Male Liberation

Helixer, luckily, I caught this post on a Saturday so I was able to read it. Athough your ideas were a little "scattered" and "draft" in your text, the fact that a few points were a little underdeveloped and you didn't seem to reach an overwhelming conclusion - you seemed to ask more questions than you answered - I agree with 90% of what you were saying. I think, although your opinions on women wanting men for their own personal needs, you are in danger of making the reader think you are bitter and misogynous if you don't "temper" or "soften the tone" of your points, thus men won't read your text coz, ironically, they'll see you as "saying mean things about women whose boots I lick and who I aim to please".

The reason why Aneros won't ever be a true 100% male liberation meme or representation is for two reasons:
a) obviously coz of the length of the rewiring journey + hygiene and inconvenience + homosexual misconceptions.
b) men have intuited or internalized or have become socially wired to desperately seek women. Men are visual, so this internalization is almost instantaneous.

Dude, What have you been smoking ?

Yeah dude my ideas are really 'far out' huh? Weren't you the pussified guy that was 'papa' to somebody elses child?

What's the main point you're trying to get across? Are you saying that part of the liberation of men will come when it is common for man to experience woman-like/multiple/Super-O orgasms? But then it seems like you are putting woman down and trashing the whole idea of marriage and pleasing your partner through sex. Where does that fit in? I'm not saying anything you're saying is wrong or bad, I just want to understand you so I can interpret and learn from your ideas.

Athough your ideas were a little "scattered" and "draft" in your text, the fact that a few points were a little underdeveloped and you didn't seem to reach an overwhelming conclusion - you seemed to ask more questions than you answered

I obviously wasn't exhaustive in my analysis as I presumed the reader would have the intelligence to connect the dots and think it thru. If you didn't understand something quote me.

I think, although your opinions on women wanting men for their own personal needs, you are in danger of making the reader think you are bitter and misogynous if you don't "temper" or "soften the tone" of your points, thus men won't read your text coz, ironically, they'll see you as "saying mean things about women whose boots I lick and who I aim to please".

I'm just describing nature So what? IMO having(partnered) sex with an Aneros in your ass is like walking in the dark with sunglasses on. I haven't said anything that wasn't true, just coz they're pussified doesn't mean the outsider can't have a more objective view of things.
Anyway, I don't think anyone is offended about me saying bad things about women, they may be angry coz they know I'm right. If they want to stick their head in the sand, by all means.

The reason why Aneros won't ever be a true 100% male liberation meme or representation is for two reasons:
a) obviously coz of the length of the rewiring journey + hygiene and inconvenience + homosexual misconceptions.
b) men have intuited or internalized or have become socially wired to desperately seek women. Men are visual, so this internalization is almost instantaneous

Re-wiring would be fairly sponaneous if the grinders would try marijuana. You haven't tried mj yet, so your views are flawed.
First have a Super O and then tell me if you still feel the same. But you're right, it's socially deviant, but just coz the majority hasn't caught on yet doesn't mean it's not better than the status quo.
My take is if women must continue the pointless cycle of crapping out kiddies let them please pay topdollar for the sperm, 100.000 would be a good price to start the bidding

Might we stop discussing *how* things were said? I'd like to know more about *what* was said. Helixer, can you comment on my post above? Main thing I am asking is where does marriage and sexual partners fit in to your philosophy?

Might we stop discussing *how* things were said? I'd like to know more about *what* was said. Helixer, can you comment on my post above? Main thing I am asking is where does marriage and sexual partners fit in to your philosophy?

I presumed it would be obvious from the above, as I wrote first off, the text was intended for a male liberation site as it dawned on me how this movement could benefit from the combined use of Aneros and hash, just as perhaps the feminist movement could benefit from abortion and anti conception pil.
Feminism has succeeded in equal rights for women at least in the male sphere of influence while retaining their own sphere of power, which in effect obviously doesn't constitute equality.

Back to your question, it'll depend how their being pussified is having an adverse effect on the man.
For example, how much are you tied down? Are you able to dream and go for your dreams without being restricted by your wife and her(in both legal and biological sense) baby?
Is the life you're leading true to your character or are you pussified into the orderly, organised, MATERialistic rat race ?

