HERE WHO WOULD THE DAY TODAY: MILLY1979 OF HWUPGRADE (also my age)
belongs to the whole of Western bullies sexually bitches (in the sense of "right to dress as we please") and moralistic sessufobiche (in the sense antimaschile: "those who look or think about my tits to be castrato"): those who want all the rights (including the modern desire to inspire consciously or not) leaving us only the males obligations (including the biblical not to look and not disiare). He says . As the discussion is closed for some time, the answer here.
[quote]
is the person who picks up seeing a woman detached to have problems.
and everyway that happened to me in suits for the office.
the fact that I women, showing a collar, not preevede course, that you can afford to handle the bird show, but look, even making lewd thoughts on my tits.
I find disgusting, the very thought makes me angry.
What I diapiace is that many women do not respond adequately to this situation ... the punishment should be cutting the penis in public ...
[/ quote]
What the hell is speech? You can show and I do not watch? You can freely show off (for vanity, caprice, fashion, self-esteem, increase of economic and sentimental value, or free erotic display of pre-eminence) your thanks, as you want and for as long as you and I can not look as freely as (by you) displayed (by nature)? You can "keep your legs off" (or her breasts, or buttocks) passing in the street and I can not, in the same place, they turn to gaze and desire (to love you gave in its first objectively fact to publicly display those features that do not result in of my will, but differences in desires sought by nature, have sexual value)?
And because your show is refined look and my pig?
I wish both of nature! It 's just hypocrisy that you present the "show the fine hair on legs," or "give a glimpse of the beautiful breasts from suit" or "bind up the bad ass in tight jeans" not as an instinct (what is) but as " culture "(as opposed to the call" to the pig, the second look at nature the same form that you shown).
How do you deny that right to "dress as we please" is hiding the most natural and legitimate desire of women (perhaps unconscious) to be looked at (even when the conscious mind is not going to meet or know any man, because the instinct can not know)? I considered stupid? Know that I hate your hypocrisy! Dress and act as you please! I can accept what ', and avoid the burqa and the other things and Taliban restrictions, of course, if you riconsoce the corresponding right to look at what' the woman's autonomous decision has decided to show. Otherwise this is an unacceptable imbalance. If I must "refrain" from watching (and you do not understand why ') the woman must "hold" from the show (and I do not think' this right even in a non-Taliban but follows from the first line prohibition), as is the case among the Arabs. I was hoping for a West emancipated in which women could be raped without being seen and people watch without being charged.
I have no reason to believe that being the object of sexual desire is more 'offensive to a woman than it is for a man considered to be a cold mirror on which to prove his good looks (and that behind the pretense of dressing and undressing or even cause the way they want), or, worse, a piece of wood before which literally afford all know that can not 'and must not react (as in the corresponding situations would perhaps with another man). Why 'this currently happening in the West! That 'what happens on the streets, clubs and even at times at work! And tell 'more': while the behavior of man and 'often only natural that the woman has more than' the stronzaggine premeditated.
Reserve insult for someone else. Me with your lies do not work.
Apart from the fact that the pig (Horace docet "Epicure de greg porcus") is one of infinitely more fun and creative as you are poisonous snakes, and that it is absurd to call "pork" who desire to satisfy the natural time to time need to enjoy the beauty as soon as it is sensitive in accordance with feminine, but is not defined dormouse who shows the need to sleep every night or wild boar who expresses the desire to eat three times a day, your statement (like that of all women when mixed biology and moral philosophy) is meaningless , as the need for sensual pleasure and thrill it is to all living beings and not only the male pigs.
Returning to the human (and human shit as you), go to make a moral somewhere else. Here it is logically, ethically, and of course accepted that the world of women present in the guise of "goodness" and "purity" of their natural behavior (and therefore clearly animal origin such as human) consists in showing at any time and place so beautiful to disiabile (unconsciously, to attract more males and can select among them those who excel in the qualities desired, consciously out of pure vanity, supine acceptance of fashions and customs, pathological need for self-rule or not for a display of erotic ) and at the same time claiming to make it appear "more animal" or otherwise "impure" and "evil" and even "ashamed and guilty" to the corresponding natural behavior consists in looking male, disiare (with the speed of lightning and thunder of the intensity ) and try to get the beauty in the variety of multi-faceted feminine creatures, as both trends (both arouse the desire, to flee and to deny attract all and select only those who show excellence in skills qualifying species, because the sudden desire to express and want to enjoy the beauty of all) contribute to natural selection and propagation of life, both because nature is beyond good and evil (at least until the bad conscience of those who act on a whim, vanity, emotional or economic interest free sadism does not introduce an intentional treachery and deceit Scientific), and neither could exist without the other.
