Introducing Phallocentrism


Special guest post by Jessie Nagy







Notice: The word “aesthetics” is not defined in this context of it’s visual associations. I use it in the context of females being more concerned with how something is delivered than the actual thing itself. Yes, males are naturally more visual creatures.

Before reading this I would like to clarify this: Firstly, you would have to read this, especially due to its off kilter execution, in its entirety with full alertness. Secondly, Many will obviously mistake this, but what’s more is that some will mistake the fundamental message entirely for some sort of religion of sex, basically. That is not what I am saying at all. I’m saying the exact apposite actually; it is that sort of hypnosis that many males waste their time with that actually helps the stagnation &/or decline, not only in their own lives, but on a larger cultural scale as well. If males were to stop promoting females’ egos by realizing that their main unction in society is to breed & related, & examine sexuality purely objectively, it would naturally become just another easy custom in society rather than a task for males.

Essentially what I am proposing is what patriarchy would be if it actually existed fully.

In short summation:



In the abstract:

Female sexual preference selects for the reactionary. This instinctual female sexual preference has habitually & indirectly sculpted anti-intellectualism. What soft unscientific “sciences” of Feminism, which translates to art, not science, doesn’t grasp is that “male dominance” is a result of, historically speaking, males sacrificing themselves to be of service to build & organize, which has, as a natural side product, resulted in occasional aggression & shoddy strategizing. SELECTION = PRIVILEGE = MATRIARCHY.

The matriarchy can be described as a culture revolving around institutionalized kitsch/art, a mindless consumption of base materialism, as apposed to higher “spiritual” strivings, celebrity styled dominance hierarchies, systematic procedure of genital mutilation (although this practice is most likely the result of the trial & error experimental methodology of male concocting/sacrifice, which should be compared to the ultra violent, obscure female-led Amazonian culture.) of male babies that deprives males of their full sexuality, as thousands of nerve endings are contained in the male foreskin. (speaking as an uncircumsized male myself born in Brazil where ,at least to my knowledge of Brazil’s current stance on circumcision, this procedure does not occur, I am NATURALLY & HEALTHILY much more interested in sex than the average male.) & an unhealthy emphasis of p.c. taste over rationality/truth, which has stalled the progress of science, which could help promote a more technocratic oriented society.

Our society is mind-controlled (not as defined as “reptilians”, etc..) by the matriarchy that is often mistaken, especially due to the lies of the soft social “sciences” known as Feminism, for a “patriarchy.” This mind control has occurred through the ages mainly subconsciously. The so-called “patriarchy” – a sacrifice by males to serve – has only been conditioned by the covert matriarchy, as female sexual preference selects for males of service, the archetypal “alpha males” have been projected on the macro as the “patriarchy.” Women have selected the “patriarchy” , & men have enabled female leisure.

Love, although I am not denying that love is a very real & valuable emotional bond/support system, is generally initiated by some form of business transaction, usually material, sometimes otherwise. Because men are so easily amused by female sexuality that is accompanied by an indifference to female habitual collusion, males have allowed themselves into receiving the inculcation that it is a “fair deal” to pay the female sex, whether materially &/or otherwise, for the purpose of giving them their utility. Even sex itself, although it is surely reciprocal, is predominantly an activity in which the male gives to a passive recipient in money/materials, energy, thrusting, sacrifice of prudence, & sperm. The former illogical barter system has been triggered on to society because men are weak to female sexuality.

It is males who construct & organize society, therefore it would only be a proper barter system for males to enjoy the benefits of their labor by having females defray towards male societal utility.

Of course the notion of “natural” human rights are only contrived by fluctuating human movements, it is still self evident , if one thinks logically, that the current barter system to initiate reciprocating love is not truly based on a balanced foundation of pay & receive, but pay & give. I’m no economist, but the current barter system is analogous to a hypothetical situation where one pays you to take you to a theme park.

Females generally consume, while males do, & females will continue this dis-balance of having males pay them for the purpose of basically giving females a life because females know, whether fully conscious or subconsciously, that they can get away with it.

MALES, STOP IMMEDIATELY CATERING TO FEMALE VANITY & THE MATRIARCHY IS DEPOSED! If a reversal of the approach would be initiated, females would naturally be enforced to cater to a phallocentric society, thus following higher pursuits, as they often do follow.

I do consider that females instinctually evaluate male status for the purpose of discerning potential support for the child when enduring the painful process of birth, ( one year. big deal, which still doesn’t counterweigh male societal performance.) , which can be alleviated & assisted through technological ingenuity provided by male service/sacrifice. Females have been reported to excel in subservient multitasking, while males at concentrating, & it would be an honorable attitude to adopt for them to be willing to give their progeny to the sex that represents the half of humanity that builds & organizes most of it. Females “gave us life”. More accurately, we gave females a life. We assisted them with technology & ingenuity so that now they can use the vague planning, excuse of giving birth to just maintain more greed. Even though a female may not be greedy for external materialism, they still have the greed for  internalized materialism.

The counter argument is that females select on the basis of high status symbols for the purpose of promoting potential offspring. Reply: Females are the ones who prioritize offspring first. Overpopualtion is a myth. More intelligent, rational males, more innovation & civilization. Females are not giving 6-7  children to these “boring” accountant types.What they do instead is they spend the teens to mid 20s sifting through descent males, wasting time, & also trying to find this unrealistic fantasy that barely even exists of the similar type of success of the “boring” accountant but who also has the dominance of Mike Tyson. That only works sometimes when it is postured a certain way. Males generally want an affection based relationship first before evaluating options of creating offspring. Males are the first ones to plan with condoms, etc., then start thinking about family orientation after planning is established.




The term ‘phallocentric’ might connote to more superficial minds that such a motive is only sexual, (& I do emphasize more sexuality in this) but if you get towards the build up of the climax in this segment,(pun intended) it is not sex itself that is the main motive, but the newly replaced impetus that would ensue in the aftermath of a mass hypothesized reversal of our current gynocentrism that is the main motive.Don’t be so superficial,



Do not mistake phallocentrism for traditionalism or patriarchy. Any definition of patriarchy as “man centered” is a misnomer due to mass subjective contrivance. Zoologists acknowledge ant society revolves around catering the queen. Humans can not apply the latter analogy because humans are not 100% objective onto themselves. Patriarchy is right in asserting itself that masculinity is the predominating force that constructs/ organizes society, however, where paternalism is subject to blunder is in instinctively tendering to femininty.

Males are the tools of society. Females SHOULD be the tool boxes.

Some argue that feminine intuition is superior in selection for Darwinian weeding, however, phallocentrism on a mass societal level has never been tested, so the former argument is unsubstantiated. I take the stance that masculine logic is superior to feminine intuition.

Some might ask: ” Why are you so concerned with sex in regards to the Feminist problem?”

Answer: Society is quite literally triggered from a sexological & psychological point. If you examine the causal roots, the effects become lucid.

Look to evolutionary psychology, sexology, neuro-science, & general psychology .

This phallocentric conjecture remains as purely theoretical since this has never been markedly tested, & will probably remain so in this life time.

Masculine logic is distinctively different from feminine intuition. Phallocentrism holds the position that masculine logic is a much better impetus than feminine intuition. In a phallocentric system masculine logic would take the monopoly of their sexuality since masculine logic would replace feminine intuition as the selective/ Darwinian weeding methodology.
Let us learn from Elders: The northern Asiatic has been reported to be the most functional people of them all. They are very good at abiding by systems. However, to use that model, I think we would get some very good results if that method of a more rigid patriarchy would be applied to the more exploratory western culture. Asiatics are very good on following instructions, but they don’t have that “daring” spirit of the western & septentrion. It is also true of the stereotype of Asian females. I know from anecdotal as well as scientific confirmations; they are better companions, both in terms of loyalty, as well as much better of sex. I think it’s do to having higher i.q.s allows them to deal with situations by much more functionality & a mature way.

Imbedded in Chinese Societies is to favor boys over girls. Important links to ancestors & family names carry through male line, as well as economic reasons as links. The Chinese system of tenancy is an important factor. Farmer families receive one plot of land, & since historically girls who marry move in with family of groom, a family with a boy has a better chance ultimately with the land-allotment system. Boys are also better able to tend farm & also to care for aging parents.
Due to political reasons of Mao’s rule, it was planned to have one-child planning, designed for exhortation to patriotic couples to have large families. Prior to the latter rule, as the Key’s to China’s geopolitical heft & industrial might, the state aggressively promoted large families in the mid. twentieth century.
(I don’t actually believe in the myth that overpopulation is a bad thing per se. The more concentration of more intelligent stock, the more likely you’d have more innovation. It just depends on who’s breeding. Yes, China is highly populated , but with that, there’s more likely for them to make new methods of fixing problems of overpopulation.)
In 1979, the state mandated couples to have only one or two births. Number depends on location of families & of the order of births. City couples are only allowed more than one if couple are in second marriages & desire a child together. In the country, 2 children are legal if the first child is a girl. The tip towards boys was so strong that the government allowed it.
Preference for boys is due to the fact that they simply know that males are just more productive than females.
Say whatever you want about their politics & the fact that they incline to Communism, however, few mistakes does not negate the fact that they are a wiser people. I’m not “blowing-smoke-up-the-ass,” purely informative, the average I.Q. of the Chinese is from ~105-110. Genius is in the 140(+) range. The average i.q. of America is 90-100. Of some cases it’s even below 90 depending on what sub-set of American groups.
China’s population is stabalizing during its increasing wealth.
The Chinese call the male surplus “bare branches.”
Authors Andrea M. den Boer & Valerie M. Hudson criticize the bare-branches, worrying that the high concentration of males can cause future violence.
But if we actually analyze this impulsively resentful critique by females realistically: True, the absolute number of crimes in China will be high due to the fact that population is high, statistically, China’s average homicide rate is 1/100,000/year. Ours is ~6 times higher. Specifically gun deaths: including suicides & accidents, ours tops 30,000/year – 10+/100,000. More like Iraq than China, & we’re less populated than China. This comes from a director of China Affairs at Strebesana Resources, LLC – Rebecca Weiner, & she has about 30 years of experience with Chinese business. Real life China is a relatively safe place.
Countries that had been reported to have the best public order in the world is Japan & Switzerland. In may of 2012, a newspaper by the Ministry of Public Security stated that China’s Murder rate had decreased below those 2 aforementioned. Figures compiled by UNODC – UN Office on Drugs & Crime – show that of 2009, from a comparison of 3 countries, China had a murder rate of 1.1 per 100,000 people, compared with 0.7 in Switzerland & 0.4 in Japan. By the UN agency’s count, China is better in that department than Australia & Britain – 1.2 in 2009 – & America – 5.0.
They are not grouping with terrorist cells, etc., they are joining construction crews, etc.. Additionally, China’s concentration of inclining to super-power-dom is more due to masculine leadership championed to thrive. Women also become much more desirable due to the stern hard work of males.