In short , now the sexual lure is gone how much of the intrinsic female character/psyche is enough to compromise your character for? Do you like the moodswings, the nagging, the never pleased attitude?
Are you enough of a man to not need the confirmation of a women to believe in yourself?Coz what is her (inferior) opinion worth when sex is not an issue anymore? Enough to be pussuficated?

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
Shakespeare's Hamlet Act III, scene II

I guess it comes down to:
what women think they want, • what women say they want• what women really want

i.e. action's speak louder than words

Helixer, it really just sounds like either you don't understand the ideal man - woman relationship or you've given up hope that the ideal relationship will ever exist. Either way, you should realize that all your solutions to these problems are just bandaids on a wound, but you'll never cure the wound itself. So this is all kinda pointless.

So if she gets equal jobs and pay all she needs is a spermdonor.

This is where you first began to ...disconcert me a little. Possibly unintentional, but the tone is this suggests that you of the following mindset: "Since she thinks she's Miss Independent now...thinking she's on a man's level now...". Maybe I am just reading it wrong. It would come across more positive if you had said something like: "Now that, thankfully, we are on our way to female-male equality with equal jobs and pay....". Again, I may just be reading you wrong.

This I believe is the way men get contaminated by the women's psyche, pussified into the female sphere of MATERialism, drudgery and mediocrity.

The mere fact that you are with a woman makes you mediocre? Here is an example of where you need to flesh out your thoughts a little.

The second influence is the fact that females really do, generally speaking, love the kids they've crapped out. It is after all their evolutionary task, it's what they're programmed to do. This is how the cycle gets repeated, maternal love for son, son seeks maternal love in female later on, but female only has love for herself and her offspring, so dupes him into being a sexslave etc.

¿¡Qué!? Quoi!!!??? A woman has NEVER loved a man before? Only has love for herself, is a bit of a stretch. I would say women are, at least, these days, self-centred and care about what they can GET from you and GET FOR their kids. My ex-girlfriend who had a child before we got together, was without a doubt benefitting from the relationship more than I was. If it had continued, she would have:

- had a carefree, oversexed youth and had a baby with a dickhead loser.

- met me, who spent the time that she was laying on her back having fun, studying and building a future for myself, trying to give myself "high value" and potential.

- got a better role model for her accidental son who she loves more than anyone and anything.

- eventually moved in with me and and got her son's educational, financial and other needs attended to by myself, as her education and career prospects were not on track, nor was there any guarantee that they would ever be.

So even in spite of living recklessly, she would have stumbled on me to save her kids life, lest he only have his dad as his role model, thus becoming a dickhead loser himself.

But, extending this narcissistic behaviour to all women is a stretch. Unless you have proof that you can stretch it. In which case, this idea is underdeveloped.

The third mechanism giving women power is making men believe that men who get plenty of pussy are cool and must really be someone for all those beautiful women to want him.

100% agree. But men also fall into this trap too. We congratulate men who get lots of pussy. If we could begin to congratulate men who discover their man-pussy (prostate) and can say: "You say you want to fuck me, miss random lady who've never met before? Well, what benefit is that to me when I can have multiple Super Os alone?" - then we would turn the world on its head. Bars would become places where women try to get us Women who didn't try to pick us up or chat us up would never get one of us. Prostitution would dry up. We would become GOLDDUST. We would become "10's" (10 out of 10s, i.e. desirable and hot to women).

If you'd stayed true to your spiritual nature you wouldn't have given the female her babies in the first place!

A man that produces offspring has given in? So if men had followed your line of thinking, we would have been extinct millenia ago.

Helixer, it really just sounds like either you don't understand the ideal man - woman relationship or you've given up hope that the ideal relationship will ever exist. Either way, you should realize that all your solutions to these problems are just bandaids on a wound, but you'll never cure the wound itself. So this is all kinda pointless.

Curious, so you actually believe in a ideal man-woman relationship?
Please tell me more!!!!What's your take on that?