And try to paint as pure and just their natural behavior (in this case monogamous, not easy to do, to appear beautiful and disiabili to attract as many contestants and select between all those who excel in the qualities desired and stayed faithful) boiled at the same time as impure and evil and its opposite complementary (in this case polygamous, Aim, disiare and monitor the intensity of the thunder and the lightning speed of the beauty and try to get it in the variety of life forms), which also is not only natural (and therefore beyond good and evil), but is also absolutely necessary, because without it the same behavior could not be praised as a good act, is the form more serious misconduct.
Your innuendo about our alleged "psychological disease" (or transformation into animals), are therefore also unfounded (moral and rational).
Being (with the speed of lightning and the intensity of thunder) driven by the desire for beauty as soon as it is shown under it is quite natural (and sometimes even poietic) and has nothing "to treat with the psychologist "(which would mean only" de-nature ").
E 'being subjected to persistent and blatant display of the body through (through dress and undress) and continuous, voluntary or involuntary, whether express or implied, of desire in provocative ways and times well beyond the intensity and frequency of natural potentially lead to something pathological.
E 'having to constantly keep, hide, frustrating (and even, as you'd like, as morally condemn "violence") that desire to rise to generate suffering in body and psyche.
Your say "not my fault / I do not care that your nature is repressed / suffering and your body and your mind will feel injured and damaged in the long run, because I get dressed, I move and I, with others as I think "is symmetrical in its individualistic arrogance and sexist male to a speech like this:" not our fault if it bothers you when you touch or if you are wrong when you are forced into an unwanted relationship. " If freedom of its own shares is limited in what they generate in the body and psyche Next, it must also apply for your "dress as you please" (and not just for our "do not touch").
is not acceptable that a woman can walk forward (due to, or worse, at work) showing its features freely and knowingly causing or less as many desire, and I can not freely seek, follow and disiare and try to get as it would in nature , or (if you do not have any human to want to court), simply express the look, speech and gesture their natural appreciation or comment on what the desire does come to mind.
What I do not accept is that when it comes to behavior in one way or another linked to sexuality to express his license illimicata its nature (in order to arouse desire, attraction and show) should correspond to my requirement (in disiare, track and target), repress, restrict, hide my nature correspondent. Why then should apply only the sensitivity of the woman?
Even for my non-existent and not corresponding sensitivity may be annoying some male attitudes as "woman's right" or "good game of being a woman" by demagoguery and stupidity feminist chivalry.
feels offended the dignity of woman to be seen as an object of desire (which is kind)? So why do not I should feel even more hurt in my dignity as a man to be treated as a cold mirror before which women are testing their attractiveness, as a piece of wood before you can afford all (any more or less sexual provocation, any psychological tension, any derision at the deepest desire) or even a puppet to attract and refuse to be raised just to do it then to fall with the greatest of sorrow and contempt?
Certain behaviors arouse discomfort? What arouses discomfort is subjective.
I feel uncomfortable even when she appears in my field of vision before asking me (without me asking him) through his body, because it evokes a longing that can not be satisfied at least in this case creates frustration.
And this is my feeling is second nature to keep looking (because the situation makes me feel pure nothing in front of her that everything is as it is desired by all) is that forcing unnatural look the other way (since, however, the desire has been aroused and also simple awareness to be close to what you can not get leaves in the state of frustration).
