscuous female is demonized classically by humanist (jewish + christian) moral decrees. Female sexuality is not "bad", socially, until a female spreads her sex thin, or gives it out too freely. Do you note the irony here? Although females control their own sexual identity, as an objective asset, society still applies some rules and regulations to females. A female must "restrict" her sexual access, according to the decrees of greater society.

The "We" has spoken. And "We" say, daughters of earth, that if you have too many sex partners, then you are a slut and therefore, a "bad" person. In more fundamentalist cults, not just bad but "evil".

This is an aspect of female socialization.

For males, you are automatically "bad" and "evil", just for being born. You don't need to do anything. You did not do anything. You were born, and therefore, became evil as a default. Because you were born inside society. If you are born outside society, then male sexuality is not demonized, and especially not hated nor hateful. It merely is a fact and force of nature. So where and when were you born, inside civilization or outside of it?

In the globalized future world, within 100-200 years, all males will be born inside "society". This is the prophesy of most major religions. The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth. All males are born to Original Sin. Born evil. Why? Because of the male sexual nature. Your nature, as a male, to reproduce, and therefore survive, and therefore have sexual fitness and success, is to penetrate. And penetration is "bad". Because females are innocent, but males are not. Females are inherently good, while males are inherently evil.

This is the heart of christian ideology and doctrine, as you should already know. But, you probably didn't, did you? You didn't know all of this already???

What do you think "society" is? What is "culture"? What is "civilization"? Do you even know?

What binds people, forces people, together, against our individual, selfish interests? Why do "We" cooperate? What is "We"? What is "Me"? What is thyself? Who is thyself?

You should have done your homework, already, before being in this thread, and this forum. I'm sick and tired of doing your philosophy homework for you, children. My patience is ending.


How do you identify yourself?

You surely agree that civilization is pervasive and also as penetrative as male sexuality. This is because males can and do integrate within civilization, even though there is a risk and cost doing so. Males are inherently anti-civil, anti-social, from the perspective of objective sexuality. Because civilization and society hinders, not helps, male sexuality. Think about this. Your dick, is a bad thing. Because you penetrate, and therefore trespass, on other people's property. All females are owned by somebody else. You do not own them. You own nothing, inherently, as a male. While females inherently own their bodies. You, as a man, do not own your body. Nor do you own others'.

Why is this? Morality. Culture. History. Society. Civilization. Pop religion.

Dig into history a little bit, before commenting.


Where are some of the last refuges of "society and civilization"? Upon the success of european colonization around the world, the "wild" lands have become tamed. Now there is only a spreading human zoo across every continent. There are laws, order, military, rules, states, everywhere. You were born into a state.

No continent on earth is now empty of "states". The idea of a state is most notably represented in......

Yes, that's correct children, Plato's Republic.

European culture, history, and civilization, has spread throughout the world, representing politics, culture, and again, statehood. It is statehood that creates and causes "society". The conglomeration of all societies, across the world, develops into nationalism, popular religions, pop culture, and civilization.

What I have just defined is thus, Humanist Civilization.

Upon the completion of humanist civilization, there will be no more "wild" for men to escape into and "be" or "remain" men. No malehood or maleness will be left intact or whole. All males will become castrate, to larger degrees. And this reflects the ultimate emasculation of all men.

Why does this occur? Because it represents a force of nature, by which females and males are inherently at odds with each other. Yes, it is about power and politics, as well as philosophy.

Remember the "No Female Philosophy" thread? This coincides with that.

Now that I, we, have covered the fundamental foundation of this topic, I can address the heart of the topic.

Presuming that global culture, humanism, will eventually conquer and infest the entire world and all human populations, then what hope is there for males and masculinity? What can the admittedly "expendable" sex do? Well, this question actually was addressed long ago in european history. Christianity did not pop out of thin air. What is Catholicism? Why are there no female priests and popes? Why is Catholicism an all male institution?

Because Catholicism represents the regression of masculinity, away from the civilizing force of christianity as a popular religion.


I will cut to the chase and return to this topic later, since I've already pushed forward a lot of new ideas for you, my children. My little mind slaves.

Males have two predominant choices when born. You can fight against humanist culture. Or, you can succumb and submit to it, and try retain your masculinity. You can fight, or lie. You can use physical strength, brawn. Or you can use mental strength, brain. Brawn or brains. And either choice is a resistance against humanist culture.

Against culture, against morality, against society, against civilization, against artifice, against "The Gods".

Against fate. Against evolution and nature. Whose nature? Against female nature, against female power.

Because what is your power, as a male and as a man?


Here is the thought exercise for this thread.

As a man, you walk down the street. You have "the right to choose" any women you want to have sex with. They don't have a right. You do. You can fuck whomever you want, whenever you want to. There is no such thing as rape. Because females do not "own" their sexuality. And females do not "choose" to have sex.

You do. The power is in your hands, not theirs. Imagine this.