I don't understand why ppl keep commenting on my solutions, as far as I can see I've described the inherent incompatibilty of the male/female psyche, the cruel joke nature played on us, etc, what solution?what wound?
All I'm trying to do is help others become aware of their pussification and this selling out, this compromising isn't necessary anymore with the advent of the Aneros etc(read the text again)

@MyTurn:

A man that produces offspring has given in? So if men had followed your line of thinking, we would have been extinct millenia ago.

Finally we're getting somewhere, these are the type of questions I expected.....
Let me ask you this, what is your take on making babies? is it to please your woman?
or is it coz you believe you're passing on DNA so despite being mortal part of you lives on in that (combined)DNA? Coz in this case it's highly unlikely despite the MATERial characteristics that your son or daughter is like you, as it's the combination of genes, so the knowledge you've worked a lifetime to achieve will be wasted on them anyhow. Unless of course you're a racist and you feel strongly about preserving your 'race'.
From the standpoint of the women I can completely understand why they want to crap out kiddies, after all they're biologically predisposed to do that and being MATERIalistic that's what they want, a materialistic remnant of themselves.
For the un-pussified man however, the man that's stayed true to his disposition it should be about spiritual values, ideas, etc. Unless you could clone yourself using a woman to crap it out it's a pointless affair. So you work and defend your family when what you really want to pass on is nothing materialistic but spiritual, living on means, an idea living on, your life experience living on, a child that could be taught what you weren't become an enhanced YOU. Your spiritual reason d'etre gets wasted on a random collection of matter. So what if your child has the same skin color, the same eyes, nose, hair or whatever, are you really that racist to care about these things?

The second point is well if we had things your way, we'd be extinct. Plausible but wrong, women who are predisposed to want to crap out babies would be willing to pay a lot of money for sperm, so let them bleed for it, like they've been doing to men for millenia using our achilles heel against us.
And as I mentioned cloning/genetic manipulation makes sense coz that way a lifetime of knowledge isn't wasted on a 'piece of shit'. That to me makes sense, and women wouldn't care all they want to do is crap out kiddies. Let them do that with your genetically modified YOU.

And then again, what if despite that mankind went extinct?
It's a pointless cycle especially if there's nothing after death, why prolong the cycle what's the point? Mankind really so special, if mankind went extinct it might be a good thing for the rest of the inhabitants of this planet. On a personal note, why would you even care what happened after you died?

The mere fact that you are with a woman makes you mediocre? Here is an example of where you need to flesh out your thoughts a little.

The idea of Ancient Greece comes to mind, the cradle of our civilisation. The philosophies, mathematical thinking, theater, tragedy/drama etc, buildings, dorian scale(music), ideas emanating from this small area still has an influence on our thinking today.
Arts, thinking flourished, there was only one place where that wasn't the case, Sparta, the only place in Greece where the women weren't put in a subservient position.

I'd say the Greek was a feminized man, sure a culture of homosexuality but that's not what I mean, but possibly it was because of that that they came in contact with their feminine side. After all it was part of the training to be a soldier that the prepubescant or teenage boys would sleep with their teacher, discovering their feminine sexuality and thus their feminine side making them a more complete man.
This feminized man is the direct route coz instead of projecting that female side onto a woman(who's biologically and mentally different, thus a chimera in any event) he goes for the real thing.
A pussified man is a man compromizing on his ideals and integrity, a sexslave degrading himself to please the female, who twists his achilles heel for HER purpose, namely crapping out a kiddie and finding a dupe who'll risk his life for her and her kiddies or who provides for her.
As I described above, the pussifying mechanism is something akin to hypnotism. Snap out of it! Coz you're living the woman's life, the mediocre, unspiritual materialistic life.

