>'It is men who corrupt women', Nietzsche exclaimed, 'and the failings of women should be atoned for and set right in men - for man makes for himself the image (Bild) of woman, and woman shapes herself (bildet sich) according to this image (Bild)'."47 According to Nietzsche, "Woman" or femininity is an aesthetic vision of man, and women shape themselves according to this image in order to be preserved or to receive a form of pity. This is difficult for women to live in accord with, being a constant adaptation to an image of indifferent mystery and receptivity, and, being difficult, it is ultimately the result of men's aesthetic vision of what is desired by the "way of will."
>The natural functions of womanhood are aesthetically disgusting to the male lover. They represent an apparent insult to a man. Why? Because they intrude on the male lover's property. When Nietzsche references this intrusion on property, it becomes clear how possession and domination factor into love. Natural female functions serve to disrupt the aesthetic creation of woman by man. Menstruation, for example, smears itself over the male construct that is woman.
>"When we love a woman, we easily come to hate nature because of all the repulsive natural functions to which every woman is subject; we prefer not to think about it at all, but when our soul for once brushes against these matters, it shrugs impatiently and, as just said, casts a contemptuous look at nature: we feel insulted; nature seems to intrude on our property and with the most profane hands at that."
>"Pregnancy has made women gentler, more patient, more timid, more pleased to submit; and just so does spiritual pregnancy produce the character of the contemplative type, to which the female character is related: these are male mothers. Among animals the male sex is considered the beautiful one."
What did Nietzsche mean by this?
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
read another author
Just Nietzsche projecting.
>>'It is men who corrupt women'
It's all plain and simple for the 19th century when women didn't know words like "Hollywood" and "feminism". Man was just replaced in this relationship.
>>The natural functions of womanhood are aesthetically disgusting to the male lover.
I assume that's his personal observations and feelings most men wouldn't feel. Nietzsche comes from pessimistic standpoint, so I assume he fricked a lot of ugly prostitutes.
>>"Pregnancy has made women gentler
Here he is exceptionally correct. The reasons for the woman's place in the human species is the reproductive difficulty of man. Even if he states quite irrelevant fact that in most species the male is beautiful. Irrelevant since man comes from the bloodline in which neither man nor woman was beautiful.
Men cannot be replaced, however. Every woman feels a necessity deep inside their bosoms to be molded by men they respect. Yeah, even unto to death they desire to be molded and formed into the image the pure will inside mann wishes to bring out and stamp into the world.
thats false a cringe cope by men. women dont give a shit about will. women only care about taking care of and costing thru an easy life, which is given by the men.
And I suppose women don't like sex either. I understand your point, but those are simply broken women, dead-beat, as the Americans would say. Why should take into account the lowest denominator when universally speaking, specially in a F.N thread? You misunderstand his spirit.
>Men cannot be replaced
Pure cope. Men are absolutely getting replaced. It's very clear that women are not interested in most men. In the past, women needed men to provide and protect them, but that's not the case now because government will do it for them. Soon most jobs will be automated and women will have no need for most men.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/14h3vpz/discussion_why_shouldnt_there_be_losers_in_the/
I wouldn't say most men, Myron. Just the bottom ~20% of men who are uncultured, purposeless, humorless, devoid of creativity, lacking in ambition, unkempt, addicted, and emotionally unavailable. Just don't be like those miserable homosexuals and you'll be fine.
Regardless of how attractive a man is and how much power he has over women he comes in contact with (or even men in case of a dominant leader personality) he still will remain a captive of the government as the control over population increases. This will dictate his position and degree of exposure to other individuals, not the natural understanding of value and nobility. Women might be like pets for the Leviathan but men will have to be slaves.
Whoever is a slave allows him or herself to be in the modern world. Also, all women love men who love themselves (besides the bottom ~20% of man-hating lesbian losers, who also get discarded from the gene pool just like that bottom ~20% of men I mentioned). The value of men isn't decreasing because of government intervention or anything like that.
Are you, perhaps, a first worlder older than 40 years?
No, I'm in my 30s, but I also have a brother in his 20s, and it's all the same regardless of the generation. All women love men who love themselves, and they can tell when a man loves himself. He'll be uplifting to the people around him, he'll be funny, he'll proudly share his passions, he'll be hard working, he'll be creative, etc. He won't be a mopey frick who dwells on what he doesn't have and is constantly comparing himself with other men.
It doesn't matter who woman loves or doesn't love. Material circumstances are more important. You're living a life without real hardship and simply cannot understand the divide between free and unfree people.