Now, imagine this applied to a "society" or "civilization". What would this look like? How would it work? What would happen if the males of a population thought this way, and went around having sex with whomever they wanted, whenever they wanted, legally. There is no such thing as "rape", except when, a male does not consent to sex. A few female want to have sex with a man, and he says no, and they stroke his cock and fondle him anyway. This is rape. Because only males can be raped, in this society.

Invert the inverters, my children. Look at humanism through a mirror. What does "male sexuality" look like, when masculinity overpowers and dominates femininity?


The result of this, is the topic. Males do not have this power in humanist civilization. Therefore, regardless of whether you fight against pop religion and global culture using brain or brawn, the shame tactic is immediate. You were born evil, for a fact. This is the fact of your life. It doesn't matter whether it's natural or unnatural. It doesn't matter. What matters is that you are evil, because, you are male. Your penis is automatically bad. Automatically criminalized and illegalized.

You are illegal. Your identity is illegal.

This is what leads to "Privacy". Males develop a need for privacy, while, females do not, and have no need for privacy.

This is quite a revelation after you realize this through my perspective. I'm going to penetrate and fuck your brain up. Because you will see the world through the eyes of a man.

You will realize, that, to be born a male, is to be born illegal and a criminal, and therefore, you immediately have a need for privacy. You must hide the fact that you are a man, and male.

Now go to your bible, good humanists.

What is some of the first fables, myths, and stories? What do they revolve around? Yesss, yes! Very good. They revolve around Adam and Eve, and covering the male genitals. One of the first biblical stories revolves around covering the penis, and censoring this. Why? Because privacy.

Because of every point and word and idea I just wrote.

Æon wrote:

Quote :

In the globalized future world, within 100-200 years, all males will be born inside "society". This is the prophesy of most major religions. The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth. All males are born to Original Sin. Born evil. Why? Because of the male sexual nature. Your nature, as a male, to reproduce, and therefore survive, and therefore have sexual fitness and success, is to penetrate. And penetration is "bad". Because females are innocent, but males are not. Females are inherently good, while males are inherently evil.

This is the heart of christian ideology and doctrine, as you should already know. But, you probably didn't, did you? You didn't know all of this already???

I doubt this world has 100-200 years left.  According to Scripture it was the female who was the transgressor not the male.  Also written, ....be fruitful and increase in number. A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will be among your descendants.
Is this not encouragement to penetrate.

I see the "'act of penetration as a force of nature, heavy with meaning and mystery, an act that also has the capacity of being completely imbued with love.   Although ''to penetrate' does not mean exclusively a sexual act, it can mean a process whereby one gains insight into the mind and emotions of a person and when we love that person, we find freedom to connect, but if my cynicism kicks in one is reminded that relationships are also an astonishing game of chance.

Part of your post reminded me of a particular scene in the movie Magnolia....... good advice:?: 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Why is this cultural, moral trend, so powerful and widespread?"

"Because it represents an underlying socializing, civilizing, colonizing force of nature. Female power. Females find power in and through sexuality."

Note that your answer doesn't deal with fundamentals. As a general rule, that's one way to know that it is wrong. Here you're still dealing at a very terrestrial, thus superficial level.

One answer that cuts much more to the heart of the matter is -> Stability. The female psychology is predisposed to attraction to Order, and this, why it is the preferred, promoted. Like any organism humans fear chaos. And once they get used to the current level of order, then a level of chaos which to the prior people would've seemed relatively easy & orderly becomes fear-inducing, thus prompting more "calls", activism, for a new, greater order. Eventually you get an extreme which results in likewise extreme mediocrity (the feminine), tyranny of some sort, etc. And in ultimate point, collapse . . . nature cannot be contained forever; the GREAT LIE (of which civilization is at least a part) and its ever increasing corruptions, cannot be sustained forever.

But again, much more fundamental explanation is that of mindless and unceasing drive, desire, for stability. The Masculine desires, is attracted to chaos, and so creates it given the opportunity, HENCE why it too is feared and eliminated. The masculine is challenger, agitator, destabilizing. God (ultimate male) created everything, including the feminine (chaos) . . . so-to-say.

And so what if this is what's going on? If you were part of the ruling class you'd be pushing and supporting the same stuff, the same social engineering & propaganda, same economic warfare. These men are the MALES who Won, or inherited the spoils of those males who won, and are in process of trying to keep it going, i.e. this (e.g. taking control over the females) is normal victorious-male behavior. Here, now, is simply your perspective as a slave. This is why Anarcho-Crapitalists and Libertardians christian moralizing about the evil rulers and whatnot is so lame, pathetic, and that their high priests are wolves in sheep clothing, preaching what is effectively a control mechanism in disguise, just as the state/politicians preach objective morality to the citizenry everywhere, in general, at large.

You are misled.

All organisms, male and female, desire order. Order is not a sexual value. It is a mental, pathological value. It has very little, or nothing, to do with gender inherently.

Females desire order in a very particular way, after having sex, and having children, to form security and stability in raising children. This represents the female desire for social "order". Females are infatuated with babies and children, therefore sex. Sex is a means for a woman to gain higher social power, family.