Citations: ‘China Inc.’ by Ted C. Fishman, pgs.: 101, 102, 103, 104. The Economist, Apr. 6th, 2013.



* FACT!:

Male simplistic desire for beauty & loyal affection, which is much easier to maintain & relative in comparison to status, is paradoxically persistently perceived as shallowness. In contrast: female higher expectations  is rarely as compromising.For every “ugly” or “mediocre” female, there are literally hundreds of males who will find them attractive. Not only that, but many males are ready to substitute certain body parts as relics to compensate for an unsatisfactory face.

**MATHEMATICAL EQUATION:Act like you find most females enticing & that all of them perceive you the same way.Because females don’t think for themselves they will only find you of value if their collectivist consensus percieves you as such.

You can see the initiation of what corroborates with the above quote by Vilar when a male e in a bar degrades himself by consuming alcohol just so that he can speak at a woman’s animalistic level; “Uh… beer & shit.”

****FUN FACT!*:

External experience/life lessons does not necessarily guarantee a thorough understanding of the “how”, or point out that a given situation is morally right or wrong, but often merely enforces one to adapt, & often people mistake the latter form of learned adaption for a profitable lesson.Documented information found in books & such are merely recorded experiences, so you could say that those who read more books, experience more.

Females will often experiment with various forms of sex, with various steering males, but there is one form that she will tend to not partake in. That is: intellectual sex – honest & planned.By the time the female reaches the 30 ages, she will come to a dissatisfaction with the “alpha” types that she claims to “bond” with, & this is the age when she will most often begin to look for the “beta provider” she can exploit to try to compensate for all that lost time. When the female reaches the late 20s-30s is the age range when she has had enough of her sexual appetite satiated by the more “aggressive” types & will begin to think in terms of what is efficient to her in terms of courting. This is when she will finally opt for the “beta provider”, but not due to real respect, but mere exploitation, while often times still fantasizing &/or reminiscing, in such a way as playing back home-made mental videos, about submitting to who she really wishes would replace her current utility, thus unsatisfied prior to the late 20-30 ages, as well as unsatisfied after the late 20-30 ages .

In a phallocentric society – where masculine attributes are catered to – boutiques would be replaced by libraries.

Relatively recent neuroscientific findings have confirmed the correlations of “extreme male brain”. In the book ‘The Essential Differences’ by Simon Baron Cohen, extreme forms of masculinity is correlated to deeply systematic forms of reasoning. It is also found in ‘The Essential Differences’ by Simon Baron Cohen that those representative of “the pure male brain” are more concerned with objects, while those representative of femininity are more concerned with socializing with others.

As an aside, it is interesting that the prototype of harder psychology known as psychoanalysis once had a mystical contemplation of this finding when C.G. Jung stated that extroversion is feminine.

While feminine characteristics are generally more pronounced in homosexuals & bisexuals, & such homosexual relationships are usually bounded by a dichotomy of one that is more masculine than the other – even amongst the homosexual representative versions of masculine to feminine dichotomous interchange in confinement of such effeminate models – still, usually one is more masculine, i.e. logical, while the other represents femininity. True masculinity is broadly defined under an umbrella spectrum as logic.



**Fun fact!: Even Helen Fisher, a cultural anthropologist & expert on dating, has stated that dating is not really about rationalizing/blunt honesty, but novelty, excitement, & even danger which can boost dopamine levels in the brain, & she has even further stated that highly intelligent males have a hard time dating.You can see what sort of subtleness & animality ensues when females retain the evaluative throne.

The female is amoral, not immoral per se, but Amoral. They are two distinctively different characteristics. Immorality means a negation of morality. Amoral is neither a negation nor an inclination towards morality. You could say that this sort of middle position of amorality is even worse than immorality.Just observe how a female, out of nihilistic self interest, will dub a brute as “intense”, “interesting”, or “mystifying”, while often simultaneously play as mediator by using the “beta” provider.

Females network differently than males. They’re much more co-operative in a personal way. Males are simply co-operative in regards to task & can overlook people they don’t like. Due to the former female co-operation style, workers are often subsumed under a too personally evaluative way, which can lead one to be ostracized due to hypersensitive exaggeration & false claims. Females co-operate to form gossip circles, they can use these gossip circles for various reasons. : One is to evaluate the “alphas” to the “zetas”.

We’re familiar with conflated sexual harassment claims, but let me instigate another concept – LACK of sexual “harassment” claims. Oh yes, it’s true. I have seen it before in my past profession; a woman actually reported another male coworker because she felt insulted that he did not validate her vanity. Luckily for the reported coworker, the boss did not take this report seriously. Had it been a female boss, the situation could have been worse. On a similar note, at this very same job I had, I was perceived to be the famous, “faggot,misogynist who has “mother issues”” in the aftermath that I had stated to another female coworker “Look, don’t play games with me. Let’s just keep this strictly professional. Leave me alone” after her returning from her lunch brake by being dropped off by her romantic partner after she had attempted to receive validation from me by stating “Let’s go out to eat sometime”. I had already known this was just an attempt to get attention from me or to actually evaluate if she could get an upgrade. Ironically, this stupid cunt was even more attracted to me after I had displayed authority as I had pointed my index finger in her face & stated what I had stated.

TRADITIONALISM WILL ONLY STAGNATE EVOLUTION. TRADITIONALISM ONLY FURTHER ENABLES FEMALE INFANCY. TRADITIONALISTS & PATERNALISTS ARE BY PROXY FEMINISTS WITHOUT EVEN REALIZING IT BECAUSE THEY PUT FEMALES BACK IN THEIR EVALUATIVE POSITION (THRONE), WHICH FEMALES DON’T DESERVE. THAT’S UP TO MALE LOGIC. FEMININE INTUITION AS A “SUPERIOR” SOCIALLY DARWINIST TOOL IS A MYTH AS EXEMPLIFIED AS FEMALE PROPENSITY FOR UNECESSARY NOVELTY & THE CURRENT & HISTORICAL STATE OF FEMININE ENTROPY.BY NOT IMMEDIATELY CATERING TO FEMALE VANITY/SELF INTEREST ON A MASS SCALE – BY ADOPTING A DETACHEMENT FROM FEMALE SEXUALITY & AN OBJECTIVISM TOWARDS FEMALE PSYCHOLOGY – THIS WILL ENFORCE NEUROPLASTICITY THROUGH INTROSPECTION ON THE PART OF THE FEMALE, AS THE FEMALE WOULD LEARN TO ADAPT TO MALE DISCERNMENT/ EVALUTION , THUS REVERSING BRIFFAULT’S LAW, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY ADOPTING EARNEST FORMS OF APPEALING, I.E., CONTROLLED LOGIC ON A MASS SCALE. Provider/protector roles were once absolutely mandatory when the climate suited such roles hundreds to thousands of years ago. However, we now live in much more developed civilizations.Paternalists/f traditionalistsare naïve in thinking that going back to such a political methodology will some how ensure order because, as a historical product, which its effect as a historical product is self evident in of that itself being historical, would only create a pattern that would loop back into another state that is identical to the current state because it puts females in the evaluative (throne) position. Does the maxim: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” resonate? You can naively throw around different political names & ” ‘isms” to contrive new methods, yet these same ” ‘isms” still overlook a natural process. Feminism, paternalism, traditionalism, patriarchy are all different hydras of the same natural process that is gynocentrism.


Highly intellectual males are so preoccupied with higher strivings that they can not simultaneously attend to giving females a life, or, for that matter, corroborate with subtle, animalistic, feminine registration; because females are generally not cerebral, she will often expect that you just put your hand down her crotch when “the time is right”, rather than waiting for a male to just respectfully ask permission in a logical or methodological manner towards such advances because females have the “need” to feel like a woman by “being taken”.

There aren’t enough detached studies of females’ true behavior & psychology. This is most likely due to males’ constant catering, whether in a steering or a submissive way, to female comfort. Hence we often get the absurdly packaged new age styled interpretation of them being the ethereal, “mysterious” goddesses. Thus the predominantly politically correct/feeling based field of the humanities studies obfuscates blatantly obvious rudimentary aspects of female psychology & perpetuates itself to the relegation of superior cold scientists – laughing at the humanities while absorbed in a preoccupation in a distant league of their own much more technical disciplines & mathematics – as rightly dubbing the humanities as “feminine” ( If you do not know scientific nomenclature, you will not understand the latter obscure reference.) while truth struggles to leak out in alternative outlets & often working class, or semi-qualified commentators & sometimes, if lucky, folk psychology.


