Why pink?
The simple explanation: Pink is the color of pussy, the celebration of which is the male sexualist ethos. Women of all colors have pink pussies, so it is all-inclusive.
Pink is currently seen as a sort of girlie and cutesy color that men don't want to be too wrapped up in. My picking this color is deliberate because society wants to shame us for our sexuality, and we need to deal with that. By embracing pink we proudly admit that we like pussy, including a great deal of (unfairly) criminalized pussy, which is the raison d'être for male sexualism. Men who are too timid to support us outright yet can practice wearing some pink to get over their embarrassment, as a sort of training wheels for male sexualism if you will.
Another reason is simple availability. The white flag is taken (and we certainly don't want that!), the black flag is taken by the anarchists, red and blue and green and brown are established political colors, but pink is claimed by no ideology that I know of.
Pink is also a beautiful color, admit it! That is almost reason enough.
You might object that it is too heterocentric. To that I would reply that if you don't like pussy, you already have a flag with a rainbow on it. We need a straight pride flag too! The pink flag does double service as straight pride and the symbol of male sexualism. If the gays ever man up to resist the feminist sex laws, in future demonstrations we can even fly the pink and rainbow flags side by side.
Now we also have a new male sexualist rallying cry: "Give me pink!"
If you want to call the pink flag a pedophile flag, I would not object to that even though I and most of us are not pedophiles (this is a way to disarm the ridiculous accusation that we are pedophiles just for liking teen girls under the age of consent too). You can also call it a MAP flag (but not NOMAP or VirPed -- well, I can't stop them either), an antifeminist flag or a positive masculinity flag. All told, it is a flag against oppression of sexuality -- the flag of sex-positivity. Obviously women can use it too against the female sex offender charade, if they ever come to their senses and resist that. My vision is that the pinks will be mentioned alongside the reds and blues and other colors of the political landscape as we gain traction.
You might object that it is too heterocentric. To that I would reply that if you don't like pussy, you already have a flag with a rainbow on it. We need a straight pride flag too! The pink flag does double service as straight pride and the symbol of male sexualism. If the gays ever man up to resist the feminist sex laws, in future demonstrations we can even fly the pink and rainbow flags side by side.
Now we also have a new male sexualist rallying cry: "Give me pink!"
If you want to call the pink flag a pedophile flag, I would not object to that even though I and most of us are not pedophiles (this is a way to disarm the ridiculous accusation that we are pedophiles just for liking teen girls under the age of consent too). You can also call it a MAP flag (but not NOMAP or VirPed -- well, I can't stop them either), an antifeminist flag or a positive masculinity flag. All told, it is a flag against oppression of sexuality -- the flag of sex-positivity. Obviously women can use it too against the female sex offender charade, if they ever come to their senses and resist that. My vision is that the pinks will be mentioned alongside the reds and blues and other colors of the political landscape as we gain traction.
214 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 214 of 214Even monkeys are fappers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMLYs97-V8U
Yes, and so what? It won't noticeably impair them when they don't have porn to fap to. There is such a thing as a minor diversion, and then there are evolutionary traps that destroy a significant part of your fitness. Monkey fapping probably falls into the former category, while human males are now vulnerable to the latter. Which is by no means only a human phenomenon, however. Remember I shared this video before which shows male jewel beetles falling into a trap even more devastating than Internet porn thanks to beer bottles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKdP0ifBqi8
Just because something is "natural" or done by other animals doesn't mean it is good, and besides, neither beer bottles nor digital pornography occurs in nature. Be very, very afraid of these things.
'Just because something is "natural" or done by other animals doesn't mean it is good'
Okay, I'll bite.
By what whimsical, unfiltered by sociological / cultural / time-of-the-century policy-influenced standards do you then propose to accept something that is natural, as also being harmless?
Oh and BTW I got shafted by the PFU in the end, where they refused to consider my case.
Next up, Stortinget.
I didn't say that what occurs naturally has to be harmless, but if it is a major feature of the environment for long enough, species will tend to adapt to it. For example, let's suppose aliens landed and installed porn booths all over the African savanna when humans evolved, and kept maintaining them. Do you think porn would be very appealing to us now, then? No, males who masturbated to it would have reproduced less over a very long time, and the descendants of those who reproduced the most would have evolved additional ways to identify real women before they would get very aroused. For example, we might be more reliant on smells than vision. And then maybe instead of a video porn industry, we would now have an industry supplying artificial odor of vaginas to wankers, because that would be the supernormal stimulus that could serve as an evolutionary trap.
