- Personality is not a physical attribute. The question pertained to physical attributes.
- Personality is not an alternative to physical attributes, such that a person can have one or the other.
2a. This also applies to preferences regarding physical attributes or personality. - Even disregarding point 2a, awareness and appreciation of personality in its entirety is not equivalent to the mere appreciation of one physical attribute over another, unless said awareness and appreciation is so shallow that it only exists to be broadcast in order to look good in front of girls (see point 5a).
- To expand on point 3, personality is at least as encompassing as the body in its entirety, therefore you do not actually indicate a preference when you say ‘personality’. ‘Tits or ass?’ at least regards a different sort of preference on the bodily level. ‘Personality’ just points to a different kind of preference (one which exists simultaneously with, alongside physical preferences in any healthy individual), with nothing actually said of what that is. This is because-
- You’re just doing this to
5a. virtue signal about how you’re a soulful boy who cares about women as people
5b. talk down to men who dared to have a discussion about what they physically prefer in the presence of a white knight retard whose lack of a grasp of nuance had him believe that preferences on the physical level and preferences on the interpersonal level were mutually exclusive - You weren’t asked
6a. In the case that you were asked, the person who asked you this was trying to start a nice little ‘standard conversation for the boys’ and you took that as an opportunity to feel superior - This is why nobody likes you and you aren’t invited to parties
Regarding the second-to-last point: I more meant “Men who reply ‘personality’ when said question is asked”.
The alternative would be “The person who asked you this was trying to start a nice little conversation and you took that as an opportunity to feel superior”, which would segue nicely into the last point
There, I edited it to be more comprehensive
- Nose
- Bobcut
- Feet
- Boobies
- Ass
voice
i dont care for parties anyhow, people are gross
Voice too. I love girls with a Queens accent
I think accents highlight the internal organs, which is why they’re sexy
I prefer feet
accents are alright. its whatevs.. but you can tell an awful lot about a person by the way they use it. their voice that is. and without any particular categorization or denominating factors i can usually hear my type almost immediately
uh. wrong response button my bad
Sexual irreverence is one of the hallmarks of a collapsing society, where the more obsessed with sexuality and sexual attributes an individual becomes, and the more openly they come to express these lascivious sentiments, the more we find the bonds between men and women eroded, and the social contract in a state of disrepair.
This is not to say that the “Personality White Knights” are any better, they obviously lack the poetic tact to more elegantly express their infatuation with their partner, and are often even more immoral because they are engaged in the same lewd behavior as the “Tits and Ass” crowd, but are more prone to lying about it.
There was a time was sex was seen as something spiritual, a union between man and woman was something that was meant to be a one time thing, and last a lifetime, a bond of devotion that would be carried on and used to nurture generations, in reverence not only to their bodies, the body of the world, but the bodies of their children, who they would as respectable parents prefer that their children come to respect and honor their own bodies, and not degrade them through promiscuity and flippant sexual language.
What parent wants to see their daughter regarded as a whore? Or their son as not stable enough to maintain and provide for his lineage? There is no greater disgrace then the ways in which the younger generations of today are taught to regard sex, or taught to disrespect themselves through such behavior.
Oscillating between the points of prudishness and licentiousness, the truth is one of a sacred, conscientious, and private act. One in which if the details of that bond should be expressed to anyone outside of that faithful coupling, they should be expressed only with tact and decency.
Of course anyone criticizing these sentiment wouldn’t be good at parties, they are generally healthier more well composed individuals, and wouldn’t want to be apart of such reckless self destruction in the first place.
You will never find healthier higher forms of virtue and expression in places that revel in their own degeneracy, just as you will never find treasure in a pile of dung. Except perhaps in the fantasies of the broken and diseased who frequent such venues, hoping against reason to come across something they have never seen before, but have been told must exist in such places by other invalids with their hands so deeply caked in shit you must question if the reward is worth the trouble.
That makes you intelligent!
I think all smart-aleky behavior is kind of wrong.
This question invokes the smart alek in some people. Why? Because they either have to be crude by expressing something lustful, which they oppose, or they have to explain/debate with you about why they don’t say such things. They don’t want to debate because it is stressful and dangerous, so they say something smart-aleky to end the discussion.
We need to understand why people oppose lust.