And if the woman on duty, on a whim, vanity, self-esteem or sadistic pleasure, exploits the situation to inflict injury provoking art to intimate and welcoming the desire of his denial, to intentionally causing emotional distress, ridicule the desire, deep frustration, Public or private humiliation, unfulfilled physical and mental, to make myself ridiculous in front of myself or others if you try any approach, to cause physical or psychological pain to attract and to repel, to treat me like any one, a minor nuisance, after having chosen from among many and deluded just to make me suffer hell after the hope of paradise, to appeal after harassing me specifically attracted and led me forward to implicitly in a way that maybe you considered clumsy, if in fact use the weapon for sentimental erotic rage about who is psychologically in disadvantage in the first moments of meeting (and occasional sentimental as short and long) with the opposite sex, then I rise to discomfort from sexual existence.
[quote]express naively, spontaneity and still no violent intentions or desire of its offensive nature merits a "punishment" idea is highly sexual phobia, and generating real unnatural perversions (for repression).
doccardo but in fact are.
now talking about men and I as a woman you've expressed what I think.
If women do this (and I can not know, unless a bill lesbian craving), even for them the just punishment.
[/ quote] What
But as always by nature is human instinct to turn (with the speed of lightning and the intensity of thunder) in the aim, disiare, followed (with his eyes, thinking, behavior) as soon as this beauty is manifested in those graces which, as Dante would say, "silence is beautiful," while the woman is to appear in the corresponding However, time and place and beautiful disiabili (to attract as many males as possible and select among all those who excel in the qualities desired, even when the rational mind does not think of any relationship with any man), do you think is the quintessential feminist moral antimaschile.
I refuse to feel guilty or, failing for the most profound and true to me, for the most pure (in the sense of desire itself and dissolved by the end) and delicate (since not only the weaknesses erotic often penetrates into the same sentimental weakness, but the very fact of transport naive to show the beauty puts us in a position of dependence psychophysical who is desired, which could exploit the situation to afford each sexual perfidy, every erotic tyranny, poisoning every sentimental, or otherwise to treat cold mirrors from which to experience the beauty, pieces of wood before which afford everything from clowns to have fun, to be admired from which to take in everything thoughts, words and deeds in exchange for giving the only hope, or punching bag on which to vent to their lust for preeminence vanity psychosexual) exists in My kind of guy.
[quote]
Well, I tell you what I think looks are thinking: "Gee that's tits that we put the bird" is not very pleasant
[/ quote]
And you think it's a pleasant situation where you can consciously (for fashion, caprice, vanity, "to express femininity") or unconsciously (for your natural instinct to look beautiful and disiate, which corresponds to our aim and disiare hidden and only by such phrases as "please ourselves" or "right to dress as we please") desire to spread among the spectators and we will not put forward our thanks to your, not only can not satisfy (at least at that juncture) that desire (with the consequences of deception and frustration within the meaning of the psyche which I explained above and to the long drivers to problems such as "sexual anorexia" to suicide, the early need for prostitutes to a hours hidden psychological problems with the irony and ready to explode in excess of aggression: that ancient custom "knightly" or flattening on modern feminism, men often tend to deny themselves their suffering, does not mean that they in these cases are really victims), not only can we not express it innocently with looks, words, attitudes (as you would in the wild in all species), even without reaching the "courtship" but we can not think (penalty cut the pea, or, metaphorically, a complaint that happened years ago in traveler guilty of a "look too insistent breast in front of the passenger")?
Why joyful expression, direct, spontaneous, and not without violent and hostile intentions, a desire for nature must be countered with violence or with hostility? Why those expressed by the gesture, gaze and a sincere word transport to the beauty, and therefore a genuine interest and an immediate appreciation for those who are a carrier, should be treated with contempt, irritation, and even revenge? For who seeks and speaks with longing to be returned with looks of contempt and hate speech by those who want to, just as you want and just because you want? Why the desire thus becomes in itself a kind of revenge and crime justifying his first term a nuisance? Have you ever thought (and here I extend the question to all the "modern women") that these questions nell'emotività screaming wound of any young male is left with the look, the word or gesture ingenuous transport to the beauty ( with no intention to offend or violate force) and has been treated with barely concealed enough, even with open contempt or hostility well represented by the angry video game? Have you ever thought that this very uncomfortable unspoken yet obvious, and not absurd and abstruse theories about "not to accept an equal relationship with the woman" or the "pleasure of paying submit" move most of the young clients of prostitute priestesses of Venus?
But then: FUCK YOU!