I believe we can already see the faint beginnings of such evolution. How many kids do you have, Gally? I also have zero in part because I fell into this evolutionary trap when I was young, but I am trying to rectify that now. If industrial civilization doesn't collapse, nofap will get stronger and stronger by some mechanism or another, probably first by cultural evolution because societies who suppress porn will have more kids. As individuals, we can't wait for evolution to make it easy, however; we have to use our intellect to decide on nofap.
Notice that nofap is now starting to be described by feminists by words like "insidious" and "extreme misogyny":
https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/social-media/2018/11/no-nut-november-insidious-internet-challenge-encouraging-men-not
They feel threatened, not because we are actual misogynists, but because we want to be healthy men. Healthy male sexuality does not have the same interests as female sexuality, so there will always be conflict. Gentlemen, embrace your healthy sexuality even if women don't like it, and be duped no more about the supposed harmlessness of masturbation.
yep.like homosexuals.what they're doing is abnormal.they also use the hey!monkeys do it, it's normal! no, they're abnormal ALSO.
Also, if you want to use monkeys as an example, at least study monkey behavior in the wild rather than captivity. Otherwise it's almost like upholding what men do in prisons as healthy male sexuality, which it is obviously not, but there are also far more important differences as I've pointed out. I'm working on a new blog post on nofap now which should go up tonight.
And no, I don't consider homosexuality abnormal, when it is freely expressed. That's just a normal variation that persists at some level for poorly understood reasons and has nothing to do with nofap and the damage of porn.
feminists feel "threatened" by EVERYTHING. hell,they're terrified of ME.I'm a "stalker", were ALL rapists. yada yada.they SHOULD be treated like the females in "our" great ally, Saudi Arabia, a friend to ALL,lol
of course it's abnormal.dicks don't belong in asses.doesnt produce babies, and there's also the risk of hiv/aids, which, I hoped would wipe the freaks out.however, the gaystapo convinced all the idiots "anyone" could get it and forced the govt to spend trillions to cure a behavioural disease.just another gigantic waste of money.like sending the army to the border to catch one ms13 dude.well, THAT was a brilliant expenditure of 100s of millions.
'Gaystapo'.
Yeah, like somebody is forcibly trying to make you a better human being by letting you go of your petty and quite insignificant little hatred of others just because they happen to like people of their own gender.
Did you know that the greater number of boy-children a woman has, the greater the chance becomes that the next son will be born gay?
Because the womb fights back against the male hormones, which are after all a resource-drain.
So the longer back in time you go - because then the more children women had, since half of them died before the age of five - the gayer it gets.
Put than in your pipe and smoke it.
wrong again.I don't hate gays.I hate cops.I hate feminists.I hate constant surveillance.most Americans don't seem to mind their every move being tracked.
I just didn't appreciate the gay movement insisting aids was just like the flu, ANYONE could get it. incorrect.it was/is a behavioural disease.
You can catch HIV by sex with a woman, but statistically you have to fuck her vaginally 2000 times before you catch the virus, which is vastly safer than homosexual practices where the transmission rate can be as high as 3% for receptive anal intercourse. Still, I am glad we now have good drugs against AIDS and don't hold it against the gay community to push for this. And I have nothing against gays in general -- let them do their thing, though it is a fact that it is a dangerous "lifestyle" in many ways (not really a lifestyle since they didn't choose to be gay). They are doing what they are "supposed" to do given their genetics and environment, as you keep saying you do too, John.
But it is true, AIDS did not take off heterosexually like some had predicted. Where I live they don't even bother testing straight men for it when you ask for an STD test, unless you specifically want it. I would not worry about HIV at all unless I knew the woman was positive, and I don't care for anal, so even if she was, I would really have to work at it to get infected.
yep I agree they didn't choose to be gay.however, gay men are notoriously promiscuous with most having hundreds sometimes thousands of "partners".do they have any control over that? I think so. lesbians are mostly monogamous.anyway, it's still abnormal behaviour presented as normal.i feel bad for the real victims, like Arthur ashe who acquired aids from a blood transfusion.
Post a Comment