me-thoughts-wants - Tumblr blog

me-thoughts-wants · 6 days ago

Note

I support misandry and support women hating men and things they do for being male, such as being emotional and believing women should listen to them and should be abused in any way a man wants, and calling women misogynistic slurs that men can't say but say anyway. Not just man hating, but simply believing men are lesser by nature, even if the women still treat them kindly. I am this way, but it is also a kink for me too. I grew up to see women CONSTANTLY leading the home, in real life and on the internet, such as cleaning, cooking, leading and teaching the kids, giving orders about the house and what needs to happen, and taking care of the husband and even commanding the husband around the house, plus going to work outside the house everyday to help the house and family have money. All the men just go to work for a few hours, then come home to laze around without helping the house or picking up after himself, not being involved with his kids and wife, and repeating the process. Women also have very good control of their emotions and know how to communicate. All the men have been abusive or get angry really easily and lashes out.

Just like for animals, males are the prizes, not the women. That's the whole point of why males are supposed to look beautiful and do everything to please females in order to be chosen by her, but men made it a woman's role to be beautiful, when that goes against nature, but men also try to say that's how nature is. Males compete because they don't know if they'll get the chance to mate again, since females are the ones who have mate choice. Males exist to be used for sex and babies, not females. That's why male features exist to attract mates to mate, and to be better than other males to have good babies with the good females, who are all good by default, that's why it's the male's job to be better, not the female, since the female is always technically better by just existing as female. Just like in nature, females do everything, such as leading, teaching, nurturing, providing, and so forth, while males just mate with a female and leave to repeat the process over and over again. Only few male animals are in harems, but they are not the “ruler” or “head” of the harem/family. Lions are matriarchal, and you can look that up and learn about it. Cows are also matriarchal. People believe the male is the head of the harem simply because it tends to be only one male surrounded by females he can mate with if chosen, which is a human male projection onto what human men want and desire. Females tend to only have one male to mate with because females don't want to have to deal with male behavior with other males, and because they simply use him as a sex object to make babies when they are ready for babies since they follow instinct, unlike humans. Men have switched a lot of nature around in order to get the fantasies they wanted, especially around sex. Men are so obsessed with sex because they are more animalistic than women, making them even more poor leaders for our human conscience society. That is why men will even blame everything they do and think of the fact that they are male, that it is in their nature. Women do not follow nature, they follow their conscience, human minds.

Men make poor leaders, which is why our society throughout ALL the years has had awful laws until protests, forced women to not help them invent society, created a world where men can be bad and get away with it, blames women for everything men do and think, create tons and tons and tons of wars because of their emotions, created a society to benefit men because of their emotions and selfishness, and created a way to be in power because they are emotional and need to feel validated. Like in nature, males and men do not want to actually be leaders, they just want sex, female attention, and to laze around and be “served.” Human men only want to work because it gives them the illusion that they are the important one, and because that's the only way to survive in an economy poor male leaders created.

Places where women have been rulers and matriarchal, have always had better societies.

Females are leaders, males are guards. It is even like this in nature. So, a woman would be a king, and men would be knights.

I believe that a man can have a harem ONLY if a woman allows it, just like in nature, not forced to allow it either by males. But the harem does not belong to him, HE belongs to the harem, just like in nature. Males exist to be sex toys for women, so if tons of women want to use one man and dominate him, then they should. For society though, I believe it should be the women who should have harems, just like some female animals do, because it helps stop our overpopulation problem, helps the woman, kids, and home have more money from all the men having jobs, helps the women, kids, and home have more protection because of all the men, especially when some men would stay home with the wife and kids while the other men go out to work, helps men regulate emotions and learn how to build bonds and life skills, helps lessen male competition, helps the male loneliness epidemic going on today, helps children actually have dads since men want to have sex and impregnate women but don't actually want to be fathers and constantly abandons women and his kids, and it helps the woman's sexual needs and her sexual frustration, especially when women have a harder time having orgasms since our clits are not stimulated during sex and penetration. Males exist to be USED for sex, and females exist to HAVE sex, which is why the clitoris is the only organ in the separate sexes that exists for sexual pleasure. Males have orgasms to have babies. Women have orgasms for fun and relief.

But just like in nature, males have to work together with females, just like herd and lion prides do, even if the females are above the male or are seen as “worth more.” So I agree with you that

Women also create life, making women even more on a pedestal compared to men. Women and females are everything and do everything. Males just exist to be chosen to breed with, and then die, just like how a lot of male insects are, such as male bees existing to only mate and then immediately dying, or male ants existing to be used sexually by the queen, the male dies or is expelled after, and then the queen never makes males again and only females.