You need to move beyond simple, childish dichotomies and dualisms like "chaos and order". This is inhibiting your philosophical reasoning, growth, and vocabulary.


The main point of this thread is the illegal, criminalized nature of male sexuality, due to the nature of male to female sexual organs. The penis pierces a vagina's hymen, drawing blood, and is therefore "evil" in modern and postmodern society. This dominates culture and morality. Sex is also overvalued through commercialization. Liberalism promotes sexual degeneracy and debauchery. Homosexual perversions are rampant.

Since male sexuality and nakedness is inherently "evil" and bad, but female sexuality is inherently "good", then this creates a cultural platform that is nearly impossible to deconstruct or destroy.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Æon wrote:

Quote :

In the globalized future world, within 100-200 years, all males will be born inside "society". This is the prophesy of most major religions. The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth. All males are born to Original Sin. Born evil. Why? Because of the male sexual nature. Your nature, as a male, to reproduce, and therefore survive, and therefore have sexual fitness and success, is to penetrate. And penetration is "bad". Because females are innocent, but males are not. Females are inherently good, while males are inherently evil.

This is the heart of christian ideology and doctrine, as you should already know. But, you probably didn't, did you? You didn't know all of this already???

I doubt this world has 100-200 years left.  According to Scripture it was the female who was the transgressor not the male.  Also written, ....be fruitful and increase in number. A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will be among your descendants.
Is this not encouragement to penetrate.

I see the "'act of penetration as a force of nature, heavy with meaning and mystery, an act that also has the capacity of being completely imbued with love.   Although ''to penetrate' does not mean exclusively a sexual act, it can mean a process whereby one gains insight into the mind and emotions of a person and when we love that person, we find freedom to connect, but if my cynicism kicks in one is reminded that relationships are also an astonishing game of chance.

Part of your post reminded me of a particular scene in the movie Magnolia....... good advice:?: 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

You are very cynical and full of doubt. You doubt humanity.

Also I am not promoting male sexuality here. I am not taking a moral stance. Maybe male sexuality, the cock, is good or evil. I can accept both premises. Maybe men are evil. Maybe men are good. I am open minded. I accept all possibilities.

The main points are as follows:

1. The penis is intrusive because it pierces the virgin hymen, draws blood, and penetrates the female body. Females do not penetrate males. Therefore gender and sex is not "equal". Females are non intrusive. Females do not "invade" the male body, while males invade the female body. This creates a different perspective between "offensive and defensive" natures. Females naturally say "no" to sex, due to this invasion of physical privacy. Males automatically say "yes" to sex.

2. Society and civilization, particularly secular humanism or judæo christianity, criminalizes male sexuality. A female can "choose" to have sex whenever she pleases, with whomever she wants, even children, and receive little or no penalty. A male cannot. If a male "chooses" to have sex with a woman, then this is the very idea, origin, core of criminality and illegality. Male is the "perpetrator" of crime, females the victim. This is especially true when a grown male, an adult man, targets a young girl, a virgin, between the ages of 12-17. It is especially heinous, wrong, and "evil" for men to fuck and take the virginity from girls. Because the city, the society, the state, the civilization as an abstract entity, itself, demands control over the females within its walls. This implies that female virginity is actually controlled by the state as an abstraction. Virginity is systemic. This eventually morphs into the ability of the state to compel humans to remain in a childlike state, even as adults, in a perpetual nubile, innocent, and ignorant perspective and reality. The death penalty for crimes is "bad" here, because not even adults are self responsible, autonomous beings. They are, as all citizens are, castrated developmentally. All humans are only "allowed" to become so mature, up to a point, and no more beyond that.

3. Males must suppress their sexuality. But females need not suppress or repress anything. Females sexuality is "good" and male sexuality is "bad and evil". This is the cultural and moral result of civilization. Male sexuality becomes more and more repressed as time passes. Only a few, select group of males, "socially approved" are allowed to release their sexuality and "manhood", while all other males are discouraged, penalized, or even physically castrated in extreme cases. Males must repress their "nature". While females need not to. This is the difference between "barbarous" uncivil society and "polite" civil society. Civility is synonymous with pretense and lies. The male is forced to lie, but females are not. This also creates a discrepancy between "honesty". What is true to a male, may not be to a female, and vice versa. This is due to the double standard of gender and sexuality within civilization.

4. Males must pay allegiance to civilization, commonly referred to as "humanism". Males must be "liberal" and hedonistic, promoting feminism and other debauchery. You should promote faggotry. You should fuck other men's assholes. This shows your loyalty and obedience to "the system", "the matrix", "the state", etc. Only after you become a faggot, can you legitimately have "real sex" with a woman, and maybe make 1 or 2 children. These children will become future slaves, taking after their father, who is a slave. The most slavish and "best slaves" of the system are allowed, and even encouraged, to have more children than average. Because the system, society, encourages those who support it, while discourage and destroy those who depose the state. You are "with us or against us". If you are against the state, then not only do you risk death, but you risk your children's lives as well. Females have no reason, whatsoever, none they can even imagine, to resist the state. Females follow the state better than males do. This is inherent by the risk males take in male sexuality, that females cannot empathize with. There is no gender empathy, on this point.