My guess is the Greeks understood this and that's why they've played such a seminal role in our civilisation

¿¡Qué!? Quoi!!!??? A woman has NEVER loved a man before? Only has love for herself, is a bit of a stretch. I would say women are, at least, these days, self-centred and care about what they can GET from you and GET FOR their kids

It's a biological necessity, different evolutionary strategies, again:
what women think they want, • what women say they want• what women really want

So when she says I love you and pussifying you, who she's really thinking about at best is her kiddie but more likely herself

Maybe I am just reading it wrong. It would come across more positive if you had said something like: "Now that, thankfully, we are on our way to female-male equality with equal jobs and pay....". Again, I may just be reading you wrong

It's positive in the sense that now the mechanisms get exposed. That feminism wasn't about equality but about limiting men's sphere of influence without limiting women's sphere, in effect giving women the jobs and the power and IMO the less dependant a woman is the less she'll have to show her socalled loving/caring side, that was all theatrics after all, part of the pussifying, to dupe the man into a lifelong indentured servitude

Now Pandorra's box has been opened it's up to the men's liberation+Aneros+hash to complete the proces. Sure 'harmonious relations' could be established by going back to the dark ages of religion, but that,( restricting BOTH sexes freedom) would be too high a price to pay, just for the sake of keeping the crap cycle continuing

You seem to suggest that men get no benefit from having offspring, men don't want to nurture a kid, impart wisdom, or be proud of a kid that turns out well. You think men would be happier living to the age of 70, having had a few beers with friends and a big house that gets passed on to the government coz they have no offspring.

Your base thinking is correct: men are pussified. Men can now be free of the "slave to the pussy" syndrome now that we are in the age of the Aneros. We can even put up with less societal ("impress and get women = you are an alpha male") and relationship ("please and provide for a woman = you are an acceptable male to this society and to your woman") bullshit.

You are even correct that we have different goals, men and women.

But, you go a little beyond by suggesting that we might as well be extinct, that men shouldn't have kids unless money exchanges hands.

I've asked the question on this forum so many times: Is our need for women diminished now that we can Aneros? I think the users here say it in some my polls. Basically, that the Aneros gives you pleasure. A woman/family makes you feel complete, provides intimacy, gives your life purpose, etc.

You seem to suggest that men get no benefit from having offspring, men don't want to nurture a kid, impart wisdom, or be proud of a kid that turns out well. You think men would be happier living to the age of 70, having had a few beers with friends and a big house that gets passed on to the government coz they have no offspring

In life I'm sure men would have more potential without the wife and her kiddies holding him back.
And so what if your property gets passed onto the government instead of to your pieces of shit? if you're dead would you really care, IMO you'll be to engrossed into infinity to bother about pussymatter

But, you go a little beyond by suggesting that we might as well be extinct, that men shouldn't have kids unless money exchanges hands.
I've asked the question on this forum so many times: Is our need for women diminished now that we can Aneros? I think the users here say it in some my polls. Basically, that the Aneros gives you pleasure. A woman/family makes you feel complete, provides intimacy, gives your life purpose, etc..

First off, did I say men shouldn't have kids unless money exchanges hands?

The second point is well if we had things your way, we'd be extinct. Plausible but wrong, women who are predisposed to want to crap out babies would be willing to pay a lot of money for sperm, so let them bleed for it, like they've been doing to men for millenia using our achilles heel against us.And as I mentioned cloning/genetic manipulation makes sense coz that way a lifetime of knowledge isn't wasted on a 'piece of shit'. That to me makes sense, and women wouldn't care all they want to do is crap out kiddies. Let them do that with your genetically modified YOU.

For the rest, needing a woman to give purpose and make your life complete is utter brainwashed nonsense,more lies to keep the pussified sexslaves from exploring their true potential. I'm sure the majority believe this, I used to believe it myself, I've opened my eyes...

As I've written before about the 'Zone'. This state of being completely in the moment, relaxed and open to subconscious potential, this is completeness, a woman just brings you down to the earthly state of whining babies, moneylove, and materialism...
I guess it ultimately depends on yourself, are you a dependant pussified sexslave or do you see the biological reality that the male and female is fundamentally incompatible, your choise

Again: those pussified men of the poll put the Aneros in while having sex with their wife, i.e. put sunglasses on in the dark, why believe anything those desperados have to say anyhow?