A finding in ‘The Male Brain’ by Luanne Brizendine: The medial preoctive nerve – a center in the brain specifically designed for the pursuit of sex – is nearly 3xs larger & more active in males.

THEORIZING!: Let me specify in regards to the last finding of the medial preoctive nerve. Actively pursuing sex does not necessarily entail being more sexual, but simply more active. I believe that females are actually more sexual, but it is not commonly understood as such because their passivity does not make their sexuality blatant, in addition to the fact that many people assume that because females often don’t orgasm through generic vaginal penetration – because they do not understand that the female orgasm is much more complex than as such & is not solely confined to inner generic coitus – many will believe that female sexuality is actually less sexual than males’.

If one reads sexology they emphasize that a female’s orgasm is much like a cloth ironer – slowly cools down after being charged. In contrast: male orgasms simply comes to a single pointed climax & then quickly retracts.I theorize that if males stopped immediately catering to females on a mass societal scale, female sexuality, which it’s level of craving remains a mystery due to passivity, would simply accustom itself to becoming a natural trade of the female. Therefore, the female could attend to its pursuit, while males attend to logical orientation. This is simply theory though thus far.

& I quote a small piece from the book ‘The Oxford Handbook of Sexual Conflict in Humans’, page 188:

“The female orgasm has been described as psychologically more elaborate than males’. With women reporting significantly more intense experiences.(Mah & Bink, 2001, 2002) Multiple orgasms are far more frequently reported in women than in men” (masters & Johnson 1966)

NOTICE: The following statement does not at all condone female sexuality, but apposes it.

‘Forbidden Flowers’ by Nancy Friday, along with ‘My Secret Garden’, is telling of latent female psychological predilections towards masochism & other perverse sexual fantasies. I should differentiate male sexual predilections, which is predominantly oriented to body parts/objects, & female fantasies which are rampant with simulation. Although males do occasionally share such ‘S.&.M.’ styled fantasies, they are often not occurring at same frequency, & generally engaged in an indifferent mode. With the aforementioned books, it’s actually what isn’t written in those books that matters. The safer examples found in those books is just the hints.

“HIS IS LITERAL; OBJECTIVE. HERS IS APPROXIMATE; SUBJECTIVE” – A quote from the book ‘Brain Sex’ by Anne Moire P.H.D..

Geneticists & neuroscientists find in this scientific work (Yes, REAL SCIENCE, not politics, not pop. culture, not soft sociology, not some stupid comment you saw on social networking, not middle brow self help guides, not some drunken frat girl who blogs as a side hobby. Do you fucking get that?) that females tend to comprise demographics of fiction novels much more frequently, while males can be identified with demographics of nonfiction subscribers. Of course the obvious correlation in this finding is transparent to those more astute. Both of the authors of this book have debated with 2 soft sociologists( Both of which I do not care to name so as to not sponsor them.) One of them was a prominent Feminist, so of course her arguments were feeling based, while the other was a proponent of symbolist literature who had the nerve to reference an art film. At one point in the debate the proponent of symbolist literature blankly states “This is crap.” before a clapping female audience. Does the cited correlation come to mind? The overarching principle of that scientific work is that females’ brains are generally wired for the purpose of instinctive intuition.Hence the archetypal concept of “feminine intuition” & females’ general predominant involvement with art/emotion. Males’ brains, in contrast, are generally wired for the involvement of logic/reasoning/concentration. Hence why science & related is distinctly masculine. Here’s a little hint for the weak-minded who have become knee jerk prone to this statement: Take a look around you & see all of the engineered stuff & then compare it to the opinions of something like Feminism. I study a lot of linguistics, so I tend to forget that in this world of Orwellien ‘New Speak’ the average people barely even speak real English. When I use the word aesthetics, I’m using it in the broadest sense of the word. I’m not saying “painters are faggy” or something like that. What it means in this context is that activities involving pleasing the sentiments of others is feminine in that it is unconsciously adopted from them which leads to blind collectivism – another feminine trait. Of course, there are plenty of males who are involved in the realm of aesthetics, but these males are usually  instinctively doing it for the purpose of gaining attention from females. It’s not perceived as such because it’s INSTINTUAL.

In contrast: aesthetics are distinctly feminine. This neuro-scientific finding has profound implications considering that females are relatively illogical in comparison to males, & the unscientific, catharsis/art based field of Feminism is a macro politicized extension of this illogicality.

Warning: As I’ve stated before, one must read such material with a discriminative mindset. Politically correct infiltration still seeps into the higher echelons of science. Some sentimentality & style is featured in this book to attempt to build bonds to a more general readership. It is also likely that the front cover is featured with male & female names juxtaposed together to artistically signify sentimental expression for the feminine readers.

NOTICE: The following statement does not at all condone female sexuality but is apposes it. Study 2 subjects called proxemics & kinesics to understand the following statement.

The disgusting female rape fantasies (believe it, It is actually much more common than you might think.) is a female’s subconscious expression towards reinforcing an authority figure by appeasing him with this ridiculous form of flattery. It is an episodic form of inculcation – as sex often processes core meanings to repackage as subtextuality – onto the male that he is to take charge of the relationship because females enjoy the feeling of being owned. It is A ritualized form of deriving power from the male by feigning vulnerability. Not all forms of communication are linguistic, & not all forms of language are completely conscious.Of course none of this applies to all situations, obviously. The more common suburban wife will settle for restaurants and shopping malls, although she may have her own light version of the occasional hair pulling and gentle slaps during sex. In other words: In other words: females claim to want a guy to be angry or “stand up for himself”, but this is simply not true in the context that it would be translated to masculine context. Females don’t speak the same language as males do. Females only want males to get angry at them in a sexual way. You can’t actually get angry at females in a healthy way. They prefer that you get angry at them in a sexual way because that anger that would otherwise be transferred to analyzing what & who she truly is instead gets thwarted to cessation of rational thought. That’s why the rape fantasy, etc., is so popular with females – it ensures that, not only will she derive entertainment, but also that sexuality would never bring critical analysis of her that would take away her power.

Generalizing is a cardinal factor of the scientific synthesis of reasoning & even daily human reasoning. Generalization interprets the actuality of a tenet . As such, generalizing is the requisite substructure that encompasses analysis in order to infer corollary principles by accumulating divisions of facets. The mechanism of testimony is paramount to conclude whether an epitome is a truism.

75% of divorces are initiated by females for the #1 reason: “She wasn’t happy.” Straight-from-the-horses-mouth in ‘Friend Of The Court, Enemy Of The Family’ by Carol Rhodes. To paraphrase from her: We have to accept the cold hard fact that women start most of the divorces.

Even in pure business matters a female will view such communication as if there is almost always an addendum of a sexual subtext. Just notice how a simple approach to simply ask for the hour on her watch will register in her mind that the approacher could be a potential “creep” or a successful romance initiator, yet it is commonly misconstrued that males have what society calls a “one track mind”.Personal anecdote: I have a natural talent for illustrating visual artwork. I occasionally attempt to peddle my drawings. Once I approached a couple of middle aged females at a local shopping mall to be met with displayed expressions that signified as if they had seen a ghost. (That’s “superior” feminine Darwinian intuition for you.) In the aftermath of my inquiry I had heard one of them whisper: “Did you see that pervert?” That is just one example out of many.I propose that phallocentrism on a mass societal scale would eliminate such animalistic subtleness because the onset of catered masculine logicality on a mass scale would hypothetically process such advances in the same way one reads microwave instructions – controlled masculine logic on a macro level. Masculine logic is superior to feminine intuition.

Although males are more concerned with actively pursuing sex, this does not make him necessarily more “sexual”, but simply more active. I believe it is females who are actually more sexual; in the sense that they are more “libidinous”, i.e., sensation based rather than cerebral. Men can separate the two aforementioned aspects. Females intuit in terms of their own vanity. Most females hold the attitude that they are by birth the Queen of the libido and will assume her inheritance & place in her own throne. It is likely that the female is actually more sexual, not sexual in the sense of actively pursuing, but sexual in the sense of applying it to her mentation – vainly equating what feels good with what is good; truth.


Hybristophilia -What is it?

Hybristophiliacs are people who are sexually aroused and attracted to people who have committed cruel, gruesome crimes such as murder and rape. It occurs more often in women than in men. Every year, notorious criminals receive romantic and sexual fan mail from female admirers – hybristophiliacs, known to staff members. These letter-writing groupies (known as SKGs — serial killer groupies) are attracted to incarcerated men – bullies, idiots, males of impulse etc. This phenomena is a spectrum. Most females have it on some level.

Feminists’ rejection of real, hard science & limiting fixation on political aspects with a decorated rendition, does not show any profound causality of human nature, but only effects, which are quite eronious.

