Feminine products for men

[kahljorn]

What's with all these companies coming out with normally feminine shit for men? Like the other day I saw panty hose for men. And they came with a matching garter belt thats all lacy and has like a boyshort shape. And its not like its for crossdressers or trannies or something. Its for normal straight men that want to look all buff and wear panty hose under their suits and jock straps. Seriously the person they had modeling it looked like a weightlifter/arnold shaped person wearing what looked like lingerie.
now they are making makeup for men ;\

the pantyhose things are traumatizing ;(

[10,000 Volt Ghost]

I don't know what they're called but I have a Man Poof for the shower.

[kahljorn]

thats not quite the same thing ;\

[Fathom Zero]

Is it defeating the purpose for you?

[kahljorn]

lol
http://blogs.marinij.com/katwilder/images/pantyhose.jpg
http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2007-02/panty-hose-for-men.jpg
http://www.activskin.com.au/shop/index.php?cPath=3
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-07-31-tights.jpg
http://actionnooz.com/news/wp-content/uploads/Man_Panty_Hose.jpg
maybe that will put it into perspective

[kahljorn]

no, i just think its looks ugly on men.

i dont really wear panty hose ;\

although i am hoping for this set of lingerie for valtines day that has a garter belt :(

[Fathom Zero]

I can't fathom something like that.

[kahljorn]

Next they'll start releasing SKIRTS FOR MEN. Skirts are great when you're a guy. It's so easy/fun to pee when wearing a skirt if you're a guy.

[10,000 Volt Ghost]

I think they have those already....in Scotland.

[Kitsa]

I don't know what the hell to make of you sometimes, kahljorn.

[kahljorn]

Also not the same thing ;\ I don't think that men walk around wearing kilts all the time in scotland like its standard dress. Anyway, when they start having kilts with slits up the sides to reveal the legs and form fitted to reveal the figure, then maybe it will be relevant ;/

[Tadao]

I've never even considered the joy of peeing with a skirt on!

[VaporTrailx1]

http://www.patramsey.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/utilikilt-mocker300.jpg

The Utilikilt is here! A Kilt with Cargo pockets!

[Dixie]

It's only a kilt if you go commando.
Wearing underwear with it makes it a skirt!

[kahljorn]

i love peeing standing up when I'm dressed as a girl ;\

anyway fuck all this kilt talk it has nothing to do with pantyhose or feminine products. I mean shit in some countries men wear dress like things but I don't see that meaning american men should be frolicking around in sun dresses. Plus kilts somehow look masculine anyway ;\ It's not quite the same as say A MINISKIRT

[10,000 Volt Ghost]

Do they shave their legs too though is the question?

[kahljorn]

From what i understand its supposed to be for straight normal men who just want to wear garter belts with stockings and shit ;\ So I would assume you're not supposed to shave your legs but that would be kind of gross AND THUS PART OF MY POINT.

the pictures we saw of models wearing it looked like they were shaved though ;\

[kahljorn]

hahahahaha here we go this is what i was looking for!

http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-garter-belts-for-men/

LOOK AT THAT FOOL ON THE RIGHT

[MetalMilitia]

Perhaps these are designed to help farmers survive the cold Russian winter. Kind of like a fashionable version of long-johns.

[Zhukov]

I have long johns AND a kilt, and my legs look fucking fantastic in both of them.

[Zhukov]

But I wouldn't wear panty hose.

[DuFresne]

I lol'd at the look on this guy's face, as if he just realized how much of a prostitute his chosen career makes him:


http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-07-31-tights.jpg

[10,000 Volt Ghost]

Back in the early 20th century garters were fashionable with men. This might be a bit too much though.

[kahljorn]

i think garters were fashionable for men when socks didn't have elastic in them but im not sure. And i doubt they were all lacy and shit.

There was a period of time where slicing your dick in half (butterfly) and folding it inside your pants so your pants would fit smoothly was fashionable ;\

[10,000 Volt Ghost]

LOL. When did that happen, in the future?

[DuFresne]

There was a period of time where slicing your dick in half (butterfly) and folding it inside your pants so your pants would fit smoothly was fashionable ;\

I just did some searches (split+penis+in+half+tuck+into+pants+butterfly, and the like) and didn't find anything. not Wikipedia either.

FIND A LINK OR IT'S NOT HISTORY, WHORE

[Fathom Zero]

I THINK HE WAS MAKING A POINT

[Tadao]

No, it's probably true. I was guessing it would be the Victorian era and I found this.

"The next resurgence of interest was, surprisingly, during the Victorian age, which is usually seen as very repressed. Prince Albert, future husband of Queen Victoria, is said to have gotten the penis piercing that is named after him in order wear the tight-fitting trousers so popular at the time. The ring could then be attached to a hook on the inside of one pant leg, tucked safely away between the legs for a neat, trim look. Although we have no record of Victoria’s response to the piercing itself, there is ample evidence she was wildly in love with her husband and almost never left his side after their marriage!"

[Sam]

Oh god. :(

[kahljorn]

It was in Egypt, originally, I've always heard it referred to as butterflying but it probably had a different name. I'll ask my friend who told me about it originally; he has a doctorate in religious studies or some shit.
At one point in time somebody had a picture of a butterflied penis in that really gross NSFW thread, but I dunno if it was real ;\

[10,000 Volt Ghost]

I don't even know why anyone would do that.

[kahljorn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_subincision

[kahljorn]

i think thats what it is called, not positive though.

[Sam]

That makes my meatus hurt. :(

[kahljorn]

oh god dont look up subincision. There's guys who have like a subincision fetish and want to incise their penises all sub way sandwich like.

[Sam]

AT LEAST IT ISN'T THE U-GOUGE. :(

[kahljorn]

i dont even know what that is and i work there ;\ but i dont really work very hard. Speaking of which i dont even know my schedule this week. Hah :(

[Big McLargehuge]

CLASSIC CUT >:

[10,000 Volt Ghost]

It makes it taste better.

[kahljorn]

I MAKE IT TASTE BETTER

ME

NOT THE FUCKING UGOUGE.

[10,000 Volt Ghost]

Well then, make me a sub. Mail it to me and then I'll tell you if the U-Gouge tastes better still.