Helixer,

As most of us know, this is a forum for the discussion of prostate massage and techniques for heightening the male sexual response. Surely there are other places you can find to vent yourself in this way. It seems like all of your threads as off late are angry, off-topic, treatises on one subject or another. They all have a similar pattern too, someone calls you on posting here, you question why nobody is open to hearing what you have to say and then you resort to ad hominem attacks. Really man, enough of this stuff. Can't you just get back to talking about having fun with your Aneros?

Paul

It's not really off topic for one, as I believe male lib. as marijuana is the perfect fit for the Aneros.
As for the ad hominem attacks, my style is rhetorical, I'm the one getting the ad hominem attacks, they don't reason, they don't read what I'm trying to say. So please, you called me on ad hominem attacks, substantiate if you will, coz accusing me of something is just slander if you don't back it up

Ad hominem | Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

This is a clear example of an ad hominem attack.

slander | Define slander at Dictionary.com

Slander is an oral falsehood, therefore Mr. Polecat's statement, being both truthful and written, can not, by definition be considered slander.

The definition I used:
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone

So you're saying my use of slander is false?

Let's talk(or write if you will) about ad hominem attacks now, for those of you ignorant of the meaning, here it is:

directed against a person rather than against his arguments.

So after all the text I wrote, the grand effort I put in to enlighten others, instead of criticizing or complementing the stuff I wrote about Voyager tried to discredit it not by giving reasons I was wrong, but by making out the stuff I wrote was ridiculous by making me ridiculous.
That my friends is the meaning of ad hominem attack!

And my reply actually had a reasoning behind it, namely, why does he want me to look stupid, what's his motive, why is he trying to discredit my writing by ridiculing me? Then it struck me, he might be offended coz he knows it's true but doesn't want to see it. I was just letting him know I understood why he would be against it.
So true, if someone attacks me ad hominem, how can I reply to someone beyond reason but by getting ad hominem back?

I'm actually proud of what I've written, like the stuff on Ancient Greece, after MyTurns(much appreciated) question:

The mere fact that you are with a woman makes you mediocre? Here is an example of where you need to flesh out your thoughts a little.

The idea of Ancient Greece comes to mind, the cradle of our civilisation. The philosophies, mathematical thinking, theater, tragedy/drama etc, buildings, dorian scale(music), ideas emanating from this small area still has an influence on our thinking today.
Arts, thinking flourished, there was only one place where that wasn't the case, Sparta, the only place in Greece where the women weren't put in a subservient position.

I'd say the Greek was a feminized man, sure a culture of homosexuality but that's not what I mean, but possibly it was because of that that they came in contact with their feminine side. After all it was part of the training to be a soldier that the prepubescant or teenage boys would sleep with their teacher, discovering their feminine sexuality and thus their feminine side making them a more complete man.
This feminized man is the direct route coz instead of projecting that female side onto a woman(who's biologically and mentally different, thus a chimera in any event) he goes for the real thing.
A pussified man is a man compromizing on his ideals and integrity, a sexslave degrading himself to please the female, who twists his achilles heel for HER purpose, namely crapping out a kiddie and finding a dupe who'll risk his life for her and her kiddies or who provides for her.
As I described above, the pussifying mechanism is something akin to hypnotism. Snap out of it! Coz you're living the woman's life, the mediocre, unspiritual materialistic life.

My guess is the Greeks understood this and that's why they've played such a seminal role in our civilisation

..............................................

There is nothing in this question which tries to discredit your post. it is merely a question. He did not accuse you of being right or wrong, in fact there was no comment about the content of your post at all. There is absolutely no indication that his question accuses you of being ridiculous, in fact there is no accusation at all. You could have simply and politely replied "I have not been smoking anything" or you could have chosen not to reply at all and ignore his question. There is nothing in that question that can be considered an ad hominem attack on you or your post. But your response was to not only ignore the original question but to cast aspersion on his character in defamatory terms when you said That did constitute an ad hominem attack.
I will take your word at face value when you said :What I can not fathom is how you could possibly infer such animosity from the simple question Isn't it more likely this was simply a satiric post that you misinterpreted and to which you over reacted?

