/fringe/ - Fringe

>>111408

(2/2)

With time, as all men are getting married to women, how can you see the difference between real masculine men and those who have externalized their femininity on women, and who are actually gay? You can't distinguish them. Over time the culture will be poisoned by cryptofaggots spreading weak feminine ideals to other men, until there are almost no real men left. Just look at the fashion of the 1700s? Men with long hair wearing what basically are dresses. In this situation, with a culture shaming homosexual men, and men externalizing their femininity and projecting it on women, what would happen to those who can't find a woman? He'd have no release for his feminine side, it can't fall back on him because then he'd be shamed for being a faggot and a loser. So he still has to find outlet with women, no matter what they are like or what demands they make. This will make these men further feminized and they will be under the control of women, who can demand anything from them. Denying the command of women means instant punishment in the form of an unbearable mental strain in trying to maintain the externalized femininity and not getting overrun by it. If men are basically faggots when they have no women, they just have to obey them to get one.

This is the current state of the western world.

The solution is to remove one of the two elements enabling feminism; homosexual men, or the culture shaming them. What is happening now is that a lot of men have actually taken control of themselves again. It seems to be somewhat related to online culture, and it's become the target of feminists because they are starting to realise they are losing control. I'll add some examples here:

>waifuism and worship of 2D girls

This seems like a legit method of taking control of your externalized feminine side. Instead of projecting it on a demanding real life woman, men can explore it by projecting it on drawings, until they now know it so well they no longer need to project. By worshipping their idealized image of femininity, they are assuming control of their feminine side and it is no longer allowed to run lose, at the same time they can't be manipulated by a drawing telling them what to do or playing emotional tricks on them. Of course women will hate this and try to shame and ban idealized images of 2D girls when they see this happening.

>the normalization of faggotry online

While it's still not really ok in real life, the spread of homosexual culture online, legit or ironic, has normalized it again. It's now meaningless to call someone a "fucking faggot", it doesn't really imply the person is a faggot, it's just a form of comedy. This also works against feminism. They need faggotry to be shameful, not accepted.

Conclusion

First and foremost feminists need gays to exist. This is why feminists tend to support gay activism if there are no gays, such as in gaming culture where men are simply doing manly things like playing war games. So they advocate diversity in these arenas.

Secondly they need to shame it after it has been created, and stop men from learning how to handle their feminine side. They need to monopolize all images of femininity. The war on images of sexualized females, be it photos or drawings, porn or dressed, is not a matter of respect for females. Its end goal is to remove ALL attractive artistic expressions because those can substitute real life women and lessen their control over men who need an outlet after they've been feminized and shamed for being so. In the end you'll have what islam has - a complete banning of all figurative art, only geometric shapes are allowed. This is also the reason for the existence of modern art, such as expressionism which is simply ugly and not attractive at all.

So what's a non weeb or gay way to handle this?

>>111804

You don't need to support faggotry to avoid shaming them. You may want to punish improper behaviour and that's fine, but not at the current stage. Once feminism is gone it will be fine to shame faggots again because the motivation for doing so will be to fundamentally get rid of it, not just hide it. This means some kind of rehabilitation of gays, to offer them a way to normality instead of just shaming with no mercy like feminists do.

Controlling your female side can be done by learning to do the kind of work you'd normally consider women's work. Once you know how to do those things, women have no hold on you, and as you now know how it's done, what it means to be a female, you can tell them how to do it right if they don't understand it themselves.

Doing this requires mental strength in breaking the conditioning. The moment you do something associated with women, people will tell you that you're unmanly and gay. They will laugh at you. This is them acting out the feminist shaming against you, to prevent you from gaining control of your feminine side and rendering it harmless. You need to start by breaking down this reflex. This doesn't mean going to extremes and crossdressing or some dumb shit like that. Just act normally but don't be afraid of "doing girly things", you're actually doing it to learn what it is so you can control it and avoid it controlling you.

>>111938

>>111409

>>111408

Faggot, to "tame the feminine" and strengthen the masculine in the past , they would send men into the woods for a life or death crisis or go through some painful trials. That's all you have to do, not this gay shit. Read, think, study, and pick up an art if you want to "conquer the feminine inside you".

Faggot.

>>112087

Good job on upholding the toxic masculinity and faggotshaming the feminists need. Did you even understand one thing I wrote?

