When you read Medieval texts regarding the question of w*men sexuality they always highlight their impulsiveness and sexual recklessness. For thinkers like Aquinas and Augustine the faemel was a hypersexual being in opposition to the male who´s portrayed as the cold-headed and controlled gender.
This seems rather curious for our contemporaries because it seems that there is a reversal of the roles in question: the male is the sex-driven "hot" gender in contrast to the hyposexuality of the foid. I don´t know exactly what changed, perhaps the generalized availability of actual sex and the multiplicity of masturbatory objects made the female more blasé regarding her sexuality. In contrast, in our visual age, males suffered the most from the almost pornographic secretion of images that late-capitalist societies produces.
But the reason behind these changes are too broad to engage with them in this format. In this sense, I want to propose a synthesis that is obvious for us, i.e., the subjects of female hyposexuality, but that it might not be as straightforward for the bluepill lurkers of this forum.
It is simple: women´s hypersexuality is directed to the chad while their hyposexuality is directed to almost everyone else. Women are not entirely heterosexual, rather they are chadsexual, which explains the prevalent and contagious nature of female bisexuality in our age of mechanized horse-powered dildos. The millennial and zoomer foid turns into lesbianism when there is a lack of available chads in their surroundings (which is why faemel bisexuality is prevalent among liberal and left-leaning females).
This premise (that foids are hyposexual to the non-chads) follows that our rape statistics are all fake. Foids don´t have sex willingly with non-chads, rather they have sex with them due to the advantages that marriage/relationships brings to the foids (betabux theory).
Now, let´s assume a moralizing view of sex that creates a difference between sex and rape on the basis of consent. A theoretical example of this kind of theory would be St.Augustine, who argued that Christian women raped during war were still virgins. In this sense, the possibility of an incel ever having sex is a contradiction in terminis: an incel would never have consensual sex with a women because they´ll always be the subjects of female hyposexuality, and theoretically, every sexual act that an incel experiences with a foid should be considered rape, sexual assault or harassment.
Thoughts?
This seems rather curious for our contemporaries because it seems that there is a reversal of the roles in question: the male is the sex-driven "hot" gender in contrast to the hyposexuality of the foid. I don´t know exactly what changed, perhaps the generalized availability of actual sex and the multiplicity of masturbatory objects made the female more blasé regarding her sexuality. In contrast, in our visual age, males suffered the most from the almost pornographic secretion of images that late-capitalist societies produces.
But the reason behind these changes are too broad to engage with them in this format. In this sense, I want to propose a synthesis that is obvious for us, i.e., the subjects of female hyposexuality, but that it might not be as straightforward for the bluepill lurkers of this forum.
It is simple: women´s hypersexuality is directed to the chad while their hyposexuality is directed to almost everyone else. Women are not entirely heterosexual, rather they are chadsexual, which explains the prevalent and contagious nature of female bisexuality in our age of mechanized horse-powered dildos. The millennial and zoomer foid turns into lesbianism when there is a lack of available chads in their surroundings (which is why faemel bisexuality is prevalent among liberal and left-leaning females).
This premise (that foids are hyposexual to the non-chads) follows that our rape statistics are all fake. Foids don´t have sex willingly with non-chads, rather they have sex with them due to the advantages that marriage/relationships brings to the foids (betabux theory).
Now, let´s assume a moralizing view of sex that creates a difference between sex and rape on the basis of consent. A theoretical example of this kind of theory would be St.Augustine, who argued that Christian women raped during war were still virgins. In this sense, the possibility of an incel ever having sex is a contradiction in terminis: an incel would never have consensual sex with a women because they´ll always be the subjects of female hyposexuality, and theoretically, every sexual act that an incel experiences with a foid should be considered rape, sexual assault or harassment.
Thoughts?
s