Female privacy is physical. The penis penetrates the female hymen, cutting and ripping it. Technically this is a wound to her body, a damage, a harm, a pain. At first sex is very painful to the female. But then, the female brain is flooded with pleasure chemicals in order to override the pain. This is common to all mammal species, but different species have different reactions to sex. For the human female, pleasure chemicals and hormones flood her body, coinciding with losing her virginity. Sex changes both the male and female human manimal, upon having sexual experiences for the first time.

For the male, pleasure is concentrated around ejaculation. The human female does not orgasm, because the female body does not have sperm nor ejaculation. Therefore the "orgasm" is a male only experience and phenomenon. The reason why liberals and leftists, humanists, are misled to believe, through mostly jewish psychology intervention, that females have a "female orgasm", is explicitly due to the reason that "men and women are equal". This is a humanist lie. The lie is that men and women are equal, the male and female body and brain are equal, therefore both sexes and genders have an orgasm. This is blatantly and fraglrantly false. It is completely false, wrong, and incorrect. The female body does not "orgasm". Instead the female brain, her pathology, is wired to mimic male emotion, experience, and sensation. Females rightly, correctly, knowingly, instinctively, feel good by "giving pleasure" to her man, that she has chosen and consented to, submitted and surrendered to, and so subsequently feels redeemed by providing such orgasmic pleasure to a man.

This is what should be meant or intended by "female orgasm" although the term is an oxymoron. There is no actual, physical, real "female orgasm".

Females are emotionally stimulated by sex, and want to "feel close and connected" to a man.

Male sex is not the same as female sex. In fact, nothing is farther apart. It is completely, absolutely different. Since the male and female body are different, organ is different, brain and pathology is different.

The pleasure and pain is different. A male technically feels no pain in sex, while a female does. The male member, the penis, inflicts pain but does not receive it. For males, energy is "drained" by ejaculation. Males are depleted from sex, while females are reinvigorated by it. For females, receiving semen and ejaculation is invigorating, because this is a natural progression of life, and the recreation of life.


Male privacy is mental, while female privacy is physical. A male adult, or adolescent male teenager, sees a beautiful woman, and what happens? What is the reaction? An erection and hardness of the penis. A male wants to fuck a beautiful female, but not ugly females. Ugly females are very low priority. A male surely will fuck an ugly female, but not unless he absolutely must. Unless he is convinced that beautiful females are "out of his league".

Most males prefer to have no sex, forgo sex, or masturbate, instead of having sex with ugly, fat, or promiscuous (prostitute) women.

The male privacy begins with beauty, and wanting to "fuck" a female. This, as we've demonstrated, is technically, morally, culturally, socially evil. No male should ever "want to" have sex, "fuck", a woman. If a young male does want to, then the pop religions, christianity and judaism in the west, islam and other variants in the east, immediately step in and attempt to shame the male. Females are culturally shamed in a different manner.

The promiscuous female is a liberal. She is not a virgin, already had sex or her hymen ripped open.

There is a huge difference between the two. Most christian cults and subsets value female chastity and bodily integrity. If a christian girl has sex, then rightly, she has lost most or all of her cultural value. Her sex represents her innocence, purity, and decency. If she is a liberal then she is an indecent woman.

This fact becomes abstracted into the liberal and conservative political dispositions. Liberals and values approach "privacy" from this sexual point of difference. After a female is penetrated, then her body is "open" to the public. She no longer bleeds from sex, because her hymen is already ruptured. She is loose. Some, or most, will call her a "slut" as a shaming tactic. This is meant to degrade, humiliate, and embarrass her. Where is her "dignity"? Her "honor"?

Where is her privacy? She has none. Because her privacy has been penetrated as well. Her physical body has already been "visited" and "frequented" by a man.

Do you see now how female privacy is physical, and male privacy is mental?

This case becomes more complicated with homosexuality and faggots sticking their dicks into other peoples' anal cavity. We'll forget about that and stay on topic for awhile longer, before I come back around through the backdoor, and answer that question later. We'll get to the queers later.

For now, you must realize that male privacy is a completely different issue than female privacy. Liberal and conservative political privacy is different than each other. Liberalism is an ideology that coincides with female sexuality, and promotes through feminism, "loose" sexual morals and principles. Women "ought to" have more sex, and there is "no shame" in fucking around.

This leads to multi racial sexuality as well, "fuck outside your race" a message aimed to (white) females, cultural marxism.

But let's just focus on the liberal woman. She willingly gives up her hymen, her virginity, for the ideal of liberalism. She fucks around, and through feminism, even feels "proud" about this. She has no shame, no dignity, no honor, no innocence, and doesn't care about any of these concepts. She lives her life to "have fun" and cannot stand the "haters" who attempt to shame her.

What's the problem with liberalism? This is no privacy. No female privacy. The very idea that liberals should promote female "integrity", is morally wrong. You should have sex with sluts. You, as a female, should become a slut. You should spread your love around. Are there consequences to this behavior?

