/b/ - Random

>>237984
so to you having half hearted sex is comparable to the things mentioned in the op?

>>237984
>We will never know what women's real sexual preferences are really like because most allow themselves to be malleable to men's vision of sex.
I get what you mean but there's a lot of erotic media that's made by women for women, so yeah we do know what "women's real sexual preferences" are like.
Unless you mean that all conceptualizations of sex are irredeemably tainted by men's vision of it, and it's so ingrained in our psyche that it's impossible to think of sex as something completely separate from what men think sex should be like. I don't think that is the case, though

>>237990
>half hearted sex
by half hearted sex you mean literal prostitution and I can't think of anything more nauseating especially when your clients are the demonic rape apes called men. "Half hearted sex" is a crime against yourself and other women, by having "half hearted sex" you are engaging in prostitution, by having "half hearted sex" you are enabling men's sexual entitlement and reaffirming their belief that women are objects for their own sexual release.
>>237991
> all conceptualizations of sex are irredeemably tainted by men's vision of it
that's exactly what I meant, no one in this world has control over how society influences them and shapes the way they think.

>>238007
prostitution derives from male sexuality anyways. women will never, ever be as destructive as males in any way, especially not in the sexual one.
you said it yourself in the other post that women barely know what their sexuality is (i disagree with the generalization but i can see instances where it holds true for sure), so according to your logic, how can a sexuality that isn't even really expressed cause the same degree of harm as the overwhelming prevalent one? there just aren't even the premises for it.
women are at times accomplices at worst and this is a sad reality, but female sexuality inherently speaking isn't remotely as sick as that of men.

>>238010
>how can a sexuality that isn't even really expressed cause the same degree of harm as the overwhelming prevalent one?
because that's exactly the problem, women's passivity, malleability and the commercialization of female sexuality is almost complementary to the destructive quality of men's sexuality.

>>238012
>almost complementary
I would say that in many cases it is more than complementary, and that subjection to male sexuality and suppression of native feminine sexuality becomes a horrrifying moral imperative value in its own right.
Slut shaming has been studied sufficiently that we can say fairly that it is mostly conducted by women against other women, for example. The most intense manifestations of it, female circumcision in traditionalist african cultures, are also more or less universally conducted and enforced against female sexuality by and amongst women in the space of traditionalist women's spheres without involvement of men. Even the male dominated religious spheres of those regions are usually indifferent to female circumcision, the Quran never advocates for its practice. It is simply a horror of sexual repression which seems to have evolved socially to adapt women to the oppressive sexuality of the male.

>>238012
as this nona implied >>238015 the repression of female sexuality to better accomodate male's fantasies is still something that derives from male sexuality.
you can definitely say that women play a role in mantaining the evil of scrote's coomerims and i agree, but the root of the evil simply isn't women, and the extent to which the perversion of female sexuality by the hands of the male one causes social damage is in my opinion simply not comparable.
truly sexually liberating women (and thus not libfem shit) would more likely than not re-establish balance on multiple levels, another reason why actual female sexuality cannot be defined as on par in sickness with men's, although this latter part should be applied to see if the results would be these theoretically positive ones.

>>238019
Let's imagine aform of female sexuality that's completely genuine and freed by men's influence.
Now, what would it look like?

I find it very difficult to think about it because heterosexuality is shaped by both parties, and although male sexuality obviously suffocates female sexuality in the modern paradigm, there is some part of it that's still influenced by women.
Historically, men have awalys been really good at finding forceful ways to bypass the "female" part of this paradigm but that can only get them so far; outside of societal control forcing marriages, they cannot truly create genuine sexual desire in women without playing by female desire's rules, i.e. what women actually want.

If that is true, even the modern paradigm isn't 100% male dominated. But I don't think it's an easy task to separate what parts of it are male-driven and what parts of it are female-driven without the whole thing collapsing.

So I ask you again, what do you think TRUE female sexuality would look like? Would it be a mirror of the sickest male perversions, with the genders swapped? I doubt it.

True female sexuality is what gets me off because it is sexual and I am female

>>238191
because a man would shit talk the sole thing he cares about.
you're either a butthurt psyoping scrote or a not so bright pickme (redundant), or as you like to say
>retarded