Calling people “degenerate” for feeling lust clearly doesn’t work. It’s just mean, creates useless suffering.
People oppose lust because it destabilizes the emotional state. Any kind of stimulation can both increase anxiety and increase excitement. Thus, it’s wise to be hyper-vigilant about overstimulation.
Many people have figured out that the secret to life is to never show or be anxious, and instead, to perform very well in every way. To look strong, competent, reliable, benevolent, and attuned. You must be this way, to look this way. While looking this way is all that matters to generate the outcome (which is why some psychopaths cheat the system of life), it’s a better idea to try to be this way.
A good visual of what this perfect person looks like would be a CEO, consultant, or any sort of knowledge-professional whose job requires a great amount of high-stakes discussion.
These people have figured out that, if they just maintain this state consistently, the world will reward them. The mate will find its way to you. Things will go well. They have faith.
It requires faith. You are not allowed to directly chase or grasp at things like power, popularity, love, compassion, and more. You only can behave in an ideal way, and pray for these things to come to you.
Many people have faith. “Trust the process” is a meme bc at some point, people realized that this lack of faith is one of the main disconnects.
People who grow up with unreasonable families, such as mine, struggle to have faith. I know from experience that my family can thwart normal, decent people for strange reasons. They are not reasonable, not cooperative. Fortunately for others, they come from good families who cooperate and teach them how to be “perfect.”
People from dysfunction can’t see the purpose of being “perfect.” It looks like other dysfunctional people win, and it looks like the world, which feels malicious to us based on our family environment, is trying to tell us to be perfect…so why would we listen? Are they reliable? People like us do not trust people. We’d prefer to shirk some rules ourselves, and get some lemonade out of the lemon of human life. Or, that’s how we tend to think.
EDIT: I think there is one more thing besides faith that is required. It is the trick to not caring about the prospect of failure at life. I think that all great people probably refuse to care too much about the universe. I’m serious about this. I think that some people realize that the universe is unfair, built to generate terrible outcomes for random people who were just born into the wrong body and place, and they conclude that this universe and every inhabitant of it has not earned their affection. They realize the absurdity and injustice of existence itself, and they mentally check-out. While this is the case, it’s impossible to do it 100%; we always retain emotions and concerns. So they mime their way through life, doing what is best to generate the best outcomes. If it works, great. If it doesn’t work, they never cared too much in the first place.
It doesn’t create useless suffering to describe behavior through an accurate use of language.
People oppose lust because it is a crude depiction of what might otherwise be a more refined and healthy expression of the body. Merely giving in to such impulses or reveling in them clearly does nothing to promote a deeper understanding of self, as is evident by societies rampant decline leading to an increased prevalence of sexual degeneracy.
I would agree that this prescription of “Degeneracy” would be vapid if devoid of any further elaboration of the matter, but harsh language should be used to define a harsh reality. These people are sexual deviants, who are largely unhealthy and unrefined as individuals, atomized and searching for sexual stimulation to fill the void where their soul ought to be, and very much is, if they spent the time looking inwards instead of externalizing their emotions onto every hunk of flesh that passes by them.
The issue is about building habits that lead one to Become strong and confident. Pretense might enter into the equation of the older religious generation who kept up appearances without performing genuinely moral actions, and we are right to shame them as well, but that shouldn’t stop us from responding to wrong doing. Same with psychopaths, but they don’t “Cheat” the system, they erode it, and cause others to emulate this behavior. Alternatively there are “Psychopaths” who do engage in this behavior sincerely because they see the positive outcome of it, they aren’t cheaters, they are just more readily willing to take action then other people, and their drive for power is something that, at least by itself, should be encouraged.
Faith is the virtue of men who are too weak to take action on what they know is right, and will instead passively resign themselves to notions of patience while the world is slowly destroyed around them.
Men of action are the true inheritors of the world, and the true preservers of goodness in its many forms, because they do not wait for a day when a reward will come to them, they seize that reward themselves through the merit of their every day choices.
Nihilism will save nobody. The greatest men are the ones who aspire to the highest order of virtue for the sake of virtue, knowing that honor exists even in their failures.
