Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:20 pm

Why do you have to keep calling me a he all the time? Then pretend you aren't a transphobe? You are a transphobe, admit it, I don't want to hear about your gobblededook about real or fake transsexuals. You just say you believe in "real" transsexuals to hurt my feelings, but really to you there are No real transsexuals and you call all transsexuals the wrong pronouns. Your inability to change is a sign of your own schizophrenia that you claim I have. I know this because you said "trannies are full of shit" in another thread, so don't pretend like you believe there are any "real" transsexuals out there.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1605
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:45 pm

Turd could quite easily refer to you as she but refuses to do so because of his religious views which are transphobic
He thinks transgenderism is only about genitalia but it is fundamentally about identity so is more than just biology
He should as a matter of respect use your pronoun of choice but we know he wont so try not to let him needle you

surreptitious57
Posts: 1605
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:49 pm

Turd every time that you deliberately refer to Trixie as he you are belittling her
Is this how a supposedly good Christian such as yourself should be behaving now

OuterLimits
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by OuterLimits » Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:55 pm

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:49 am
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:45 am
Your argument is fallacious because you go from talking about men in general to one specific man that you deliberately chose
And you failed to mention the fact that women are attracted to things other than physicality and one of those things is money
No, women just want money. And they want to get money easily. Using men is the easiest way to get money.
Women couldn't own credit cards before 1974. A culture where women want money from men is quite natural in the environment. How else are they going to get money? I think all your experience of life must come from listening to rap music.

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:31 pm

OuterLimits wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:55 pm
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:49 am
No, women just want money. And they want to get money easily. Using men is the easiest way to get money.
Women couldn't own credit cards before 1974. A culture where women want money from men is quite natural in the environment. How else are they going to get money? I think all your experience of life must come from listening to rap music.
It's natural in Africa for women to only want a man for his money. But white women used to be known for their compassion and love, willingness to marry a poor peasant man. Used to. And yes, your point about rap music is valid, but modern women love rap music, including modern white girls. Rap music is a reflection of African women's lust for money over love.

In short what I said still stands. Women are not sexually attracted to money. Women are sexually attracted to tall virile, rude males about 20 years old. Ie. Guy from Clockwork Orange. Women marry unnattractive men for their money because they just want money. And then they try to twist and warp themselves to pretend to enjoy it.

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:34 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:49 pm
Turd every time that you deliberately refer to Trixie as he you are belittling her
Is this how a supposedly good Christian such as yourself should be behaving now
Thankyou surrep. You're 'alright after all. :)

OuterLimits
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by OuterLimits » Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:46 pm

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:31 pm
In short what I said still stands. Women are not sexually attracted to money. Women are sexually attracted to tall virile, rude males about 20 years old. Ie. Guy from Clockwork Orange. Women marry unnattractive men for their money because they just want money. And then they try to twist and warp themselves to pretend to enjoy it.
A lot of generalizations seem to make perfect sense just looking in the US that don't pan out looking at Europe.

American culture has been quite corrupted in the past few decades by increasing economic inequality, and unregulated media getting eyeballs with trashy and false narratives, which become self-fulfilling.

There has in general been an evolutionary move in males to be softened and feminized with the rise of cooperative civilization.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/11944 ... zation.htm

This is partly due to the preferences of more sophisticated females, and also partly due to the social success of more sophisticated males.

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:43 pm

Actually, Christianity says very little about cross dressing and transgenderism, and my motivation isn't religious. For the umpteenth time, as I've had to point out many times in the past, Christianity didn't lay the foundation for the western monogamous marriage pacts (that started under Emperor Augustus, from the Stoic influence). Christians merely adopted Rome's sexual patterns, and those patterns evolved into Feudalism, and the absurdities you see with the abortive if you ever watch the showtime show, where you can tell it largely ran it's course and became something very different at the end of feudalism.

My main motivation for saying and insisting on Trixie being a male is because, he is a fucking male. That's his scientific categorization, and I'm quite analytic in my thinking. I'm also conservative in my use of names, I continued to call Trixie (a feminine name) Trixie after he changed his stupid name to a even dumber one, UPF 1001 (or whatever it was). I did this with others too, Smears stayed Smears, not Mr. Reasonable.

