Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Theory Sex defines your consciousness

cathuluelitist

cathuluelitist

Thoughtform Philanderer
★★★★
Joined
Mar 9, 2026
Posts
2,899
Online time
5d 2h
Every individual is a composite of male (M) and female (W) substances and your soul's essence is determined by the relative proportion of these elements. The anima that makes up M is logos and ego-consciousness while the anima that makes up W is inherently passive and amoral in principle. Any moral worth that homo sapien has is completely synonymous with the residing anima of M.

A man is defined by his ability to use his abstract vigor as a transcendental intermedium and superseding the carnal. A woman is defined by her relation to the carnal as she lacks rationale and the logical rigor of the M-content, this essentially makes women inferior cretinous men and incapable of engaging with logos and because of this women are innately sexual creatures and incapable of accruing meaningful essence, and because the sexual nature of females is omnipresent, this renders them completely incapable of absolute thinking and thus morality.

Sonder sex or aimless sex is the ultimate manifestation of the feminine anima because it reduces you as a person to your biological functions and thereby dissolves your own ego and sexual investment and the more a man falls to his sexual desires, the more he abandons the M-content and sinks into the amoral existence of the W-content. Whenever a man is deprived of sex he is forced by nature to succumb to his aimless biological instincts, he is deprived of sex because women are souless creatures who require external validation and material security to maintain her existence, which is of course because she lacks an independent ego and is incapable of genuine intellectual or deep-seated appreciation for M-content. Women subconsciously attacks male vigor.


This also ties into a greater concept in integral theory where women are stuck at a level two consciousness where she can not even began to understand enternal, deeper things


Screenshot 20260324 203757 YouTube


Women are level two in the integral decile scale

Level two consciousness is described as:

I know that other people and animals also have senses and desires and perceive things like my other feelings coming from other sources around me and life is about pleasing others to do what I want
This level of thinking is obviously primitive and psychopathic. Women (W-content) want to domesticate men, (M-content) and drain him of his sexual drive and storage. When women are allowed by our institutions to do this, you get a decadent society.

We've now basically said that women are incapable of maintaining mental-rational structures and are mapped at a level 2 conscious. This means that no matter how much functional intelligence a woman has or social competence, she will forever be tied to W-content and devoid of the abstract.

And basically what we can take from this is that women are always nothing. Women have no essence or existence. A human being is defined as an autonomous agent while women are dependent on the material world and are incapable of meaningful abstraction past the simian level. If we follow a consistent logical line, this would mean women are hardly human because if they were, they wouldn't be so carnal and evil.


Bibliography:

Sex and character by otto weininger
Beyond good and evil by Nietzsche
Will to Power by Friedrich Nietzsche
Revolt against the modern world by Julius Evola


@Misogynist Vegeta
@D. B. Gooner
@IWWorkER
@The Notorious SLAV
@Pikacel
 
The final question we must ask is what is to be done with women?
 
what do you thinks of maslows law? can you achieve meaning in your life with the absence of sex?
 
high iq thread, read every word
 
what do you thinks of maslows law? can you achieve meaning in your life with the absence of sex?
I'm not too fond of an animal-human sort of hierarchy because I believe men transcend that realm entirely and find the entire concept zoistic.
 
I'm not too fond of an animal-human sort of hierarchy because I believe men transcend that realm entirely and find the entire concept zoistic.
agree life is not hierarchical, soyciety is.
 
You'll find that I'll get very repetitive and annoying to debate with my skepticism.

But why should I believe in vague concepts like the soul, or levels of consciousness? Why can't I be satisfied with what is quantifiable?

Why can't we take in the world around us at face value? You argue against succumbing to biological instincts, yet my body rewards me for following them. If I chew grass, it tastes bitter. If a cow chews grass, it must not taste bitter, otherwise it would spit it out. The conclusion is grass must not be bio-available to humans. Now imagine there is a law forcing you to chew only grass. That's what society feels like.

My body is giving me guidelines through the 5 senses. If sex feels good, it likely has an ultimately positive outcome. That is, until you're placed in a social setting. We are punished for things that would otherwise be advantageous. Within society, a person might be adverse to having kids because of financial struggle, while in a natural setting the children would provide help in a combined effort for survival as well as emotional benefits like love. Obviously there are scenarios where having kids isn't advantageous, like in a state of crisis. But in such a state, stress will overcome all other instincts. You will be in fight or flight mode and won't feel a strong urge for reproduction. In a natural setting, this stressed state is temporary, while in a social setting it becomes chronic through unnecessary worries like losing a job, being judged, becoming an outcast due to unconventional opinions etc.

If an unstable man that you have no attachment to (isn't a friend/family member) lives in your environment, and constantly acts erratic, and poses a potential threat to you or your family, killing him would be beneficial, yet would get you judged and punished in a social setting. Things that are otherwise beneficial become risks after going through the social filter. You have to weigh the reality-based benefits against the possible socially imposed consequences and then make a decision. The struggle between your will and social conventions is suffocating.

You could say I'm a slave to my desires, but why must that inherently be a bad thing? Why treat your own body as an antagonist rather than an ally?

