[radical-revolution]

[hibou088]

So what do women want ???? Women are the ones hating chastity and purity the most yet simultaneously complain about rampant sexualization. What does "sexual independence" even mean ? Almost 60 years the sexual revolution, we have seen the aftereffects of this "independence" and where did that lead us ? Naked females are everywhere, everything is sexualized, porn is more and more degrading and criminal, kinks are now considered normal, objectification can't hardly be escaped. What is so wrong with wanting to be (or become) chaste or even having "never being touched" ? I genuinely want to understand. Why is this something that must be so heavily criticized ? Women's "liberation" will never come through sexual independence, it can only come through independence from sex and lust altogether.

That is precisely why "Women's spirituality" is mostly garbage because it is always about "divine feminity", "sex magic", "the power of the womb" etc... These women attribute too much significance to their biology and not enough to their intellectual abilities because it requires no real effort and no introspection. You'll always come to a dead end with the majority of self proclaimed "spiritual" women because their end goal will always be sex with males and being sexually appealing. Plus, I would add that "not married / not belonging to a man" would have to be synonymous with being chaste since sexual relations were expected to happen withing mariage... Anyways, you can't hate on anything that is against lust and then complain about society's chaotic state.

[hibou088]

"Silences are of different kinds. There is the silence between two sounds, the silence between two notes, and the silence that expands in the interval between two thoughts. There is that particular, tranquil, penetrating silence that comes on certain evenings in the countryside. There is the silence of an old, deserted house, and the silence of a mountain; the silence between two human beings when they have seen the same thing, felt the same way, and acted.

A meditative mind is silent. It is not a silence that thought can conceive; This is not the silence of a quiet evening; it is the total silence that occurs when thought ceases, with all its images, words, and perceptions. This meditative mind is the religious mind; the one whose religion is untouched by churches, temples, and their chants. The religious mind is the explosion of love. This love knows no separation. For it, the distant is very near. In it, there is neither the individual nor the number, but rather a state in which there is no vision. Like beauty, it does not belong to the measurable world of words. The meditative mind draws its power solely from this silence." (Krishnamurti, The Revolution of Silence, pp. 40 and 143.)

[hibou088]

It is not an unwritten Twitter rule but an unwritten societal rule. And it is true.

Women will criticize males for being "porn addicts" and perverts yet when THEY do the same, it suddenly becomes "empowering" and "healthy". For instance, video vixens were criticized because they embodied a degrading image of women. Yet, now Sabrina Carpenter and Cardi B are doing the exact same thing, but since the objectification comes from themselves and not directly from males, it is lauded.

Sex, porn, lust and objectification are bad whether it comes from women or men. Period.

Anybody making excuses for women being perverts (whether they are lesbian or heterosexual) is evil and has an agenda.

[unrepressed-purity]

Prostitution is the world's oldest "profession". For the entirety of human history there has always existed a permanent underclass of "un-rapeable" women.

No man wants to abolish the caste system that is womanhood. To the male collective "un-rapeable" women must always exist for them to abuse without shame or legal repercussions.

While feminists waste time trying to reform heterosexuality, men are busy trying to re-expand the category of "un-rapeable" woman. And they're appropriating all the feminist, therapy, progressive, spiritual/religious, scientific, talking points to do it. Men have been listening and adapting their speech and behavior to keep the status quo whilst giving a shallow illusion of "progress".

I wish male reformist feminist could see that women like them have always existed. They're doing nothing new. And they've already failed multiple generations of girls. And that acknowledging reality and making predictions based on past patterns isn't doomerism its a survival skill.

[hibou088]

The sexual revolution has run its course, satiety has set in, and a new phenomenon has emerged in the world: anti-sex. And although magazines and television continue to promote the cult of regular intimate relations, many are ready to renounce them. And not just temporarily, but permanently. Some scientists are seriously considering the emergence of a “fourth gender” coexisting with heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals.

Antisexuals describe themselves as people who have consciously chosen a life without sexuality. Some have never had sexual relations, but most adherents of the movement once had an active sex life before becoming disillusioned. “Don’t confuse us with the impotent. We can, but we don’t want to,” states a manifesto published online.

Some antisexuals are repelled by the sight of a naked male (or female) body, the sensation of another person’s saliva in their mouth during a kiss, and other physiological characteristics of carnal love. Others base their position on a philosophical approach, arguing that sex masks individuality. Russia’s most famous anti-sex activist, Yuri Nesterenko, claims that sex is a drug, characterized by addiction, withdrawal symptoms, and uncontrollable behavior.