If your audience does not show is considered dirty (indeed, it is "aesthetically pleasing and culturally advanced, elegantly fashioned), it can not be even as you watch my show (which has the same naturalness of a blossoming flower of a nightingale singing, the advent of spring, the bright reflection on the wave of the sea that night as man who has a silver moon shell). If your (consciously or not) arouse desire is socially acceptable it must also express my peacefully outside or my dream house. Both are natural behaviors. Both arise from the depths of instinct (more or less disguised by social conventions and cultural tales, more or less developed or made conscious intellect conscious). And mine is no less worthy than yours, no more dependent on a fault of mine. Am I right to be angry when I think the same woman who implicitly or explicitly, in words, looks, gestures, attitudes, or clothes, showing their thanks by exercising its "right" to spread desire on me thinking I could impose the "duty" not Just do not follow it as it would in nature (or, if not by humans has no desire to court, simply express the look, speech and gesture as a natural appreciation or comment on the desire does come to mind), not only of do not look, but also not to think about!
What is the difference in rights and duties? That's my nature disant is morally inferior to his longed? My feeling is that the series from its B? That I should live in the repression of instincts and her expression of them? I'll be your punching ball sex?
PS
anger comes to me, my dear bitch of Western woman, when who shows me before the due is thinking that the desire to be aroused me unclean and dirty (and considering their explicit or implicit desire pure and inspiring show with culturally developed)! Or that I disiante for the very fact that disiare soulless or worthy of treachery, deceit, physical and psychological injuries. A
you will not like to be considered only two boobs and a butt, but I may not like being seen as a mere spectator anonymous any, on which one to try in every way their looks and self-esteem like a cold inanimate mirror, a piece of wood in front of Vare in whole or hard metal immune to emotional pain.
If any qualms sull'abbandonare philosophy and escortistica think of the meetings remained normal in my opinion, it is immediately dispelled by hearing such speeches. When in fact imagine that even I should be able to overcome my natural shyness, my insurmountable emotional distress from before the courtship, my lack of trust, to be appreciated and my calculator infinite rationality a priori (which makes me give up risk premiums for certain things unlikely), I found first a look of sovereign contempt for me that I want suspiciente (and just because I want to) and almost thought of disgust for the follies of my natural desire (and its deepest and truest essence of it), my pulse does not turn over the copula, but the crying.
If women, especially those so beautiful you can have any relationship with any man, think so, then I will always be despised at first glance
as they will be appreciated by me, by the grace and loveliness? If you spread this
involved for me in real life be regarded with suspicion or open enough to look for those who admire the first lady of beauty?
When you look at me with desire means recreating the wonder that the world was seeing the naked Venus to be born by the waves of the sea greek on its white shell, which was affected by that desire of Callimachus, Catullus and Propertius, and which remains eternal in the Greek and Latin poems, try that transport kidnapped Guido, Lapo and Dante gaze at strolling "Monna Vanna, and Mona Lagia she who is in the number of 'The Thirty," relive that gap between heaven and earth in which Petrarch made to grow pure and rarefied style of the sonnets perfect unparalleled in the world, getting caught by the voltage ideal world and its perfect Renaissance poets, most notably Cardinal Bembo, and who carry out perfectly the language and style of true Italian poetry, let yourself go like the waves of pleasure dell'Aminta rate and the languor of the Rime, let Finally, take the greedy desire of beauty divinely poured out by D'Annunzio in the immortal lines of the poem Paradise?
be despised man in the depths of my being right in the first moments when I am moved by the desire for feminine beauty (which I try to sublimate but speculation filosotiche art and ecstasy and eternal thoughts in words and deeds
but that's another matter) can not be accepted by me: this not really.
CONCLUSION RATIONAL
not so much a matter of instinct than reason. Cara
my "modern woman" is not acceptable (for the same reason, even before the instinct) that their right to arouse desire matches our duty to suppress it, which appear to correspond to their do not look at our ( too), which express freely their natural instinct to feel beautiful disiate and should not be able to match our target (disianti), followed (with the look and action) and seek (as it would in nature) beauty, expressing the desire in a joyful, spontaneous and in no way hostile or violent that their pleasure in spreading too far by desire, and even nell'illudere nell'irridere, humiliation and suffering to the body and psyche to have to pay our absolute obligation not to leave an inch to the limits, however, not a clear and objective in its own but, in retrospect, as vague, subjective and dependent on only their whim, that it causes the minimum and the alleged injury to their subjective feeling is punishable by laws and customs in the way more extensive and painful as possible while in a much deeper hurt our different and not non-existent psyche is considered non-existent or irrelevant as gravity, normal to bear on our part, or even a woman's right to be beautiful woman!