I've been searching for a reason to believe in souls. In reality as I see it, people's value comes from their physical development, which is easily quantifiable and affects other aspects of their being like intelligence.
If a soul were to exist, underdeveloped people would retain hope over the fact that they might somehow be spiritually superior to well developed people. "You can't see my soul, but it is much more complex than yours!". No one can really argue against that as souls aren't measurable. It reads as a cope for people who don't feel inherently valuable for one reason or another.
 
You'll find that I'll get very repetitive and annoying to debate with my skepticism.

But why should I believe in vague concepts like the soul, or levels of consciousness? Why can't I be satisfied with what is quantifiable?

Why can't we take in the world around us at face value? You argue against succumbing to biological instincts, yet my body rewards me for following them. If I chew grass, it tastes bitter. If a cow chews grass, it must not taste bitter, otherwise it would spit it out. The conclusion is grass must not be bio-available to humans. Now imagine there is a law forcing you to chew only grass. That's what society feels like.

My body is giving me guidelines through the 5 senses. If sex feels good, it likely has an ultimately positive outcome. That is, until you're placed in a social setting. We are punished for things that would otherwise be advantageous. Within society, a person might be adverse to having kids because of financial struggle, while in a natural setting the children would provide help in a combined effort for survival as well as emotional benefits like love. Obviously there are scenarios where having kids isn't advantageous, like in a state of crisis. But in such a state, stress will overcome all other instincts. You will be in fight or flight mode and won't feel a strong urge for reproduction. In a natural setting, this stressed state is temporary, while in a social setting it becomes chronic through unnecessary worries like losing a job, being judged, becoming an outcast due to unconventional opinions etc.

If an unstable man that you have no attachment to (isn't a friend/family member) lives in your environment, and constantly acts erratic, and poses a potential threat to you or your family, killing him would be beneficial, yet would get you judged and punished in a social setting. Things that are otherwise beneficial become risks after going through the social filter. You have to weigh the reality-based benefits against the possible socially imposed consequences and then make a decision. The struggle between your will and social conventions is suffocating.

You could say I'm a slave to my desires, but why must that inherently be a bad thing? Why treat your own body as an antagonist rather than an ally?

I've been searching for a reason to believe in souls. In reality as I see it, people's value comes from their physical development, which is easily quantifiable and affects other aspects of their being like intelligence.
If a soul were to exist, underdeveloped people would retain hope over the fact that they might somehow be spiritually superior to well developed people. "You can't see my soul, but it is much more complex than yours!". No one can really argue against that as souls aren't measurable. It reads as a cope for people who don't feel inherently valuable for one reason or another.
The state is almost completely justified to treat you as a unit of production if you have no soul so it's a pretty useful noeme in general and you should listen to all parts of yourself, your base impulses and your high mind. I kind of see the high mind/soul as the main organizers of an inexcusable logos, and just the fact that we choose abstract ideas and concepts over reproductive impulses for example is proof of a higher mind and soul.
 
Every individual is a composite of male (M) and female (W) substances and your soul's essence is determined by the relative proportion of these elements. The anima that makes up M is logos and ego-consciousness while the anima that makes up W is inherently passive and amoral in principle. Any moral worth that homo sapien has is completely synonymous with the residing anima of M.

A man is defined by his ability to use his abstract vigor as a transcendental intermedium and superseding the carnal. A woman is defined by her relation to the carnal as she lacks rationale and the logical rigor of the M-content, this essentially makes women inferior cretinous men and incapable of engaging with logos and because of this women are innately sexual creatures and incapable of accruing meaningful essence, and because the sexual nature of females is omnipresent, this renders them completely incapable of absolute thinking and thus morality.

Sonder sex or aimless sex is the ultimate manifestation of the feminine anima because it reduces you as a person to your biological functions and thereby dissolves your own ego and sexual investment and the more a man falls to his sexual desires, the more he abandons the M-content and sinks into the amoral existence of the W-content. Whenever a man is deprived of sex he is forced by nature to succumb to his aimless biological instincts, he is deprived of sex because women are souless creatures who require external validation and material security to maintain her existence, which is of course because she lacks an independent ego and is incapable of genuine intellectual or deep-seated appreciation for M-content. Women subconsciously attacks male vigor.


This also ties into a greater concept in integral theory where women are stuck at a level two consciousness where she can not even began to understand enternal, deeper things


View attachment 1698212

Women are level two in the integral decile scale

Level two consciousness is described as:


This level of thinking is obviously primitive and psychopathic. Women (W-content) want to domesticate men, (M-content) and drain him of his sexual drive and storage. When women are allowed by our institutions to do this, you get a decadent society.

We've now basically said that women are incapable of maintaining mental-rational structures and are mapped at a level 2 conscious. This means that no matter how much functional intelligence a woman has or social competence, she will forever be tied to W-content and devoid of the abstract.

And basically what we can take from this is that women are always nothing. Women have no essence or existence. A human being is defined as an autonomous agent while women are dependent on the material world and are incapable of meaningful abstraction past the simian level. If we follow a consistent logical line, this would mean women are hardly human because if they were, they wouldn't be so carnal and evil.