Nesterenko, in particular, argues that sex is harmful to human health and mental well-being, contributes to crime, and is the root cause of most social conflicts, including wars. He defines sex as a mental illness, more specifically a paranoid psychosis. Therefore, the sooner humanity gets rid of it, the better for everyone. Nesterenko divides proponents of a sexless life into two camps: asexuals and antisexuals. Although both are opposed to intimacy, the latter adopt an active stance, meaning they are willing to promote their ideas within society and seek their acceptance.

[insaniquariumfish]

Suffering is the one subject where the more personal experience you have and the more qualified you are to speak on it, the less seriously people take you. "You're only an antinatalist because you've had a miserable life surrounded by miserable people!" Um, yeah. That's exactly right. How exactly does my being intimately aware of how horrible suffering can be and how severely it can impact people make my perspective on it less legitimate? Would you tell a disabled person, or somone who worked with disabled people, who was advocating for better community support for disabled people, that their views were irrationally skewed because they themselves were disabled, or because they were too involved with others who were disabled? Would you tell someone who was critical of capitalism, because of all of the poverty they've witnessed as a result of it, that they're too biased by their concern for the poor to have a reasonable take on the issue? Would you tell someone who went through the foster care system, and felt that we should improve it, that they only felt that way because they personally were a victim of it, implying that their victimhood did not itself constitute legitimate evidence towards the foster care system's failures?

"You only think the way you do about X because you're a personal victim of X/you've witnessed so much harm caused by X, and your thoughts on X are therefore invalid" is the most blatantly unempathetic and moronic take possible on anything, but this is the exact "argument" I get from people whenever the X in question is suffering itself. It's the same "argument" that is used to shut down criticism of ideologies ("you only hate religion because it harmed you and/or other people"), political beliefs ("you only disagree with X policy because it harms you and/or other people"), and unjust systems of all kinds ("you only want things to be different because the status quo harms you and/or other people"). Like, yeah, you're right, I do only have the perspective I do because harm is being caused and harm is wrong and bad. That's called having empathy. If I can go through something so awful that it makes my life not worth living, then I don't even need to see firsthand how others might suffer, I just know already that other people can suffer that much, because I am human and other people are human, too, and that knowledge would be enough to go off of on its own. But I'm not just relying on my personal experience, I'm also taking into account the suffering I have seen others endure, both firsthand and indirectly, and again it's called having empathy. I understand that other people's pain is just as significant as, and is equally as unjust as, my own pain. Every person who endures decades of torment is just as much a victim as I would be if I went through the same thing. They are just as underserving of their fates as I would be if I were them.

I truly think that the thing that separates antinatalists from pronatalists at the end of the day is their capacity for empathy. Even pronatalists who are dedicated to making the world a better place are unwilling to earnestly acknowledge how wretched the world they are trying to improve really is, and the true human cost of that wretchedness being perpetuated, even if only indirectly. They see nothing wrong with new people being subjected to the very evils they have dedicated themselves to fighting. And they see nothing wrong with saddling their own children with the burden of at once being victim to, and participating in, that battle. They whine and rant about how awful the things they and others are subjected to are, they are profusely vocal about the horrors and evils that they have dedicated themselves to exposing and combating, and yet, in their minds, even the most vile manifestations of those evils are not so evil that they warrant preventing others from being able to fall victim to them in the first place. In their minds, there simply is no amount of suffering so severe, or kind of suffering so heinous, that it is not excused or justified or balanced out when the scale is zoomed out and it is considered as part of the larger whole. Life is hell, they'll say, right up until you insist that hell is no place for a child, and then, suddenly, life is a gift. Their empathy, no matter how fervent it may seem, is ultimately shallow and superficial, easily overpowered by their desire to deny the true horror and weight of suffering.

[himalayaan-flowers]

it really is not as simple as "if you don't like being alive, you can leave"

- it's very hard to overcome the survival instinct, even if you want to die

- chances are you have been told at some point by someone religious you'll go to hell if you end your own life, and even if you don't believe any more it doesn't mean it doesn't still affect you

- someone is likely to be traumatised by your death e.g you may have been told the worst thing a parent can ever go through is the loss of a child - especially by suicide

- access to peaceful, reliable methods is very difficult for many people - you could go through a lot of pain, fail and end up permanently damaged

- euthanasia / assisted suicide is expensive

- you're unlikely to be accepted by euthanasia / assisted suicide clinics for "mental illness" - they will want you to have gone through many treatments before they will consider you