[Sam]

YEAH CLASSIC FUCKING CUT.

[kahljorn]

ILL CLASSIC CUT YOU

IN THE PENIS

[Sam]

RAPIST

[kahljorn]

PFFT COMING FROM THE MAN WITH THE MOST DANGEROUS RAPIST PENIS IN AMERICA ILL CONSIDER THAT A PROJECTION!

[Grislygus]

I don't think that men walk around wearing kilts all the time in scotland like its standard dress.

Any I've seen have been in , but Edinburgh, but then again I haven't visited much

Plus kilts somehow look masculine anyway ;\ It's not quite the same as say A MINISKIRT

fuckin RIGHT

Anyway I was just wondering about this the other day when I was watching Eddie Izzard again, either he's wearing shoes designed for womenfolk lumberjacks out on the town or there's clothing/apparel companies that cater to transvestite

[Tadao]

They make shoes for amazon women.

[Fathom Zero]

I get a different vibe from transvestites than I do with these man-lady products. And it's a more comfortable vibe, actually.

[kahljorn]

there are clothing/apparel companies for transvestites/transsexuals ;\ luckily i dont really need to go to them :O

[Kulturkampf]

In an age where men emasculate themselves to have theoretical gains in their self-image we have marked the fall of glory of the Western nations and the entrance into our eventual defeat and forfeiture of power, influence and respect to others.

The only problem is that this is being globalized.

But there will be a reaction in the form of a more phallic culture on the horizon.

I see myself as part of a phallocentric movement.

[kahljorn]

I see myself as part of a phallocentric movement.yea i bet you like to have phallocentric movements in your butt.

In an age where men emasculate themselves to have theoretical gains in their self-image we have marked the fall of glory of the Western nations and the entrance into our eventual defeat and forfeiture of power, influence and respect to others.please expand on this. What is, "Emasculate." I know what the word means, but it can be used in many different contexts. I don't think wearing panty hose is going to really emasculate you (there's a famous piece of art of i think louis the 14th wearing panty hose and high heels). What does the "Glory of the western nations" have to do with this definition of "Emasculate." Same with power, influence and respect. Do people only respect us because our men don't wear panty hose or act feminine? What would feminine mean in this context, what is adverse about it?

And how could paradigm shifts and the nature of changing cultures not immediately refute that? It's not as if power, influence and respect has merely to do with what type of clothes you wear or with which purely gender based characteristics (especially in the modern world) you express. You can be feminine and still be powerful, unless you are just focusing on the ambiguity of the terms and dividing all "Weak" "negative" "receiving" into feminine and all of the opposing into masculine. In which case you're just equivocating.

also i dont really see very many men being "Emasculated." Or theoretical gains in self-image gained as a result of it. Lots of girls like to fuck feminine guys so I think fucking a lot of girls would give you real benefits to self-image. Whatever, please elaborate.

[kahljorn]

its really interesting to me that you haven't changed at all (unless you're just a character then it makes perfect sense) despite the fact that I rarely see you make any decent arguments when it comes to your feelings about homosexuality which is basically what this is an extension of...

[Dr. Boogie]

He watched this episode of South Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_Is_Gay!)and thought it was real.


You should come around the boards more often, KK.

[kahljorn]

yea seriously i need some dumbass stooge to represent shitty arguments..

[pac-man]

Crab people, crab people, taste like crab, talk like people.

[Tadao]

OMG! It's the beginning of the fall of the West again! Thank god my mantyhose are flame retardant!

[ZeldaQueen]

Next they'll start releasing SKIRTS FOR MEN. Skirts are great when you're a guy. It's so easy/fun to pee when wearing a skirt if you're a guy.
Hey now, why can't a guy wear a skirt? Girls wear pants. :)

And as for pantyhose, I really think they're uncomfortable so I can't understand why on earth anyone would want to wear them around. Plus they're a pain to get on. :(

[Jeanette X]

But there will be a reaction in the form of a more phallic culture on the horizon.

I see myself as part of a phallocentric movement.


"Phallocentric" is the stupidest word in the English language. What the hell is wrong with "androcentric"? Why would you take such a stupid feminist label and embrace it?
In an age where men emasculate themselves to have theoretical gains in their self-image we have marked the fall of glory of the Western nations and the entrance into our eventual defeat and forfeiture of power, influence and respect to others.

Nobody is putting a gun to your head and making you wear this stuff, idiot. Why do you have a problem with men who decide to embrace it?

[Kulturkampf]

yea i bet you like to have phallocentric movements in your butt.

please expand on this. What is, "Emasculate." I know what the word means, but it can be used in many different contexts. I don't think wearing panty hose is going to really emasculate you (there's a famous piece of art of i think louis the 14th wearing panty hose and high heels). What does the "Glory of the western nations" have to do with this definition of "Emasculate." Same with power, influence and respect. Do people only respect us because our men don't wear panty hose or act feminine? What would feminine mean in this context, what is adverse about it?

And how could paradigm shifts and the nature of changing cultures not immediately refute that? It's not as if power, influence and respect has merely to do with what type of clothes you wear or with which purely gender based characteristics (especially in the modern world) you express. You can be feminine and still be powerful, unless you are just focusing on the ambiguity of the terms and dividing all "Weak" "negative" "receiving" into feminine and all of the opposing into masculine. In which case you're just equivocating.

also i dont really see very many men being "Emasculated." Or theoretical gains in self-image gained as a result of it. Lots of girls like to fuck feminine guys so I think fucking a lot of girls would give you real benefits to self-image. Whatever, please elaborate.

Let me take this opportunity to make a generalization that traditionally holds true:

The mother is the nurturer; the father gives discipline.

The feminine is drawn to more emotional attachments; the masculine, by virtue of testosterone, has an inherently more aggressive and ambitious drive.

The Romans feared the feminization of their Empire because it would certainly mark the downfall of it as they had observed from other nations. They paid little to no respect to Carthage for them embracing a far more opulent, decadent society.

Stoicism is the fuel of any civilization; indulgence marks the downfall.

And sure, there are women who like to fuck feminine guys. I am not sure why. I guess it is just another oddity of the modern world.