Females generally earn less because ,on average, they employ less hours, less dangerous, & less technical jobs

What has feminine entropy – excessive glorification of catharsis over truth, due to catering to feminine sentiments – triggered on the macro, amongst many things? Answer: postmodern man. Around the 1960s we entered an era characterized by new “lifestyles,” “identity” & art. Modern society was shaped by mass production & the industrial revolution, the Postmodern age is shaped by the entertainment “revolution” – the “ethic” of meaningless consumption, fast changing styles & a lack of firm commitment to solid perspectives. “Pomo”splices genres, fashions, attitudes, styles. It neither criticizes nor embraces, but views the world blankly, with trivial feelings & a histrionic commitment to irony.Postmodern man’s – a product of p.c. – stance is one of irony. His tastes & life styles are formed by fashion. He changes shape at will. His life revolves around aesthetics rather than truth. This has also given way to the rampent narcissistic, egotistical temperament of the youth today sometimes exemplified as the arrogant “punk”/rebel/”beatnik” (or “hipster” for a lack of a better word) ,covered in tattoos who claim exception because they play in a band, host or frequent dance clubs, or something meaningless.
Feminine entropy does not necessarily entail that females are attracted to chaos (although sometimes it’s so) of course they are attracted to the orderly provision for themselves &/or progeny they can derive form a guardian figure, but what it entails is that their selection for such high provisional status will often extend the side product of such entropy because what is often required to meet such provisional status is ruthless cunning. This of course will be overlooked by the general female due to their innate self interest & amorality. Hence we get sharks, such as lawyers & other professional criminals & conmen; “As long as you got the goods for me”, or sometimes not even that; “as long as yoy take full action” is implicit. Cunning is then equated with intelligence. Instead of aspiring to the feminine, a newer/futuristic model should be put forth, so this phallocentrism/androcentrism/male-centrism is another link of futurism because gynocentrism is literally of the primitive past, so the males participating in it will never grow-up, playing dress-up, sports competitions, cops-&-robbers, perpetuating the cyclic “samsara”  because no tranquil formula was established do to the anti-scienceof female monopoly & collectivism. Female prerequisites change with the weather. Although even some females will claim that a historical figure, for example, like Genghis Khan was respectable because of his genius strategizing. Female prerequisites adapt to whatever is normative to the particular climate that is in confinement to her own amoral self interest. I can not stress enough that amoral & immoral are 2 distinctive traits. As a result of feminine entropy, cunning becomes “intelligence”, catharsis becomes an ultimatum, base consumerism becomes “progress”, lies become “science”, logic & truth becomes “narcissistic self indulgence”, fashion becomes “heroic”, etc.. What is perpetuated are defiled cultures who retain memories of self indulgent people – just like Picasso, athletes, or Hollywood degenerates – due to the impression that such types are “contributing” to society, while those who really are contributing gain little respect in comparison only to collect dust &/or rust just like their contributions. Can you recall who invented the microwave?

In strictly metaphysical terms: The feminine represents energy. One only needs to look at the action of birth to witness such furious energy. The masculine represents awareness. Rather than having energy ordain awareness, thus causing chaos, why not have awareness dictate energy? There are essentially 2 types of people in this world; male & female. For the progressive & intelligent, females should be  assigned accordingly. Most females would enjoy their roles or not be bothered by it. In such a hypothetical state, males could spend their time well to produce mechanics for such things as food, agriculture, etc., & females could press the buttons. It would be a state of male leadership & female apprencticeship.
I would even claim:
There needs to be separate schools for each sex; Indoctrination for young boys for their future in logic, & indoctrination for young females  as a servant class, keeping them preoccupied, while males should be indoctrinated to be technical & philosophical. Once the dumb animal gains menopause, it should be legally optional, but not necessarily mandatory, to get a teen. Logic is “synthetic” & all the people, especially the double digit i.q. retards, are just emoting by collectivism. That’s not real logic. When you consider something like the systematic procedure of genital mutilation of male babies, depriving males of their full sexuality, as thousands of nerve endings are contained in the male foreskin. (Speaking as an uncircumsized male myself born in Brazil where ,at least to my knowledge of Brazil’s current stance on circumcision, this procedure does not occur, I am NATURALLY & HEALTHILY much more interested in sex than the average male. You could say I was never sexually abused. In contrast: female circumcision, such as occurring in Islamic & African cultures, for example, which is not solely confined to just females, is not really an issue of males-oppressing-females, but rather an issue of incompetent cultures carrying out traditions & procedures in a primitive manner. In such cultures institutionalized punishment & various procedures are commonly excessive. ) that’s actually a form of indoctrination, but society doesn’t think about it hardly because their minds are all dictated by the popular. Real logic is beyond the emotional limitations of conditioning trends.

On Oxytocin & Stockholm Syndrome Of Context To What Is Problematic


Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

Stockholm Syndrome is much more common with female nature. It’s basic. It’s elementary. Let us omit another typing of that. I also get sickening sensations in my chest occasionally when I think about sinister aspects of female psychology in conjunction to experiential learning do to some persona experiences which is much too impractical to type about, so I have to control it periodically. This is not what females & gynocentrists would call by deflection “emotional hysteria”, etc., to insinuate that I was too “incompetent” & that it was “my fault”. It’s actually physiological triggers – Conditioned Reflexes – Ivan Pavlov – standard psychology. There are misconceptions that I type from a complaining manner of how females desire success, (or displays of success) but that’s not actually what I do. In fact, without typing another whole long section of their hypergamy – greed & lack of integrity, that’s probably the only admirable trait about females, when it’s not a bad type of success, & their care for babies. The only occasional complaining in my philosophy & science is how females basically tainted me, such as giving me such conditioned reflexes, etc.. It’s become a very burdensome task for me to occupy, with only more ignominy from the gynocentric society & perpetual eluding, because females are mostly just observational, by females after they gave me these problems.
What is the purpose of typing the obvious of the following 2 paragraphs? It’s integral to the paragraphs afterwards. I repeat points because people tend to miss them.
Conventional scientists will politely call female psychology as “empathy”, but this is just amorality.
As a general rule, females are constantly waiting for the next better deal, as indicated in the literature pornography they masturbate to of ruthless psychopaths. They essentially weed, including when already involved with other males, to get to these positions inaccurately glamorized as an archetype of “elite” – “honorable”. It’s very unrealistic. Are they giving 6 children to “boring” accountants? Don’t believe in it when they state, it’s about opting for the best for the potential children. This is just an excuse for females to be greedy. It doesn’t even necessarily have to be a better deal. It could just be some aggressive idiot implying sex.

Females don’t know how to socialize because of the very fact that they confine their mercurial interpretations to degrees of what they classify & waver as simplistically alternating back-&-forth of positive-or-negative expressions (possibly occasional neutral). The idea that you can discern how worthy a male is by his apparent confidence is not definite. It’s a very ad hominem way of interpreting. It’s like how people make their professional life personal, & because of that interpretation, believe that a job title always defines who they are as a person. Females’ claim of worth of being “emotionally stronger” & sexually stronger, implicitly, makes a mental codification of falsities & ad hominems of other males. They really are just the sex, mostly.

Either subconsciously or not, this euphoric, confidence-producing cocktail of oxytocin that most of society drives itself to is also what causes much vindication of feminine n.l.p. level of expression & collectivism. Essentially, a culture of immature-kids greedy for gold but not knowing how to manage it. I have heard from social psychologists a long time ago describe this aspect of feminine collectivism as the “gold fish in the bowl” principle; meaning: the brightest gold fish in the bowl attains sex from another female fish, then other female fish automatically want to have sex with that goldfish because of the fact that those other female gold fish see that he has attained sex. It’s astounding how this zoological axiom can describe the juvenile feminine level of n.l.p.. It happens frequently; females observe the newly acquired confidence a male gains when sexually involved, then desire that male or impinge themselves – more drama. It’s also in reverse when one or a few female peers don’t like a potential male partner, all or most of them won’t like him then. Taste replaces what they should do. I’ve had some strategies ruined this way due to what was likely jealousy when I’ve approached females, maintaining my focus on one female with no regard to feelings of exclusion. I’ve been involved with females simply for connections & nothing else & it was already well established that the association was purely for connections, then when I had an extremely attractive companion, they all of a sudden got jealous that she was getting attention from me, even though these other females had no sexual interest with me, then resorted to a passive aggressive maneuver of trying to embarrass me in front of that companion because the female associates felt excluded. They easily feel excluded & have very little respect for others’ stations; “So this guy at work today rubbed his elbow on my shoulder for 1.5 sec., so I’m going to gossip about it for 3 hrs..” “That’s cuz you aint alpha, bro.” I guess I’m not alpha because I don’t deal with the tasks of un-productivity.

Those who do not have true standards for quality imply something to the affect of: “Well, why aren’t you doing it like everyone else/you need to get laid”, etc.. The gynocentric communities is basically that. Many of them internalize frustration, rather than accepting the root of their frustration – gynocentrism & female nature, they internalize this & instead attack other males as “fags”, “virgins”, etc., especially to other males who aren’t amused or impressed, or other males who, yes, have a passionate sexuality, but still favors higher pursuits firstly, such as science & philosophy. The latter is a completely alien concept to them because they’re still functioning on the “libido”.

I understand the biological probabilism, but both nature-&-nurture are a part of realism. We’ve been influenced & bombarded by the masses that we should necessarily seek these archetypal super-model types who are ego driven to make themselves believe the delusion that they are exceptional, yet they’re really not accomplishing anything. We’ve been raised to a large extant by the narcissistic culture, proclaiming that their way is the best & main way. After experimenting, I’ve concluded that the extra effeminate type is ideally much more controllable with myself. It’s a problem when the culture has “molested” us into thinking that what we don’t actually want is what we want – the “alpha-bitch”, for a lack of a better description, with tons of opinions & excessive acts. Hyper effeminate females can display these traits as well unfortunately because females are more prone to trends. Could it be that these more masculine “alpha-bitches” have, because they take more precedents of a larger portion of society, inculcated excessive notions – competing with her extra nonsense – of what it is to be an “alpha” male? I think most males, alpha or not, would much rather opt for a hyper effeminate female with “no personality”, for a lack of a better description.
I’m not trying to type to you that you should pursue serious relationships with females per se. Although I’d like it, with what is true about female nature & the way the system truly is, there’s just so many “land-mines”. I am not in agreement of what deflective people, especially females, would try to emphasize that it’s always “you’re fault/ “you deserve to be ruined if you’re worthless” as a tactic to oppress the science & philosophy. What I am typing is that you can apply knowledge to your control in the “chess-game” & minimize how you would normally have to alter yourself to the point of savage vernacularity or high-strung lunacy.
I will admit, as much as this reads as a dick-measuring-contest, no, I’m typing about science, & excluding for this particular article the neuroscientific axioms in regards to sex, I’m not a super, hyper masculine male in biological terms, such as very thick & boxy lower jaw, etc.. I’m pretty masculine, but not hyper-masculine. Therefore, with that realization in conjunction to knowledge, I know that, referential of hormones, I would not want a female who is more masculine or equal to what I am. I know that extra effeminate females – females that are ~4.8 ft., etc., tall, timid, & are mesmerized by males that give them attention – are a much better option. These types of females also tend to have tighter vaginas. This is a better strategy for hyper masculine males as well because such females are just easier to associate with. Why conquer a “giraffe” when you can get a “bunny”  that is less combative? This is not every female. It’s a specific type. However, since this fact of extra effeminate females is a generality, if you happen to encounter a masculine female who also has such personality traits, you could possibly use that to your control.