Nothing I am aware of in Christianity dictates I just either play along or reject Trixie, other than a emphasis on good Eoconomia. I don't think you go to hell for running a shitty household though, as Jesus offered both roads open, that of a pious household, good government officials with a ear to the needs of the community, and that of one completely dedicated and impoverished, following Christ. I've never once insisted Trixie follows the latter, and never forced Christianity on him. I've proposed following a path that results in gaining a woman, when he moans about reproductive unfairness or wanting a woman. My resulting discussions was purely pagan stoa positions. You gotta remember, the Stoics grew out of a pedophilic, homosexual culture who shifted over time to a increasingly monogamous one. They dropped all (well, most) of the sexual shenannagans after a while, and recommended for men who could support a wife but didn't really want one to buck up and do it anyway, as it was a vital, community necessity. Society wouldn't exist if people didn't have kids, and that they should lead.

Obviously, you picked up on this S57 when you pointed out I didn't need a big luxury trailer, as it was too much room for me (and it indeed is). As a former Cynic turned Stoic, I'm got to be naturally very conservative when it comes to displays of wealth or objects, have very few things. But I also agree with the logic if you can have a wife, to buck up and do so. They are fucking expensive, and bring all sorts of problems with them. But you should make the effort if you can, and this requires significant changes to work ethic and lifestyle. I wouldn't exist without my ancestors making that effort, only right to return the effort.

You like to view me exclusively in the prism of Christianity, but you fail to realize Christianity borrowed, and borrows still, inducting new ideas, from the world of philosophy. It always have, always will. It doesn't contradict Christianity mostly for encouraging people to have families (unless you become a monastic or bishop). It is highly compatible, the Jewish and early Christian world was steeped in the philosophical debate. We went with the noble life, the best ideas.

We generally don't insist you are hell bound for dressing or believing you are a woman, despite being a male. A Protestant might, but your Catholics and orthodox will point out, not from the Bible but from obvious facts of nature and psychology, that it is certainly not the case that you are a female, and we are quite content to leave sexual pronouns with the order that god left them within creation, as best we can understand them.... and your arguments and insistence isn't remotely close to the best arguments for what qualifies as sex. We had a scientific bent to the religion very, very early on. We didn't bullshit ourselves like other religions of the era did, as with Dea Syria. In that religion, Trixie would be a woman after ripping his cock off and throwing it on a fountain, and lounging around as a bitch, and as a priestess exhorting people to orgies around fish ponds.

It was a fucking stupid religion, and was mocked by the pagan romans, wasn't embraced by the Persians, and was hated by the Muslims. It required young women to prostitute themselves before marriage, and women couldn't stop prostitution until released by the authority of the temple (better hope you didn't look too good, bringing in too much money).

At no point in history, even when it was widely embraced, did they avoid getting mocked. Even in the most ancient of times, when cross dressers were regulated and protected, they were mocked. In asia, semi open acceptance, and still mocked. In India, mix of being seen as holy and ridiculed.

I look at the general mean for transvestites I've known, and their general apparent psychology, and go off that for a authentic cross dresser. Trixie doesn't remotely act like them,in fact he acts the opposite.

Difference however is I'm one of the few who openly embraces him. Yes, I call him a he, but the dialogue continues, and I got angry in the past when he was banned. Over on ILP, they are so very twisted as to shout him down, denounce him, but make the special heart warming effort to call him a her, despite obviously despising everything about him. What love and understanding, like a firing squad playing along with a delusion right before firing.

No, Trixie is a he. I don't call cats with male parts female and vice versa, I go off biology. I don't subscribe to macho or effeminacy theories of psychology transcending biology, and get annoyed when people taking up exercise like Manni decide since they are taking testosterone, they gotta act a macho ass. Testosterone doesn't do that, that's other chemicals like serotonin because they have high self esteem in relation to their old self and others. A lot of guys who are big, the Andre the Giant, do not play along with that description (and yes, I know HGH isn't T, but he also had massive amounts of T).