The point is that women ARE interested in most men, or would be if more men dropped the mopey bullshit and got with the program.
>Tinder
Dating apps are full of the bottom 20% of men who don't love themselves. Stats pulled from these platforms will always only reflect this minority group and not men as a whole.
What am I lying about?
>I don't understand how you can argue to love yourself and also argue to change yourself to be loved by someone else.
I'm not arguing to change yourself, but to become yourself, like Nietzsche did. If you're a miserable, humorless bastard without a shred of ambition or creativity then you aren't living according to who you are. You're living in fear under someone else's thumb and stifled by your own hypervigilance.
>However, it is not irrelevant if they are even interested in men at all- it is a need they feel deep inside their hearts, even if men were to cease to exist. If anything, the fact that they are not intested in most men, that only makes the situation worse for them, especially now, when they can taste the delight of being possessed, but never held on to by those who have authentic power and can exercise it over them.
I agree with this. Women have an innate need for masculinity in their lives. Masculinity is not, however, merely about exercising control, but about direction, force, and self-regulation, all of which a man can still generate and provide to those around him in the current economic and political climate.
>Dating apps are full of the bottom 20% of men who don't love themselve
Most of the men without success on dating apps stop using them pretty quickly. Most men on dating apps are in the top 10% who are constantly having sex with women on there, but never dating them. So you're right, but for the opposite reason.
The ugly ass fat fricks regularly sleep around with girls from tinder. Most attractive and naturally vigorous men do not seek the gratification of regular sex with strangers, unless they are mentally ill. Yours is not a valid observation.
>The ugly ass fat fricks regularly sleep around with girls from tinder.
No, they don't, because the actual statistics show otherwise.
>The top 10% aren't on dating apps
They are, because they can sleep with very attractive women without paying for it, and without any long term commitments.
>They are, because they can sleep with very attractive women without paying for it, and without any long term commitments.
The top 10% of men don't behave like this. These are emotionally unavailable men with attachment disorders you're talking about.
The top 10% of men take their pick of the pleasures available to them, and marry later in life when they feel like it. Because they have women falling at their feet from every direction.
>The top 10% of men act like PUA sleazeballs and trick women into sleeping with them
You realize that your own set of values is the problem here, right?
Peak incel energy.
Anon when you can get sex from women easily enough - you stop chasing it and taking "your pick of the pleasures", unless you have severe self-esteem issues. You start seeking a women that is good for your mind, be it for long-term or short-term, marriage or casual.
Even god-tier sex is not worth it compared to a peaceful life and a gf/wife who understands and supports you.
>Even god-tier sex is not worth it compared to a peaceful life and a gf/wife who understands and supports you.
i have only seen this level of cope from religious incels who claims chads and prostitutes will pay for their sins in afterlife.
He's right. If porn delivered intimacy we'd have no lonely people. Pussy can only get you so far if you aren't connecting and have other options you simply keep it moving.
Bro, try talking to some of the women who encounter these men you're idolizing. I've talked to many (I don't give a shit about being "friendzoned," everything is an opportunity when your self-esteem isn't dependent on what others think of you) and they all say the same thing. These men hurt them, badly. These are not high quality men.
>These men hurt them, badly. These are not high quality men.
My friend's gf roped after he dumped her.I don't feel sorry for her because I know she fell in love with him because he was very good-looking and popular with other women. It is impossible for an average guy to generate this level of affection.
I don't know your friend, but what a lot of these guys who are "successful" on the apps do is love bomb and use intermittent reinforcement via ghosting to get girls attached to them. They may be good looking and popular, but they're popular because they're manipulative; they aren't actually friendly or sociable. They also have attachment disorders, so they get these girls to sleep with them, maybe numerous times, and they say nice things to them, but don't have any plans to commit, which means they're only using the girls for sex. And here's the thing, the VAST majority of girls want a relationship rather than just casual sex; even if they agree to casual sex, 9/10 times they only do that because they're childish romantics who are really hoping the sex will change the guy's mind.
Point being, these men are not worth idolizing. They're not "top 10%." They're losers with above average intelligence and nothing more.
> the VAST majority of girls want a relationship rather than just casual sex
With good looking guys. I never had any casual sex from dating apps.
> the VAST majority of girls want a relationship rather than just casual sex
You need to stop taking these women's words at face value. Most women on dating apps know that the guy who is fricking them have many other options. Women are having casual sex because sex is an enjoyable activity.
>With good looking guys
Appearance is a proxy for status for women. It's the status they're attracted to. Are you suggesting men don't also go after certain qualities on average?