E are also the usual modern fool who gives you reason ...
[quote] Kers:But they know exactly what cause, I am not unaware of girls, so shut up, because being no intention (they alone decide freely and automation to show their thanks to the bystanders) is also to blame! You want to give all of us, which by nature can not fail to be desired (we had the desire to retain maximum result in the frustration and suffering physical and mental), and not to them who freely choose to arouse desire (and ourselves in a position of having to hold or otherwise unnatural to feel frustration and deceit within the meaning of the psyche)? Then, exaggerating, it's like, requiring a simple sexual intercourse, rape is not me (that causes a severe trauma), it is they who feel raped (or who are likely to feel a psychic trauma undergoing sexual acts, for which I do not perceive any trauma)! First
up at some point ... are you that you feel caused them not to tease ...
[/ quote]
not Will the men, but nature provides the correspondence between the senses and sexual intercourse, for, when spring blooms and unfolds his breath zephyr fruitful, the desire of the former is that with which boys are called to seek the second to play life by species. If, therefore, intend to human females, for reasons relating to their distinctive vanity, and love to break this natural correspondence should be notified every time in advance and in a clear manner. In
secundis, even if this correspondence was specific to one male subjectivity, even if the fact of being sexually cheated, harassed, cheated and mocked or deceived and disappointed by a woman who awaken to the art desire only to please his denial was related to a specific psychological situation of man, we would still have the right to see forbidden by laws and customs that makes us feel the desire mocked, injured in the intimate, suffering and violating the psyche nell'emotività just as laws and customs prohibit what offends, disturbs or impacts the female subjectivity.
We may not constitute a nuisance to feel touched and would not be a trauma so great be forced to have sex (by nature), but because these facts can make a woman feel offended, hurt or bumped in the intimate (sexual harassment) and violated even in the psyche (rape), sexual harassment and rape are to be we considered crimes to be punished in proportion to the damage done to the victim, in the interest of protecting women. Likewise, you should protect people from harassment (visual, verbal, gestural, emotional) of shit psychological and sexual violence (and sometimes even material, moral and judicial) of bitches.
say that the guilt of my illness is excessive or wrong of my sensitivity, my inability to agree to be sexually frustrated and suffer constantly mocked and illusion and delusion, attraction and repulsion, and invite scorn by those who invited me to disiare is as saying that the blame for the suffering of those who are victims of violence is not the rapist, but excessive and "wrong" feeling unable to bear female relationships without feeling forced traumatized. The scheme
(aberrant) of reasoning is the same, just change the severity of the trauma (if we refer to as every civilized world has always recognized and punished as rape, otherwise, if we extend the definition to the current all-inclusive concept of "sexual violence "we also find that it leaves on female victims far less psychological trauma that caused by repeated stronzaggine women on young boys, today more and more victims of damage variables undoubtedly the so-called" sexual anorexia "to suicide, the early need for prostitutes to a mental illness hours with hidden irony and now ready to explode in excess of aggression: that ancient custom "knightly" or flattening on modern feminism, men often tend to deny themselves their suffering, does not mean that they are truly victims in such cases).
Or maybe you want to say that only the feminine sensibility can be read while the male is to be neglected by the laws and trampled by the costumes?
that what impacts the particular sensitivity of women (documents, said, eyes or touch) to be considered offensive, punishable by law and justifying revenge wider, cruel, painful and subjective part of the woman and how much hurt (in a way very often more serious, as can objectively detect the number of suicides caused by a woman or, without going to extremes, the spread between the male sexual problems such as anorexia or early the need for prostitutes) as the particular (and not non-existent) Male sensitivity ( such behavior stronzaggine soaked, now rule in modern females, even when they use their hands, and often motivated by arrogance, conceit, self-esteem or need for sadism or otherwise will cause emotional pain) is negligible, not subject to criminal, belonging to normal, or at least tolerated by the "woman's right" and not provocative in itself offensive or humiliation (even if it is As the man tries, in front of him or the other, mortally wounded in what feels like sex and can cause trauma, psychological blocks and put it in emotional distress, and then momentary existential)? In
tertiis, a single topic only logical to conclude the debate. Who art the desire to raise the senses first MAN can not objectively not be held liable for fraud, breach and frustration if they know from the beginning did not want to fulfill what humans (or in the male-specific emotion) has aroused regardless of the importance and the meaning attributed to the philosophical meaning and gender.