Much too proud females, for example, who would do something like mediocre blogging on the internet are the exact type to stay away from. They give males false hope with their agreement of some objectivism, mediocre literary usage, & mixed with latency & scatterings. You think that you would want one like that, but you really wouldn’t. These super-model types pathetically glorify themselves because they, essentially, have an aspect of themselves that is not whole of feminine. The super-model types are the ones who are much more prone to predominate over your life & even ruin it – predominating by over inflating talent/inflated acts for a lack of real importance. Any one & everyone has talent. What is the validity of this talent nearly everyone over-fetishizes?

This is not pick-up-artist, etc., persuasion. This is more associated with Mark Rudolf’s: ‘How to Handle Women’.
The fact of Stockholm Syndrome more common with females is disgusting, however, you can use this aspect of female nature. Employ scientific experimentation. It works. It’s not difficult, only tedious. The more to poll, the greater the probability. It’s just mostly basic hormonal science. It’s, simplistically, an immediate demonstrable rote of her tiny height, lessened gossipy influence, really high pitch of voice, some extra passive receptivity – extra amount of oestrogen making them cooperate much more, but you must be alert 100% of the time & prescribe her by a ration-approach type of routine in a setting with much to chose from – malls, etc., of making her prove herself to you if she’s ready to randomly receive you without delay, she has reduced competition & suggestions from others, she’s mesmerized by you just coming to her, she doesn’t have fustian opinions, she’s receptive to your anecdotes, & she has no desire for her friends to estimate you. Try it for yourself if you doubt me. You’ll be able to verify it. You have to be sexual on a central level though because they’re mindlessness needs direction & they long to just be desired, & once you’ve given them amazing sex or pleasure, it’s easier to control them. If she’s not willing to try you, you don’t want to experiment with her anyway. Recurrently, I will reiterate: If you don’t believe, you will have the proof for yourself after a practice of an average of, depending on other occupations, 3 – 4 days, then you’ll be able to confirm. It requires rife approaching though with the wary psychology that if she’s not willing to quickly give to you or is too rigid, that’s a swift indication that you need to weed her away anyway. Males have a tendency to have more commitment – integrity, which unfortunately ruins male planning because females don’t have the same decency, so males should employ a different process. It’s all a process of you weeding swiftly & collecting rather than trying for longer weeks(+), & with bad parties of other males contending for females & other female peers opining what she should do. The procedure is that the male cultivates constant alertness & genius mind. She humbly cultivates sex appeal. It reads as immature, but it’s just rational. The other unavailing ways would be of you equal to her, &, of course, the typical traps. be Inovative or repeat like the others & perish.
In the beginning period, ignore her futile narrative by methodically “agreeing” to get what you what you want, then after you’ve gotten what you find is efficient, & she starts to interject her dictates or pronounced opinions, that is an indication that you might want to switch to other plans. You don’t owe her a trial. You can simply state: “for the sake of business, I have to dis-band from you”, or something like that. It’s all about being as in control as possible without letting her emotions, & especially your own, persuade you.
Don’t ever, ever entertain them. Once you do that, you’ve lowered your defenses. You must weed away to those that will perform for you. I know it reads as mythical, but the latter does exist. It only requires time.
Yes, females have a tendency to “suck” males into bad influences, which is why males have to be stern always. Knowledge first, then living.

They owe to us because we are naturally better than them in essentially all ways. There is no equality. Once she “breaks”, malfunctions, & her wildness starts even more so, rid her & switch.

As an intelligent male, always be 100% alert with what you do.

& Get your fucking disgusting gynocentrism out of my society that I fucking created. ♂

Search for article: (Yes, the more petite ones tend to be more passive aggressive, but it’s really easy to manage) ‘Tallness In Women Correlates With Masculine Ambitions’ from futurepundit-dot-com.

Unraveling An Excusatory Locution


Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

There is a common locution they like to use as an excuse to evade when they get bored or repulsed by a male. Perhaps you, as a male, are not that familiar with it because it is likely that it has been uttered in secret amongst their gossiping consensus before they’ve decided to end a relationship with you via telephone call or some other indirect means. That locution is “he put me on a pedestal”.

 Females have a completely different form of speech first of all; what they say is not necessarily in conformity to their nature. Females speak in suggestive speech. It’s not the same sort of terse honesty that males share.

In this society that does not allow real objective analysis of human nature, you will get uncertain analysis, but at least some, like myself, have the decency to try. This is just my theorizing, but it is valid:

The reason females use this distinctively female phrase, “he put me on a pedestal” (as if they could be content with a male that could be completely detached in how he treats her) to rid what is to them a pest is because, to females, the way a male implies that a female completes them & wishes to have fuller access to her affection & support is an implicit offer that cheapens a female’s sexuality.

This way of placing her as more of a peer is actually the opposite of “putting her on a pedestal”.

You have to remember that female “logic” is often backwards, &, because they have so much power in society, they often inculcate backward meaning.

 What that phrase reveals is how they treat others, in addition to the fact that females take romance for granted because females have the luxury of waiting for more offers to quickly monopolize. Their solipsistic vantage restricts them from understanding the energy used that appears to be weakness. Females thrive off of socializing by fake flattery. In fact, all that is required in many cases for a female to be “right”, in the case of a male shattering her thought process with brutal truth, is for her to go to her consensus for emotional support. It’s the quantity of how many compliments & opinions she will get from her group that will “prove the other person was wrong”. In a female’s mind a male “putting her on a pedestal” is interpreted as something potentially “ungenuine” because that is how females thrive in their friendships, so they are often perplexed by something they often can’t do – being honest, which leads to their presumption of a parasitic male.

Often disregarding what costs was required for that male to get power, females are basically obsessed with power, either in the case of utilizing it from a pragmatic beta male, or in the case of aligning herself with an alpha male, so when they dismiss a male for “putting her on a pedestal”, it’s because she takes it as weakness from him. This unfortunate trap that males experience is due to males being gullible to female illogical language. Our entire society revolves around this gullibility. It’s called gynocentrism.

Her source of her power comes from her sex. She can’t totally control her utility if that male cheapens her sexuality. Only a certain type of male is allowed to do that – a brute, but not a proper male.

In other words: If you get a brain tumor, she will cheat on you with a primitive with a 12 inch penis & then end it with you via skype. This statement is interchangeable because it is both metaphorical & often realistic.

They’re not teaching this in college sociology or psychology courses so it must be “wrong”. I’m using sarcasm.

Some like to claim “not all women are like that.” “I’m not like that.”. Well, this doesn’t concern you then, does it?

Scientific confirmations have concluded that females can be with males they are not drawn to. Generally, The “beta” male is used for her own promotion but that is not the one she respects nor is attracted to. The one she has respect & is attracted to is the one who can cause commotion.

Females are naturally collectivists, so they are obsessed with following & selling out for trends. If a male shows that he is a main figure of a trend, she will likely be drawn to him. However, In many other cases when a male cannot show himself to be a main figure of some sort of pathetic trend, she will then seek that attraction in him through his authority instead because his authority parallels how trends are authoritative in a culture.

Rationalism is not sexy. This is how it is deemed as “awkward” in parties: “Why isn’t that guy rolling in shit like pigs just like us?”, they might whisper amongst each other.

What these filthy animals fail to realize is that many males, particularly the more intelligent ones, after developing anxiety disorders by becoming depressed from excessive cortisol levels & having diminished oxytocin hormonal levels, actually lose the confidence that these females crave from males when such males receive inconsistencies & discover what females want. Then the cycle of mistaking effect for causation continues.

Females hate being in situations of minimal dynamics. Females often need to assess males so that it is easy for them to ordain such males. They hate logical males because these types are too complex for females to fit into their simplistic categories. & this is partly how they call logical males to be “too nice”. These males can not placate their pathetic inferiority complexes. Case: Walking into a clothing store, females will grope many items & just waste time because they constantly need entertainment, & that’ how their boredom places labels of “intensity”, with very little understanding of the actual politics, on any male who can replace their dominance on others . Males will just walk in, buy what they want, & then leave.

I’ve been in past relationships of females initially being attracted to me because I was firstly perceived to be “exotic”/”rebellious” or a “bad boy” – for the wrong reasons, but when they discovered that I was actually this “boring” guy with conservations & morals, they no longer wanted me. They project on to me by aesthetics what they sexually desire, then after discovering that I’m not what they desire, they get angry at me for it.

What’s sad is that males take it as advice to be what they want.

It would be a rare scenario where males say “My ex loved me, but she let me walk all over her so I had to move on to someone who put me in my place”. Most males don’t desire someone to police their behavior, nor create tests for that desire. Males have a better capability for self reflection that females lack. What females generally have is narcissism, which is often mistaken for “introspection”. It’s inconsiderate that they would desire for males to reinforce this policing with little regard for how tiresome it could be for the other.

