Quoted By:
To the faggot from last thread.
>romantic dynamic
More feminine contrivance. When you use that word such as "romantic" and it's many variations, what exactly do you mean? I ask, because I'm almost certain its epistemology—the mental referent when the term is used—is that of a female contrivance—derived from and ponders to female wants and desires—Pussy-begging and simping. Masculine men—the sovereign male—we do not engage in "romance". We deal in sexuality and sexual tension. Nothing more. This is exactly what you and other manlets do by possess—sexiness—sex so appeal. Not romantic.
>the man projects the archetype of the feminine,
This is patently false and is once again, a cope that pushes that women have no agency, women are like children and women are what men define them as—negation of female nature. This ought not to be confused with mate selection and trait selection. This is more along the lines of, "men are to blame, for the way women are". Not only is this patently false, but a type of intellectual dishonesty that is common to women and emasculated men; that "men lead" and "women follow". Yet, all of human history, including recent history demonstrates the complete opposite.
>fall in love
More fag speak both out of feminine values
>it is an objectification on which an illusory and superficial layer of personification is placed.
Okay, then why the need for equivocation and referring to it as "love". Either way, what you're saying is patently false and nonsensical.
>Sex is for spreading genes
This is not entirely true. Sexual PLEASURE is what drives us. What happens as a result of seeking out sexual pleasure is inadvertent. Such is the case with "breeding" and "spreading muh genes". The latters are inadvertent and of late, contrived. Were they not contrived (no longer inadvertent), there wouldn't be a choice. Arguably, there has always been a choice and the consequences less costly.