>You need to stop taking these women's words at face value.
I don't. Some of them who I was talking about I met at group therapy. The ones I talked to off of dating apps or elsewhere (a couple were through work) almost always were on antidepressants. This is after talking to them for some months and building trust.
>Women are having casual sex because sex is an enjoyable activity.
Some women are, but most of them are also hoping it'll turn into a relationship, because that's what most women want.
>Appearance is a proxy for status for women. It's the status they're attracted to
Why is it very hard for men to admit that women love attractive men and want to have sex with them? You can just go to tiktok and see millions of teen girls thirsting after attractive men.
Women are attracted to good-looking men and wants to have sex with them even if the guy is low status NEET. You would expect men to recognize this fact when they see it happen in front of their face but the delusions of most men are on the level of schizophrenia when it comes to female sexuality.
No one is suggesting that women don't like sex or don't find men physically attractive. You're completely sidestepping the argument at this point.
What argument? That most women are having casual sex with hopes of getting into relationships eventually?
I don't dispute because I don't really know what they are thinking, but I also don't buy into their narrative that they are victims of manipulation.
>What argument? That most women are having casual sex with hopes of getting into relationships eventually?
Go back to the start of my post chain here
The argument is:
>the government has nothing to do with you being a failure with women
>the government is not trying to replace you
>women love men who love themselves (read: have high emotional intelligence)
>women inherently need and want men in their lives
>dating apps are full of men with low emotional intelligence
>"successful" men on apps are no better in this regard
And by virtue of all of this, I'm also implying that casual sex is for losers who can't maintain a relationship (which is a lot harder to do), something that more women understand than men.
>I also don't buy into their narrative that they are victims of manipulation.
Have you been living under a rock for the past 20 years? What do you think the entire PUA scene is? It's men sharing tips and techniques on how to trick naive women into having sex with them.
Are you a woman, anon? The type of emotional engagement that you are giving to a person that is not listening or arguing with good faith with you at all is quite motherly.
Another deflection?
I am not the person you are arguing with, anon.
>>the government has nothing to do with you being a failure with women
It does. Most relationships in the past were not based on feeble emotions but necessitated by material conditions. Women needed men because the world was a lot more unsafe, crime was rampant, there were not many white collar/HR jobs that women could do. The government made the world a lot safer and made laws that incentivized women to not commit to a man (e.g. alimony, child support, parental custody, gender equality laws etc...)
>the government is not trying to replace you
Obviously no. Men are replacing themselves.
>women love men who love themselves (read: have high emotional intelligence)
Check who Jeremy Meeks is.
>women inherently need and want men in their lives
Women have no need for men. Women would rather be single than get into a relationship with below average men.
>dating apps are full of men with low emotional intelligence
Why should anyone care about it?
>"successful" men on apps are no better in this regard
Same as above.
>I'm also implying that casual sex is for losers who can't maintain a relationship
Relationships are for losers because it is more difficult to have casual sex as a man than to get into a relationship. Maintaining a relationship is hard, not because of any inherent difficulty of it, but because of the low ROI of relationships. If relationships were more fulfilling, people would put more effort into it.
>What do you think the entire PUA scene is?
PUA is dead, and it has been dead for a long time. None of their tricks has ever worked. Most of their ideas centered around cold approaching women in streets or talking to them in bars or nightclubs. They had no answers to dating apps. If someone talks about dating apps and PUA in the same sentence, you would know that they are talking nonsense.
You are brainwashed.
>It does.
Nope. You are correct about the history of relationships. However, your failures with women are your own. The information to become more emotionally intelligent, more financially free, and more physically in shape and better groomed — in a word, to become a more attractive, more complete male — is out there and available to you. It's not the government stopping you from acting on that information, it's you.
>Men are replacing themselves.
The only men in danger currently are the ones making the least amount of effort to succeed. This is how evolution has worked since the Big Bang: don't make an effort to survive, get killed off. C'est la vie.
>Jeremy Meeks
He demonstrates my statement.
>Women have no need for men.
They don't need men for their resources anymore, but they still need and want masculinity in their lives. This is why so many single women in their 30s and up are on antidepressants and continue to get surgery and other cosmetic procedures done. They can't live without attention from men.
>Why should anyone care about it?
It means stats pulled from dating apps demonstrate nothing about men or women and their relationships as a whole.
>Relationships are for losers because it is more difficult to have casual sex as a man than to get into a relationship.
Okay. Good luck arguing this nonsense.
>None of their tricks has ever worked.