So you honestly believe you're not ridiculing someone who's written a lengthy treatise, by trying to make out that I was talking thru my hat? trying to suggest my effort was just a load of garble due to intoxication?(Just for the record if it had been written under influence it would never have been as clear and coherent.)

You truely want me to believe that it was meant literally?
This was ad hominem and you know it!, as he was trying to discredit what I wrote by discrediting the person, whereas my reply wasn't ad hominem in the rhetorical sense as he made no arguments what so ever, besides I backed up what I said, he didn't!

you could have chosen not to reply at all and ignore his question

So now you're blaming me that I responded to ridicule?

Helixer, it more sounds that you are a slave under drugs and "super-o", or? It seems sex for you is only the orgasm and all women is good for is a mediocre orgasm, I don´t think that´s the only reason men wants women, and it seems at least some here does appreciate a women even if they can have the "super-o" so who says you are right.

Actually since I can have a Super O anytime I want, the value of it diminishes, in fact whereas the traditional sex is obviously sexual, the Super O has taken on a spiritual significance. But as I told MyTurn I've got many interests, Super Os are just of many and hash I only use in combination with the Aneros. So, no, I'm no slave to drugs and Super O's.
Many here are defensive and hostile coz they feel I'm degrading women, possibly, but that's not the main message, the main message is one of LIBERATION from our evolutionary predicament. It's not the dark side, we're free at last 😉
It's true that (partnered) sex gives a mediocre orgasm and that it's possibly even detrimental to men's health and may even shorten our lifespan. It's also true when a man gets pussified(like hypnosis but then with the pussy as bait) he adapts to the woman. I tried to explain the mechanism, women have a hypnotic quality like a snake. If you don't believe this look at some erotic imagery and notice how you drift off into trance.
When you're pussified the banal issues of a woman's life become your life.Pussified you take in her banal suggestions and carry them out like a good little sexslave, you might even believe your projected anima really loves you while she's taking care of nr 1.

it seems at least some here does appreciate a women even if they can have the "super-o" so who says you are right.

Read what I wrote again and make up your own mind. Don't forget the power of peer pressure, media etc as well. I read somewhere that children exposed to texts about feeling old and fragile actually got influenced and started acting that way. That's advertising.
We all know love is a projection of your female side, but that's not what the media want, they want your self love, your feeling of worth etc to be placed outside of yourself, claiming the only way you can be complete is with the love of a woman(MATERialism so they can sell lots of products and pollute the planet).
It's the same mechanism as selling a car with sex. Or connecting some product to happiness, it's effective otherwise ppl wouldn't advertise. "you need this product to be happy"or "you need a woman to feel complete" is there really any difference?

............................

it comes to kids I suppose that is a mutual decision and not only because the woman wants that

Pussified 🙂 now all we need is the scientists to make your asshole into a womb and you can be crapping out babies for her.

Even if partnered sex in your opinion is not so good I guess it´s good enough for many and they wouldn´t trade it for super-o if it comes with a price of loosing intresst in sex with a woman

True some men are even too ignorant to try anything other than penile stimulation. However I can't help but finding it curious having(partnered) sex with an Aneros up your ass, what's the point? Either you are in the female mode or in the male mode, a little bit desperate.

I guess it's just ignorance of the pussified masses, no offense!

it almost sounded like you wanted a boyfriend instead with this talk about how inferior women are in every area

I'm stating facts, women are inferior to men, just look around you and ask of what you see has been done by women? Composers?philosophers?painters? of course you'll probably say 'material girl'Madonna, magnifico! genius! or Spice Girls'Girl power'.
So because I make this concise observation what? you're making me out to be a homosexual? I don't see the link, explain please

Maybe you feel you are happy without a women but many others are probably not, no offense just my opinion

I've tried to explain the influences that make a man believe without a woman he isn't complete, my hope is with the Aneros the male liberation movement will reach a critical mass and stop this feminist brainwashing. Coz it's not the fact itself that makes men unhappy, it's the images, advertisement-like associations being made, peer pressure etc.