I also think 'fucking girls' is also a great way to build self-confidence.

its really interesting to me that you haven't changed at all (unless you're just a character then it makes perfect sense) despite the fact that I rarely see you make any decent arguments when it comes to your feelings about homosexuality which is basically what this is an extension of...

I am not a character...

And homosexuality isn't that important of a thing to me.

And of course I haven't changed... The only way things are changing is that I leave the Army for good in 12 days.

yea seriously i need some dumbass stooge to represent shitty arguments..

Yep.

OMG! It's the beginning of the fall of the West again! Thank god my mantyhose are flame retardant!

Well, it is.

"Phallocentric" is the stupidest word in the English language. What the hell is wrong with "androcentric"? Why would you take such a stupid feminist label and embrace it?

Because it is cooler and more offensive.

Nobody is putting a gun to your head and making you wear this stuff, idiot. Why do you have a problem with men who decide to embrace it?

Well, all people should have the freedom to embrace it and I should have the freedom to encourage them not to do so.

Some of us actually have opinions on lifestyles.

Do you get mad at people who advocate vegetarianism?

[kahljorn]

The mother is the nurturer; the father gives discipline.yea, you are equivocating. Just because a guy wears panty hose doesn't mean he wouldn't put his fist through your little pussy face. And really, again, that has more to do with culture than anything ;\

The feminine is drawn to more emotional attachments; the masculine, by virtue of testosterone, has an inherently more aggressive and ambitious drive.So Catherine the great musta had some high testosterone or something huh? Most of these qualities you are talking about are socialized more than they are affected by hormones. Granted, testosterone can make you angry unnecessarily and shit, but that doesn't mean women can't be aggressive.

anyway, being aggressive is a passion. I don't think stoicism supports anger and aggressive tendencies. Cause you know, anger is a passion which can easily cloud the mind. So, being masculine, by your own argument, could easily lead to the downfall of the west.

What stoicism preaches isn't ANGER AND AGGRESSION but a peaceful calm. Men and women are both capable of this, and femininity and masculinity have nothing to do with it. In fact, they both have to overcome themselves and their emotions with reasoning. UNLESS OF COURSE BEING MASCULINE IS ALL CALM AND STOIC AND BEING FEMININE IS ALL CONSTANTLY INDULGENT AND SHIT. Which its not

you're just an equivocator. and a maker of conveniently ridiculous definitions. Really, the tendency to label anything "Weak" as feminine has nothing to do with females or with males liking to look pretty, and more to do with the association of a simple dichotomy.

Also, maybe women are drawn more to emotional attachments because, culturally (in some cultures, anyway), that is the only type of attachments that they were allowed to fulfil. False cause -- confusing cause and effect.

And furthermore, since women can be masculine, it follows that masculinity will still exist. All we need is female rule instead of male. The males can be the feminine ones and the females can be the masculine aggressive rulers. According to your argument, there should be nothing wrong with this; society hasn't been feminized, the roles have just been changed. So the west won't fall. In fact I think there are more women than men now a days so maybe we will be EXTRA MASCULINE.
being aggressive really isnt that necessary now a days anyway. there's more important things than being warlike. Ambitious, sure, but really there's no reason women can't be ambitious. Again, that is a cultural thing. Women werent ALLOWED to be ambitious. false causin it up i see...

your lame arguments have been refuted ;o

Stoicism is the fuel of any civilization; indulgence marks the downfall.ok. Like men/romans don't indulge in things? ONLY IN THE STRONG THINGS. ITS OKAY TO INDULGE IN THOSE THINGS.

I am not sure why.cause it gets them off, obviously. You're pretty feminine from what I remember of your pictures... you always struck me as a queer ;\

[Jeanette X]

The Romans feared the feminization of their Empire because it would certainly mark the downfall of it as they had observed from other nations. They paid little to no respect to Carthage for them embracing a far more opulent, decadent society.
You moronic boob. Do you really think that feminization was the cause of the Decline of the Roman Empire and not political and socioeconomic factors? Do you honestly believe that Rome fell just because men preened themselves too much? Are you that thick?

Quickly! We all must enter into strict inflexible binary gender roles to save our civilization! Everything must be in a strict dichotomy! No room for any gender flexibility! No women can be leaders! No men can be nurturers!


Do you get mad at people who advocate vegetarianism? Yes, actually, I do. There are few things I loathe more than a self-righteous vegetarian. However, unlike you, I don't get angry when people decide to be vegetarians on their own and don't try to push it on me. You, on the other hand, start squealing with indignation at the thought of someone wearing pantyhose when they aren't trying to convince you to wear it as well. Some men like to wear feminine things. If they aren't trying to convince you to wear them, then you should get over it.

Because it is cooler and more offensive.
I don't know why you seem to think that the term "phallocentric" is more offensive when its embraced by feminists left and right.

[kahljorn]

Do you really think that feminization was the cause of the Decline of the Roman Empire and not political and socioeconomic factors?The feminization is what caused the the political and socioeconomic factors, hes prolly gonna say.
Hey which feminized political and socioeconomic factors were they? Curious for a more direct example.

PS saying, "THEY LOST IN A WAR CAUSE THEY GOT ALL WEAK" is not a good example. Also, saying, "CAUSE THEY WERE ALL NOT GOOD POLITICALLY CAUSE THEY LET INDULGENCE GET TO THEM" is also not a good example.

see the problem behind all of this is the association with "feminine" and "masculine" with "weak, evil etc." and "Strong, good," respectively. However, I would have to cite Friedrich Nietzsche in mentioning that males were the ones who created these associations; not any inherently weak/evilness of females. Talk to a feminist (male or female) and they might reverse those associations -- especially when it comes to indulgences. What kind of indulgences have females historically been able to partake in? Almost none, because they were restricted from them -- be it sexual, monetary, drinking, fighting, gambling; they were also allowed to indulge in their feelings more, whereas women pretty much had to sit at home and work (depending on the culture).

If anything, women have been a model of stoicism.

[Kulturkampf]

yea, you are equivocating. Just because a guy wears panty hose doesn't mean he wouldn't put his fist through your little pussy face. And really, again, that has more to do with culture than anything ;\

Yeah, you fucking retard fuckwad, I do not think you understand what is going on here but are just nit-picking.