You are the problem, you are a supporter of feminism in practice.

Worshipping waifus and cartoon drawings? Is this what this board has come to? Is this what society has come to? If the whole thread was not pathetic enough already the "worshipping" part really puts the icing on the shitcake. Not just masturbating to it, not enjoying it…no, it has to be flat out worship. This board is dead

What is feminine, or more like how can you get in touch with your feminine side and cultivate it in a healthy way?

Take a walk in nature, show compassion, enjoy a beer from time to time, listen to good music. The feminine is always a part of you and most of the time you don't need to do anything about it. The feminine is not about being like a female, being a female or worshipping/obsessing over the female. That's what rotten castrates of modern society and foul feminists will try to make you believe.

How to be a complete degenerate and completely abondon your masculine and become a mindless, weak puppet?

Worship drawing of females.

>>112093

>>112096

These responses from triggered mundanes are perfectly in line with

>>111409

>They need to monopolize all images of femininity. The war on images of sexualized females, be it photos or drawings, porn or dressed, is not a matter of respect for females. Its end goal is to remove ALL attractive artistic expressions because those can substitute real life women and lessen their control over men who need an outlet after they've been feminized and shamed for being so.

This shows your conditioning is being challenged and proves that the statements are correct.

>>111409

>>112093

>>112096

Just for clarification: what does it mean to "worship" female images?

When I think of "worship", I think of the surrender of independence. I think, at the very least, of self-sacrifice. I see the worship of female images then as highly self-destructive as you actively weaken yourself with an unnecessary burden.

>>112102

All of this is from observation of what's actually happening. I think you're overanalyzing unimportant details. When you have the choice to either

>worship SJW females

or

>worship drawings of your ideal female

the 2nd option is the only way out, because it offers you control and time to study your ideal object with no demands placed on you. While doing this you are aware that you're actually alone and like many /a/nons do after a while, start identifying with your ideal female, which means you are now in connection with your female side. It's not meant as a mindless thing when posted here on /fringe/, even if the original phenomenom has taken that form. Like I said above it's an observation that this process has taken place, in which the feminist's preferred object of worship - demanding real life SJW women - has been replaced by a harmless drawing under the control of the viewer. It's extremely effective, and after you've become aware of it you can apply this as a form of meditation. Find a picture of your ideal female and search yourself to learn why you feel this is an ideal and what this image means to you deep inside. The final stage of this is to realize that what you're worshipping is just a part of yourself which society had made you distance yourself from and project on women. By this time you are free from their control.

>>112106

That's a very interesting response.

You see, in my eyes, to worship someone is to idolise them. It's to admire them and in my eyes, admiration requires a kind of blindness. It requires either a sincere ignorance of the faults of the target of admiration or it requires rationalisation.

At the same time, you also suggest a passive, uncritical, non-judgemental observation of the thoughts and feelings that arise in response to the one you idolise. You suggest that you meditate upon it with the intention of generating clarity on the nature of your desires and thoughts.

One half of your advice advocates for ignorance. The other half advocates for awareness. Again, given everything I've just said, can you clarify, what does the word "worship" mean to you because clearly, you're not using it in a normal way.

>>112153

>Again, given everything I've just said, can you clarify, what does the word "worship" mean to you because clearly, you're not using it in a normal way.

I don't think your way of understanding the word is the most common in daily speak.

From google's quick reference:

>worship

>noun: worship; noun: His Worship; noun: Your Worship; plural noun: Worships

>1. the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity. "worship of the Mother Goddess"

>great admiration or devotion shown towards a person or principle.

>"the worship of celebrity and wealth"

>"he contemplated the pin-up with worship"

The last example literally is in direct correlation with the topic here; worship of a female image.

I personally can't see how worship implies "blindness", if your object is a deity, or perceived as one, real or symbolically speaking, it is without fault. It does not mean you are blind to the faults, you simply do not see these qualities as "faults" because the characteristics of the object of worship defines your moral standard - your view of right and wrong.

Let me used another example: I recently had an argument with a catholic about the holy communion actually being symbolic cannibalism. The reply I got surprised me; he said

>communion isn't symbolic cannibalism, it IS cannibalism

>God has instituted this ritual so it is good, because God himself is without fault

Any further criticism against communion was pointless, he still didn't think it was wrong even after admitting it is cannibalism. This is the mindset of a worshipper, it does not mean to not see the faults. It means that, what you as an observer sees as "faults" to the worshipper is something admirable.