The only exception might be made for those who do not knows how to arouse a desire that a certain behavior, but this can be considered credible incosapevolezza little "innocent" female creatures ...
In other cases there is a fraud. The woman knows that her behavior that gives rise to a desire by the very fact that it can not be satisfied (at least not in that situation) generates in man a sense of frustration, ridicule, humiliation and void. There is therefore the intent: the woman who knows the meaning for me = sex and took the opportunity to hurt me, humiliate, ridicule or tiranniegggiarmi (and even if it was worth the eguazione "meaning = meaning only" would be a deception, usually for not granting admirers to touch the senses).
In most cases you do not can therefore be considered innocent bitch with the explanation that for her, as a woman, men would not be worth the equation "= meaning sex." By your same reasoning could be absurd to say, the rapist does not know that for women ratio = forced trauma, then the rapist is innocent.
And here she jumps on to say that "in the Middle Ages condone rape."
not about the Middle Ages (which the alleged "oppression" you lamentante feminist but whose real privileges of chivalrous suitor maintenance), bitch! Got the matching logic, moron!
I refuse to continue to discuss with those who disregards the truth 'clear and natural that previously existed and look at the making disiare THEN the desire of the woman and man's gaze, and MAI (which would be illogical) HAND (before there 'who do you follow, then those who follow, before you is what attracts' attention and then those who follow with their eyes, first there is the source of desire, then those who wish, as before there is a gravitational field, and only after a major attraction). And what 'not' blame 'them' men will 'of women but of nature. Watch The courtship of animals! The impulses of men and women are complementary and it is false to say that our (disiare and below) are "immoral and violent" and your "being disiate and be followed" are pure and peaceful.
And I do not come and say that only with this "justifies rape" (if I speak after the rape is not for "animal" ours, or because they feel like fools, and the aim disiare beauty leads to rape, but for stronzaggine your in behavior before the investment for a just and rational revenge against the mendacious and treacherous bitches like you, which deny any kind or any reason, and therefore worthy of real violence with that name when they call something natural and peaceful as a a glance or caress So do not have to do with what we are saying).
I come to speak of rapes in this case. There was talk of something as natural as watching instinct for what attracts attention. But not rape 'nature! No animal rape. It 'a departure from the natural desire. It does not come at all from the look, born of mental strain caused by the company 'or perverse development of the individual psyche (perhaps by excessive repression on the one hand or excessive evil' other unintentional), not by the natural desire itself '(only one feminist antimaschile can 'support this').
Medieval is the speech that makes men the obligation to refrain while giving women the freedom to "express itself", thereby creating inequality, privileges, and then injustice, arbitrariness, frustration chores and love (of which courtship is the classical expression and the laws on harassment that modern so-called), which allows the woman to be able to afford everything literally without taking responsibility for their actions (as protected by the feminist victim), without having to fear reactions (as protected by the inviolable status of a Lady), without having to think about what (in this case in terms of deception, ridicule, injury and discomfort from sexual to existential) his act "free" causes the other emotions on their own.
My speech is based on nature, reason and logic matches. Then the instincts, rational and logical implications, moral and natural are "macho" when women want to assert their sexual arrogance beyond all ethics, all reason and logic behind it is another matter.