(i understand there are some previously suicidal people who are glad they got professional support and are glad they didn't end their lives. some people have suffered intensely for a long time, and don't want to have to gamble on countless treatments on the offchance something might help. increased access to effective mental health treatment is a good thing, but the point is there are people suffering deeply right now who don't want to wait on the offchance in the distant future something may possibly help. i don't think anyone should be pressured into ending their life, and i appreciate there is a risk of this happening and measures need taking to help reduce that risk)

as someone with "mental illness" (a term i don't really like, as it tends to be associated with having a lack of capacity or logical thinking, which I don't think is true in my case) I WISH my parents had not had me, or at least had knowledge of mental health conditions / neurodiversity before doing so. I don't know if it had been "caught early" if things might have been different, but the longer you've suffered with something the more difficult recovery becomes, and not everyone wants to be forced to try every treatment under the sun whilst suffering deeply in the meantime.

i just think bringing children into a world where they are not allowed to leave if they hate it here is too big a risk to take. mental health is still poorly understood. you can't guarantee that your child will be happy. and having an unhappy child is painful for the parents as well as the child.

[unrepressed-purity]

When are we allowed to say that sex education, therapy, feminist consciousness raising, has failed to reduce sexual abuse?

The language around sexual abuse has changed a lot in my life time, and yet I am still surrounded by traumatized women. I see women a decade plus younger than me telling very similar stories of harrassment and abuse that my aunties would tell me when I was a child. Why is that?

How many different kinds of rape are men going to invent? (Date rape, marital rape, child rape, coercive rape, rape by deception, maintenance sex, sex work etc..) How many slogans and acronyms about consent are women going to invent? (No-means-no, consent-is-sexy, my-body-my-choice, FRIES, CRISP)

For how long are women going watch men create new psychological jargon and refurbish ancient religious dogma to pathologize women for saying no? For how long are women going to sit and watch men use every new advancement in technology to find new ways to prey and abuse women?

How many generations of women are going to ritualistically trauma bond with each other about being sexual abused? Exactly how many Epsteins and Giseles must exist before we're allowed to question the inherent goodness/neutrality of human sexuality?

When will it be socially acceptable to question the utility and morality of human sexuality regardless of it's alleged normalcy and naturalness? Never?

[mojavedoll]

not all angels are in heaven. for example i’m mostly at home

[unrepressed-purity]

Why call men unevolved animals?

I want to clarify my stance. I don't like it when feminists bash men just to get a kick out of feeling morally superior and to uplift their fragile egos.

I think it's kind of pathetic to feel superior to others because you don't desire to sexually abuse people. Not sexually abusing people should be seen as the bare minimum of being a decent person, not a flex.

I am not calling men unevolved animals to indirectly uplift my own and other women's egos.

I think men should be called unevolved animals because:

1. The majority of males consistently state they think sex is a non-negotiable need.

2. Males consistently refer to/compare themselves as animals in relation to sex.

3. Males have consistently demonstrated they cannot have access to children without systematically physically and sexually abusing them.

Compared to women who

1. Show varied opinions on sex. While some women do view sex as a need, a lot of women think of it as merely a desire. And a significant portion of us find it incredibly easy and preferable to abstain from sex, masturbation, and porn entirely.

2. Women consistently romanticize and "humanize" sexual activity. A significant portion of women claim to view sex as an expression of love, intimacy, and spiritual connection. I think this is stupid, but whatever.

3. We are the only ones trying to prevent CSA. Women sexually and physically abuse children too, and I don't want to pretend otherwise, however, we are also the only ones who are earnestly trying to protect children.

A lot of men who "advocate" for children and put on a big performance of hating pedophiles are just predators themselves.

I just wish women who truly care about the safety and wellbeing of ourselves and children to wake up. Humanizing males does not reduce or prevent harm, it just encourages more women to naively believe its acceptable to allow men even more access to children.

"They're humans. They can control themselves. They just choose not to." How many more children are women willing to sacrifice in order to prove this theory?

I think if humans want to consider ourselves as more evolved than animals, we should be doing a better job at protecting our youngest and most vulnerable members from unnecessary suffering. The majority of males have proven themselves incapable, indifferent, and antagonistic to this cause, so the responsibility lies with women.

[hibou088]

It's crazy how offended straight women get when we point this out

There has been a drama on twitter recently, about how sex is inherently degrading for women (especially), since we always use words like fucked, cracked, ruined, railed ect.. And how the person getting fucked is always the one with less power then the one doing the fucking, people got so mad and claimed that its just a puritan take, and that's not how real life sex works, the partner ''doesnt'' see them as inferior, but if you think about it, the person getting fucked will always be inferior you can't just cope your way out of it by saying they're actually the ones in control, they aren't, it's all about power, someone HAS to be the weak one, and the other HAS to dominate and ruin the submissive one. So many delusional women continue to disagree with objective truth. A dad is proud of his son who FUCKED many girls, but he wouldn't be proud of his daughter who GOT FUCKED by many boys. it's just different and they know it deep down but no one dares to say it out loud, sex is degrading especially for the ''weak submissive" side. If women accepted reality, they would realize that the attention and kindness they receive from heterosexual men has nothing to do with their personality and humanity, and everything to do with the sexual benefits men receive from their acceptance of beauty standards and subjugation.