The world rewards the Strength and Power, that is fairness. What is unfair is that the weak should proliferate and feed off the strong, which though merited for their short term survival, they destroy everything in their consumption, because they do not have the ability to create, because they again do not have the Will to take action.
The weak must die. That is the oldest law of the world. So if passivity is your nature then just sit back and let it happen. But the potential for greatness belongs to all living creatures, and it is within all living men. The only thing that separates the losers from the winners is those who are willing to fight for what is Righteous, and act upon what strength they have, as opposed to wallowing in their baser emotions to take solace from a storm they could otherwise be weathering.
theres a body part not listed. namely, the genetic code. a large darriere doesnt show it, nor does a large rack. it only becomes fully visible after a certain amount of time whereby a number of things are fully evident. and then, i experience outright lust. but only then.
but, that said, thus far theyve been consistently of the small cup/broad hipped/vertically challenged variety although at times tallish
- It’s not ‘smart alec’ vibes that I get from people who respond this way, it’s soyish Redditor virtue signaling
- You don’t have to be experiencing ‘lust’ actively to express what you appreciate more. Lust is when you have a desire for sexual activity that breaks moral principles. Merely appreciating the physicality of the opposite sex is not it, and there’s a (somewhat silly) notion that what specific features a person prioritizes in their appreciation is a manly bro-homie-o thing to ask about them. As such, being that it’s easy to cope with, humoring it is one of the inconsequential concessions to modern vice (as it is objectifying, even if it doesn’t entail wrongful desire) one can make. As such, it’s better to respond to the question with dignity rather than with what amounts to an open prayer for a dommy mommy feminist GF who’s probably a troon anyway.
- It doesn’t take much to say that you appreciate the elegant composition of the complete whole, which would be my honest answer. Either it will work, or it won’t and then you’ll be able to stare down your nose at the offender who asked the question and feel superior.
- The cry of ‘degeneracy’ only causes suffering in people who haven’t learned to turn a deaf ear to it. I was going to reply something like ‘cool story bro’ to the other guy when I saw your message and decided I found it more engaging, but to be frank I probably shouldn’t because passive aggression is at least as, if not far more hostile than accusations of degeneracy.
- This post was not meant to be deep, except insofar that it’s an articulated complaint about a manner in which annoying soy boys try to be ‘deep’ in response to a meaningless question
Myself, I don’t like to pretend I know about genes or whatever, if I’m being completely honest what I prefer is that each part jives with each other part. I’ve seen risque art that’s made up of a bunch of parts that I like in and of themselves but they’re fitted together wrongly for my tastes.
Example that might sound coomerish: I might like some well-drawn tits and some well-drawn abs but boobs of a certain size that would indicate a high body fat percentage mixed with washboard abs (a combination that I see too much in coomer art spaces) subtly tax my willing suspension of disbelief in a way that makes seeing the art subtly exhausting on a mental level and as such might suppress the arousal. Plus, just the vibe of squishy honkers with rock abs feels dissonant. Are you trying to render a Venus of Willendorf or a spartan fit girl? It’s not that I don’t think a woman can be strong and also feminine, but it’s possible for the vague outline or structure of muscles to be framed under the fat of a soft body rather than forcing a severe and morbid thinness in the middle of a figure that is otherwise tender and nigh motherly.
i would say ass but 9 times out of 10 theyre not even attractive
Dismissing these sentiments as mean or inconsequential only proves you aren’t cognitively or emotionally equipped enough to handle these and other mature discussions, and of course who could blame you, your parents, your peers, your education, and nothing in modern culture truly equipped you to handle these problems with a sense of maturity.
You don’t fix a problem by ignoring it. And in that same vein, anyone dismissing my position as inconsequential or prudish only vindicates the position that much more. You must naturally dismiss and ignore this position if you are against it, because you view sex as something cheap and trivial and readily available, so much so that your addiction to novelty would dismiss my sentiment as something “Known”, and therefor without value, because you have been taught to value what is rare, and not what is otherwise Common and therefor Sacred.
The fall of Rome was characterized by rampant orgies and free notions of sexuality: an Increased prevalence of pedophilia and homosexuality, and overall promiscuity.
The same is true of the Greeks, where their honoring of the human form degenerated into a perverse obsession with consumption, seeing the body as less of a spiritual vessel and more of an object to gratify ones own short term self interest, with no regard to the greater meaning or purpose of sex and life.