I'm just not inclined to play the stupid, false as shit, Liberal mindfuck game of guess my sex, and have no intention of fucking around and playing along once I know the truth of the matter. Trixie is a man, for now and forever, and I will never budge on this. Difference is, never means a lot more from me than others, as others will barely associate with him after doing a token effort to play along. They will find a way to hurt and squash you. I encourage you as a philosopher to live a better life, in accord with the truth of yourself. You are a male. In the end of every argument, you must always return to that fact. After every tirade, return to that fact, every drug induced depression, return to that fact, every morning you wake up and night you fall asleep, return to that fact. You are not impressing anyone with these games. You are simply a male. And I will talk to you today, and to,orrow, and the next day upon that recognition. The ones who baby you invariably toss you to the roadside when playing along with your favored delusions. It isn't the place of a philosopher to play along. We speak of truth, or reason, of the best of lives to lead, for individuals, for societies, and for civilizations. I'm sorry I cannot bottleneck myself into the psuedochristian beliefs modern liberal atheists hold about Christians, had you done a little more research you would of noted it was much more complex than first assumed. The mythology so often insisted upon doesn't usually apply to us. Sometimes, but it is increasingly rare, easier to concoct easy lies.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6312
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:16 pm

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:43 pm
Actually, Christianity says very little about cross dressing and transgenderism, and my motivation isn't religious. For the umpteenth time, as I've had to point out many times in the past, Christianity didn't lay the foundation for the western monogamous marriage pacts (that started under Emperor Augustus, from the Stoic influence). Christians merely adopted Rome's sexual patterns, and those patterns evolved into Feudalism, and the absurdities you see with the abortive if you ever watch the showtime show, where you can tell it largely ran it's course and became something very different at the end of feudalism.

My main motivation for saying and insisting on Trixie being a male is because, he is a fucking male. That's his scientific categorization, and I'm quite analytic in my thinking. I'm also conservative in my use of names, I continued to call Trixie (a feminine name) Trixie after he changed his stupid name to a even dumber one, UPF 1001 (or whatever it was). I did this with others too, Smears stayed Smears, not Mr. Reasonable.

Nothing I am aware of in Christianity dictates I just either play along or reject Trixie, other than a emphasis on good Eoconomia. I don't think you go to hell for running a shitty household though, as Jesus offered both roads open, that of a pious household, good government officials with a ear to the needs of the community, and that of one completely dedicated and impoverished, following Christ. I've never once insisted Trixie follows the latter, and never forced Christianity on him. I've proposed following a path that results in gaining a woman, when he moans about reproductive unfairness or wanting a woman. My resulting discussions was purely pagan stoa positions. You gotta remember, the Stoics grew out of a pedophilic, homosexual culture who shifted over time to a increasingly monogamous one. They dropped all (well, most) of the sexual shenannagans after a while, and recommended for men who could support a wife but didn't really want one to buck up and do it anyway, as it was a vital, community necessity. Society wouldn't exist if people didn't have kids, and that they should lead.

Obviously, you picked up on this S57 when you pointed out I didn't need a big luxury trailer, as it was too much room for me (and it indeed is). As a former Cynic turned Stoic, I'm got to be naturally very conservative when it comes to displays of wealth or objects, have very few things. But I also agree with the logic if you can have a wife, to buck up and do so. They are fucking expensive, and bring all sorts of problems with them. But you should make the effort if you can, and this requires significant changes to work ethic and lifestyle. I wouldn't exist without my ancestors making that effort, only right to return the effort.

You like to view me exclusively in the prism of Christianity, but you fail to realize Christianity borrowed, and borrows still, inducting new ideas, from the world of philosophy. It always have, always will. It doesn't contradict Christianity mostly for encouraging people to have families (unless you become a monastic or bishop). It is highly compatible, the Jewish and early Christian world was steeped in the philosophical debate. We went with the noble life, the best ideas.

We generally don't insist you are hell bound for dressing or believing you are a woman, despite being a male. A Protestant might, but your Catholics and orthodox will point out, not from the Bible but from obvious facts of nature and psychology, that it is certainly not the case that you are a female, and we are quite content to leave sexual pronouns with the order that god left them within creation, as best we can understand them.... and your arguments and insistence isn't remotely close to the best arguments for what qualifies as sex. We had a scientific bent to the religion very, very early on. We didn't bullshit ourselves like other religions of the era did, as with Dea Syria. In that religion, Trixie would be a woman after ripping his cock off and throwing it on a fountain, and lounging around as a bitch, and as a priestess exhorting people to orgies around fish ponds.