Some Origins Of Sadomasochism

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy


I always try to re-word so that points are not forgotten. Key concept: Gynocentrism/”patriarchy”, etc., is just obscurintist & glamorized self abuse by masculinity because society drives itself to the feminine checking of the inaccuracies of weak-or-strong, too-nice-or-dominant, etc.. Women like being secretaries for bullies & other idiots. Consider the extreme invasion by the religion of Is***. Who called for that policy? It was a female politician. The other argument is: “Well, that’s because it was control by J***”. The point is though is that females are actually receptive to being controlled by such.

First, there needs to be a differentiation of contexts of emotional states: The feelings of masculinity that actually does matter that is useful for alarming – an aspect of logic, often signifies as something “wrong” to gynocentrism. The normative kind of emotional state to be automatic is the kind that is a detriment to masculinity. The latter type is what I mean when stating that emotions are bad, not the former.

WARNING: I do not wish to cause misery to other males – strictly educational. This is regarding a sensitive subject – the realities of male genital mutilation, generally hidden & continued to be accepted, even by vastly males as a means of obliterating the pain. That too is traditionalism. Subordination inhibits the need to know. It’s a subordination to traditional instincts. The reality of circumcision is so disagreeable that it is usually avoided consciously or subconsciously, & this answers why those who are not in denial are labeled as just anecdotes. Repression & denial is the means of what is happening. It is difficult to make empirical evidence of denial because it is evidence itself that is altered or denied.
I any case, anecdotes do sometimes matter because some can notice what others can’t.

This is not “disgruntled extremism”. In fact, it’s a calling for the apposite of it. This is going to confuse many, but if you actually read all of it &/or try to make an effort in understanding female mate bias of context to the prearranging harsh history – selecting for mostly action, not intellect, which its repository of instinct has actualized into the modern tributary of that female mate bias, it’ll be understood better. Females have much more sanctioning power than they realize, & it’s due to their primal “filtering.” It’s a custom that has morphed from the female extracting, stretching to the “patriarchal” modernity. That’s right, I blame female nature for such contingency.
All the past times of attempted civilized debates of feminism, male-&-female biology, gender, sex differences of cognition, etc., have been reduced by the apposition of the juvenile: “you’re-a-pussy”/”you-have-problems-with-not-being-able-to-increase-confidence”, etc., or even try to give me advice on how I can become “better” for their stupid registration – completely missing the points. You know why that is? It’s because all those reoccurring patterns are translations of their core nature of having the opportunity to exercise filtering.
It’s time for truly rational males to exercise filtering for our registration.

Disclaimer: I do not 100% endorse, completely, every single author & every single thing I derive from. My research is of an eclectic one. Being detached & objective means accumulating many facets, then connecting & finding missing links.

A study by a cognitive psychologist from the University of Southern California & co-author of a paper featuring some of it’s findings in the Oct. 6, 2010 issue of the Journal NeuroReport found that when men under stress saw angry faces, they seemed to not want to engage. There’s that masculine rational fear deemed by mass society as “bad” or some kind of “illness”. Contrastingly, as usual, females were more insistent. This neurological basis signalizes females’, of varying degrees, amorality/hybristophilia – the attraction to extrinsic commotion, villains & wrath – lazily described as “sympathy” by most.
Specializing in a given field reduces completion of other integration, hence why it’s called “sympathy”. Greater interest in synthetic formulas & components does not necessarily guarantee fuller exactitude.

~3,500 cuttings are performed every day [1997] in the U.S., one every twenty-five seconds.
33% of American pediatricians & obstetricians oppose, yet don’t necessarily disclose, it. Some nurses & doctors refuse to do it.
Financial incentive is one motivating factor as to why it is done.

Parents continue ignorance by confusing benign intentions with effects; believing that non-intended harm equals no harm to occur.

Pavlovian, along with most psychology, conditioned reflexes is a field that interests me. The following are some unpopular aspects of it.

Psychologists have known for a long time that trauma sets, often hidden from awareness, long term effects. You could be psychologically damaged & not even know it, or not know how it happened.
An infant’s eyes tightly close during circumcision.
Levels of cortisol – hormone release as response to stress – are high during circumcision.
Increase of excessive heart beats, even over baseline, per minute have been recorded. This level of pain would not be tolerated by older patients.
Infants tremble, cry vigorously, & in some cases become mildly cyanotic – lividness or blueness of skin caused by pressure of skin due to prolonged crying. It is an abnormal type of crying.

By the late 1800s & early 1900s, it was believed that a baby had similar level of consciousness to a vegetable. By the mid 1940s there were changing understandings of infants. Pediatrician Benjamin Spock (yes, real last name. You can check the sources on end.) reported in 1946 that infants are more cognizant.
Infants can generally distinguish between the vowels i & a on the next day following birth.
Infants require attendance to proper sensory responses. For one, infants’ deeper breathing in response to tactile sensation gives more oxygen to tissue. Stroking causes better alertness.
Infants do have their own set of well-developed thinking. It’s just of a different type.

From the Journal Of Sex Research, Davison & Money of the John Hopkins University School of Medicine reported that changes includes drastic diminished penile sensitivity. With relatively little effect of arousal, it can be described like callused fingers a guitar player receives.
I have even read from an independent research article a long time ago without a citation that the procedure actually takes away a chemical occurrence that would otherwise happen between a male & female to be much more committed to each other. It’s believable, & there’s tons of research one can do on it.

Extreme pain, bahavioural modifications, risk of complications, & loss of protective, sensitive tissue, resulting in diminished gratification – “But none of this could be true.” “We were too busy paying attention to that new style, or the comedy-skit, or score from the team of the west-coast, etc..” People have close to no idea of what’s really happening. Facts are naturally altered or withheld because of feelings. More damage is then done due to concealing rather than disclosing truth. The authentic & benign hyper-sexuality of masculinity has actually been regressed as those who were “sexually molested” or “free-loading” males when that sexuality would make the male-to-female interaction more of an actual friendship than sports & mostly business contracts. There’s been reports, which I have reduced for the sake of convenience, one can confirm from the cited source on the end of this article, that adult males could compare effects before the practice & after, & that after it was done, it was similar to being incapable of holding something normally with hand due to wearing a glove. I think this could possibly contribute to females’ mass perception of genuine intense attraction called “put-on-a-pedestal”. As an intact male, it’s been my experience that my more passionate & intensified sexual interest was interpreted by many females as an exaggerated, fake act by me, either that or that I had something “wrong” with me for having my passions more grand. This is a common reoccurrence: males honestly show how much they like a female, she then sees that as “too needy”, “weakness”, or something stupid. This is not an issue of semantics, so please save the retorts of: “females love attention”. Like vampires, they lead astray to traps & waste time, even including for “alphas”, because they lack persistence, & often just use that attention for entertainment with plausible deniability.
We live in a very juvenile world because females don’t respect male intellect, & then they opt for other males stuck on their level.
The police is one case of such males stuck on their level. I’m not a hippy, so I believe they’re a necessary force, but they have major problems with believing the fact that they often shouldn’t believe females. Not to brag, I don’t live an average life. I’ve had some critical periods. I’ve been incarcerated before shortly due to having aspects of my philosophy “cock-blocked”, if you’ll allow me to use that ridiculous analogy, by the chivalry of police officers when they allowed females to take advantage of freedom of speech & abuse it by lying after I’ve given “extremist” dialogue in public. All I did was harmless commentary. I then heard other inmates speak of getting arrested after restraining their female partners who had knives & other violence, etc.. Even some that called the police for their safety were blamed on the males by police & then arrested. I’d also advise to not even publicly debate with them. Present all content on the other formats. Even if you were to make a report to police that they did something to you, you’re more likely to get arrested because the police prioritize females’ claims.
What I type as results of gynocentrism were not originally intentionally planned. That is my point; gynocentrism causes & enhances accidents because of the fact that females are bad planners, & their nature also monopolizes social structures. It was a process of embracing stupid or mediocre men, replicating genes of stupid or mediocre men, & then following those stupid or mediocre men.
Most of actual importance was created by rationalizing males mostly undesirable to females – division by females of the meme replicators from the gene replicators, combining their characteristics with the latter.
Contrary to what the deconstructed author of the book believes, which I think is due to that he’s more of a specialist on medicine, this is not a result of suppressed feelings. Instead, this practice is feelings carried on a systematic level with utensils. It requires a longer, thoughtful process to devise other methods of treatment than relying on methods of foreordained instincts to nullify, especially when confronted with the annoying task of examining genitals maturely. Instinctual activity has often such a direction that it persuades one as an efficient means for the avoidance of more options requiring patience. Preference of quicker practicality & emotions is consistent with the general difficulty of being aware of & expressing intellect. Cultural, derived from historical instincts, over-reliance on emotions has caused inclination to adopt practicality as the great arbiter between fiction & fact so that quick feelings of convenience can be liked.
I do not call for hysterically, “reversed Feminism”, or for something fanatical, such as FGM – clitoridectomy or excision of its hood, apart of culture of the Persian Gulf, which overlaps with MGM, & neighboring regions. Those actions are just another subset of the preordained instincts. Instead, disallow the value of intuition over intellect that has promoted weeding of a rationalist renaissance – masculine monopoly. It is not the scientific-method. It is anti-intellectual intuition as a hasty vagary to get-it-over-with, & even monetary desires, infused by habitual drives, posing as the scientific-method.
Simplistic interpretations of the “patriarchy” lacks accuracy.
In this game of status-forging, healthy only limited to certain extant, with females watching & selecting & upgrading for other deals by ambiguous commitment, it’s going to be a “juggle” by masculinity with mistakes & even some spontaneous self-abuse. It’s the way it’s been by natural history & it’s the way it is recently. The varying displays of “machismo” are largely unnoticably controlled by femalehood’s inculcated intuition. Though males can seek such displays of status, it’s not enough. Females seek connections with others to gain & use status. Male, determined by gynocentrism, status-forging has a price; it is incompatible with understanding & creating a disciplined principles/true rationalism – “weakness” – by patience.
Females with apparent inflated egos are only threatening to males because these males subconsciously know it’s going to be extra competition to gain rank to her inflated self. Males have somewhat of a method to try to stay away from this; opting for females on mainly the level of a limiting physical attraction – good choice. Male fear of female sexuality can be if that female sexuality is pronounced, & if that is pronounced, female lack of integrity is also pronounced.
Concern with being a bland-minded acquirer of capital undermines concern for cultivating masculinity – better standards, promoting better self-esteem. The self esteem of males has already been ruined by circumcision.