Who cares? Wear a condom, have an abortion, it doesn't matter.

But the implications on privacy is powerful, very, very powerful.

"You are misled."

No u.

"All organisms, male and female, desire order.  Order is not a sexual value.  It is a mental, pathological value.  It has very little, or nothing, to do with gender inherently."

No shit? But not all organisms have a natural affinity for chaos. Females, namely.

"Females desire order in a very particular way, after having sex, and having children, to form security and stability in raising children."

An organism's desires are first-caused by its genes, which result in its machinery, which results in how it perceives things, which ultimately causes its feelings. Therefore what is really being protected is (in this case, Her) feelings / emotional states, and by extension, the organism's physical and or mental integrity / health (if things end up working in its favor). I.e. FUNDAMENTALLY the feelings are the motivating factor / guide and what is being valued. From my perspective even your all-too-common view of woman and what children are to / for her, easily qualifies as naive and romantic. It's a simplistic, top-down view of females + children that is at least part of the reason(s) why middle men lose control at this stage in society...the perception of the human animal as Something Above / Beyond the simple mechanisms and determinism of nature, in this case Woman. No, bearing children nets her resources / protections, which by extension improves her own mental / emotional condition & ease of living (a.k.a. stability), which is what she's ~all about...ESPECIALLY Western white woman, because she was bred into the most feminine, via Western man becoming the most perceptive (masculine), and with this, the most dominant over her.

"This represents the female desire for social "order".  Females are infatuated with babies and children, therefore sex.  Sex is a means for a woman to gain higher social power, family."

No, females are "infatuated" with their feelings / emotional state, the preferred of which necessitates highly stable environment, of which HAVING BABIES is the NUMBER ONE way of getting there...something even a total moron, degenerate, impoverished has available to her.

"You need to move beyond simple, childish dichotomies and dualisms like "chaos and order".  This is inhibiting your philosophical reasoning, growth, and vocabulary."

Things start simple and become more complex. I just reduce the thing to its fundamentals for the sake of brevity / efficiency. If you only see / understand the effects of things and not their fundamental causes / forms, well then, you're a simpleton, and in practical context a potential liability to those who are not.

"The main point of this thread is the illegal, criminalized nature of male sexuality, due to the nature of male to female sexual organs."

Male sexuality is criminalized because it is an obvious, extreme, immediate threat to any established system and those males who rule over / seek to perpetuate it. Without this a single man could potentially procreate himself his own sizable army within his lifetime. That's just 1...

But if you're after the more abstract explanation then need look no further than what we already know about "male" / masculinity / the masculine -- what it is, represents, then comparing this to what is dominant and preferred today...opposites. So no shit it is criminalized, it is concentration of everything that is feared and at least un-desired on a more superficial level, in part a consequence of artificial, top-down forces (e.g. brainwashing). None of this is surprising given the level of feminization and herd-orientation playing out today.

Chaos-Order is irrelevant in the context of this thread. So you have an ulterior motive here, to mention it.

Order is not confined to masculinity, nor is chaos confined to femininity. This is quite a ridiculous presumption. What is the context? What type of "order" do women find attractive, and lack? You probably mean security. Females enjoy security. But where does this security come from and who provides? What justifies it?

Females form groups, societies, whereas males are more anti social. This is different than a chaos-order dichotomy.


At least you agree about inherent male criminality though.

You type like a philosophy forum user who goes by the name "Onasander", is this you? Your style is the same as hers.

A woman's privacy revolves around her chastity. After the penetration of her hymen, her bodily integrity is destroyed. A female only loses her virginity once in life, and that's the end of it. She enters the realm of adulthood and adult responsibilities. Presumably she is a teenager or older, and therefore must understand the consequences of sex. Sex is about birth is it not? Not quite, today in postmodernity, this has changed. Young boys and girls, teenagers, have sex using birth control, condoms, and abortion. So even though a young girl has sex for the first time, the consequences are not the same as before in antiquity. Today, in postmodernity, there is no "natural sex". Or "natural sex" is very rare. Natural sex is having sex "the old fashioned way" like a traditionalist, no condom, with the intent to ejaculate and fertilize the eggs.

This is rare today, since liberalism has become so widespread, as a result of the post world war 2 "counter culture movement". "Free love, maaaan."

Young boys and girls are encouraged to have sex early on, and use condoms or contraceptives. This is the culture of liberalism, or non culture. Anti culture. It impedes nature by perverting the natural sex drive. Sex without cost. What is the result? Females grow in power. Because the essential female power is her sexuality and pleasure to men. This eventually spawned the feminist movement. As females acquire more and more social power, sex without consequences, then females gain institutional and systemic power.

Combined with "equal wage for equal work" bullshit and "the right to vote", the inherent asset of female sex, plus these new subsequent factors, gives the average western woman much, much more power than the average male. This is causing a social and cultural blowback effect of "men going their own way" and "men's rights" movements, to which the double standards of male female sexuality are addressed.