It was a fucking stupid religion, and was mocked by the pagan romans, wasn't embraced by the Persians, and was hated by the Muslims. It required young women to prostitute themselves before marriage, and women couldn't stop prostitution until released by the authority of the temple (better hope you didn't look too good, bringing in too much money).

At no point in history, even when it was widely embraced, did they avoid getting mocked. Even in the most ancient of times, when cross dressers were regulated and protected, they were mocked. In asia, semi open acceptance, and still mocked. In India, mix of being seen as holy and ridiculed.

I look at the general mean for transvestites I've known, and their general apparent psychology, and go off that for a authentic cross dresser. Trixie doesn't remotely act like them,in fact he acts the opposite.

Difference however is I'm one of the few who openly embraces him. Yes, I call him a he, but the dialogue continues, and I got angry in the past when he was banned. Over on ILP, they are so very twisted as to shout him down, denounce him, but make the special heart warming effort to call him a her, despite obviously despising everything about him. What love and understanding, like a firing squad playing along with a delusion right before firing.

No, Trixie is a he. I don't call cats with male parts female and vice versa, I go off biology. I don't subscribe to macho or effeminacy theories of psychology transcending biology, and get annoyed when people taking up exercise like Manni decide since they are taking testosterone, they gotta act a macho ass. Testosterone doesn't do that, that's other chemicals like serotonin because they have high self esteem in relation to their old self and others. A lot of guys who are big, the Andre the Giant, do not play along with that description (and yes, I know HGH isn't T, but he also had massive amounts of T).

I'm just not inclined to play the stupid, false as shit, Liberal mindfuck game of guess my sex, and have no intention of fucking around and playing along once I know the truth of the matter. Trixie is a man, for now and forever, and I will never budge on this. Difference is, never means a lot more from me than others, as others will barely associate with him after doing a token effort to play along. They will find a way to hurt and squash you. I encourage you as a philosopher to live a better life, in accord with the truth of yourself. You are a male. In the end of every argument, you must always return to that fact. After every tirade, return to that fact, every drug induced depression, return to that fact, every morning you wake up and night you fall asleep, return to that fact. You are not impressing anyone with these games. You are simply a male. And I will talk to you today, and to,orrow, and the next day upon that recognition. The ones who baby you invariably toss you to the roadside when playing along with your favored delusions. It isn't the place of a philosopher to play along. We speak of truth, or reason, of the best of lives to lead, for individuals, for societies, and for civilizations. I'm sorry I cannot bottleneck myself into the psuedochristian beliefs modern liberal atheists hold about Christians, had you done a little more research you would of noted it was much more complex than first assumed. The mythology so often insisted upon doesn't usually apply to us. Sometimes, but it is increasingly rare, easier to concoct easy lies.
No one cares.

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:34 pm

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:43 pm
Actually, Christianity says very little about cross dressing and transgenderism, and my motivation isn't religious. For the umpteenth time, as I've had to point out many times in the past, Christianity didn't lay the foundation for the western monogamous marriage pacts (that started under Emperor Augustus, from the Stoic influence). Christians merely adopted Rome's sexual patterns, and those patterns evolved into Feudalism, and the absurdities you see with the abortive if you ever watch the showtime show, where you can tell it largely ran it's course and became something very different at the end of feudalism.

My main motivation for saying and insisting on Trixie being a male is because, he is a fucking male. That's his scientific categorization, and I'm quite analytic in my thinking. I'm also conservative in my use of names, I continued to call Trixie (a feminine name) Trixie after he changed his stupid name to a even dumber one, UPF 1001 (or whatever it was). I did this with others too, Smears stayed Smears, not Mr. Reasonable.

Nothing I am aware of in Christianity dictates I just either play along or reject Trixie, other than a emphasis on good Eoconomia. I don't think you go to hell for running a shitty household though, as Jesus offered both roads open, that of a pious household, good government officials with a ear to the needs of the community, and that of one completely dedicated and impoverished, following Christ. I've never once insisted Trixie follows the latter, and never forced Christianity on him. I've proposed following a path that results in gaining a woman, when he moans about reproductive unfairness or wanting a woman. My resulting discussions was purely pagan stoa positions. You gotta remember, the Stoics grew out of a pedophilic, homosexual culture who shifted over time to a increasingly monogamous one. They dropped all (well, most) of the sexual shenannagans after a while, and recommended for men who could support a wife but didn't really want one to buck up and do it anyway, as it was a vital, community necessity. Society wouldn't exist if people didn't have kids, and that they should lead.