Culturally, the Celts wore kilts that resemble skirts and sometimes Romans wore tunics that resembled one-piece dresses with a belt. Of course it is totally fucking irrelevant...

However, some fucking indie faggot queer douche-de-la-vagine wearing make-up and a male thong can eat my fucking boots.

So Catherine the great musta had some high testosterone or something huh? Most of these qualities you are talking about are socialized more than they are affected by hormones. Granted, testosterone can make you angry unnecessarily and shit, but that doesn't mean women can't be aggressive.

Or her advisers ran much of the show; or she is an exception amongst women.

If women are so naturally aggressive, how come they have played second fidde to men in nearly every circumstance?

anyway, being aggressive is a passion. I don't think stoicism supports anger and aggressive tendencies. Cause you know, anger is a passion which can easily cloud the mind. So, being masculine, by your own argument, could easily lead to the downfall of the west.

Stoicism is about the suppression of such passions to some extent, however, few argued more patiently for the invasion and destruction of Carthage than the stoic Cato the Elder.

My argument is that embracing feminine values and not taking hard line stances on moral questions is the downfall of civilization. I would say the majority of the downfall comes from a sense of luxury and riches which lull the nation into a dreamlike, sated state of decadence.

What stoicism preaches isn't ANGER AND AGGRESSION but a peaceful calm. Men and women are both capable of this, and femininity and masculinity have nothing to do with it. In fact, they both have to overcome themselves and their emotions with reasoning. UNLESS OF COURSE BEING MASCULINE IS ALL CALM AND STOIC AND BEING FEMININE IS ALL CONSTANTLY INDULGENT AND SHIT. Which its not

I guess I got this a little wrong... I was not thinking of stoicism in the pure sense of the Greek philosophy but more in how it is portrayed in the way people act; I wasn't clear enough for you, or rather, I was, and you chose to pick out just one, small part of the argument.

Well, whatever. :)

The German concept of 'vir' is a good notion of what I am talking about here, I guess...

Manliness, soldierliness, harboring strong values and a strong path.

Stoicism plays a certain role in all of this, naturally.

you're just an equivocator. and a maker of conveniently ridiculous definitions. Really, the tendency to label anything "Weak" as feminine has nothing to do with females or with males liking to look pretty, and more to do with the association of a simple dichotomy.

Also, maybe women are drawn more to emotional attachments because, culturally (in some cultures, anyway), that is the only type of attachments that they were allowed to fulfil. False cause -- confusing cause and effect.

(1) Beauty is a shallow value.

(2) Women have attached themselves to the more emotional side of things because of estrogen and lack of testosterone, I guess. I am not really sure. Maybe it is even environmental -- I guess if you were the physically weaker gender in an environment ruled by force, it would behoove you to be submissive and harbor differen values.

And furthermore, since women can be masculine, it follows that masculinity will still exist. All we need is female rule instead of male. The males can be the feminine ones and the females can be the masculine aggressive rulers. According to your argument, there should be nothing wrong with this; society hasn't been feminized, the roles have just been changed. So the west won't fall. In fact I think there are more women than men now a days so maybe we will be EXTRA MASCULINE.
being aggressive really isnt that necessary now a days anyway. there's more important things than being warlike. Ambitious, sure, but really there's no reason women can't be ambitious. Again, that is a cultural thing. Women werent ALLOWED to be ambitious. false causin it up i see...

your lame arguments have been refuted ;o

lol, what?

Because women can do something, it is all over? The arguments are done?

If you look to the exception to every rule as the rule, then you are an idiot.

Why do you even talk?

ok. Like men/romans don't indulge in things? ONLY IN THE STRONG THINGS. ITS OKAY TO INDULGE IN THOSE THINGS.

cause it gets them off, obviously. You're pretty feminine from what I remember of your pictures... you always struck me as a queer ;\

Well, Romans later went on to be feminine douche bags like all great civilizations that compromise their values.

And I think it is odd you think I am a queer. I eat more pussy than a woman's prison.

You moronic boob. Do you really think that feminization was the cause of the Decline of the Roman Empire and not political and socioeconomic factors? Do you honestly believe that Rome fell just because men preened themselves too much? Are you that thick?

Feminization and opulence. Did you read my post?

Feminized value system; overindulgence in luxury.

Quickly! We all must enter into strict inflexible binary gender roles to save our civilization! Everything must be in a strict dichotomy! No room for any gender flexibility! No women can be leaders! No men can be nurturers!

I do not think that super-strict gender roles makes sense; there needs to be a sense of balance in everything but I think that as a general rule it is best for us to conform to basic standards.


Yes, actually, I do. There are few things I loathe more than a self-righteous vegetarian. However, unlike you, I don't get angry when people decide to be vegetarians on their own and don't try to push it on me. You, on the other hand, start squealing with indignation at the thought of someone wearing pantyhose when they aren't trying to convince you to wear it as well. Some men like to wear feminine things. If they aren't trying to convince you to wear them, then you should get over it.

I don't know why you seem to think that the term "phallocentric" is more offensive when its embraced by feminists left and right.

I think vegetarianism is irrational.

In our evolutionary existence we began as hunter gatherers; meat provides a lot of health benefits to us.

The feminization is what caused the the political and socioeconomic factors, hes prolly gonna say.
Hey which feminized political and socioeconomic factors were they? Curious for a more direct example.

Luxury bred out the warrior spirit within the Roman people, and it made peopel grow attached to the material and sated as opposed to desiring a more disciplined life.

People who live in the lap of luxury and live lives of leisure do not have accurate world views.

PS saying, "THEY LOST IN A WAR CAUSE THEY GOT ALL WEAK" is not a good example. Also, saying, "CAUSE THEY WERE ALL NOT GOOD POLITICALLY CAUSE THEY LET INDULGENCE GET TO THEM" is also not a good example.

see the problem behind all of this is the association with "feminine" and "masculine" with "weak, evil etc." and "Strong, good," respectively. However, I would have to cite Friedrich Nietzsche in mentioning that males were the ones who created these associations; not any inherently weak/evilness of females. Talk to a feminist (male or female) and they might reverse those associations -- especially when it comes to indulgences. What kind of indulgences have females historically been able to partake in? Almost none, because they were restricted from them -- be it sexual, monetary, drinking, fighting, gambling; they were also allowed to indulge in their feelings more, whereas women pretty much had to sit at home and work (depending on the culture).