Power is becoming accumulated in the fewer and fewer hands, in this case, into the hands of women. No amount of power is ever enough, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Women will become dissatisfied with 99.99% power, and will feel compelled to take the remaining amount, to increase their social power to 99.999999%. They need all the fractions leftover.

What reason do men have to "integrate" into society and culture today? Almost none. Almost zero. Maybe nothing.


After female chastity is penetrated, then she no longer has her "privacy", but is now a public member of society. Today, women are penetrated by "liberalism". This is a political abstraction. As long as females have sex, early on as teenagers, with some scum type of guy, usually a pervert, then this is good for the sake of liberalism. Use a condom, be impotent, and have impotent sex. Do not have sex with costs, with consequences. Do not have sex "the old fashioned way". This is morally wrong and evil.

So what is actually happening here, is young females are losing their virginity not to individual "men", but to an abstraction of men. Females are losing their virginity "for the state". In this case, for the ideology of liberalism. Female sexual purity is traded for an idea of "feminist sexual liberalism". The christian right, retaining morality, culture, and chastity, are "bad, wrong, and evil" from the perspective of liberalism and leftism.

This creates a conflict in political climate, between liberals and conservatives, leftists and rightists.

Males, as expected, want to just have sex, and it doesn't really matter how. The unwanted males of society "just want sex". It doesn't matter whether with potency or impotency.


Liberalism is against the idea of female privacy, ergo, female chastity. Liberals encourage young girls to have sex as young as possible, using a condom of course, and....who cares? This is a morally good thing. Because females, like males, are encouraged to destroy all sense of sexual privacy. However, I eventually will show the contradiction of liberalism.

Ultimately, female publicity, sexual promiscuity, is morally good for liberalism, but maleness is still bad, wrong, and evil, from all perspectives.

The only way a male can avoid being "evil" in a liberal culture is to "gain consent of women". Men must ask permission for sex, or in many cases, beg for sex like a whimpering, emasculated faggot. Liberalism is against male virility, potency, and pride. A man cannot "choose" to have sex with a woman, without her permission.

And he must absolutely, absolutely not have sex without condoms, birth control pills, and advocating pro abortion. In essence, the liberal male is a complete feminist. All sexual power is in the hands of the female, and 0% control is in the hands of the male.

These implications are inherent within the ideology of liberalism. Power is abandoned to women, and liberals believe that this will produce, in the end, "goodness". Liberals can't really define nor explain how and why this is good, but, liberalism merely believes that females "are better at sex" than males.

I'll inquire into the reasons for this at a later date.

The taboo and most perverse question of liberalism is, what about male sexual power, choice?

Why isn't the sexual interest of a man, a male, more important or could take precedence over that of any woman? For example, a man sees a pretty girl on the street. She is 15, ripe, and at her most beautiful stage of physical development. He wants to fuck her virginity, like any man does. Why can't he? What gives her the right to say "no" or refuse? Why does her want preside over his? Why does she have more power than he?

Because this is a liberal, feminist, western society. Females have the value, choice, and power, not males. I cannot even begin to broach this topic on other "philosophy" forums because it is far too taboo. To consider that male sexual choice even could occur, will liken the believer to one of the major pop religions. You have to be a "Christian Jew Muslim" to hold such a "sexist, racist, hateful" thought and idea. Nobody will accept the conversation. You would get banned and censored immediately.

Who would even begin the conversation that a male's needs, desires, or wants, ought to take precedence over others, especially those of women and children? This is at the least anti social.

"Order is not confined to masculinity, nor is chaos confined to femininity.  This is quite a ridiculous presumption."

Nowhere did I make such a claim. Like your other jumpings-of-the-gun you have assumed that I do not already understand these things, based upon what (?). Masculinity + Maleness (the physical side of things) & Femininity + Femaleness, and all that these things entail, exist on a spectrum, not absolute 0 or 1 / 100. Not telling me what I don't already know.

"Females form groups, societies, whereas males are more anti social.  This is different than a chaos-order dichotomy."

Those are consequences of the psychology, of which these two things serve to explain / are (and clearly, empirically) a part. The psychology is more fundamental / the heart of what's being talked about when one talks about action / inaction of living things (what's more fundamental requires scientific study / mathematics / increasingly higher technology). You've been on about little other than the EFFECTS of (the) psychology(ies) in question. When you want to get rid of a weed ("problem", i.e. "solve the problem") do you just wack at it, over and over, day after day, or go right to the root of it, i.e. right to that which causes it / perpetuates / feeds into it?