CONCLUSION SENTIMENTAL
The discovery of having to meet the needs of nature (just like animals), the deepest instincts and sexual desires, on pain of true unhappiness is sensitive and intellectual, deep frustration, discomfort from physical and emotional-erotic to the existential and even obsession, does not mean that the way will make the happiest man (or less unhappy) in them is that of nature, if only for the fact that the world we live in reality and from which we derive joy and pain is not directly one of the objects and events, but, indirectly, that of our perception of our inner and subjective feeling.
not follow the path of asceticism, but satisfy the desires of nature without hurting, and as such a person, the particular (and unpredictable by nature) individual susceptibility should be the human way. As you can try
psychological injury being constantly chased by a pack of eager and insistent males (even if it is fully kind), and you tell them "I do not care no, leave me alone" and live in another How does your sexuality, so I can be deeply uncomfortable, in the senses and thoughts, in court or having to feel emotional wounds in most of the opportunities for contact "natural" with the maidens.
Finally I reveal a secret. Even selflessly dedicate sonnets (those that usually you would use to pay tribute) to the bitches (what purpose the same and are considered evil by other women) and treat the bitch like the most delicate and noble lovers (scorned by society because of the other women) are made by me to show contempt for the "honest" who were unable or unwilling to appreciate (or pretending volendomi ridiculous performances from the beginning to deceive mere pleasure and sadism) and let them see the goodness and kindness will be missed by the crap and turn it into as much stronzaggine of those who, like me, to protest against the "sentimental toasts and gallant" under their eyes (ever desirous of them as it is a traveler in the desert), in the "desert feeling" of prostitution, leaving dry mouth (a little 'a corresponding compensation).
E 'love to hate these ones. A bully who wants to use my weaknesses erotic-sentimental people who want to provoke frustration and make me feel a void, who from his position of privilege from the beauty looks at me with contempt or open enough, to mock those who meditate and laughed, inwardly or in public, provoking art in any way to the desire then welcomed its denial, who would delight in making fun of me or to show their power subtly luring and then reject, with the sole purpose of your beloved and make me ridiculous in the eyes of friends and present dell'offendere my desire to kind of make a fool of my pure and ingenguo transport to the beauty, in short, all those who are accustomed to try on those who seeks its own charm, not to live their normal and legitimate courtship, but only and only to mock the aspiring suitor in front of himself or others, to make a fool and mocked him with pure vanity to reinforce its leading position on him, and show what he is insignificant and trivial and replaceable as she is rather unique and adored by all, to all the women who express their art to stronzaggine arousing sexual desire in a man when their goal is not to have a relationship with him, and even check in courtship whether or not he would have the chops to taste (you can not understand at first glance), but only pleased with his power, deceiving, or mock mock him or to measure the endurance of the psychological stress induced by them, all these I can say
"I'll not be able to impose your psychological violence on me to laugh at me in the essence of man, to sexual harassment in what for you is a game, I do not need you and I go 'with my bitches. "ù
FINAL JUDGEMENT
Not because you dress" provocatively "(for me, every woman has the right to dress as you think without fear of being raped or molested, even though, at least until the terms are innocent, natural and free will to violate, offend or force can not impose on men the duty not to express it in words, the look, the gesture, the compliment, the more then welcome, the word or thought through what the show do come to mind), but because you want to impose an unacceptable disparity between the right of women to show up (explicitly or implicitly) disiabili beautiful and the duty of men not to look and not disiare, between the freedom for women to follow their natural instinct to spread (with clothes, gestures, smiles, words or attitudes implicit explicit) desire among the bystanders and the ' obligation for men to hold not only in the act, not only in that, not only in look, but even thought the desire aroused Onel (not of their own volition), and especially why, with your morals you want, in a more treacherous of the biblical commandments against nature and even unknown to a systematic anti-Semitic propaganda of Goebbels, to feel guilty men by nature, in every moment of their lives when they feel the natural desire to break out the female body whenever aim, whenever daydream whenever Disiano mouth wide open, whenever they think of pleasure, whenever tacitly appreciate the graces displayed and can not but covet the depths of their being, for this and for no other REQUIRE RAPES TO BE !!!!!!!!
(eight exclamation point because it is the March 8)
PS I use the conditional, because, although you and your like, because to hear the guilty man by nature, ought to be a real violence to your nature, I would never have the heart to rape really (other than what I ordered, though I do suck). So your punishment will always be that provided by the civilized countries of the East: whipping, flogging, whipping, and if you do not stop, burqa (rape, would you still feel you want, and appreciated, and you who despise those aims, who desireth, who appreciates you, do not deserve it at all).
0 comments:
Post a Comment