WHY 'I HAVE REASON TO BE anti-Jewish
Look what he wrote "libertàperisraele.
'War on the eyes too troublesome "Indians were pilloried on the Internet
Among feminists and is a better Zionist struggle to lie and make you feel more guilty about nature.
Now the natural sexual attention has become so much a crime by chimeras "victim" who has the natural privilege of being in the middle?
violence and a simple look?
But then I am that I feel raped by women who "dressed as they like 'cause I deception to the senses, the psyche and frustration in the long run by sex for existential distress.
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 behave with I think others as "is symmetrical in its individualistic arrogance and sexist speech to a male gender," not our fault if it bothers you when you touch or if you are wrong when you are forced into a relationship not wanted. " If freedom of its own shares is limited in what they generate in the body and psyche of others, this must also apply for your "dress as you please" (And not just for our "no 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 his sexuality illimicata license in expressing his own nature (the desire to arouse, attract and show) to have to pay my obligation (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 the women testing the 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 repel, to be raised just to do it then fall with maximum pain 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 that is second nature to continue to look (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 even the mere awareness of being close to since you can not reach the state of leaves in frustration).
And if the woman on duty, on a whim, vanity, self-esteem or sadistic pleasure, exploits the situation to inflict injury causing artfully intimate welcoming and the desire of his denial, to intentionally causing emotional distress, ridicule the desire, deep frustration, Public or private humiliation, physical and mental unfulfilled, to make me 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 so many deluded and just to make me suffer 's 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 at a disadvantage in the first moments of meeting (occasional and brief as sentimental and long) with the opposite sex, then I rise to discomfort from sexual existence.
If so violent nature (disiare aim and it is natural for humans as well as the beautiful woman show is desired) and ethics (if a woman is rightly given to show the way he wants what he wants for as long as he wants to be a man also be allowed as it wants to aim for the time you want what you have freely shown) serves a really nice collective stake, especially with lobbying aims to spread the moralism antimaschile unnatural and against all the males on the planet.
I replied here to bitches like you.
http://la-sublime-porta.blogspot.com/2011/03/ecco-chi-farei-la-festa-oggi-milly1979_08.html
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 those features to show publicly that in consequence not of my will, but differences in desires sought by nature, have sexual value)? And because your show
My look is sophisticated and pork?
Both are seeking natural! 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) of being seen (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 the following line from the first ban), as is among the Arabs. I was hoping for a West emancipated in which women could be looked at without being raped and men 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 cause even as 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). 'Cause that is currently happening in the West! That 'what happens on the streets, clubs and even at times at work! And tell 'more': while the behavior man and 'often only natural that the woman has more than' the stronzaggine premeditated.
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 instinct to look at 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 and love chores (including courtship is the classical expression and the laws on harassment so-called modern times), which allows the woman to be able to afford to literally all without taking responsibility for their actions (as protected by the feminist victim), without having to fear the 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.
Mine is a speech based on the nature, on 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.
PS
Even for this defense of feminism antimaschile, morality unnatural, the conviction of simple instinct men (even when it is approached to rape an innocent look disiante with the naturalness of a blossoming flower, the advent of spring or the reflection on the wave of night shining sea shell silver moon is called), the disparity between women's rights to appear beautiful and disiate and the duty not to look masculine and disiare, earning the HOLOCAUST!
0 comments:
Post a Comment