Plenty of PUAs had plenty of sex using their tricks. Seduction has been a thing for many centuries and it's always been about manipulation and lies.
>emotional intelligence
What happened? Did personality become too cringe?
Personality refers to behavioral traits. Emotional intelligence refers to your ability to identify and regulate your emotions, which are linked to your ability to empathize and communicate effectively.
>He demonstrates my statement.
Yes. A sub 90 IQ moron who received the adoration of 1000s of females after he beat up a child and went to jail is an exemplary example of emotional intelligence.
>It means stats pulled from dating apps demonstrate nothing about men or women and their relationships as a whole.
Is there any proof that emotionally intelligent men get more sex? There is plenty of proof that physical attributes like height, prominent jaw, eye color are indicative of sexual success. There are even studies which shows that people who bully in high school, commit violent crimes are far more sexually successful than general population.
Is there any proof that people who are emotionally intelligent have any advantage in sexual market?
You don't have, right? All your arguments hinge on assumptions that have no basis in reality.
>Okay. Good luck arguing this nonsense.
No arguments? If you have to commit to a woman to get sex from her while other men can get sex from her without commitment, who is the loser?
>Plenty of PUAs had plenty of sex using their tricks
Any proof other than the self report of these grifters.
>The information to become more emotionally intelligent, more financially free, and more physically in shape and better groomed — in a word, to become a more attractive, more complete male.
No proof of emotional intelligence. Finance doesn't help in dating apps. Getting in shape does help, reducing your body fat is the easiest way to increase your attractiveness. It is limited, and getting too buff have negative effect. Also, the most important metric of attractiveness in male is height, which you can't change.
You still haven't refuted that government is one of the factors responsible for decline in relationships. All you have said is that it's still possible to get into a relationship if you put more effort, which is a complete non sequitur.
The effort required to get into a relationship and maintain has risen considerably from the past, and government has played a major role in it. I have no interest in putting these efforts to get into a relationship with an average or below average woman when some men can have casual sex with them with much less effort. At what level of effort do you say that women are not the effort?
>A sub 90 IQ moron who received the adoration of 1000s of females after he beat up a child and went to jail is an exemplary example of emotional intelligence.
How many of those women were marriage/mother material, you think?
>Is there any proof that emotionally intelligent men get more sex?
Who cares? Getting more sex doesn't mean you're a higher quality male.
>If you have to commit to a woman to get sex from her while other men can get sex from her without commitment, who is the loser?
The loser is the man who measures the value of men according to the number of times they stick their penises inside a vegana.
>Any proof other than the self report of these grifters.
Are you suggesting no man has ever seduced a woman before?
>No proof of emotional intelligence.
The highest quality men have always had the highest levels of emotional intelligence among men. You can very easily observe this yourself. Charisma is the direct, immediate expression of high emotional intelligence.
>You still haven't refuted that government is one of the factors responsible for decline in relationships.
I did that when I pointed out to you that you have the resources to improve yourself yet you choose not to. Your low attractiveness is nobody's fault but your own on account of that fact.
>The effort required to get into a relationship and maintain has risen considerably from the past
Yes. So what?
Are you a woman?
No. Are you brown?
You sure talk like one
That's because most women are emotionally intelligent while most men are utter morons in this regard (like yourself).
>most women are emotionally intelligent
Hope she sees this bro
>most women are emotionally intelligent while most men
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_marker_hypothesis
"When individuals make decisions, they must assess the incentive value of the choices available to them, using cognitive and emotional processes. When the individuals face complex and conflicting choices, they may be unable to decide using only cognitive processes, which may become overloaded. Emotions, consequently, are hypothesized to guide decision-making."
So, you are saying that men, given the choice whether to throw a fat bystander under the train or not; whether to take drugs or not, would just make a random coin-flip decision?
>No, they don't, because the actual statistics show otherwise.
Learn to read statistics then.
>without any long term commitments
Not everyone shares your obsession with sex. Most attractive men prefer to be in relationships. Most attractive women prefer to be in relationships. Most of the ones who have casual sex are incel level unhappy because they can't keep a relationship.
>The "system" is not destroying the relationship between men and women. It's repairing it.
Never heard a more wrong piece of bullshit. Falling birthrates, crysis of competence, reduction of intelligence, divorce rates, neo-victorian decline in sex and immigration replacement crysis say otherwise.
>Most attractive men prefer to be in relationships. Most attractive women prefer to be in relationships.