Bibliography:

Sex and character by otto weininger
Beyond good and evil by Nietzsche
Will to Power by Friedrich Nietzsche
Revolt against the modern world by Julius Evola


@Misogynist Vegeta
@D. B. Gooner
@IWWorkER
@The Notorious SLAV
@Pikacel
Always thought about this way

even when people ask me questions on Christianity not always starts with sex
 
Always thought about this way

even when people ask me questions on Christianity not always starts with sex
Wdym?
 
Can you send a link to this image? I want to see what it says above
 
You'll find that I'll get very repetitive and annoying to debate with my skepticism.

But why should I believe in vague concepts like the soul, or levels of consciousness? Why can't I be satisfied with what is quantifiable?

Why can't we take in the world around us at face value? You argue against succumbing to biological instincts, yet my body rewards me for following them. If I chew grass, it tastes bitter. If a cow chews grass, it must not taste bitter, otherwise it would spit it out. The conclusion is grass must not be bio-available to humans. Now imagine there is a law forcing you to chew only grass. That's what society feels like.

My body is giving me guidelines through the 5 senses. If sex feels good, it likely has an ultimately positive outcome. That is, until you're placed in a social setting. We are punished for things that would otherwise be advantageous. Within society, a person might be adverse to having kids because of financial struggle, while in a natural setting the children would provide help in a combined effort for survival as well as emotional benefits like love. Obviously there are scenarios where having kids isn't advantageous, like in a state of crisis. But in such a state, stress will overcome all other instincts. You will be in fight or flight mode and won't feel a strong urge for reproduction. In a natural setting, this stressed state is temporary, while in a social setting it becomes chronic through unnecessary worries like losing a job, being judged, becoming an outcast due to unconventional opinions etc.

If an unstable man that you have no attachment to (isn't a friend/family member) lives in your environment, and constantly acts erratic, and poses a potential threat to you or your family, killing him would be beneficial, yet would get you judged and punished in a social setting. Things that are otherwise beneficial become risks after going through the social filter. You have to weigh the reality-based benefits against the possible socially imposed consequences and then make a decision. The struggle between your will and social conventions is suffocating.

You could say I'm a slave to my desires, but why must that inherently be a bad thing? Why treat your own body as an antagonist rather than an ally?

I've been searching for a reason to believe in souls. In reality as I see it, people's value comes from their physical development, which is easily quantifiable and affects other aspects of their being like intelligence.
If a soul were to exist, underdeveloped people would retain hope over the fact that they might somehow be spiritually superior to well developed people. "You can't see my soul, but it is much more complex than yours!". No one can really argue against that as souls aren't measurable. It reads as a cope for people who don't feel inherently valuable for one reason or another.
I concur with this.

People who talk about "souls" or "spirits" or other vague extradimensional nonsense just want to add arbitray gravitas to whatever point they're making. If women are inferior, it would be based on their observed behavior and characteristics. Not because of some ill-defined essence or substance shit. Spirituality is just religion without scripture.

I also don't understand why natural reactions or urges should be suppressed or shamed. Don't get me wrong, it's good I can walk down the street without getting robbed or seeing people shit on my lawn. But this Gnostic & Buddhist mindset of hating material reality is often repeated without being justified. Satiating my desires generally provides me more happiness than ignoring them.
 
Nevermind I found it. The link is here if you want to check it out too
1774553450538
 
I concur with this.

People who talk about "souls" or "spirits" or other vague extradimensional nonsense just want to add arbitray gravitas to whatever point they're making. If women are inferior, it would be based on their observed behavior and characteristics. Not because of some ill-defined essence or substance shit. Spirituality is just religion without scripture.

I also don't understand why natural reactions or urges should be suppressed or shamed. Don't get me wrong, it's good I can walk down the street without getting robbed or seeing people shit on my lawn. But this Gnostic & Buddhist mindset of hating material reality is often repeated without being justified. Satiating my desires generally provides me more happiness than ignoring them.
You can easily translate his entire argument into psychological and biological ones. He uses metaphysical generalizations for this exact reason.
 
You can easily translate his entire argument into psychological and biological ones. He uses metaphysical generalizations for this exact reason.
Like the main reason he uses soul is to show that it's biologically fixed for example
 
I always felt like women were similar to animals or children than humans.
 
The final question we must ask is what is to be done with women?
Strip them of any sentience, if such a thing is even present, until they're at the status of inanimate obiects, then liberate ourselves into doing whatever we want or have to do to extract the necessities or pleasures out of foids (including the removal of toes, fingers, teeth, sight or hearing if it's deemed necessary by the owner of a particular foid). We shouldn't have to worry about the question of whether foids are sentient or not? If they are, we should put effort into unmaking it and working around it for the benefit of humanity (humanity > foids).
 

Similar threads

Ricecel Sungnodius
Replies
7
Views
523
Ricecel Sungnodius
Ricecel Sungnodius
chuddie
Replies
12
Views
1K
IdkWhyLive
IdkWhyLive
GobidMujahid
Replies
12
Views
507
nihilum
nihilum
cathuluelitist
Replies
13
Views
726
Takuji Mamiya
Takuji Mamiya

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top