Obviously, you picked up on this S57 when you pointed out I didn't need a big luxury trailer, as it was too much room for me (and it indeed is). As a former Cynic turned Stoic, I'm got to be naturally very conservative when it comes to displays of wealth or objects, have very few things. But I also agree with the logic if you can have a wife, to buck up and do so. They are fucking expensive, and bring all sorts of problems with them. But you should make the effort if you can, and this requires significant changes to work ethic and lifestyle. I wouldn't exist without my ancestors making that effort, only right to return the effort.

You like to view me exclusively in the prism of Christianity, but you fail to realize Christianity borrowed, and borrows still, inducting new ideas, from the world of philosophy. It always have, always will. It doesn't contradict Christianity mostly for encouraging people to have families (unless you become a monastic or bishop). It is highly compatible, the Jewish and early Christian world was steeped in the philosophical debate. We went with the noble life, the best ideas.

We generally don't insist you are hell bound for dressing or believing you are a woman, despite being a male. A Protestant might, but your Catholics and orthodox will point out, not from the Bible but from obvious facts of nature and psychology, that it is certainly not the case that you are a female, and we are quite content to leave sexual pronouns with the order that god left them within creation, as best we can understand them.... and your arguments and insistence isn't remotely close to the best arguments for what qualifies as sex. We had a scientific bent to the religion very, very early on. We didn't bullshit ourselves like other religions of the era did, as with Dea Syria. In that religion, Trixie would be a woman after ripping his cock off and throwing it on a fountain, and lounging around as a bitch, and as a priestess exhorting people to orgies around fish ponds.

It was a fucking stupid religion, and was mocked by the pagan romans, wasn't embraced by the Persians, and was hated by the Muslims. It required young women to prostitute themselves before marriage, and women couldn't stop prostitution until released by the authority of the temple (better hope you didn't look too good, bringing in too much money).

At no point in history, even when it was widely embraced, did they avoid getting mocked. Even in the most ancient of times, when cross dressers were regulated and protected, they were mocked. In asia, semi open acceptance, and still mocked. In India, mix of being seen as holy and ridiculed.

I look at the general mean for transvestites I've known, and their general apparent psychology, and go off that for a authentic cross dresser. Trixie doesn't remotely act like them,in fact he acts the opposite.

Difference however is I'm one of the few who openly embraces him. Yes, I call him a he, but the dialogue continues, and I got angry in the past when he was banned. Over on ILP, they are so very twisted as to shout him down, denounce him, but make the special heart warming effort to call him a her, despite obviously despising everything about him. What love and understanding, like a firing squad playing along with a delusion right before firing.

No, Trixie is a he. I don't call cats with male parts female and vice versa, I go off biology. I don't subscribe to macho or effeminacy theories of psychology transcending biology, and get annoyed when people taking up exercise like Manni decide since they are taking testosterone, they gotta act a macho ass. Testosterone doesn't do that, that's other chemicals like serotonin because they have high self esteem in relation to their old self and others. A lot of guys who are big, the Andre the Giant, do not play along with that description (and yes, I know HGH isn't T, but he also had massive amounts of T).

I'm just not inclined to play the stupid, false as shit, Liberal mindfuck game of guess my sex, and have no intention of fucking around and playing along once I know the truth of the matter. Trixie is a man, for now and forever, and I will never budge on this. Difference is, never means a lot more from me than others, as others will barely associate with him after doing a token effort to play along. They will find a way to hurt and squash you. I encourage you as a philosopher to live a better life, in accord with the truth of yourself. You are a male. In the end of every argument, you must always return to that fact. After every tirade, return to that fact, every drug induced depression, return to that fact, every morning you wake up and night you fall asleep, return to that fact. You are not impressing anyone with these games. You are simply a male. And I will talk to you today, and to,orrow, and the next day upon that recognition. The ones who baby you invariably toss you to the roadside when playing along with your favored delusions. It isn't the place of a philosopher to play along. We speak of truth, or reason, of the best of lives to lead, for individuals, for societies, and for civilizations. I'm sorry I cannot bottleneck myself into the psuedochristian beliefs modern liberal atheists hold about Christians, had you done a little more research you would of noted it was much more complex than first assumed. The mythology so often insisted upon doesn't usually apply to us. Sometimes, but it is increasingly rare, easier to concoct easy lies.
Turd, you are a total psychopath, and a party pooper. Actually the definition of a psychopath is a party pooper.
I already know I am male, that is why it is called male-to-female. I want to be female. You're not winning any awards here. You keep projecting your hypermasculinity on me. I get you are a man, and you want to convert everybody into a man, and drag them down with you. But you don't understand, I don't want to be you, I don't want to be anything like you. You are disgusting to me and beyond rude.