You're making this up out of thin air. Maybe you should go read some sexual statistics yourself. Attractive men and women are statistically those with the highest body counts. Ugly and financially underprivileged men have the lowest sexual success rate. They're also more likely to be in single, life-long relationships due to relatively limited social opportunity.
>Falling birthrates
A result of higher standards and better education. Quality over quantity. That's why it's mostly just the uneducated hordes of imports who still have tons of kids.
>crysis of competence
Elaborate.
>reduction of intelligence
You're mistaking the change in demographics and population size as a reduction of intelligence.
>divorce rates
This is a part of the repair process. Most relationships have historically been founded on weak emotional bonds.
>neo-victorian decline in sex
Easy access to porn is responsible for this.
>immigration replacement crysis
This is just a smart economic move on the part of business owners and managers. It doesn't indicate anything else.
>A result of higher standards and better education. Quality over quantity. That's why it's mostly just the uneducated hordes of imports who still have tons of kids.
Oh damn, a voice of neo-liberalism. This is a complete cope. There are no proofs to this conclusion, it's a religious dogma of your god. Declining birth rates are linked with housing crysis, destruction of family and economic decline, there are no reasons to believe it's rising education. No reasons to believe in quality of each successive generation either.
>Elaborate.
Just what I'm saying. The top of the society are more and more just talentless idiots and in general each generation is worse.
>You're mistaking the change in demographics and population size as a reduction of intelligence.
What's the difference? Replacement with the lower slave stock and degeneration or extermination of better stock is all the same.
>This is a part of the repair process. Most relationships have historically been founded on weak emotional bonds.
Wow, how great that we don't need it now and we can raise fatherless children.
>Easy access to porn is responsible for this.
Somebody makes this porn and there are reasons kids watch it. Don't try to justify it because muh internet.
>This is just a smart economic move on the part of business owners and managers. It doesn't indicate anything else.
Oh yeah I should not notice anything.
>There are no proofs to this conclusion
There's no proofs for yours either. We're both speculating based on incomplete data.
>Declining birth rates are linked with housing crysis, destruction of family and economic decline
All of these things are related to the liberation of women, which is a rebalancing of social power between the sexes enabled by technological innovations from the past few centuries, fueled by scientific developments.
>The top of the society are more and more just talentless idiots and in general each generation is worse.
Who are you referring to here?
>What's the difference?
The difference is that there are simply more people, not less people with higher intelligence.
>Wow, how great that we don't need it now and we can raise fatherless children.
Don't need what?
>Somebody makes this porn and there are reasons kids watch it.
Yes, pornographers make it. Kids watch it because it's stimulating. Eventually, many of these kids become depressed, because we need more in our lives than just sex. We need intimacy and love too.
>This is just a smart economic move on the part of business owners and managers
It is the furthest thing from being a smart economic move. Blinded by greed these business owners and managers created a class at the top that hoovers up all the resources to hoard and to keep the asset prices up they flood the markets with cheap debt from incoming immigrants who are forced to take it on for education/car/home just to live and participate in society. This isn't clever or smart it's greedy and shortsighted and it will implode in violence. Just take a look around the world at countries' balance sheets / political stability. You can start with France, UK and Canada.
>it will implode in violence
Too bad the people who make those decisions don't live in those places that are going to implode in violence and will not feel any negative consequences of their actions.
Really, how is it short-sighted when they make gains and (you) get cucked by Black folk?
>will not feel any negative consequences of their actions.
I am sure Gaddafi thought the same thing.
> how is it short-sighted
The debt grows exponentially. Eventually, there comes a time when people cannot afford to maintain and default. If we look at commercial real estate or single-family homes or used cars I'd make the case that the oopsie time is near. Look at
household savings, there are none. Look at credit card debt, there is a frick ton of that.
> and (you) get cucked by Black folk?
What do you think happens when the majority are made aware of the reality and scale of the wiener in our ass approaching the point of not being able to afford to live indoors?
> regularly sleep around with girls from tinder
Citation required.
If what you're describing is true Tinder does not have a viable business model. If all the bottomfeeders are fricking who is paying the additional old guy on tinder fees for tinder platinum and super likes and other gacha shit they shove in there to keep the hope alive for them.
>If what you're describing is true Tinder does not have a viable business model
Tinder's business model is based on getting the bottom feeders to pay for subscriptions to "improve their chances", which just keeps them chained to the app getting very limited matches, along with all the regular users seeing ads. The business models of dating apps are limited by default to the basic tendencies of human interactions, which is basically a kind of polygamy. So the app generates the bulk of its revenue from women, and a bit less by men, due to the 90-10 statistical rule.