There are several types of memory. Painful experiences in neonates can lead to psychological sequelae. Remembering, for instance, something you saw two hours ago requires a different type of memory than knowing how to tie a knot or recalling a place you’ve been associated with heightened sensation. Memory is not limited to only intellect, but body & emotion also. Long term memory has been demonstrated behaviorally in various mammals & other animals. Considering simpler animals have long term memory, it’s about 99.9% likely that infants have it also.
From neurological & developmental analysis, newborn infants can have trauma & retain memory of it. A sector of society has projected their inability to consciously remember that time on the infant. We store memories of that time, just generally don’t have access to them immediately. According to a psychological survey, the majority confirmed that forgetting was due to retrieving problems & not loss of info. from memory storage.
A mother explained that her child of 6 years old crawled through a tunnel & said to her: “This feels like when I was born”. Similarly, birth Primal can be studied by simulation. Psychiatrist Nandor Fodor was the first to propose accessing trauma memories by simulation.
Many types of psychopathology are connected to the birth experience – “vibrations” reverberating. Can you believe it?
The DSM IV classifies PTSD, & not limited to, as resulting from extreme traumatic stressor beyond routine life of a given average maturation. Responses include intense fear. Instances of which are torture, etc.. According to the DSM IV, PTSD includes symptoms of impulsive & self destructive behaviour, etc.. By definition, in conjunction to other facts cited, circumcision is traumatic. Like other traumas, it is repressed. Psychological problems increase as age of child decreases. Adult males with such experiences have adverse behaviour responses, mainly undetected by society. The revelation is that we have a society of unhealthy males, continuing instinctive self abuse. Just a personal anecdote: The level of “machoness” preordained by gynocentric instincts has alienated & maladjusted me, who never had this procedure done to me. What is considered normal is the society we have. It’s completely normal to have a bad society of varying degrees of exaggerated gallantry & just indifference/nihilism.
Symptoms of PTSD vary. The hidden – long term effects generally not of awareness but evident in behaviour – PTSD of circumcision has a contributing factor of violence as just one of those varients. Violence can also be exhibited in different ways, which may not even be capable of classification of crime statistics.
Subsequent distrust & aggression is connected. The systematic practice teaches to be angry or accept loss. Trust is a prerequisite for setting discipline of commitment. Disruption of development of better communication to females for future is impaired. It is very strange that the artificial mold of masculinity is what females admire mostly. Although these artificial moldings of masculinity are external forces reinforcing females’ malleability, the admiration by females reveals innateness of themselves. Gynocentrism is much older than such clinical practices. Originally, gynocentrism monopolized by females reinforced artificial displays of masculinity, &, coequally, artificial molds of masculinity reinforced further monopolization of gynocentrism by female-hood, &, as typed further, females also have a collectivist hive-mind by which they check of an anti-intellectual binary classification. If you know about such, etc., or type about such, very hypocrytical, you are an archetypal “creep” or “serial-killer” to them, even though those traits of harmless typing & thinking are the antithesis of the accidents of the intuition of gynocentric gathering.
To specify though, I’m not typing that intellectual males should present themselves as offers of “take me, please”, but, rather, especially to eliminate potential usurpation from supposed “intellectual” females – high rate of potential traps, always maintain a female on the incommensurable level for masculine self-preservation of rationalism.

Dissociation – erasing associated pain from traumatic experience, both physical & humiliation – results from trauma. Dissociation is a response of a psychological survival mechanism analogous to numbing a part of ones body to inhibit extreme pain. A boy actually makes himself believe it didn’t happen, thus actually altering himself. Based on clinical neurological research, traumatic & painful experience can actually cause long-term physiological changes in the neurochemical & central nervous system. Brain-imaging studies conducted on adults with histories of sexual abuse of childhood were reported to have reduced size of hippocampus, which is a zone of the brain associated with memory. Also, low scores of adults who had been abused were reported on another test of verbal short-term memory. Circumcision actually alters brain development. Presence of high level of the stress hormone cortisol, which is increased 3-4xs in the blood stream correlates with deep memory imprinting.

Connections to sadomasochistic behavior & child-hood injuries has been noted in psychology. Common elements of S-M behavior & circumcision include pain, struggling, bondage, & a loosely, originally unwanted, associated sexual context.
Not “minor anecdote” – trivialized report: One man reported to have S-M fantasies since he could remember. Further claiming it’s not normal to have S-M fantasies by age 4.
There are other factors to the phenomena & “normalcy” of severe S-M, since females also have an interest in it, but genital male mutilation is a major contributor. Some intact men also participate in it, although much less to the same seriousness of buying leather, & living-the-lifestyle, etc., but that’s just mostly from cultural introduction.
But what exactly caused such a barbaric practice to be normalized? One has to go back even further to the natural history by a context of evolutionary psychology.
When I type about this, I’m not referring to a generic slap on the buttocks, loud cursing, hair-pulling, etc. – fast & hard sex. I’m referring to an entire practice of b.d.s.m. – the type that females tend to be much more interested in, both as a sex act, as well as a simplistic rating instinct they treat males with.
B.D.S.M. has it’s origins in the practice of circumcision, but such practices itself were by-products of the origins in feminine weeding – “vibrational” gynocentrism monopolized by femalehood altering phenotype – mostly done by intuition – barely recognized. Anyone who has a serious understanding of evo.-psych. & Darwinian science knows that females are attracted to mostly authority. Do not confuse rationalism with authority. They’re 2 separate things, which only occasionally overlaps. The feminist & cultural idea that sex-is-about-power is also manifested from the b.d.s.m. mentality of female nature. Yes, I’m sure there’s some aspects about sex being linked to power, such as procreation to expand more legacy, etc., but it is not directly synonymous. Sex as power is a feminine projection because they aren’t necessarily interested in forming a friendship with benefits of sex, romance, or whatever you wish to call it. To be thorough, I’m not typing about it as a generic, or fast, etc., sex. I refer to b.d.s.m. as an entire mentality that females superficially employ, & not just in-the-bedroom – a feminine mentality, not just physically, much more intrinsic to them; “Humble, intelligent males are possibly useful, “creepy”, “pathetic”, & frustrating, which is funny because males of the apposite of humble & intelligent are by definition creepy. Females are attracted to or ordain to be instinctive males, hence why society is docile & even stupid. For the reactionary is the natural selection of females, & why we need to learn to control nature.
Culture is not a friend, & it perpetuates false selves.
Don’t believe it when females state they are “pan-sexual”. There is nothing “pan” about the various transliterated binaries of slave-or-master, bashful-or-not, instant-failure-or-instant-upgrade, “autistic”-or-fun. Different males think differently. If you are different from that binary, you are a “freak”. Their evaluation methods is just insufficient & outmoded. Most products of merit have been due to different, thinking-outside-the-box.

A study by researchers affiliated with University of Montreal presented 1,516 adults with a list of 55 different sexual fantasies ranging from sex with multiple people to sex with objects and animals, and more. The participants ranked the intensity of each fantasy and described their favorite ones in detail. Nearly 65 percent of women reported fantasies about sexual submission. Specifically, more than 52 percent of women said bondage revs them up, 36 percent fancy spanking, and 28.9 fantasize about being forced to have sex. (For the record, a significant number of men were turned on by the same things — even though guys were more likely to fantasize about oral sex, group sex, & ejaculating on their partners.) What that reporting of the questionnaire directed to males omits is, firstly, significant number does not specify same or more frequency, &, secondly, there’s no specification as to whether some of the overlap of female sexuality is innate to masculinity when the questionnaire disregards the conditioning effects of circumcision, &, thirdly, there was no specification of the rating of intensity of overlapping sexuality. The study also stated that these females enjoy such sexuality, but don’t necessarily want it to come true. Translated from masks of femininity, meaning: they’re waiting for it.
(The source of that study was delivered to me by e-mail from a Cosmopolitan article. Exact date & page of it was not specified.)
the rape-fantasy is so popular with females because it takes away the burden of actually having integrity. Most of what females do is by intuition-by-nature. They have bad planning methods, poor communication predicated on the baby-communication level of body language/facial expressions/tone, etc., so they have no or little discipline & lack of commitment. The truth is is that female nature is actually “macho”. The intellect has an effect of cuckolding males by feminine rating. Narcissists are drawn to other narcissists – a fake or minor aspect of masculinity that females have ordained or selected from their “solipsistic” schema – & that’s the nature of gynocentric monopoly – feminine sexual selection.
The culture of b.d.s.m./ taming the dumb animal, which requires becoming the lower animal to “top” the dumb female animal, again, not just as a generic fast/hard sex, etc., but an entire practice, emphatically, actually has it’s roots in male genital mutilation/self abuse, which, by “coincidence”, for a lack of a better description, females have a kinship to. M.G.M. interferes with male sexuality & corroborates with female psychology innate to it’s selective bias hundreds to thousands of years ago – a non-consensual practice done by the system that females accidentally enhanced by instinct.