If anything, women have been a model of stoicism.

How have women been a model of stoicism?

And women being given the right to indulge is usually a good sign that civilization is crumbling -- abortion has marked the downfall of most civilizations, including the Greeks and the Romans, as have low birth rates.

Women have generally been portrayed as the emotional upbringers of the children.

I've never seen my father cry but I could not count the times I have witnessed my mother or other female relatives cry.

[Jeanette X]

However, some fucking indie faggot queer douche-de-la-vagine wearing make-up and a male thong can eat my fucking boots.
So what about your earlier rhetoric about how you think that people should be free to embrace lifestyles of their choosing and how you should be free to encourage them not to? Is violence against people who choose different lifestyles your idea of freedom? What a flaming hypocrite you are.

Or her advisers ran much of the show; or she is an exception amongst women. Gosh-a-rootie, lookit all these exceptions among women!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_rulers

If women are so naturally aggressive, how come they have played second fidde to men in nearly every circumstance?
I think that may have more to do with internalized acculturation of supposed "natural" gender roles than anything else. Its like saying that if everyone is equal, why has slavery been a constant throughout history?


My argument is that embracing feminine values and not taking hard line stances on moral questions is the downfall of civilization. What are these so-called feminine values? List them.

Manliness, soldierliness, harboring strong values and a strong path.Again, what constitutes "harboring strong values" and "a strong path"?

(1) Beauty is a shallow value.I take it you then agree with the feminists who regard cosmetics and so forth as repressive.

(2) Women have attached themselves to the more emotional side of things because of estrogen and lack of testosterone, I guess. I am not really sure.You don't know many women, do you?

And I think it is odd you think I am a queer. I eat more pussy than a woman's prison.
And here you call the Romans decadent.

Feminization and opulence. Did you read my post?

Feminized value system; overindulgence in luxury.
What is so feminine about overindulgence? Typically it is the men who go to whorehouses and drink themselves to death, not women. It is hilarious that a drunken lech like you would accuse others of overindulgence.


In our evolutionary existence we began as hunter gatherers; meat provides a lot of health benefits to us.Health benefits which can be gained through carefully cultivated crops like soy. Thus meat is no longer the necessity as it once was.

How have women been a model of stoicism?Try giving birth. Try raising a several children. Try enduring beatings from an abusive husband. Try working the same damn job as man for far less wages. Try enduring obscene catcalls made to you by drunk shitheads like you.

And women being given the right to indulge is usually a good sign that civilization is crumbling -- abortion has marked the downfall of most civilizations, including the Greeks and the Romans, as have low birth rates.
So you think that's the problem in our society? Not enough babies? Overpopulation and competition for scarce resources isn't a concern for you?


I've never seen my father cry but I could not count the times I have witnessed my mother or other female relatives cry.Idiot. Crying is not proof of a greater capacity to feel. It is proof of a greater capacity to cry. Just because someone doesn't necessarily express an emotion doesn't mean that they don't feel it.

[kahljorn]

Yeah, you fucking retard fuckwad, I do not think you understand what is going on here but are just nit-picking.... etcWas that (everything coming after that) supposed to be an argument? Sounds more like a bunch of crap. Do you know what equivocating is? Look it up. You could be said to be commiting the error of composition, as well.

You obviously don't understand that there are different definitions of FEMININE. or at least that there are different types of FEMININE, and that all of them might not be bad. But yet, you attach the word feminine to them and they instantly become bad.

Fallacy. Error. Bad thought.

Or her advisers ran much of the show; or she is an exception amongst women. You don't know? Why don't you study her. She isn't known as Catherine the great because her advisers made all of her decisions for her. She killed her husband who was ruling because he was weak, ugly and unambitious.
and why is she an EXCEPTION. Because of ABILITY or because of CULTURE?

Stoicism is about the suppression of such passions to some extent, however, few argued more patiently for the invasion and destruction of Carthage than the stoic Cato the Elder.How is that relevant or even a refutation? Why did you put HOWEVER there? That's not a HOWEVER.

lol.

My argument is that embracing feminine values and not taking hard line stances on moral questions is the downfall of civilization.Jeanette already asked what feminine values are ( ididnt read all of her post though CAUSE I COULDNTWAIT TO TEAR INTO YOU).

Hardline stances on moral questions? What does that have to do with the feminine? Possibly because BEING FEMININE IS BEING SOFT. IF YOU LIKE WEARING MAKEUP, THEN YOU LIKE BEING FEMININE. IF YOU LIKE BEING FEMINE, THEN YOU ARE SOFT. THEREFORE IF YOU LIKE WEARING MAKEUP THEN YOU ARE SOFT ON MORAL ISSUES.
man there's like two examples of equivocation there. Good job ;\ Sorry, but many females take extremely hard stances on stuff like abortion, female rights etc. etc.

I would say the majority of the downfall comes from a sense of luxury and riches which lull the nation into a dreamlike, sated state of decadence.Its good that you are capable of saying that. I mean, you aren't begging the question or anything. Do you have any reasons to support this? Any historical evidence that decadence, luxury and riches are what caused the downfall of rome? There are tons of theories about what made it fall, by actual historians who have reasons and evidence to support it.

You know what I can say? Masculinity and cunts like you caused the downfall of the west. I guess it must be true cause i said it.

I was not thinking of stoicism in the pure sense of the Greek philosophy but more in how it is portrayed in the way people act; I wasn't clear enough for you, or rather, I was, and you chose to pick out just one, small part of the argument.Actually, no, i wasn't. Your argument was small; and it wasn't even an argument. You didn't clarify anything, you just said STOICISM. You just SAY things. That isn't the same as making an argument. Arguments are usually in paragraph form and the sentences build on eachother -- you know, supporting eachother in a way that isn't purely occidental?