>Citation required.
Again, look at the published statistics of Tinder user tendencies. The 90-10 rule and the qualitative correlations containe within it show that there is a massively over-sexed, small pool of high achieving (i.e. high earning, good looking, etc.) men who are constantly circulating around the same pool of women. It's also why STIs have a tendency to circulate amongst the same small group (or, a larger group of women and smaller group of men), which is another statistics drawn from health studies related to the app.
>. So the app generates the bulk of its revenue from women, and a bit less by men
No shot. I don't believe for even a second a 20 something year old EU qt is shelling out more shekels than the average tinder user let alone the dreaded 20 percent of the bottom dwellers.
> Most men on dating apps are in the top 10%
Why do all they get swiped left as your diagram says
?
le hypergamy
I am the guy who posted the chart.
Most men on dating apps are not top 10%. Most top 10% men are in long term relationships. Successful men in dating apps are very good-looking guys who are not very successful IRL. If they were successful IRL, they won't have time to chase women.
Dating apps follow Pareto distribution for men where winner takes all and most men are sexless or get one/two sex a year from some land whale who wants to boost their ego. But a small percentage of men are absolutely drowning in pussy. I know average looking guys with 0 pussy, and men with multiple FWBs, and have sex with a new woman each week.
>Masculinity is not, however, merely about exercising control, but about direction, force, and self-regulation, all of which a man can still generate and provide to those around him in the current economic and political climate.
Masculinity is all about exercising control; all the things you've menitoned are merely power over one's self.
Power of one's self is the first sign of health. The ability to exercise control is just a byproduct. The idea that it's the other way around stems from the Bronze Age where it was necessary for it to work the other way around.
over one's self*
One must first exercise control over one's self so that it may become conquered. I don't see how it can be the other way around. One is forever wrestling with the self, unto death. I gather that in your mind, to have power over one's self is a minor, average accomplishment, but to have true power over one's self, to be truly masculine, that is to be a God or a Wild Beast.
Power is just power, not an intrinsic quality like will to power. Power determines the health, but not the will. Will is ready to throw you in the ditch.
>Tinder
Yeah, that's where you're going to find your trad wife (as opposed to a hypergamic roastie) - on a hookup app.
Most couples met online
...and then most of those couples break up.
BIG THINK
Source?
SHUT THE FRICK UP WOMAN!!!! DON'T EVER FRICKING SPEAK AGAIN, AS YOU ARE A W*MAN!! W***N HAVE NOTHING OF INTEREST TO SAY!! KEEP IT TO YOUR FRICKING SELF MORON!!!!!!!
Why do you lie to yourself to this extent? I don't get it.
From the sound of it women are interested in specific iteration of man and to fit that shape is closer to simping than ubermenching. I don't understand how you can argue to love yourself and also argue to change yourself to be loved by someone else. That doesn't make sense. If you love yourself it doesn't matter that no one wants to love you there's already plenty to go around.
>If you're a miserable, humorless bastard without a shred of ambition or creativity then you aren't living according to who you are. You're living in fear under someone else's thumb and stifled by your own hypervigilance.
Still a naive approach that doesn't actually respond to my point
Men are not super powerful and able to turn mountains. It's a naive optimistic idea. If the system wants to destroy the relationship between women and men it has no obstacle on its way since it's the slave master of all society. No ammount of creativity or humour can make you a favorite of the Leviathan, only being among its favorites in the first place. The nature of man and nature of womanly love or desire play no role. The nature can only be expressed in freedom and not in the circumstance created by a hostile force.
The "system" is not destroying the relationship between men and women. It's repairing it.
The top 10% aren't on dating apps. Why would they be? They already love themselves and have what they need and want in their lives. Think about this claim just for a second and realize how utterly absurd it is. You're referring to the men who get a lot of matches, but almost all of these men are con men who have attachment disorders and who (unsurprisingly) cause a lot of emotional harm to the women on the apps — they're the top 10% of that bottom 20% category.
>who have attachment disorders
Also, men will sleep with attractive women for the physical pleasure, that's it. It's extremely natural for men to do that, and every man would sleep with a beautiful woman given the chance so long as he has no other commitments to another woman. It's just human biology, totally normal.
>real men will have iphones
>and pay taxes to pedophiles their whole life
Interesting take. Post nose.
I don't think you've understood my point. It is not about whether women are interested in most men or not-- albeit, granted, they are not; I've expressely said that it is a desire felt towards those that they sincerely respect. However, it is not irrelevant if they are even interested in men at all- it is a need they feel deep inside their hearts, even if men were to cease to exist. If anything, the fact that they are not intested in most men, that only makes the situation worse for them, especially now, when they can taste the delight of being possessed, but never held on to by those who have authentic power and can exercise it over them.
It is irrelevant.*
>I assume that's his personal observations and feelings most men wouldn't feel. Nietzsche comes from pessimistic standpoint, so I assume he fricked a lot of ugly prostitutes.
I disagree. Women are creatures shaped entirely by circunstance; their days without a hand that may fiercly settle them upon themselves are akin to a stilled pond of water in which no dignified life will sprout; merely a breeding ground for parasites. The truth is that women are perfectly average beings and way more vicious in their vices than men; that is what is truly discusting--- that they do not live up to ever to our ideals.
The natural functions may not be merely biological happenstances. The natural social functions of womanhood left to themselves are indeed discusting.
Besides, that the most gracious creature prime last but a short time, that to mantain beauty and higiene she must give herself to hours of artificial, all of that is indeed contemptuous and sorrowful.
>Nietzsche comes from pessimistic standpoint, so I assume he fricked a lot of ugly prostitutes
I find it hard to believe he ever had sex, actually, and that isn't an insult. Going by his correspondence letters, he seemed pure all the way until his dying day.
Yeah he was an ascetic. From the pictures we have you can tell he’s very good looking, and you can be sure that anyone who calls him an incel on account if him never marrying is very ugly
He got rejected by his crush, wienergobbler.
What a disaster if he hadn't been; to waste away his genius in family life... the modern age would be enitrely deprived of a prophet. He liked her too much, as one does one's fisrt love. All his energies would be spent on her.
>meets his first love at 38
>takes the rejection so hard he drops a shitton of opium and writes some of the greatest books ever written
I know his pain, it took me until I was 30 to meet mine. Too bad I'm not a genius like him so all I got from it was a mental breakdown and an appointment with a therapist.
Did you had sex with her?
No, she was married.
Ah. It seems to me that the bounds of marriage are way too serious and congealing to allow you an escape into genius. There was never a possibility of energy to be spent, never a build up, unlike Nietzsche case, in which he had plenty of energy to transumute. The circunstances of your life, as most of ours, are probably to rigid as well to allow a flowering.
Human female's vegana is disgusting. A dolphin's vegana is much more aesthetically pleasing.
Nietzsche is absolutely correct in saying that womanhood is disgusting.
>It's all plain and simple for the 19th century when women didn't know words like "Hollywood" and "feminism". Man was just replaced in this relationship.
Implying that Hollywood and feminism were not created by men, which in turn implies that women can create anything other than children.
Well, they were created by the other type of ~~*men*~~
If women as a whole are characterized by the worst examples of women - i.e. prostitutes - and bear collective responsibility for sharing a sex with them, then men as a whole are characterized by the ~~*men*~~ as well.
Otherwise it's such a pathetic b***h move:
>"All women are the same"
>"Nooooooo I'm not like those soulless money-worshipping nepotist date-raping pedophile banker israelites, I'M A DIFFERENT KIND OF A GUY"
I'm not comparing white women to negresses or israeliteesses. It's just quite clear that even white women are completely mind controlled by unnatural forces. It might be the same for most of the white men. But it still doesn't disprove what I said, men don't corrupt women because they don't have a claim on women anymore.
>men don't corrupt women because they don't have a claim on women anymore (Hollywood and feminism does)
>Hollywood and feminism hold a claim on women
>Hollywood and feminism were created and are controlled by men
>Therefore men don't have a claim on women anymore
Hollywood and feminism were created and controlled by societal forces, as was said above "unnatural forces" it's ridiculous to assign gender (an individual matter) this kind of collective power.
>a israelite makes a rape-golem
>rape golem rapes your wife
>you scream "why are men so evil?"
Nietzche was also terrified of Jesus, to the point he was essentially writing Jesus fan fiction in order to depict himself as the Anti-Christ. And yet he failed to see the reason why Christianity was originally so appealing to women was the symbol of the conquered man hanging on the cross as a sign that women are safe here.
>Wrote fan fiction about rabbi Yeshua
>Literally writes fan fiction about Nietzsche
Stop projecting, dumb Christcuck.
Advanced sexbots will solve all issues.
No, they may solve some but death WILL solve ALL issues so it's all good.
Would you trust a man with hair like that?
With my life bacause he looks wise
Some bald men oddly look cooler than their younger selves.
What a delight. Beautiful and concise writing from an impetuous mind.
This is how a real man thinks. It's only modern effeminate "men" who blame women for their shitty lives.
what a cuck lmao
Typical Black personfied zoomer queer.
Regular depth psychology stuff. Woman being influenced by her father figure, and shaping herself (unconsciously) from that. Same thing with men too, but with Mommy. It's really sad and tough to live with. I'm not a fan, personally.
Woman shapes herself after her mother too. Especially today when males are weak and women work.
Yes, but opposite sex influence is greater. Influence from the same sex parent is shadow stuff. Equally important, but much easier to deal with in daily life.
Yeah, but psychic residue of the Mother's influence has only a deterrent effect upon a man insofar as he far from manhood as such- insofar as he is therefore a boy. Women, however, are forever bounded to the Father's or masculine residue.
I love how chuds keep saying women were pure back then, and somehow it's the evil society who corrupted them LOL
The truth is that women are innately prostitutes. The only difference between back then and now is that women say in public how much they love being prostitutes.
A mother cradling her newborn is the most sublime of aesthetics. Let me guess, you're poor and seeing new mothers is a cause of distress for you.
He's sad shit logs aren't sliding down his throat. That really is disgusting that he can't experience woman without the disgusting and contemptible nature. He's saying frick nature because woman is ruined.
All women are just opportunists and all men only think about sex or how to cope with the lack of it; human nature is solved
>women are the reflection of men
>if women are behaving poorly its the men's fault
simp cuck mentality. if you believe this youre no different from a feminist
My god. How did this fricking thread became directed towards a debate about Tinder? This site is completely subverted.
I think this thread makes it explicit that men cannot be solely men anymore, they must always be, or become, 'men-towards-women', whether on public or privately, 'man-towards-woman' is the only healthy staple, the only one that is not abnormal. Consciously by the powers that be; engrained and impressed unconsciously upon men's psyche. There are no longer places or minds uninhabited by the parasitism of the female gaze. All male spaces are gone and dusted. Higher life, not even a possibility.
Is this what Nietzsche meant when speaking about the last man?
All of these quotes are boring esoteric nonsense. I have no idea what could compel anyone to see this as profound. Schopenhauer's writings on women are far more simple and accurate.
Nietzsche writings are convoluted for, unlike Schoppy, he wrote as a Poet rather than a Philosopher, ecstatically.
>Commonly held belief?
>Yeah the truf is actually LE OPPOSITE
That's like 99% of this c**t's "philosophy", the other 1% is seething at Wagner
What's good for the gander is not good for the ubergoose
Sounds like the whole “men are bawdmakers” argument
Why do men project so much of their sins onto women?
*not worth the effort.
Nevertheless there is a great deal in him that must be dismissed as
merely megalomaniac. Speaking of Spinoza he says: “How much of
personal timidity and vulnerability does this masquerade of a sickly
recluse betray!” Exactly the same may be said of him, with the less
reluctance since he has not hesitated to say it of Spinoza. It is obvious
that in his day-dreams he is a warrior, not a professor; all the men he
admires were military. His opinion of women, like every man’s, is an
objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously
one of fear. “Forget not thy whip”—but nine women out of ten would
get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from
women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks.
>nietzsche thread becomes a chud thread
Why does it keep happening?
He was a manlet proto-incel who fapped his life away and died of brain damage while being talent mogged by Wagner, obviously he hated women.
>le culture war buzzwords
Don't you homosexuals ever get tired of yourselves?
It is absolutely men who corrupt women, and if we as men want our women as a whole to be better, we must change what's valued in ourselves. It is absolutely ludicrous to bemoan the state of modern relationships and call women bawds and prostitutes if we as men turn around and lionize """"Chads"""" who have tons of casual sex. Much of the "free love" movement and its contemporary derivative isn't a statement on how great a social force mass casual sex is. It's a straight, reactionary position women rightfully take against the age-old double standard that men can be promiscuous while women should be chaste.
It's just that both men and women should be chaste. They attack the hypocrisy and in the process uplift a fundamentally fallacious assumption: that causal sex is anything but a social ill.
If you look at the wasteland of contemporary dating and want something better, don't focus on shaming women. SHAME THE MEN who use up young women and throw them away. Women WANT to find a man who's worthy of their love and support. The problem is that we men ourselves have been fooled into defining male desirability along hyper-social, hyper-sexual lines. Women look to men for guidance. Men define masculine desirability under standards the vast majority of men will never fulfill. Women look to men look to """"Chad"""". Everyone — EVERYONE — except """"Chad"""" suffers.
t. chad