Rather than more cooperation by females, what results is more implicit demands by females because of the impulsiveness associated with it, & females also have dichotomous preferences of males for two different reasons – one for desire, the other for usury, which will be read in a separate article.
So females want monetary symbols to discern provision for birth. Ok males, be literal & just provide for that. You don’t have to show other symbols. Females are quite capable as well.

The so called “rape culture” that feminists complain about is a fantasy retained by a vast percentage of females, including feminists, but you can not explain all of what is typed to them, or even just the general public, because they have absolutely no, or poor, understanding of evolutionary psychology, conditioned reflexes, how statistics works, Charles Darwin, or just plain psychology. It is natural for narcissists to deject what they can’t understand. Because of the limited understanding, they try to contrive definitions to make easier cohesion out of something too hard for them, so then using the quickest assumptions or trivialities; “sad loser who can’t work on himself & change for a woman”, “disorganized text/lifestyle”, etc.. Feminism is just mostly highly inflated opinions, assumptions, & a very simplistic interpretation of history – all not scientific. History is not categorized in the pyramid of knowledge as an actual science. They will claim this a “veil of semantics” because they just can’t understand it, & they are more concerned with what provides for a basis of confidence. Females have a “rythmic”, if you will, registration, none of which is encased in this.

This is the most essential point of this article: Our fight-or-flight beginnings were of the-survival-of-the-fittest, so now in our modern civilized times, when those instincts are no longer mandatory, it is morphed derivatives of that. I will repeat: THIS WASN’T ORIGINALLY PLANNED, & THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT; GYNOCENTRISM & FEMALE’S MONOPOLIZATION OF IT CAUSES ACCIDENTS & INSTINCTS. It’s not their fault. Well, it is largely their fault, just not intentional. Tautologically: the environmental influences, particularly circumcision, alters masculinity, & the environmental influences were already caused by pre-selection by females. Halting the cycles of gynocentric intuition that reinforces feminine estimations requires different & newer strategies. Such strategies would be conceived by males not for associative female recognition, but by incitement of a modified, learned masculinity via leadership of dissuaded males with concentrated options.

It’s a very mind boggling issue, but this is how it manifested: Our beginning climates were situated for females to have a sexual preference for reactionary males, not intellectual. They claim it’s mostly for hygienic purposes, (more complicated than that) but had females selected for intellectual males originally, we would have devised other methods of hygiene. Females have a higher rate of urinary tract infection than males, not that I’m advocating contrasting treatment, yet no procedure for them. Now, because gynocentrism is still monopolized, the notion is varying degrees of humble & intellectual males being “creepy”, “pathetic”, frustrating, or possibly useful. It wasn’t planned by females; it was just simply a natural accidental result of the instincts they ordain.
So, yes, females are basically choosing toxic forms of masculinity by a cyclic process such as this: There is the implicit offerings. Some males are used for mainly resourceful reasons, some males are desired for their impulse. Since female consciousness is limited, they don’t know how to take other males, they can’t revolutionize opting. More traits of docile characteristics & reactionary are promoted. End result: Commonality of the population makes intellectual males a minority.
Inhibition of female monopolization of gynocentrism would alter production of toxic masculinity. That’s why this kind of info. needs to be applied as a protocol to masculinity for the rationalist proprietorship of policies of approach – minimized accidents, stupidity, mediocrity, & checked feminine appraising & feminine sexual selection.

Females chose what they could understand, or, rather, allowed them to not understand. Rationalism has not been respected by female nature. When has it been commonly the case of females respecting males for who they are? It’s always about giving to females.
Unlike the female m.r.a. – “bipolar” poseurs with a sloppy judge of character, which is why they can’t understand the denser processes of male-female interaction, & this is going to offend many, there is a class of barbaric, stupid, inauthentic males, but these males critiqued by the feminine are the result of their own will. Rationalism then gets blamed for the bad representation of masculinity. The female m.r.a.s. love to talk more about feminism than judge themselves. In the ‘Look Out, It’s A Nice Guy. Let’s Destroy Him’ video. The commentator only critiqued how feminists call nice-guys “evil”, a.k.a., creepy, then only once admitted that “we think their pathetic”. That itself is just as bad as calling them evil. “Patriarchy” is not synonymous with rationalism. It’s synonymous with female nature. “Patriarchy” is a product of the semi-consciousness/impulse of femininity. The “patriarchy” enhanced by female fraternization indicates more about female nature than it does about male. Consider Isl**** culture where harsh treatment is done to females, as well as males. But this is a result of “karma”, not to use mystically; meaning: cause & effect; their mindless intuition selects, so mindlessness begets. In the hip-hop song: ‘My Neck, My Back’, Khia Shamone tells-it-like-it-is, rude & made easy: “The best comes from a thug…. You might have cheese (money), but fuck that nigga, get on yo knees….” That is a naked representation. You can learn a lot of underlying truths from endemic communities. Much of Isl**** culture is more agrarian, but with that, different translations. “Patriarchy” = obscurantist self abuse by males glamorized, & if you abuse yourself, you abuse surroundings.

Anecdote: Yes, I know it’s just an anecdote, but many males will identify with this: My father was a friendly, hard-working, successful male. He just wanted to humbly come home to eat hot-dogs & watch action movies ( &, interestingly, he’s also intact.). He had some pretty obvious high testosterone levels, & yet again, his wife eventually concluded him as a “wuss” because he never actually wanted to show any displays of defeating in petty argumentation.
Also, during my adolescence, because I never had this practice done to me, I reduced much of the ritualized associations so common with others’ sexuality influenced by the practice. Because of my personal reduction, other females didn’t like me as much.

What Mr. Goldman is missing is a more integral understanding of Darwinian science & female sexual selection, as typed in the first 2 introductory paragraphs.
As Buddhist purists know, although not explicitly because they do not welcome politics from intruders, of female nature – “the daughters of Mara” – is that they are of a demonic nature which leads to unconsciousness – cuckolding the intellect. This is not a theological analysis. This is one of patterns in many diverse, far-ranging fields. Paralleling the Darwinian science, Buddhist understanding is basically that female consciousness selects or ordains for sin-fullness of varying degrees. You might get from someone like the Dalai Lama that females are “good”, “wonderful,” etc., but it’s just a way to fend what they don’t want away. Females started the cycle. A Buddhist had predicted that allowing women in would cause his teachings to survive only half as long – 500 years instead of 1,000. Some such ancient declarations have been eliminated from texts. Your turn – Happy-hunting!

Obscuring info. also has some of its origins in gynocentrism, which can be analyzed in a bluntly-put sequential pattern; transcending gynocentric socialization by analysis; “extremism” is labeled by pleasure/females; frustration sometimes occurs to slandered analyzer; observation then is further slandered as “hysteria/”criminal”, etc.; “comedy”, etc., of male argumentation from pop. culture.

To paraphrase the stand-up comedian Bill Burr: You can’t criticize women because men are busy trying to have sex with them.
Female sexuality – political, dramatic, & crafty – is completely excusable, yet there’s frequently some beta males & females denigrating, compared to a ratio, the bodily/visuo male sexuality as “low”, “immature”, “trashy”, etc.. The reality is is that female sexuality is much more detrimental. Beta bureaucrats are willing to sometimes defend & apply legal measures with the feminine critiques of pornographers recording females dressed playfully with pigtails, vomiting on phalluses, or other images of slimy gapes, etc., & that we should be cautious of this sort of thing, yet why can’t we apply critiques on b.d.s.m. themes much more common & innate to female psychology? I’ve even criticized females in public of their varying versions of hybristophilia, & they look at me like I’m the wrong one. The former – an issue of choice of bodily juxtapositions & functions, while the latter – an issue of rationalizing & even the integrity of the future of the species.
There’s the other argument that beta males & the like will try to use to defend hybristophilia of female-hood; that it’s these females having a noble cause to try to change such bad men for the better, but why would you defend that when those females could apply that desire to build something beneficial with more rational males?
Associated physiological responses are evident. “Adrenaline shoots through me”, states one outcast, again, as typed firstly, masculine rational fear is interpreted as “bad”, a “sickness”, etc.. The general lack of curiosity as a defense mechanism about such a practice is strong. There is an aversion to learning potentially ego-threatening new info.. If you consider the defenses maintained by the vast popular to guard a lack of curiosity on just that single issue, consider other experiences males have, often blamed on those males, of being psychologically destroyed also declined. This is an anti-/a-objective culture where you’re here to be “macho”, entertaining, or automatic. “So, that’s just anecdotal when that one states adrenaline shoots through him”. Correction: To reiterate: there is a general lack of curiosity as defense mechanisms & mass cognitive dissonance as well as forgetting. Do people want to know about something as common as the interwork of slaughterhouses, just as an example, not a debate on veganism, & other things of that nature? Male disposability, not just in terms of divorce & male-female relational problems, is not a strong meme because, by even claiming that, males are already type-casted as non-entities.

Source: ‘Circumcision – The Hidden Trauma’ By Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., pgs.: 1, 7, 10, 11, 20, 31, 56, 75, 87, 89, 98. 117 & 118.
Not an excellent book, but has some good facts & is better than nothing on this highly riddled issue. Some truth & some fallacies. The author fails to make the connection that the practice is not a product of rationalism, but, in fact, it’s actually a product of instincts-by-nature. There’s also too much favoring of feminine emotions & claiming that masculinity is the main source of such reactions, but, in fact, it’s gynocentrism that leads to instincts/intuition.