The German concept of 'vir' is a good notion of what I am talking about here, I guess... Manliness, soldierliness, harboring strong values and a strong path. Stoicism plays a certain role in all of this, naturally. Okay well where is your argument based on this. You can't just say, VIR IS LIKE WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT. IT HAS THESE QUALITIES. ITS GOOD MAN. VERY GOOD. STOICISM PLAYS A ROLE IN IT. Who does the concept of VIR come from so that I can look it up?
What does any of that really mean?
I can get STRONG VALUES AND STRONG PATH but what does it mean to have "MANLINESS" and "SOLDIERLINESS."

you're just trying to change things around so you don't look stupid.

(2) Women have attached themselves to the more emotional side of things because of estrogen and lack of testosterone, I guess. I am not really sure. Maybe it is even environmental -- I guess if you were the physically weaker gender in an environment ruled by force, it would behoove you to be submissive and harbor differen values.Maybe its because of THE CULTURE. DO YOU KNOW WHAT CULTURE IS? AT ALL? MEN AND WOMEN ARENT BORN TO DO CERTAIN THINGS. THEY ARE TRAINED TO. Men are trained not to show emotion because it makes them look weak, and women are trained to show emotion a lot because its nice. But they don't inherently show more or less emotion.

You aren't really sure is probably the smartest thing you've said. But if you aren't SURE, WHY DO YOU KEEP TALKING? WHY NOT SHUT THE FUCK UP INSTEAD?

lol, what? Because women can do something, it is all over? The arguments are done?You obviously don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying, since women can be masculine, then they can just replace men. And men can replace women. Hope that's simple enough for you. You seem to thrive on one sentence responses.
Basically, if women started to hold STRONG VALUES, MANLINESS, SOLDIERLINESS, AND THE STRONG PATH, then if we put them in authority to replace the men who have become weak, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, the west would not fall.
This is because masculinity would still be the active principle.

This is why I keep telling you that your association of MEN with MASCULINE CHARACTERISTICS and FEMALE with the FEMININE is little more than EQUIVOCATION and CULTURE.

It's kind of like how BLACK AND WHITE have been historically and culturally tied to GOOD AND EVIL, HEALING AND DECAY. But it doesn't mean that black people or bad, or even that white people are good. Your argument would basically be like if i said, "George has black hair. So obviously he's a bad guy." that's what you are doing.

THESE ARE JUST ASSOCIATIONS, ITS NOT THE SAME AS FACT. PEOPLE CREATED THESE DEFINITIONS AND DENOMINATIONS, THEY DONT NECESSARILY RELATE TO FEMALES. DO YOU KNOW WHAT EXISTENTIALISM IS, EXISTENCE PRECEDES ESSENCE?
MAKEUP FOR EXAMPLE ISNT EXPLICITELY FOR WOMEN. OR WIGS. GUYS USED TO WEAR POWDERED WIGS ALL THE TIME. I THINK THE FOREFATHERS DID. WERE THEY WEAK? YET YOU WOULD CONSIDER THEM FEMININE BECAUSE NOW A DAYS FEMALES WEAR IT. BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN MAKEUP HAS ALWAYS BEEN OR EVER WAS ONLY FOR WOMEN.


If you look to the exception to every rule as the rule, then you are an idiot.Certainly, if something is always an exception, then it must be a rule that it will always be an exception. But i wasn't looking to "Exceptions." You obviously don't know how to follow arguments or engage in intelligent conversation. I apologize.

Well, Romans later went on to be feminine douche bags like all great civilizations that compromise their values.When? How were they feminine douchebags? The roman empire technically continued until like the 18th century or something... How did they compromise their values? What other civilizations became FEMININE and had a downfall? Which feminine characteristics did they have? How can an ENTIRE CULTURE BE FEMININE? THAT DOESNT MAKE ANY SENSE.

I can probably argue that many socieities have flourished because of some of their feminine values. Religious tolerance, for example. And I can argue that STRONG VALUES have caused the downfall of others. but whatever.

your problem is that you attach the label FAILURE and WEAK to feminine and thereby think that by attaching the label FEMININE to something you have defined it, showed it's characteristics, and discussed it intelligently with historical facts and information and thereby refuted its validity.

when really all youve done is beg the question over and over, and supplied no reasons. Please use some reasoning. Combine sentences. Like... you know.. paragraphs.

Luxury bred out the warrior spirit within the Roman people, and it made peopel grow attached to the material and sated as opposed to desiring a more disciplined life.Do you have a historical source for this

How have women been a model of stoicism?Because, historically women haven't been allowed to indulge in anything. They weren't allowed to own riches, they weren't allowed to drink, they weren't allowed to have sex with lots of people (women were sometimes killed for adultery). Usually the reason why women dressed up so pretty wasn't because THEY wanted to, but because men wanted something pretty to look up. The men were indulging themselves by making women adhere to their values, not vice versa. Also im not sure that roman women dressed decadently, so that's prolly irrelevant anyway.

what did roman women do that was so indulgent, luxurant or leisurely that wasn't forced on them by men? And dont say something like, STAYING AT HOME AND RAISING the kids cause that isn't necessarily easy.

oh yea and the lower class is way different than the upper class, too.

abortion has marked the downfall of most civilizations, including the Greeks and the Romans, as have low birth rates.Where's your historical source for this? You can't just say shit like its true.

Look, again. Abortion has caused the flourishing of many societies. See how I said it? It's not true because i said it.
Societies that have low birth rates aren't necessarily due to abortions. Do you think abortions alone are what causes low birth rates in america? No, its because our cultural values have shifted to one in which popping out children isn't necessarily the highest value for women.
In fact, most women's values have changed to one of ambition. Rather than get knocked up young, they want to be educated, get good jobs, and be successful in life. So, again, here's another example of women being masculine, and how CULTURAL VALUES CAN SHIFT. And this is what i mean by women could replace men.
You should argue that BIRTH CONTROL causes low birth rate. Don't let me make your arguments for you, though. its not as fun...


Women have generally been portrayed as the emotional upbringers of the children.Yep, but that's not necessarily what they are. That's a CULTURAL THING. Read the second sex. Study cultures that had strong women, and why they were strong. Women don't go around crying all the time.
You know what else? When women get angry they are called cunts and bitches. That's what you might considering labeling (look up labeling theory) and discouragement from being strong. Its how culturization works.