This is also why many anthropologists believe places like Africa and the Middle East and India never advanced in their civilizations and genetic progress, because rampant promiscuity created not only an increase in genetic load, but eroded any attempt to establish deeper social bonds/ further the social contract.
It is of course no secret that our modern day is just as dysfunctional, and sure enough, as we decline we see the same overt sexualization of everyone and everything. Notions like Rule 34, public access pornography, sex in ads and in media, Smut being the best selling book genre, and sex and sexual innuendo being prevalent in everyday conversation.
Whereas sex was once something private and deeply spiritual, it is now public and trivial, treated comically. And of course as a result, we now see Divorce on the rise, most people aren’t dating, or if they are they are engaging in hypergamy. Fertility rates are declining globally, mental illness is on the rise, abortions are on the rise to continue justifying further sexual decadence, and on and on and on because people refuse to face the question.
No, the concept of sex is, in certain circumstances, within certain circumstances. Sex itself is not the same thing as the idea or discussion of it. By equating talk about sex with sex itself, and then talking about it, you are thereby engaging in talk about sex yourself.
But the reason I dismiss your talk is because I struggle enough with my own conscience not to be willing to be subject to any moral hall monitors–especially ones who aren’t protestant Christian, which I’ve gotten the notion that you aren’t, as I believe I’ve picked up on some materialistic (in the sense of only believing in the material as fundamentally real) notions in your messages, seeing the spiritual as some kind of evolutionary feature to give meaning and organize value (correct me if I’m wrong).
It’s not merely that I know, but that I’ve know because I’ve heard it before and already chose to disregard it, because ideas like ‘degeneracy’ just seem like ideological flourishing from ideologies that I don’t really care for.
As a side note, ‘common’ is usually held as antithetical to ‘sacred’
>“Words are not the things they represent”
Sure, if you want to break them down into there most bare form, it’s just sounds and symbols. However, they are like vessels, and are subject to what we fill them with and decide. Though our prescriptions are not to be mistaken for the things themselves, words are an attempt to define a shared reality. If I point to the left and you go right, that is called a miscommunication, and we must from then on either venture to agree upon our definitions of reality so as to better respond to it, or merely throw our hands up in the air and abandon any attempt for human beings to understand each other and live healthier more fulfilling lives.
Cohesion is fundamental to our ability to live together. However, tolerating a prescription of reality that is untrue is immoral, and I will not make of myself a liar.
I could tell you that: “To go left is to fall into a pit, to go right is to wander into a field.” to which you disagree, wandering to the left anyway, and yet you will still adamantly assert that you disagree with my definition of a pitfall as you descend to your death.
My position is that Life and Nature are fundamentally of the Spirit, and this life is a holy experience to be a part of, and that to run away into abstractions as the world burns down around you is a most horrible way to squander the opportunity you have to enact your Gott given agency upon this earth. We do not exist merely for ourselves, we are biological extensions of all who have come before us, the very culmination of our Ancestors choices made Flesh.
You are correct that I do not subscribe to Christianity, however, that does not negate the notion that Men must hold each other accountable as Men. It doesn’t matter that you didn’t have strong male role models to mold your behavior off of, or peers to work alongside to help you build up a community, a heritage, a culture by which to pass onto a guide others, so that they might also avoid our failures.
If we cannot hold to a single definition of a word, then language fails us, and we will never understand each other.
If we cannot hold Men accountable for their actions, then criminals run free, and otherwise good men will continue to engage in a behavior and mentality that is killing them.
If we cannot define ourselves as a Nation and as a People upon this earth, then what are we?
What is the most common is also what is the most sacred. (Yet as the virile non-conformist that you are, I am surprised to hear you mention the “Usual” connotations of words.)
For is life not common? Are all men who live and breath nothing more then trivial automata simply because they happen to share their living with another person? Nay, life is magnificent, to live is to engage in a Holy Act. To share breath with another, be it Man, Beast, Tree, or other. Ask anyone who has bore witness to the act of Childbirth, most all men will tell you how magical it is to witness. The only evil that occurs is in the actions of those who squander their gifts, and seek to devalue the opportunities they have been given, rather than try to make things even better for those who will come after them.