Some have charged that the desire for explanation of psychological nature is desire for easy explanation / to be able to proclaim the thing "solved". Thing is, what we must deal with in the here-and-now, at this level of existence, is indeed in the most immediate sense physical, but what is immediately behind this, driving it, and before the micro-, which has little to no applicability in day-to-day life and in furthering our understanding of these things, is psychology. It is worth noting that within the slave-master dichotomy, it is the slave who is discomforted by and rejects psychology, and is "managed" by social engineers, for whom this is a primary area of research. Regardless, I'd argue that any explanation for such things is trying to be psychological, whether it (the arguer) knows it or not . . . that it cannot not be, and that it's just a question of how deeply the arguer and his language are willing / able to cut to the root of the matter . . . that most people fear such explanations, precisely because they (these arguments / angles) do represent the end of the line (i.e. essentially the fear of nihilism), but also because they (most people) are profoundly self-ignorant, and thus would be exploring unknown territory / personal / likely sensitive territory, whether or not it their own, at least by extension. And for the philosopher, such explanation undercuts his own, the more masturbatory and detached from reality, and where philosophers are not exactly known for their humility or the like. And for the one wanting numbers, numbers, numbers -- well, an obvious simpleton, for one, and secondly, again, motivated by a fear of an end of the line, and of the possibility of being shown ineffective, inefficient, uninformative, despite his capacity to remember, recall, etc.

"At least you agree about inherent male criminality though."

Criminality? That's just a human construct. I don't care about "criminality". Just another example of humans painting a picture of something which exists only in its imagination, i.e. is not actually there. "Inherent male criminality" - Lol, such force for nothing more than an idea.

"Why isn't the sexual interest of a man, a male, more important or could take precedence over that of any woman?"

It IS more important, which is precisely why it's totally outlawed / leveled down.

"Because this is a liberal, feminist, western society."

No, because, as I explained before, HIS "sexual freedom" = a threat to the system. HERS does not, in fact the complete opposite. THIS is reality, practical, strategic stuff. Not an explanation which totally glosses over these things. His sexual freedom by its very nature being a threat to the system and ruling males is the FIRST-CAUSE. What you're on about, as your silly little explanation, is stuff having to do with the ideological, which is so far down the line from the actual causes...

You're not addressing any causes, I am.

You also fail to clarify that liberal, feminist, western society is "the system". So you are confused, or neglecting to read and follow this thread carefully. The latter is more probable. You seem easily distracted by minor points, or have something to prove and compensate for.

You are free to address primary causes, but, do not derail the thread. And also, add something to the thread, a positive contribution, instead of babbling inanities.

If I want worthless detractors in my threads, then I'll invite women into them.

"Females have the value, choice, and power, not males."

Females are always under the control of males, the only question is which. And therefore they do not have The power. This is less so the more primitive / stupid the people (i.e. lacking in consciousness or conscious awareness) and with lower organisms . . . in other words the difference-maker is Awareness. Whites became the most aware, hence why females, in old times, took a back seat. The more feminized a male becomes, the more a follower he becomes, the more he is leveled down to the commons, often even leveling himself down having been brainwashed to believe this good, along with the actual females.

As for value, yes, but that is just reality, so what's the problem? Choice? No, females, and most people in general, do not choose -- they are conditioned, programmed, brainwashed, led, toward things, doing things, choosing things. Hence why their lives are so easy, flow-e, breezy and stress-free.

Good, yes,

Choice is not gender dependent. Choice represents power. Some males or females are powerful. But what have I already discussed? Society, society is different. Some societies, in this case western culture and u.s.a., favor males or females more or less.

For example, let's take Saudi Arabia as another example. In a very theocratic, ancient, traditional, fundamentalist, conservative, religious society, then what happens? Males are reassigned power with regard to sex. Females in Muslim societies cannot accuse men of rape, in the same way occurs in western culture. The gender relationship is changed. One society goes from female accusation of rape, to the complete lack of it.

And this is entirely based on sexuality and the interpretation of sex and gender.

What we call "artificial" societies, are practically forced to reimpose male sexual power, as a means to include males into the society.

The west is going through a phase of male disenfranchisment. There is less and less reason, and cause, to keep feminine males around, while black males, slaves, do well enough to support the status quo. Why have males within society who are a liability, instead of a proven asset?

This is why race comes into the picture too, because the black male is different than the white male, and therefore will have different relationships and perspectives regarding privacy as well.

You should think about privacy as this is the essence and content of the thread.

Do females ever need to "keep to themselves" or be private? What is the difference between "public and private property"? Aren't females the property of men? If yes, then what does this imply about property rights?

What is a "right", and who has the "right" to which properties?

"You also fail to clarify that liberal, feminist, western society is 'the system'."

The system is whatever it is in Form and Function. The system is not your petty little labels. A system is not a label. Your conflation of the two is another byproduct of your simplicity. It's as if you think that by merely labeling something you've solved it, or are being enlightening. All three of those concepts are just that, and only that, so there's no reason to herald them like they're fundamental reality.

"If I want worthless detractors in my threads, then I'll invite women into them."

You are a woman, hence your crying over inconsequentialities.

Also, how many sock accounts do you actually have and this is the one where you pretend to be an MRA?

You subtract, detract, and derail the conversation. I will pass over your inane responses. You are a waste of my valuable time. An hour of my time is worth more than your entire lifetime.

"You should think about privacy as this is the essence and content of the thread."

Things are being appropriated and re-appropriated by the system. This includes females and masculinity. In a word: communism. Similar shit, different story. Though a major difference, and how it is so successful now, is that communism and capitalism (feminine and masculine, woman / man) managed to come to terms, especially in the US, hence why the US became number 1, and the model for all of this shit.

Why does anybody need privacy?

Let's start from the beginning, and by "beginning" I mean birth. Sons and daughters are born to humanity, to the specie. And difference occurs by the societies to which we are born. As mentioned, some are born in more liberal or conservative societies and environments. There is a plethora different amount of environments to become born into. My generalizations reflect western, european, united states countries and societies. This is also postmodernity, the essence of time of our age.

A male or female doesn't need privacy out of the womb. Nakedness is acceptable. It is not until later that clothing becomes mandatory to clothe, and hide, the genitals. But hiding the genitals is quintessential to the nature of privacy and human development. Almost all humanist societies, around the globe, hide the genitals. This is the first measure of human "privacy". And what is the purpose of hiding the genitals?

This compulsion mostly arises from European and Semitic cultures, non pagans. Non pagans culminate around "pop religions". Popular religions are most dominant. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam entail elements of circumcision in addition to clothing and hiding the genitals. These are done as methods of socialization and civilizing normally barbarous populations.

The quintessential difference between human groups, when it comes to privacy, is a barbarous (pagan) society versus a civil (christian) society. Western civilization is mostly dominated by christianity.

Barbarous people are least shamed by nakedness. Civil people are most shamed by nakedness. The sum of nakedness, shame, and guilt, create the demand for privacy. Clothing has a dual purpose, first to protect the human body from the elements, and second as a means to increase and improve "civility" in society.

This dual purpose originated, probably, 3000 or 4000 years ago.

Lockland wrote:

Things are being appropriated and re-appropriated by the system. This includes females and masculinity. In a word: communism. Similar shit, different story. Though a major difference, and how it is so successful now, is that communism and capitalism (feminine and masculine, woman / man) managed to come to terms, especially in the US, hence why the US became number 1, and the model for all of this shit.

Let's start with simple questions and answers.

Why does anybody need, not want but need, privacy? Who needs privacy most of all?

Does a good person with no intent to harm others, need privacy? Or does an evil person, who intends to harm others, need privacy? Does a beautiful woman with a gorgeous sexy body need more privacy than a fat ugly bitch who no male feels lust toward?

Answer these questions so I can accept you are in this thread in good faith.

Unrelated people(s) will eventually harm each other. Unrelation in general prompts privacy. Similarly unrelation to the self prompts insecurity, which prompts hyper-defensiveness / a tendency to self-alienate (make oneself private).

The problem is a lack of relation, and I do mean this in the strongest sense of the word: genetic. Lacking this and the more immediate commonalities such as the aesthetic, you get far greater manipulation, violence (evil, to use your word), etc. as prevailing forces in the "society".

How about you start with complex questions instead, since the simple ones are boring and points / intentions / thesis predictable. This thing about simple Qs is to downplay, which I don't appreciate, and really entertaining your "simple questions" would be an act of submission. Whether you're aware or not, this is what's going on. Anyway, maybe get to the bigger points and such.

Is privacy only contingent on harm???

And you are in this thread, not in good faith, thanks for admitting the fact to me. So now you have chosen not to have a productive discussion.

You are not here to learn. Nor do you seem here to teach either. I'll step over you.

Lockland has connected the need of privacy to harm.

Privacy can mask a harmful intent.
Privacy can camouflage or hide an intended victim.

Privacy is a means to cut and severe thyself into two: body and mind dualism. You keep your ideas to yourself, private, and the "rest" of you, the other half or majority, your body, is public. But with cognitive science and mind reading technology becoming developed today, humanity ought begin to ask if even any ideas are truly "private"?

And what does postmodern psychology and commercalization have to do with privacy, when the major brunt of capitalism is focused on selling unneeded products to average western "consumers"?

Did you delete your previous response, something about appealing to the audience? I read it before it disappeared.

Æon wrote:

Is privacy only contingent on harm???

Privacy is contingent on division, exclusivity, and so on. Where did I claim that privacy is only contingent on harm, or at all, for that matter?

Quote :

And you are in this thread, not in good faith, thanks for admitting the fact to me.

What does "not in good faith" mean?

Quote :

So now you have chosen not to have a productive discussion.

I don't know, looks like you're the one who has been trying to shut it down. Why, I don't know. And why even bother, I don't know either. It's not like this is a life or death situation.

Quote :

You are not here to learn.

Translated: You won't dance my dance, submit to me by accepting my description of things, therefore you must not "be here to learn".

Quote :

Nor do you seem here to teach either.

If you really felt that way then you wouldn't have thought up and posted that to begin with. In other words, you noticed that I was posting some substantive things (otherwise you wouldn't have noticed me / them to begin with), and that, combined with their critical nature, has you proclaiming the complete opposite in an act of spiteful minimization / shadowcasting.

By the way, why making proclamations about me to unknown others? Is this a team effort or popularity contest? Are you looking for positive reinforcement?