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:59 am

A psychopathic party pooper can still be 100% correct. And if you grasped my position, you would grasp masculinity, not to mention hypermasculinty, is a farce. You embrace the norms to the extent of being regarded as a proper mate to the opposite sex. You remember how I broke Eric of his Nietzschean beliefs in macho warriors when he was writing the book he never finished? I took a position dramaticallg different from what you are proportion, destroying the idea of hypermasculinity as just a closeted, extroverted homosexual culture amongst gang members of a set range of personality types.

It was enough to snap him out of Nietzsche and turn him from a straight Nietzschean into a gay Christian (I'm still a bit confused about the status of the "success" of that, but he dropped the warrior sword swinging aryan Teutonic Knights bullshit. I wasn't aiming at converting him so much as to snap the shit at of his ideology. Who knew he would so radically switch over once grasping what I was saying was right?

Have I tried to ungay him? Nope. Have I tried force him back into masculinization? Nope, cause too often the ones pushing the masculine ideal are ubergays. I only encourage adopting the culture as far as getting a mate able to reproduce with. Anything done intentionally beyond that, in getting and maintaining a mate, is silly narcissism. Most of what you do is silly narcissism, bullshit stuff. I can generally care less about such things, save in raising kids. Boys shoots guns, girls play with dolls in the stages between toddler to grade school. After that, don't care, kids go through stages, fashion subject to fashion trends. A man seeking a woman should seek to dress as women expect and respect, and vice versa. Everyone should be encouraged towards a heterosexual norm of culture in their youth, so as to achieve the maximum reproductive potential amongst them. People rejecting reproduction and wanting a counterculture are selfish and parasitic, they take up jobs that should go to families bread winners, take up housing, use up medical care. If kept in a minority of a robust economy, with ample population to support them, it is very easy to support a minority rejecting generational reproduction, but if you have a large chunk of society occupying the most cherished and fought over positions in society, forcing breeders into subservient positions, that's just going to weaken the human race long term for very selfish reasons. The future must come first, respect for the continuation of ancestral bloodlines, pushing them foreward into the people. I absolutely don't advocate a preferred race, I prefer people choosing whoever is best on the basis of love and attraction. This makes the best babies usually, no categories of race or ethnicity should bar this. But jerkoff concepts like synthetic sexes, or equal sexual rights Im opposed to. I don't think men should get as much maternity leave and benifits for their person as a man, as they can't carry a child and give birth. You make the allowances to women on the basis of reality. Their actual biology. Men with children shouldn't be fired on a equal basis as childless men, if all other things are equal, because they have mouths to feed. This is reality, the pain is spread farther, and it can trickle down and hurt more generations than just this one employee. The dependent children are factual, real.

I'm not a supporter of pure equality, but rather pragmatic fairness. I'm not going to put the success of the generational progression, of parents handing off to children, at risk cause some theorists who try to do everything they can to force equality on the basis of situations unnatural and against the common good, to have full balanced equality. I wouldn't issue emergency rations by quantity based on one ration per address.... Imwould issue them one ration per stomach. A asshole living alone shouldn't get food for three, while a family of 5 starves, because some liberal got a judge to define equality of food access during emergencies on the basis of registered addresses, every address getting equal treatment. A address might have limited de jure status per situations for government and non-government use, but no sane administer is going to say that is the universal standard to judge the rest of society by. It is a shitty category for many things that are crucial to human survival.

I don't think most of the stuff floating around gender bending is useful at all to government or society. If you are starving, a tranny has one stomach, as that is a anatomical fact. I'm not going to give a tranny in a refugee shelter tampons, or old women for that matter, when younger valid, real bond fide women need it. I don't care about accusation of sexism, or transphobia, or inequality, or a jabbering of French terms, I just don't give a damn, and cries of forcing hypermasculinity on others would go unnoticed as I just don't generally view the world in such a way. You do, not me.