Having babies is both a male and female's ultimate role and reason for existing, but men do not exist for anything else besides being used for sex. Human men changed this natural role because men are sensitive and emotional about it, even though men DO want to be used sexually by tons of women and constantly want to have sex. Women stop having kids biologically faster than men, because women don't exist for that reason. Women exist to so and be everything, while males exist, yet again, to be used for sex and to keep the population going, not the other way around. Men will eventually start to have issues with their sperm, because males have a limit and exist to be replaced by better males, since you aren't a better male anymore.

Are you actually misogynistic and sexist towards women, such as your partner, mom, female relatives, and possible daughter, or is it all actually just a kink thing? If you are a misogynistic and sexist male, why? Why do you see women that way and why would you want that for your female family? Also, how did you get this kink if it is just a kink? And if it was legal to treat women that way, like back then, would you actually treat women that way if given the chance, and why? Why are you a messed up person who wants to be cruel to women if yes? Why do you hate me and see me as lesser than you and should be degraded and used and so on?

What an interesting set of questions. As I read through them I see an obvious agenda coming from a wounded place. From the top...

Yes, I am actually misogynistic and yes, it is also a kink. I love women; I think they're wonderful, sweet, charming, kind, soft, attentive, magic. They often pay attention to little details and enhance life in ways men are often oblivious to... But, on balance, women tend to make poorer decisions and tend to have less agency causing a need for more rescuing in life.

My worldview of misogyny is that women are prizes to be competed over by men and that more dominant men should have the right to a harem of women as he chooses. Some prizes are naturally worth more than others and so require better competitors in better arenas. And with winners come losers, of which I expect there to be many, but there are already many, many losers today. Rights come with responsibilities, however, so the man has the duty to care for and tend to the women in his charge, as well as their offspring. It is not a free lunch on the woman's back and things should work as a mutually beneficial exchange between all parties.

You ask about the females in my life; I have 3 sisters and am the youngest. Two of my sisters are extraordinarily beautiful and one is not and didn't get near the same amount of attention as the others. I have seen each of their lives unfold and the results are... undesirable. The beautiful ones were chewed up by life and spit out and the root cause was mainly their own poor decisions which they were able to make based on their looks. The homely one is bitter at life and buried in excessive debt. I have also been and am married, have children and lost my virginity at 16 to a 30 year old woman. I have over 50 sexual partners in my life so I am quite experienced.

Maybe it's a problem with capitalism or maybe it's a problem with monogamy. Polygyny, I believe would be a far superior system as it fractionally transfers risk from woman as an individual to woman as the collective group to which she belongs. The members of the harem can take care of each other, their offspring, split tasks to make the homeplace more efficient and so forth. If one of the wives chooses to work outside of the home then sure, go for it. But that's a luxury she can afford because the other wives are taking care of things back home.

The social system under which we currently live, in the west, began as such in the 1940s. Most reproductive age men were shipped off to war and interestingly enough birthrates fell. Babies are quite expensive from a time and resource perspective. Our species evolved in such a way that our offspring tend to be disproportionately dependent on their mothers for the better part of a decade before having enough autonomy to survive to a limited degree. After the war birthrates exploded by 73% on average. 1935 births were 2.37mm vs 1955 births at 4.1mm. On balance that is a substantial need for investment and the only way a woman could break away from the house and pursue that career is to offload her responsibilities to another. We call it nanny or day care. In my argument, however, that "other" should be another wife (or wives) within the family so that the children and household have continuity together. Women entering the workforce en masse has halved the economic value of labor and the laboring class, of which most of us belong, has lost to the ownership class ever since. Look at NEETs today, which are predominately male. They are the logical conclusion of this failed system.

As for use and degradation; that is a sweet, but misinformed way to look at it. You are assuming a disregard of the woman in the exchange but behind the use and degradation comes tender, nurturing care of her physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. She is the substrate of sexual creativity, the conduit of life. I did not design sex, sperm, or egg. I did not design ovulation or menstruation. But that doesn't mean that I don't understand them as somewhat predictable, and therefore manageable, biological systems.

Having a baby(ies) is a female's ultimate biological imperative. It is necessary for the continuation of our species lest we face a demographic cliff. And biologically it is my imperative as a male to spread as much seed as possible in my life. A woman's biological clock starts ticking at 30, a man's at 13. I want to create the conditions that I see fit to increase my reproductive success over my short lifetime. That includes possessiveness and restriction as well as countering the cultural narrative of independence and a childfree lifestyle. Birthrates in 1940 were 20.4 per 1000. Today they are 12 per 1000 and are not expected to grow.

Perhaps this answers some of your questions, maybe it doesn't. But is it really cruel to continue humanity? Is it hateful to suggest a different way of living where capitalism and monogamy as it is today are failed systems? Or would it be more merciful to allow and encourage our continued demographic decline until we go the way of the white rhino?

12 notes · View notes