This is, reconnecting with the topic of the thread, how feminists wants men to see women:

>No matter what they do, they are flawless.

Interesingly enough, this is how white supremacists see white women, constantly victimizing them and blaming all of their dirty acts on the environment, on jews, on anything but them. This is because they worship whiteness, and no white person has faults. This is why the label "whiteknight" is perfect for white supremacists today, they're no different from the cucks they criticise. They're feminists themselves and will support the immorality that caused the situation they hate because they can never target the real issue.

That was an elaboration on my view of worship.

>>112158

>Any further criticism against communion was pointless, he still didn't think it was wrong even after admitting it is cannibalism. This is the mindset of a worshipper, it does not mean to not see the faults. It means that, what you as an observer sees as "faults" to the worshipper is something admirable.

Right, so the faults stop existing, not because they're not perceived but rather because they're not perceived to be faults i.e. they're rationalised instead. It seems we're already in agreement here.

>Interesingly enough, this is how white supremacists see white women, constantly victimizing them and blaming all of their dirty acts on the environment, on jews, on anything but them.

I believe that's only partially true. I see the men who behave in the way you describe getting called out quite often for being "crypto-feminists" so I believe you're not the only one to make this observation. The general conclusion I see, at least on /pol/, is that while women were baited, it's also true that the jews set the bait. Gloria Steinem, a prolific feminist in her day, confessed that she worked for the CIA.

Given all of this: Do you think worship requires self-denigration? Do you think that you self-denigrate when you see someone or something as perfect?

>>112238

>Do you think worship requires self-denigration? Do you think that you self-denigrate when you see someone or something as perfect?

Doesn't this depend on how you view yourself?

If you are close to your object of worship, or close to your ideal, you would also put forward your self as a good thing for being able to follow your ideals. But if there was a conflict in which your ideal is far from your self image, you consequently have to put your self in a submissive state.

>>112240

That makes sense. Thank you.

In conclusion: your recommendation is that people worship 2D images of whatever woman they feel drawn to and then use that worship as an opportunity for self-study in the hope of eventual self-mastery. I think your advice is solid. Thanks.

>>112253

Yes that is one of the solutions I'm suggesting.

>>111408

Chad is Alpha Negative;

all Negatives are cancer;

all Betas are cancer, White Knight aka Beta Negatives are the worst.

>>112301

If you're referring to alpha and beta negatives, I assume you're referring to that social hierarchy chart with alpha, beta, omega, gamma and delta with their positive and negative counterparts. In which case, what exactly makes a white knight a "beta negative"?

Also, how is a beta negative worse than an alpha negative? In my eyes, the alpha negative fucks women he knows have no chance with a man of his caliber purely because he's horny and doesn't feel like putting the work in or he's some kind of hedonist that applies little to no quality control. Now this average woman, after her night with him, will always resent the men that actually are in her league, looking down on men that are actually her equal! And it's all because, by experiencing this better man, she now has a point of comparison. Some men in some circles refer to such a woman as being "alpha-widowed". The Beta Negatives inflate her ego enough to sustain being pumped and dumped repeatedly but the opportunity for a change in values is never truly gone until Alpha Negatives actually capitalise and ensure that she's wrecked for good.

Why not become your own woman?

pros

>you worship your own image

>may or may not be actually needed for a complete chraracter

con

>might look like faggotry

>>112345

men have to pick women several leagues beneath themselves in value as mates, to make sure they are the highest value man their chosen female can ever hope to get, or she will bethray him when another man of slightly higher value attempts to court, because all women are whores and not loyal.

>>112345

>social hierarchy chart

Can someone post this chart?

>>111408

>fighting feminism

>posts a product of feminism

>>112456

An image that will not give you eye cancer to read?

>>112429

I understand that men have to do it. The issue is still the fact that some men are doing this to women that they have no intention of committing to.

>>112477

What's the product of feminism being referred to? Halloween?

>>111408

How do you address the existence of "bears". They're not numerous, but their existence would break the synonymity of homosexuality and overgrown femininity, would it not?

>>112516

This guy told himself that he had to do it. He has to self-improve, he has to prove that he's an alpha male, etc. and this is because, as he said, he was emotionally damaged and still trapped in the pains of his bruised ego. He had to actively refute the possibility of failure in order to please it. He denied his own free will and ability to choose in order to please it. Now, he claims to have accepted life as a orbiter and a loser.

My issue here is that he believes he had to accept life as a loser in order to accept his feelings and the whole of himself again. I think, since he enslaved himself to success, being a loser is how he proves that he has a choice in which case, his entire approach was flawed from the beginning. He didn't have to take a job he didn't like just to prove to others how much money he had. He didn't have to select women he didn't like just to prove how desirable he was. All he had to do was acknowledge the flow of cause and effect and keep that knowledge in awareness. He could've always done the things he wanted to do with his life, it's just that with awareness of social dynamics and intersexual relations, he'd know what life he's crafting for himself.

The most grating issue for me is the job comment he makes. One of the things the red pill advocates is "dread game". The idea is that if people know that you're desirable, that you're capable of going elsewhere and that you're willing to do just that, they'll be more inclined to go further to keep you with them. Naturally, women are the most immediate application of this tactic as it both arouses their lust for you alongside their fear of losing you but the other application is employment. I'd even argue that the application in employment is the most critical one. Having an employer know that you have other options and are willing to walk away if you deem things unfavourable is a very critical thing. It saves you from the drudgery of working a job that you hate or working a job under work conditions you hate because you need the money. With independence, you're able to work towards whatever goal you have in mind. If that means living in a boat out at sea with a DIY wind-generator, if that means being a part-time florist and a part-time pianist then so be it. You never had to do anything. You never even had to acknowledge the truth as true. You were always free to live as you please. It's just that everything we do has consequences.

>>112541

Just because they look masculine at first glance doesn't mean they are. Just look at how lesbians divide in femme and butch, there wouldn't be feminine lesbians if they just turned masculine in surface behaviour - this is well known and has been researched. For some reason the same kind of terminoloy isn't used for faggots, it's just implied all of them are crossdressing, feminine and unmanly in general behaviour.

The point here isn't what your act looks like, but what your goal is, that should define it imo. If you're attracted to men you're assuming the female role, and your behaviour is feminine, even if it's unrefined.

This is also the meaning of the argument that you can't just force a change in behaviour to cure homosexuals

>>111408

>these men are no longer engaging in hedonism and are now getting married and having children, they have become sexually productive. But aren't they actually homosexual still? They're thinking and feeling like women, and are not going to be good husbands. The femininity they had been overrun by will instead be projected on their wife, this is the only way for them to avoid the mental strain and accept the role of being somewhat masculine.

In the case of bear fags they're just going along with the feminist preferred toxic masculinity and putting up a tough act. They're still sodomists, and if they were forced to stop this by being constantly monitored they'd still not change their mentality.

>>112552

Is every soul either more masculine or feminine, or is it a thing that can be moved to one of opposite poles?

>>112556

To my knowledge it's a scale going from 100% female, 0% male on one side and 100% male, 0% female on the other extreme with any possible variation in between for different people.

My soul is more to the female side but I'm physically male; this means I need to be more aware of what masculinity is and keep focused on strengthening it actively by my actions in my daily life. Degeneration always manifests in assuming the opposite gender role compared to your physical body, no matter what gender your soul has.

Some people may be right in that they feel like they belong to the opposite gender role in their soul but that doesn't mean it's right to pervert human culture. No matter what body you reincarnate in you should follow the requirements for the role assigned to it. It's pretty simple.

>>112552

The central argument here boils down to:

>If you're attracted to men you're assuming the female role

Sure, there's a difference between surface behavior and internal truth, but if you're describing internal truth by who you have physically sex with, you can't dismiss their preference to penetrate without being inconsistent on whether corporeal sex acts represent one's internal dispositions. Unless you disagree that penetration is a masculine sex act, in which case our views are probably irreconcilable.

As for whether bears are pretending, you used that argument as the only evidence that they are, indeed, pretending, and the analogy with lesbians also assumes the impossibility of feminine lesbians with no differing evidence from the impossibility of bears, so I can only really address all that by saying that, again, it only works if you're defining masculinity and femininity entirely by the physique of your sex partners without regard for what roles people play in the sex, which I flatly disagree with.

I'll ask it this way: If a man is being dominated by his wife while having sex, is he still the masculine party in that sex, and she the feminine?

>>111409

>how can you see the difference between real masculine men and those who have externalized their femininity on women, and who are actually gay? You can't distinguish them. Over time the culture will be poisoned by cryptofaggots spreading weak feminine ideals to other men, until there are almost no real men left.

wow this is the biggest redpill I've taken in weeks

>>112560

> If a man is being dominated by his wife while having sex, is he still the masculine party in that sex, and she the feminine?

Obviously, a male and a female in a sex act are playing the role corresponding to their own body when looking only at that limited setting. A female being dominant doesn't make her less female in body.

But the issue here isn't that, but rather what your sexual object is. A person can be forced into playing the role of their own physical gender while still desiring something else.

I'm not sure what your argument is when you say

>Sure, there's a difference between surface behavior and internal truth, but if you're describing internal truth by who you have physically sex with, you can't dismiss their preference to penetrate without being inconsistent on whether corporeal sex acts represent one's internal dispositions. Unless you disagree that penetration is a masculine sex act, in which case our views are probably irreconcilable.

Why focus on the act of penetration while ignoring the target of said penetration? I also do not consider penetration an innate masculine act, imo it's rather an act of submission. The heterosexual sex act literally results in the draining and temporary incapacitating of the male potency, it's submission by the male to the female and exposing a weakness. The resulting birth is an act of creation and thus masculine, positive, yang. You could say the sex act itself includes a reversion of the "roles" in a metaphysical sense while still maintaining the physical roles, but this is a temporaty shift within the interaction of male and female in a balanced setting in line with how humanity survives. It's a mere change in "act" while not changing the actual sexual object of either participant.

Treating penetration in isolation as masculine is a matter of fetishism of tradionally male behaviour taken out of context. The act of penetration is only masculine when looking at the role of the performer in the heterosexual interaction.

>>111408

Fuck all the bull, stories, and concepts.

Just get with the solution.

ONIONS - yes that's right. ONIONS.

Onions will fix the problem. Eat it. Make them eat it. The lack of onion in todays' products aren't that surprising and now you know (((why)))

>homosexual men

>a culture which shames homosexual men

Cause of the greentext:

<(((GMO))) Soy (soyboy origin)

<mainly beef due to spoilt cattle feed due to fungus (forgot what it's called)

<milk too

<chemicals/toxics found in plastic

All be thanks to (((biothech))) overlords.

Japan bans most toxics plastic that feminize though they still have (((yakult))) and other patented feminizing probiotics.

>>115245

I eat onions literally daily (in salad mostly) and people think I'm around 18 while I'm in fact 28 (meaning my testosterone is probably very low). Not that I'm complaining though, no - vice versa in fact. Just saying your claims about onion increasing masculinity sound ridiculous to me.

Unless I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.

>>115245

both red and white?

>>111938

>Controlling your female side can be done by learning to do the kind of work you'd normally consider women's work.

Give examples, please.

I honestly can't think of any traditionally feminine skills or hobbies that are worth learning.

>>115287

Start by cleaning your living space and cooking your meals yourself.

>>111408

>Ancient Greece as pinnacle of humanity

You know homosexuality was very common, ya?

>>115287

>I can't think of why I would ever have to know how to maintain a living space, cook food, or clean clothes.

Go back to /r9k/ and take your Diogenes syndrome with you.

>Degenerate flag

That's about right.

Funny how "compassionate" and "romantic" are being bandied about as "feminine" when men are clearly the most romantic and compassionate, even so subdued as to allow women to run all over them and shame them as "brutes".

This thread is bullshit because "feminine" traits are actually the masculine ones. A woman or child cries out, everyone comes running because it's a biological imperitive. A man cries out – even has his penis lopped off – people joke about it on late night TV. Mutilate a female genital or breast and it's a horror story no one dare laugh at.

Who is more compassionate?

Men.

Who is more sensitive? The woman who NEEDS you to speak about your feelings to understand them or the Men who wordlessly intuit feelings of others in order to size up threats and make sexual advances at women?

Men.

Think: Women passively attract mates, the male must be clued in to subtle flushing of lips and cheeks, and small mannerisms which belie her availability.

In every case the male is the embodiment of all the bullshit OP et. al. has dubbed "feminine".

This /thread is shit.

>>120593

Very well said. Also, women are instinctive energy vampires (in its less subtle variant known as "attention whoring"). Probably why they live longer on average.

>>120593

If you thought this thread was shit why did you bump it?