Hopefully if the Aneros catches on this making men emotionally and sexually dependant on women is going to disappear. Coz it is directed at men.
I read somewhere a widower doesn't outlive his wife that many years, but the other way around a widow just keeps on going. For some it's just that women live longer, for me that means men are the targets of the indoctrination of emotional dependancy, or perhaps women just think of themselves anyway

The biggest point you are trying to get across is that sex with vomen are inferior hence we don´t need them and sex( or more specifically orgasm) is the only thing man wants them for hence their "powers" over man

Well, let's put it this way, did you play with girls before puberty? Did you want to be around them?protect them? love them? or did you prefer playing football with your friends? or did you play house? pretend you were the father and she the mother?
Puberty makes you long sexually for a woman and the rest is bullshit, the rest you make up, or society makes up to make it less animalistic, give it meaning.

you feel women are inferior mentally and biological for a man and "female" orgasm and ancient greece was so great it just sounded in your view a partner shold be selected by orgasm ability firstly, and as you said women are inferior there, hence my comment about a boyfriend even if it was in not a so serious mode

The main point I'm making is that men make the concessions to the woman and disregarding the rest of the bullshit, the reason is ultimately sexual.

Personally I don´t care if women are inferior to men, why wouild I care if a female partner is less smart than me, pretty irrelevant. I also suppose there are more succesfull males because for a long time men had have more opportunities for different careers, when women more recently have been given the same opportunities and just not be at home and caring for the children

That's the feminist line, try thinking about it biologically, women don't have to achieve anything, their (biological)mode is RECEPTIVE.
And I'm sure there are smart women around, that's not the point, it's the incompatibility once you take sex out of the equation. Sure even then, men will be pussified, but I believe ultimately it's still the result of that trance like state.

But once again, I´m not selecting partner based on if they are inferior to me in some way, like being bad on math or similar

.

Exactly, men don't select on that basis(neither do women for that matter, unless of course it gives them status). And I've personally found the women that arouse me most are the ones with a fabulous body(trim, big tits, ass) and a dumb, hollow look in their eyes, like a barbiedoll.
I know it's not politcally correct to say this, but I think there are more guys that feel the same way.
But then, imagine after she's crapped out her kiddies, I think that's why the divorce rate is so high, men and women are fundamentally incompatible and it's better just accepting it, than crying like a little girl when she takes your children away and end up paying alimony

A pussified man is a man compromizing on his ideals and integrity, a sexslave degrading himself to please the female, who twists his achilles heel for HER purpose, namely crapping out a kiddie and finding a dupe who'll risk his life for her and her kiddies or who provides for her.
As I described above, the pussifying mechanism is something akin to hypnotism. Snap out of it! Coz you're living the woman's life, the mediocre, unspiritual materialistic life.

OK, sum up for me, a spiritual, unMATERialistic life. Don't explain what men should not be doing, but what we should be doing. What should a man fill his days with? What lifestyle, activities, goals, destiny, purpose? What should a man struggle through life for if not to provide for their offspring and legacy?

What if women refuse to pay or it is illegal or doesn't catch on? What are our purposes then? What will complete the life of Helixer and give him happiness. Please don't say a couple of bags of weed and a piece of plastic up your arse. There has to be more, dude!

You are, oddly, making me think long and hard about if women really do use us for our sperm and protection. Man....I dunno! I'd like to think not. Maybe subconciously? Gosh, that's bad. I hope not. Ahh, you're fucking with my brain and breaking my heart with respect to females.

I kind of subscribe to some of Helixer's thinking.

it´s just as much about the ride there and the arousmnet for the women in question I think.

This is (a) why the Aneros will notbe used by all males one day, and (b) why men will always want women, even if women's use for us is reduced to sperm donoring. Most men (not myself so much) have this inbuilt desire and fantasy to please women, especially sexually. They see it as validation of their sexual prowess, virility, and masculinity. They see a woman's pleasure as the most arousing thing ever, even more arousing than their own pleasure. In fact, men get a psychological pleasure from seeing women have a physical pleasure.

