Phallarchist

Biden's incoherence and Trump's incoherence are in no way mutually exclusive. But what do I know? After all, I "ain't black" and so can't appreciate Biden's superior logic and rhetorical skills.

I've never met anyone who employed such language, and it's not something I would ever seek. But if an aggressive male started using it against me, I would feel obligated to do what I could to validate and enhance his erotic contempt. It would be my duty to maximize his desire and psychological satisfaction. My principle is that the dominant penetrator gets whatever he wants in the moment, to the best of my availability to provide it. That's the ideal, but I wonder how far I could really go.

The party of Obama had four long years to find a candidate who could defeat this incoherent orange carnival barker, and managed to settle on one that's just plain incoherent. There is no political consequence harsh enough to reward such cowardice, incompetence, and stupidity, except for the unthinkable. It's atrocious.

This evaluation sounds rational, whereas @ErosWired does not seem to be referring to an impulse founded in logic. And you have chosen just two traits that he mentioned. But if we were to take it as a rational proposition, then I would say that there need be no strict separation between the categories of "jerk" and "male". If most men exhibit "jerk" behaviors over evolutionary time and across cultures, then I don't think there can be a simple distinction. Of course, the strength of this behavioral link would not be nearly as strong as the basic biological link between XY chromosomes and the development of the penis, testes, and sperm-production. Those correlations are virtual identities. But let's say the "jerk" correlation is 60% or even 20%. Those effect levels are still notable and bound to influence behaviors in others. I take it that you are a "true male", in the chromosomal and gross anatomical sense. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is starkly atypical of males in general, and usually deleterious to genetic propagation. The behavioral and reproductive differences entailed by a primary or exclusive sexual response to male bodies make it difficult for me to easily place male homosexuals in the broader "male" category. It's a "one of these things is not like the other" situation. I would say "Other". I consider reproductive distinctions fundamental. The vast majority of human beings have sexual impulses that are in line with their bodies' reproductive functions. They are male and female. The rest of us are something else, and since we are largely self-terminating, it probably doesn't matter much in the end what that thing is. "Other" or "both" or "neither" or "whatever": it's a catch-all pseudo-category for the irrelevant. They confound me also, in that my impulses are generally at odds with those of normal humans. Especially normal male humans. But I find it impossible to ignore them.

The only time I yearn to have a vagina is when I want a man to penetrate me. I.e., when it's convenient. And then it's my most fervent wish. But if I did have one, I would never give a second thought to my rectum again. It would become exit-only, at least until the man wanted to take his conquest of my body to the next level.

I suppose "confidence" could be contrasted with false bravado, but what makes the man "cool"? Or are they synonyms?

Let's review the examples you provided: strut around taking up more than their fair share of personal space: just dominant behavior sit around with their legs spread: space-taking dominant behavior, plus phallic presentation (you know what's between those legs) unabashedly ogling every body that passes, offering comments boorish and unrefined (or just whistling): sexual aggression laughing louder than anything could be funny: the auditory form of taking space being ‘bro’: projecting masculinity by signalling membership in a shared male culture being badass: displaying bravery and skill in a bid to increase status and thereby, mating success being bullies: increasing status through comparison with relative weaklings As Spunkinmyarse said, these behaviors are simply aspects of maleness. I would consider them common enough to be secondary sex characteristics, like muscularity or body hair, but in the behavioral realm. Such men aren't necessarily pleasant company, but they are probably closer to the natural state of the male human animal than the mannered and inhibited creatures that make up polite society. Just as male instinct makes some of these behaviors inevitable, your female instinct necessitates a degree of sexual arousal in response. I really don't think it's complicated. Or maybe you would balk at the notion of having a female instinct. I don't think you can speak of sexual attraction to males apart from sexual dimorphism, but never mind, then, I'll substitute myself. My female instinct absolutely responds to a number of these characteristics, and I want to be mated by certain men who display them. My problem is that many of my sexual urges are in fact male, but I lack the instinct to exhibit most of these secondary behaviors. No doubt, my self-presentation is comforting to those who have suffered from male tyranny, but it also minimizes the faggot-female sexual response necessary for my breeding success.

You're the moderator, so I'll refrain from responding further on this topic. Anyone who is really curious can contact me privately. I genuinely don't want my offensive opinions to interrupt all of the self-loving spread of disease, drug addiction, and fantasizing about rape (my personal favorite). Let's keep the party going!

I like to think there would be real camaraderie among the gang members, cheering on the brutality of the active rapist and competing in turn to make the victim cry, beg, and pass out. The most skillful assailant would get to keep the rapeslave, if he wanted it.

Another nice one from the same site. The stain on his ass cheek is picturesque: [think before following links] https://barebackbastards.com/25871/gay-bloody-hole/

Thanks so much for this link. It was a beautiful sight and I hope it was real. In my experience, it's not that hard to bloody a cunt, so I would never use any equipment other than the flesh weapon of my birth.

I'm making a list and checking it twice.