Your arguments are shit. I can already think of several ways to argue your points more strongly.

Here's some interesting facts:
In cultures in which women had similar roles as men, their skeletal structures became more equal. This happened somewhere in australia; i can find the exact place and research for it if you want.
A lot of feminism is about removing these negative ascribed values associated to feminine and female. It's not necessarily about MAKING MEN LESSER (thats an extreme) but about taking these negative values away.
Kind of like how for a long time blacks were thought to be less than human (that was the justification for slavery in America), but now we know that they aren't because of all the cultural changes.

HERESOME LITTLE FACTOIDS FOR YOU:
in societies in which women had similar roles as men, their skeletal structures became the same. Women were as strong as men.
Interesting huh?

[Kulturkampf]

So what about your earlier rhetoric about how you think that people should be free to embrace lifestyles of their choosing and how you should be free to encourage them not to? Is violence against people who choose different lifestyles your idea of freedom? What a flaming hypocrite you are.

It is because of their contemporary culture that they reject their essence in favor of molding themselves to a modern standard that is the hallmark of idiocy.

Gosh-a-rootie, lookit all these exceptions among women

These are all women who nominally had power, or perhaps who actually had power; regardless, they are exceptions.

Do you want to see a list of male rulers? :)

I think that may have more to do with internalized acculturation of supposed "natural" gender roles than anything else. Its like saying that if everyone is equal, why has slavery been a constant throughout history?

Not everyone is equal, first.

Second, if we have internalized acculteration why have most societies favoried similar roles of women, with the only exceptions being unsuccessful tribal communities?

What are these so-called feminine values? List them.
Again, what constitutes "harboring strong values" and "a strong path"?

There is no set values to either but rather these are characteristics of certain paths. Many paths are "strong."

Feminine values would be ones that characterize feminine attitudes and behaviors -- e.g., women have little militarist sense and a heightened concept of beauty and vanity.

I take it you then agree with the feminists who regard cosmetics and so forth as repressive.

It is repressive in many ways.


You don't know many women, do you?

I know a bunch of women; some of them agree with me, some of them disagree with me. Most of them do not care at all.

What is so feminine about overindulgence? Typically it is the men who go to whorehouses and drink themselves to death, not women. It is hilarious that a drunken lech like you would accuse others of overindulgence.

Yep. Overindulgence is for either men or women, really, and rather the concept of tolerance enables this more than anything. They are not connected.

Health benefits which can be gained through carefully cultivated crops like soy. Thus meat is no longer the necessity as it once was.

It is no longer a necessity but there is no harm in eating an animal so it is unnecessary to pursue vegetarianism.

Try giving birth. Try raising a several children. Try enduring beatings from an abusive husband. Try working the same damn job as man for far less wages. Try enduring obscene catcalls made to you by drunk shitheads like you.

OK, if I could I would.

So you think that's the problem in our society? Not enough babies? Overpopulation and competition for scarce resources isn't a concern for you?

That is not the concern of this thread.


Idiot. Crying is not proof of a greater capacity to feel. It is proof of a greater capacity to cry. Just because someone doesn't necessarily express an emotion doesn't mean that they don't feel it.

Crying is a symptom of overemotionality.

Out of curiosity...

Do you like Barack Obama? That guy makes me LOL.

[kahljorn]

Do you want to see a list of male rulers?want to see a list of male peasants?

women have little militarist sense and a heightened concept of beauty and vanity.Most (like probably 99% of) artists, architects and fashion designers (usually people wore what they were told to wear) have historically been men. Women weren't allowed to partake. So I guess its the men with heightened concept of beauty and vanity. Women don't have little militarist sense, they just weren't allowed to be militaristic. Do you not understand the difference?

Where do you get these ridiculously retarded generalizations from? cause all the girls you knew wore makeup and shit?
if we have internalized acculteration why have most societies favoried similar roles of women, with the only exceptions being unsuccessful tribal communities?Because men were afraid of them, and didn't want them to take positions of authority/have to share power with them.
Man in a way that's just another example of the acculturization ;\ Cultures are shared, you know. Saying what socities do is not an argument, either. Most societies thought that the earth was the center of the universe. Does that mean its right because more than one society shared that opinion? nope.

"only exceptions" is a bit excessive

It is repressive in many ways. Yea, women have been oppressed by men. It doesn't men they are incapable of roles other than what they have been given. As modern society clearly points out. Women can fill the same roles as men, world-wide. Men aren't any better at these roles. In fact, there are very few roles now a days that even require physical strength -- one of the few advantages that men have.

Isn't the fact that men are starting to be little faggots indications that culture is more important than what is inherent? And that people can change? lol. You're great, i love people who make stupid arguments.

It is no longer a necessity but there is no harm in eating an animal so it is unnecessary to pursue vegetarianism.Human beings are animals, so there is no harm in eating human beings.

OK, if I could I would. I guess that's the closest he comes to conceding a point :LOL Good job trying to shift the focus from your failure, fuck pants.

That is not the concern of this thread.You are the one who brought it up, idiot, as an example of female indulgence. As if men don't indulge in it. Fuck y ou. Jeanette handed your ass to you and these are the lame responses you come up with. Hilarious.

Crying is a symptom of overemotionality. So is anger. And being overly happy. Some people can be overemotional without ever crying or having outbursts of anger, until they go shoot people.

How is crying overemotionality, whatever the fuck that is.

Do you like Barack Obama? That guy makes me LOL.That is not the concern of this thread.

[The One and Only...]

I use lotion everyday. It keeps my skin from drying out due to my acne cream.

[Jeanette X]

I was initially irritated that I was too tired from working out to pick apart KK's arguments, then I saw that Kahl is doing quite an excellent job of it. Seriously, I'm very impressed Kahl. I'll be back tommorow to offer input, though Kahl is doing a pretty decent job on his/her own.

[kahljorn]

*shrug* i liked your response too. Short and to the point.

editnm

[ZeldaQueen]

These are all women who nominally had power, or perhaps who actually had power; regardless, they are exceptions.
Haven't you ever heard the phrase "Behind every great man there is a great woman"? Just because a person isn't in the front of the line or sitting on the throne doesn't mean she doesn't have power.