Basically, men are like desperate bacteria, fumbling around for a host, and women are like the "host" or "host body" or "host breeding ground", ready to select the least useless bacteria. The bacteria is grateful. The host just wants the bacteria to prove itself. Constantly.

If it weren't for women's biological need to reproduce, I wonder if girls would all just have a G spot toy and wouldn't need us? It's hard enough to get a woman, and she wants you for her biological functioning (birthing). Imagine if she didn't have the biological urge to have offspring!

My point is men want women for more than just sex, love and companionship for example, is love created by society you mean? And even the sexpart isn´t just about the physical feeling of the weak ejaculatory orgasm as you put it, it´s just as much about the ride there and the arousmnet for the women in question I think. So I can´t see how drugs+aneros can replace that as you say. I guess I don´t see most of your points as any major problems really, not for me personally at least.

My point is men want women for more than just sex, love and companionship

As I tried to convey earlier, but maybe you didn't understand coz you didn't answer my question?
Anyway I'll try again:
Before puberty set in injecting all kinds of sexhormones into your brain and before you started desiring women sexually, did you love woman or feel you needed to be loved by them for recognition or praise or compagnionship to make your life complete?My take then as it is now, I didn't feel the need for compagnionship coz women always played the dumbgames
Coz you seem to be trivialising the sex part and at the same time blowing up the bullshit part out of all proportions. Without the sex the rest is bullshit

is love created by society you mean

To quote Ross Jeffries, love is a process you inflict on yourself. Ultimately this is true, ultimately it's your own doing, but, just like it's true that you can only hypnotise yourself, that doesn't mean there aren't some really good hypnotists about that can 'help' you hypnotise yourself.
But there's more to it. We live in a culture that degrades men if they don't have a partner, that subliminally tells you you need a woman to be happy and complete. Films like the '40 year old Virgin'.

Giving the example of Ancient Greece, I can hardly think of a society more misogynist, with the exception of Sparta that was void of any culture or art. Women were kept out of view and just to make babies.

Do you really think these guys were brainwashed into believing if you didn't have a women you were a loser?or your life wasn't complete? or the guy that got the most pussy was the cool guy? I think not!

Why? for one the Greeks didn't place very much value on the judgement/opinion of the female, and thank God for that or Greece would never have been such a seminal influence

OK, sum up for me, a spiritual, unMATERialistic life. Don't explain what men should not be doing, but what we should be doing. What should a man fill his days with? What lifestyle, activities, goals, destiny, purpose? What should a man struggle through life for if not to provide for their offspring and legacy?

Men are by nature creators(like women are parrots), I actually expected another line of questions like about mediocrity. Something like:"you say women lead to a life of mediocrity but look at men like JS Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Paul McCartney :), weren't these guys inspired by women to make great art?"

This is what you always hear, and I believed it myself for a long time. Perhaps the pussified 'art' of today is inspired by women, as these 'artists' are all about merchanidising and selling products and making lots of money, and having lost of pussy. I for one don't consider this garbage art and I doubt it's appeal will last centuries, unless of course we're pussified even more, but now with the Aneros that hardly seems likely.

My take on my heros is that these guys went into that magical/mystical place that is known today as the 'Zone', they were one with their craft and the Universe. And a bit like the football player Johan Cruijff who was a great player DESPITE smoking cigarets, or George Best DESPITE being an alcoholic I think it's the same with these guys. It's mindboggling to think what kind of music they would have made if they hadn't been brought back down to mediocrity by their wifes and crapped out babies.

See the Zone is a state free from expectation or outcome where the male psyche goes into receptive mode, receptive that is to the Great Spirit. I think, although it's obviously got nothing to do with sexuality, this is why percentagewise a large proportion of homosexuals is artistic. They are already open to their feminine/receptive side. As I said it's not the MATERialistic counterfeit, but the REALDEAL.

Anyway for the rest I'm not really into prescribing, I'm just trying to describe as accurately as possible so hopefully men can make up their own mind.