[unrepressed-purity]

Sexuals are incredibly stubborn. If not even the threat of literal cancer, HIV, various infections, unwanted pregnancy, and rape cannot discourage women from having sex, what can?

Women who can easily decide to risk death in exchange for something as cheap and shallow as male attention, never had any self esteem or inner sense of dignity to begin with.

I suspect that all women who love romanticizing sex are full of crap. They all know that sex is a traumatizing humiliation ritual but they're too rightfully embarrassed to defend their masochism publicly. They're just pretending they want men to respect them in the bedroom; a woman who truly desired respect wouldn't want a lustful man anywhere in her presence.

[rarestsparkle]

Growth can also look like:

No longer being entertained by what once distracted you. No longer being impressed by what once intimidated you. No longer being reachable by what once controlled you.

[without-ado]

Full Moon in April l Seong Mo Lee

[unrepressed-purity]

If men aren't unevolved animals why aren't they EVER holding themselves accountable for their collective abuse of children? Why do they need a multi-generational international feminist re-education campaign in order to "stop"? Meanwhile, they NEVER have any problems collaborating and organizing to profit off of the abuse of children.

Women are not without fault, but we do police each other, especially when it comes to our treatment of children. Women love shaming and micro-policing female caretakers. Female outrage is the ONLY reason it's not socially acceptable to overtly abuse children publicly.

While males have their "bro-code" and are ALWAYS conveniently "unaware" of the child predators in their social circles.

If men aren't unevolved animals, why do we even need an age of consent?

Why do men need the threat of life in jail, the death penalty, and an eternity in hell to de-incentivize them from sexually abusing vulnerable children? And even with all these negative consequences it's not enough to stop them! They just start importing children from another country to abuse.

Why do they need they need sex education in order not to sexually abuse their siblings and classmates out of ignorance? And even with the sex education they don't stop abusing their peers they just become more saavy on how to conceal it?

"We must hold men accountable!"

Maybe women struggle to hold men accountable, because men: cannot be held accountable. Idk, Maybe the simplest more obvious answers are correct??

Why should we tie ourselves into knots to see male "humanity"? It's not like men even appreciate it. Call a man a savage beast and watch him take it as a compliment. Call a man a human capable of empathy and kindness and watch him try not to gag.

[hibou088]

"As far as religion is concerned in removing sexuality, you have to read the scripture well and find scriptures that benefits the antisexual way. If none exist, just take an existing one and alter it a bit or change the interpretation kinda like the Skoptists or Valesians did.

Valesians and Skoptists looked hard at what sexuality is and realized it is a filthy disgusting thing that their lord would never allow even within marriage and thus saw all the claims that marriage is good as hogwash.

The Christian scripture does say that Jesus would prefer if His followers stayed celibate till death and only prescribed marriage for those too weak to actually do it. Thus Jesus sees antisexual people like us as great people and those sticking to their manipulative monogamous relationships as the weaker ones that need to repent and go through all these hoops to even taste the glory of mind and soul we enjoy.

For an antisexual person who just leaves sexuality behind, they already won the battle between good and evil. Its the suckers who try dating and marrying that have to walk some tightrope like an idiot to not look like total filthy swine (they still are probably) and still mess it up with more problems like porn addiction and infidelity within the marriage that still sours their so called holy union and hurts the children as well, which is totally selfish.

Islam is a fine example of a religion that will definitely be needing a change to fit antisexual ideals since least the ones I talk to would bully and insult me for being on my own making it sound like marriage is a requirement to stay out of their hell. And they don't even value monastic chastity as a virtue like Christianity does at least (don't get me started about the whole marry 3-4+ wives thing)."

For those practicing Abrahamic religions like Christianity, I would go to far as saying Sexuality is the main vehicle of Satan (as early as Genesis & Adam + Eve as Skoptism points out) and shall play a huge role in revelations with the majority of the pop taking the mark of the beast in part or completely due to a sexual related urge.

For young men especially, sexuality is the main vehicle Satan uses to poison young mens' minds and turn them away from the holy spirit and leading to subsequent sins like overeating, irritability, envy, and rage which have been proven to be real biproducts of sexual mind sets."

[sandmandaddy69]