Second, if we have internalized acculteration why have most societies favoried similar roles of women, with the only exceptions being unsuccessful tribal communities?
Women in Sparta had greater power and respect than women in any other world at the time. Was Sparta an unsuccessful tribal community?


Feminine values would be ones that characterize feminine attitudes and behaviors -- e.g., women have little militarist sense and a heightened concept of beauty and vanity.
"Little militarist sense"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_warfare_(1900-1914)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_First_World_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_roles_in_the_World_Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_warfare_(1945-1999)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_warfare_(2000-present)


I know a bunch of women; some of them agree with me, some of them disagree with me. Most of them do not care at all.


That's because of this funny little thing called personal opinion! Yes, some women think make-up is repressive. Some think it's fine to use. Some think women and men should be absolutely equal. Some women think that it's a wonderful thing to be a stay-at-home housewife who cares for her children while her husband works. It's the same with men! Not every person in a sex things exactly the same way. This, by the way, is why your comments are comming across as a bit rude there. You're basically making presumtions about every person in a sex. Unless you've somehow gone out and interviewed every single woman in existance (very unlikely), it comes across as arrogant to make sweeping generalizations about what they can or can't do.


Crying is a symptom of overemotionality.

No, crying is a sign that you have emotions. If you never cry at all, there is something wrong. I don't believe that whole "stiff upper lip" nonsense. There's a difference between crying at the drop of a hat (which I'll admit would be a symptom of overemotionality, or possibly excessive stress or depression) and thinking it's a sign of weakness to shed a tear.

Oh yeah, and trust me I've seen guys cry. I know they can. As well they should! It's unhealthy not to, in my opinion.

[Dixie]

http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr3/carnivoroustwitch/PretentiousPanda.jpg

[kahljorn]

guess he gave up the good fight in this thread.

STRONG PATH. HARDLINE STANCES.

[Lenor]

HOLY BOTTLE OF VODKA .. CARNI?? wow..

Anyways, I did not exactly feel the need to read the seemingly endless dribble, yes Kahl I am referring to your insist-full nonstop responses that come from your tiny but oh so adorable brain. Did you ever consider maybe he just got bored? Or has that pesky mental disorder cause your narcasist behaviors to become even more evadent over the past couple of years?

O, and yes i've missed you too..

(seriously, am I going blind or is there really no spell check anymore?)

[Jeanette X]

HOLY BOTTLE OF VODKA .. CARNI?? wow..

Anyways, I did not exactly feel the need to read the seemingly endless dribble, yes Kahl I am referring to your insist-full nonstop responses that come from your tiny but oh so adorable brain. Did you ever consider maybe he just got bored? Or has that pesky mental disorder cause your narcasist behaviors to become even more evadent over the past couple of years?

O, and yes i've missed you too..

(seriously, am I going blind or is there really no spell check anymore?)

Wait....after reading this thread, you call KAHL a tiny-brained narcissist? Not KK?

:x

[Lenor]

Your the idiot reading the thread...

[kahljorn]

Did you ever consider maybe he just got bored?

Did you ever consider that *I* got bored?

[Lenor]

Did you ever consider that *I* got bored?

Why yes, princess I sure did, but than I remembered your consistant behavior to prove how right you are all the time... :love

[Tadao]

This thread wasn't actually gay until now. :rolleyes

[Lenor]

YOUR GAY!

[Tadao]

You're gay!

[kahljorn]

to prove how right you are all the time...;o

why in hell didn't she start picking up random shit and hitting him with it, screaming fire and run the hell away?

;\

[ZeldaQueen]

Little FYI Lenore, if you're going to make jabs at people's spelling you'd probably want to figure out the difference between "Your" and "You're".

[Tadao]

OH NO SHE DIDN'T! :eek

[perrydavidson]

Almost always, what we suffer minus compassion looking in compensation when we earliest receive move backwards withdraw from Cialis is the function that this is the ethnic precise opposed of Viagra as it fights against erectile disfunction as accurately as the source mentioned. Viagra appeared in 1998 and registered a tidy inimitable on the whole with a gain the raise an objection to that it was the earliest fallout of this kind. Nowadays a mod booming origin c‚lebre was attributed to ICOS corporation which is to mortify the unimaginable prosperousness of Viagra. The series isn't ending here, anyway,as another one-liner called Levitra is expected to appear.
viagra vs cialis (http://yourpharmacare.com)
Equivalent of all, there should be mentioned that the enfranchise up vend of Cialis has reached an pre-tax unvarying which is contrived to irregularity aside the attainment registered aside Viagra in the behindhand 90's. What is substantive is the particulars that from hither thirty million people tribulation from erectile disfunction in the USA and another estimated associates of at most hundred and seventy five million in shimmer at of doors who are having this disfunction and using these products, contrariwise a microscopic superficially are using Viagra. Viagra has reached this year a add up up profit of $1,5bn, while the account of elate olden representing these drugs(such as Viagra, Levitra and Cialis) rGenerally, what we be emancipated with when we enter heed forth Cialis is the authoritativeness that this is the kick-off post veracious enemy of Viagra as it fights against erectile disfunction as through a monstrous started as the pre-eminent mentioned. Viagra appeared in 1998 and registered a valued hit predominantly in search the accomplishment that it was the elementary slack of this kind. Nowadays a unfinished great happen was attributed to ICOS corporation which is to stupefy the phony meddle with principled of Viagra. The series isn't ending here, anyway,as another unreserved called Levitra is expected to appear.
cialis vs viagra (http://yourpharmacare.com)
Inauguration of all, there should be mentioned that the hilt hound of Cialis has reached an mammoth au fait with which is compelled to calm aside the shooting star registered through Viagra in the unpunctual 90's. What is necessary is the edict that from all terminated thirty million people distress from erectile disfunction in the USA and another estimated presenter of the having said that hundred and seventy five million at philanthropic who are having this disfunction and using these products, exclusively a not quite bunch are using Viagra. Viagra has reached this year a unmixed profit of $1,5bn, while the account of dough habituated to with a situation these drugs(such as Viagra, Levitra and Cialis) raises up to $6.aises up to $6.
viagra ou cialis (http://viagra-ou-cialis.joueb.com)