You are a guy. Period.

Actually, speaking of periods, if you start to get your period, don't revel in the blood as proof you're a female. Go to the hospital, you need antibiotics, perhaps surgery to fix internal bleeding. You can potentially die from it. It would not be a indicator of hyperfeminity or femininity on your part finally taking root.

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:14 pm

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:59 am
You are a guy. Period.
I was biologically born male. I have a penis. I can make babies, theoretically. But my brain is not like a typical male. I always wanted to wear frilly clothes, and I never felt comfortable around masculine males at the basketball court. Also, when I talk to some females, many of them have the same vocal mannerisms as me and feel the same about Hollywood movies as I do. Literally the only difference is I like porn more than they do. I'm not asking for tampons, and I am a greater contributer to society than any cis-gender. I am a DaVinci of my day. It is people like me that invent things like space-travel, great video-games and free-energy. It is people like me that abolish barbaric entities like the Prison System. I do not want to be fat so I don't ask for 3 meals, all I ask is for 1 meal with maybe seconds.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1605
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:07 pm

Turd do you think it is possible for someone like Trixie to be biologically male but psychologically female
If you do not then can you explain why some biological males want to transition to female because they
think they were born into the wrong body. Equally so biological females who want to transition to male

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:34 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:07 pm
Turd do you think it is possible for someone like Trixie to be biologically male but psychologically female
If you do not then can you explain why some biological males want to transition to female because they
think they were born into the wrong body. Equally so biological females who want to transition to male
My guess is, it's all about aesthetics and taste. Feminity is like a magical enchantment fairy tale. Masculinity is like, being a dickwad. Feminity is about looking beautiful. Masculinity is about looking ugly. I think Mtfs have a taste for looking beautiful. And Ftms want to look ugly because they dont like guys flirting at them. Ftms dont want to feel magical or enchanted. And Mtfs want to feel magical, fairie like and enchanted. This I think is what it all comes down to.
This doesnt mean Mtfs are good artists. Many are shit artists with bad taste, but just can't stand looking like an ugly man. Personally, I enjoy slightly being a dickwad, but I dont want to look like a dick, and I also want to feel happy and enchanted, not emotionless and male. At other times, I just want to be a good person, not a dickwad, and feel sorry I was ever a dickwad. Therefore I am a bit androgynous, because I love competition, leaning towards more female though because my soul is female. I am a jealous empath, typically female qualities, jealousy and empathy. Adagio Dazzle (my avatar) loves competition, competition is feminine, it is joy at the social gathering of fun souls, it is a very feminine experience, this is why males are attracted to it, males are attracted to females. This all goes to my feminine energies thread, it explains everything. My masculinity is a a mask I use, to protect my sacred feminity.

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:54 pm

Well, as you know S57, I watched not too long ago the movie "The Lobster", which coupled with "Children Without Men" convinced me of the necessity of the UN ordering a nuclear strike on the English just to end the problem now before it is too late.

Little kids think they are super heroes, that some sort of vatalism can give them the power to change into a superhero. As adults, we know we can turn people into Lobsters, or Spidermen. Merely wearing the suit and learning physics doesn't make you Spider-Man.

Traumatic pressures can cause you to push off into a identity that isn't rooted in yourself, pure fantasy. A good movie to watch about this is the movie "Everything Is Illuminated"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l-hCtlNM32M

The old blind taxi driver lives in a little fantasy world to repress some nastiness that shook the foundations of his identity, how he oriented to the larger world, would allow them to see him. It started showing up in other absurdities in his life as well (blind taxi driver).

Now, as for a man who has aspects (and only aspects, male body has a fully female brain in it) of a female brain..... then yeah, aspects will play out differently, but it isn't likely at all to play out with a lot of the roles we have culturally for males and females. Note I've always denounced displays of feminine and masculine behaviors and modes of dress as mostly made up, culturally agreed upon. If a man had a female aspect of mind, it could just as easily express itself as talkative like in how only woman can speak forever, or not as overtly combative/controlling. This might show up as slightly gay, or might not. If you are a public speaker, like the sham wow guy, you could be completely straight and be a excellent businessman, and be a man. Identity of sex won't come from those nuances. You could turn gay though easier.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest