Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts

Tuesday, 18 June 2024

Why Yes


“Fleshlights are amazing. They detox men from their nasty bitch ex. Empower men by being always willing. They do what a perfect woman does.”  Rachel Bree



A woman who is always willing is respected more than any other. A woman who turns sex into a transactional power game is a problem. It is that simple.


Yet it is a founding principle of female empowerment which has resulted in the conflict of modern society. The role of the male is to bring stability to this by providing structure for order.


We are biological, emotional, psychological and spiritual. To work with our bodies needs in a healthy way is regarded by some cultures as divine. The bodies needs for health and healthy living is to not fight against these things and repress them. 


For men, this is deep rooted. As far as understanding abandonment anxiety is concerned, this is a core aspect affecting it from the male perspective of having to deal with what makes men tick. 


I do not know if it is exactly the same for women. I have attempted to discuss this with many different women. Some of whom I have had sexual relationships and some of whom it was platonic and/or professional. My findings are as follows. 


Women with whom I have attempted to discuss this with and who have acknowledged it could be, also happen to be more sexually willing to please men. 


Women who absolutely shout down any such discussion at all, also happen to exhibit the most severe dysfunctional behaviour and antisocial personality disorders. To such women sex is either a non-entity or is transactional. 


This is revealing. There is an association between the female ability for open communication and the female willingness to gratefully satisfy a man’s horniness on his terms. 


Those who reject, those who welcome. The criteria for this should be assessed (further study report). 


When the provision of sex to a partner becomes a matter of trade it is not a marriage, it is a business contract. 


This was an original definition of the word marriage before the medieval concept of courtly love, courting suitors, and the formal contract of a marriage before consummation on the wedding night. 


The consummation which is the wedding, the ‘joining together as one’. The marriage is the ongoing intention to always return to that union as soon as possible, to always be within its light. To consummate as often as possible. 


An engagement is a dedication to an intended goal. All of the stages of this delaying of instant gratification are the elevation of female empowerment to create a space within which she can accept, study, learn to yield to and learn to control her man, even as he grooms her to be his bride, his bridge, his connection to the bliss. 


An engagement is for her, a time required for her to come to terms with how she must behave to empower the marriage. Which at its core is quite simply is to always yield to him sexually. 


This is the historical perspective. Of course a marriage, any partnership involves factors outside of the bedroom. The practicalities of living together as archetypal people as well as the practicalities and needs of the unique individuals involved. 


We need to understand what this is all about to put into perspective the impact of  modernism and feminism has had on the medieval culture which we inherited and what was its original intended purpose. 


We need to be aware of this to recognise how far we have deviated from it and to see its wisdom and merits as much as any flaws we may perceive from the modern way of thinking. 


What has happened is the purity of marriage in creating lasting, functional relationships has been corrupted and is now being replaced by what is described as a modern marriage. 


A modern marriage is one wherein she has more power to behave as if she is not married but he is still expected to bring to her all of the benefits of marriage, including those of the courtship period of proving his worth by providing and supporting for her.  


He must maintain this even after his having proved it which creates a situation of mistrust and insecurity because non-acceptance of his having been tested. The tests become ongoing. This is perhaps a necessary adaptation to the compromises of modernity. 


This transition began in the latter medieval period, before the discovery of gunpowder.    We see how far the roots of the female empowerment movement go in terms of time and how deep they go in to the bedroom in terms of affecting the sanctity of the pure relationship between man and wife who have sworn a divine oath to serve one another by bringing one another harmony. 


The women’s rights movements that a woman is not merely a sex object has for our generation and culture destroyed this awareness of what it is required to make relationships stable in the historic sense. 


A woman who gives her man sex is respected for doing so. A woman who makes it difficult for him is going to lose him to the women who do give it to him. 


Men need sex. It’s a biological, emotional, psychological and spiritual driving factor of their existence. It is how God and nature made them. To question whether it is spiritual in essence is to question both the divine masculine and sacred sexuality. These items are aspirations of successful people. 


Broken men suppress their own need for sex. A woman who breaks her man is an unhealthy woman as much as a man who breaks his woman is an unhealthy man. Broken women suppress their men’s need for sex. Broken men either don’t take it or take it by force. 


Why do people behave in a dysfunctional, oppressive way to suppress and repress sexuality? 


It serves only one entity; the depopulation agenda. The death cult uses divide and control. It is colonial. It is no surprise how even our marriages are colonies of the death cult. Our minds have been programmed as its agents. 


What is the answer to liberate ourselves from that? 











See also: Female Abandonment Issues


See also: A Prayer to Lakshmi



Saturday, 24 February 2018

Sex Check List

Checklist For Sexual Compatibility


QUESTION ZERO: 

 Have you/they had an STD check 
since the last time you/they had a sexual encounter? 



SECTION ONE - YOU

First three simple questions.

1. Do you want sex ?  y / n

2. Could you fancy this person ?  y / n

3. Would you have sex with this person ?  y / n

Three “yes” ’s = do it
Two or less “yes” ‘s = do not do it

1 If No: there is something wrong with this person, they are disconnected from their Humanity.
2 If No: no problems, biological instinct is what it is.
3 If No: (when 1 & 2 are “yes”) this person is inhibited by a psychosis.

That’s it for keeping things simple.


SECTION TWO - OTHERS


The ‘three yes vs less-than-three-yes’ guide (section one) does not apply to the following (section two) because it gets more complicated.

The following questions are what happens when you start compromising what you want sexually with who you want to be known as in the community. Balancing your internal desire with your external image. Manipulation ‘by you of’ and ‘of you by’ community.

The counterpoise to this situation is the rhetorical question:

X. ’Who is it I am in bed with / closest to / should mean the most to me ?’

This question has not been numbered because it is too personal to include as data for this manuscript, although it is imperative the individual should ask it of themselves regularly. All other questions are simple y / n responses.


4. Would my friends accept me having sex with this person ? y / n

The answer to this is ALWAYS ‘no’ unless you have real friends who do not mix ‘sex and slavery’.


The next two questions are about hypergamy. They balance self-worth with social-status, clinically basing decision-making only on the artifice of social structure while ignoring the complexity of Human needs, personality compatibility, physical preference. Hypergamy reinforces the delusion of class system maintained by active belief in it. Typically this is financial or perceived power thus such relationships are about power and wealth, not about emotional and individual value. That includes yours. Hypergamy elevates manipulation and does not accept emotion as a relevant factor, resulting in strategic yet emotionless or at best shallow sexual relations. That does not result in happiness, it usually results in divorce. This underlaying trust issue categorically defines such relationships.

5. Would sex with this person improve my position in society (is it prestigious) ? y / n
If Yes do it.

6. Would sex with this person decrease my position in society (is it detrimental) ? y / n
If Yes do not do it.


The next question is the main one you need to answer.
It affects every aspect of relationships.

7. Does this person mix up sex with slavery ? y / n

If Yes, either ‘fuck&chuck’ or simply do not have sex with them at all.
If No, keep it going as a long-term relationship.
Hold onto it because true equity/equality is precious and rare, to be treasured.


8. What Slavery Is and is Not

Is slavery: expectancy of undisclosed behaviour ?
Is slavery: expectancy of routine behaviour ? 


If you can not answer these questions (8A and 8B), you are not ready for a long-term relationship.
That does not mean you are not ready to have sex.
Fully answering these two questions SHOULD be an ongoing topic of conversation between yourself and partner/s.
Develop a mutual understanding of what exactly is meant by ‘undisclosed and routine behaviour’.
Discuss and communicate what is meant by ‘communication’.


SECTION THREE - CASTES

Tribal Attitudes May Vary.

HUMANITY asks these questions:  1 3 7 8

CULTURE asks these questions:  2 4 7 8

SOCIETY asks these questions:  3 4 5 6

Society represses these questions:  7 8



DISCLAIMER

This manuscript is in no way a complete thesis or is it to be taken as one.
It does not necessarily represent the beliefs of its author.
It is not to be regarded as relationship or life advice.
It is intended for amusement purposes only. 
Self-responsibility is respectability.

©2018    The author is an academically qualified relationship counselor and sex therapist.

Wednesday, 4 October 2017

Rich Man


"Unmarried Men Are ‘A Problem’ For Society"

Out of touch with reality Tory MP Iain Duncan Smith



South Wales there are two types of women.

Women who react to the word 'marriage' the same way they react to the slime beast oozing into the room. They back off and disappear.

Women who hate men because no man has voluntarily asked them for marriage.

There are two sub-types of these:

First, most common, are stage three Disney Princess Syndrome, when the cartoon expectation bubble has burst and their man-hate prevents them from going out and getting laid, which they need.

Second, sexually experienced women who can get sex at the drop of a skirt and to whom men are an object like a dildo, a wallet, a taxi, perhaps even social positioning. Do not be mistaken that they regard men as human beings. These women were raised into disposable consumerism and that's what men are. This subgroup crosses both original categories to also include the 'marriage=slimebeast' type.

Until:
Both these types of women make an exception to one thing:
Rich Man.

To all other men which is literally 99% of men, it triggers 2 warning bells.

Warning bell 1: she wants to marry my money, not me.The 'it is vampire' bell.

Warning bell 2: being secondary to a fictional entity and being secondary to that rich bastard means she is so far up herself she can not even see it. She is going to sleep around behind his back anyway. The 'it is crazy' bell.

Of these 99% of men there are perhaps even as much as half, who decide that being secondary to a fictional entity is worth the pursuit if it means mommy-figure-and-sex.

That 1% rich guy, he don't care. He can afford to throw money at her in exchange for sexetera. He is sleeping around behind her back too because he won't lose her if he gets caught and if he does, so what he can afford to.

The thing about marriage, it gets in the way of the quality part of a relationship because you do not need to be married to have a quality relationship.

Then you get the guys who can see all of the above and decide that playing the game of getting money to get a girl is stupid waste of time. These guys are now called MGTOW because men are redefining the rules of the game vs femdom - at last. Previously these guys were simply lame, or misogynists, or any other insult women could think of.

These type of men can clearly see the big difference between sexetera and marriage. In the old days these were called 'the real men'. When one of these guys chooses her, in the old days she knew he meant it, she was grateful for his attention and worked as hard as he did to be compatible. Those types of women are called 'real women' and although rare, those are the ones you want to marry. Reality is, most guys won't find them because most women won't be them.

So the reality is, men have got to change the system and the way society works. It is traditionally the purpose of men to do this. Women have been doing it for several generations and it has fucked everything up for everyone, yes even themselves. They have proved to be incapable of equality because as soon as they get anywhere close, they start abusing men.

MGTOW is men taking time out to assess the situation. It will be followed by MWHGIT Men Who Have Got It Together (MWGITs or simply GITs). This generation of men will collectively have a strategy, which works, to put men and women where men and women both function best in relation to each other. It recognizes that with individual responsibility comes stop-blagging-me, and with individual respectability comes stop-badgering-me (stop bitching/bullying me). SBM is the future of relationship protocols.

Sex is MUTUAL it does not mean one of us paying the other one for it. We both SHARE pleasure and if it works, if it is any good and worth doing regularly with you to the exclusion of all others, or inclusive of selected thirds, or in preference to videogameheaven, it means ignoring all the bad advice from society, your jealous sister, your controlling parents, your abusive ex-partner who probably gave you what you deserved so shut up about it, and recognize that when men are sexually active their metabolism functions a certain way, and that going against it is going against nature. It is not about sub-dom, it is about switch and mutuality. It is definitely not about brat.

In the old days the word marriage did not mean paperwork contract with the state or religion. It meant regular sex with a person so the two could explore the empowerment which good sex brings. Think about who controls that energy and what you do with it. It's YOUR energy, not the partners, not the states, and if you are mixing it with a person - this is where compatibility is important. In the old days the word sin meant living without sex.

Everything else to do with marriage is about friendship. Union, partnership, sharing resources, caring about the partner as much as you care about yourself, mutual respect, communication. Growth from stability.

What Ian Duncan Smith is talking about is that all men should be secondary to a fictional entity, which is slavery to a delusion, which is slavery full stop. Fuck that twat, why is anybody listening to him anyway? 1% Rich Man perhaps? See how that works?

Afterthoughts:

If things are going that well with someone, marriage is not something to throw into the mix anyway because why risk a good thing?