If you're sufficiently masochistic, it would be the psychological pleasure of suffering for a man. But this depth of self-sacrifice is understandably rare.

Being "gay" is a cultural choice that just demonstrates poor taste. Homosexuality per se is generally not a choice, but a mental defect that seems to be largely congenital. Bisexuals are not entirely hopeless and sometimes do have a degree of choice. That choice should generally be the other sex for primary pair-bonding, while perhaps entertaining the same sex as an occasional amusement. If I knew of an effective conversion therapy, I would insist it be provided to every child at risk. Most "conversion" is useless, warmed-over Christian babble or Freudian fantasy. Nevertheless, I absolutely support the right of patients to try to escape exclusive homosexuality as well as the right of therapists to offer services to this end.

I endorse the universal usage of the word "faggot", because it's derogatory. While I welcome society's general move toward practical tolerance or indifference, most people correctly understand exclusive homosexuality as a regrettable aberration and I want clear distinctions between preferred and marginal forms of male sexual expression to be clearly maintained in common parlance. Children should learn that male and female are naturally complementary to an extent that almost justifies the labeling of same-sex penetration as "unnatural". In fact, it's just barely natural, driven by psychology, with little real physiological compatibility involved. Exclusively homosexual behavior should be regarded as the wrong choice, except for those few of us who are actually incapable of normal male-female sexuality. Further, I have no truck with the nonsensical politics of "queer" or the empty ugliness of most of what passes for "gay". I would much rather be known as a disgusting sexually-deviant faggot who is nevertheless allowed to go on defiling himself and others like him as long as he doesn't interfere with the sexually-normal population.

I would never knowingly kneel to a smoker and have no doubt that all of their emissions are foul. The wives of smokers are known to have higher rates of cervical cancer and I would expect the same principle to apply to the oral passage as well. But bitter semen in general is par for the course. I savor it as a perfect concentrate of testosterone and sexualized contempt, because gratitude is the only acceptable response to a real man's seed.

Yes, taking piss in your guts should come last so that you can then run to the toilet. But you should flush out beforehand anyway.

I'd think highly of it. I'd want to use her juices to moisten your cunt.

Have sex in the dark. Make sure he is lying back on the bed while you crouch between his legs to give him deep oral service. Deliberately go too deep so that you choke up some mucous onto your hand (don't gunk up his pubic hair). Spread that excellent lubricant evenly over his penis with your mouth and hand. Then, while stroking his slick shaft in one hand, quickly raise your body over it and impale yourself, taking his entire length into your cunt in one motion. Once he's buried in your guts, he won't want to pull out.

Male instinct has many splendours. Deep seeding is only one of them. Men gauge fertility with their eyes and furthermore crave visual confirmation of every aspect of their breeding process. They want to see the cunt spread. They want to see their erections split the entrance and disappear completely inside a bitch. They want to see the cunt gape and spasm on outstrokes, and they often want to see the excellence of their seed before they cram it in towards the waiting womb. These considerations are luxuries to be sure. If a man is likely to have just one opportunity to impregnate, then certainly it is his duty to force the maximum quantity of seed as deep as possible. For most men historically, it was the only sensible strategy. Breeding-age females were claimed by the ruling class, so the opportunity for erotic completion was often limited to opportunistic attempts at cuckolding. A fast and deep violation was a narrow path to an unlikely victory for the common man. But when a man has secure access to a bitch, he can afford to engage the full range of his urges towards sexual dominance and reproductive mastery. The symbolic act of ownership that is spraying seed on an upturned face or swollen cunt becomes central to his complete satisfaction. It suffices to say that men alone decide where and how to spread their seed. It is immoral for a bitch to interfere.

The man should not have to use his hand to reach orgasm. Cunt exists for that purpose. So that precludes most such targeting. But if a man wants to see the cunt smeared with his seed, it is his prerogative to pull out and aim in his naturally arrived moment of truth. I also believe it his duty to use his penis to push his load deep inside the cunt after he's done admiring the visible evidence of his prowess. It's not quite as effective for deep seeding as shooting while thrust in to the hilt, but it's a good compromise that serves his natural male pride and is reproductively complete.

I don't mind when a man tells me what he is about to do to me as a way of emphasizing his dominance , but I am disappointed and offended if he says it to gauge my reaction or implicitly get my permission. If I have surrendered myself to him, it's because I expected him to own me sexually. There's a huge difference between his shouting "Take my piss, you stupid faggot cunt", holding my skull, and urinating into my eyes, and on the other hand saying "I want to piss in your face. Would you like that, faggot?" The first knows his power and authority as a man. The second is just a pretender to the throne. Overall, I prefer unilateral action on his part, so it's best if he just does whatever he wants without warning and justifiably expects me to deal with it. I want a man who will exploit me first and ask questions later.

Fags who lie get forced dry.

"It hurts so much...[scream]...you're killing me." But heaving sobs and hot tears are wordless and the most endearing of all.

No, it's not rape. You're no different from a prostitute, who has sex for money rather than out of a desire for the sex itself.