- Joined
- Apr 6, 2022
Megathread The Pooner Zoo - A thread for collecting wild Pooners and posting OC Pooners, and anything Pooner related
- Thread starter Procrastinhater
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
California Newt
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2024
Why do they keep the nipples?
Not all religions are fideistic and arbitrary (see the attached pdf), but I know what you mean.
The "male/female brain" thing is just rhetoric meant for the uninitiated, like the "gay gene" and "gay uncle hypothesis" was.
It's a pattern that holds for many other groups: they obscure the psychological cause, while glossing over it with myth-making.
It's the influence of astrology;
it's "evolution";
it's congenital;
it's "how God made me";
it's my "spiritual nature";
it "just is";
it's any external simple thought-terminating cliche that lets me hand-wave away the internal reality of it.
Most people on some level have a desire to conform to the "natural order", in the sense of—whether they understand it that way or not— what used to be thought of as God's order: what I mean by this that they want to believe that they're in line with how things "should" be. From the 19th through early-20th century, the dominant naturalist philosophy of the time has colored the way that people express that impulse: instead of wanting to conform themselves to God, they want to conform themselves to "evolution". It's a genuine—though misguided—expression of the human conscience. They want to submit to some kind of objective, external moral order.
This is why, in the nineties and aughts, LGBT rhetoric used naturalistic arguments: they talked about stuff like the "gay gene" that supposedly existed, and the "gay uncle hypothesis". They pointed to twin studies. The actual core movement doesn't care about any of these things; they're generally of more of a gnostic orientation that denies the legitimate authority of any kind of natural order in the first place.
Like all initiatory-through-degrees cults, they'll speak out of both sides of their mouths on this question as a part of the recruitment process: the exoteric spiel (naturalism) is for new recruits who aren't ready for the sick stuff yet, and the spicier stuff (annihilationist luciferian antinomianism) is the foretaste of the later degrees. They keep this antinomian foretaste implicit (and sometimes spoken, with variable false-irony) until, like a frog in a slowly boiling pot, the initiates are ready and willing for the next step.
Thanks belong to @Providence for asking me a question on my profile page that prompted me to write most of this origianlly.
It's the influence of astrology;
it's "evolution";
it's congenital;
it's "how God made me";
it's my "spiritual nature";
it "just is";
it's any external simple thought-terminating cliche that lets me hand-wave away the internal reality of it.
Most people on some level have a desire to conform to the "natural order", in the sense of—whether they understand it that way or not— what used to be thought of as God's order: what I mean by this that they want to believe that they're in line with how things "should" be. From the 19th through early-20th century, the dominant naturalist philosophy of the time has colored the way that people express that impulse: instead of wanting to conform themselves to God, they want to conform themselves to "evolution". It's a genuine—though misguided—expression of the human conscience. They want to submit to some kind of objective, external moral order.
This is why, in the nineties and aughts, LGBT rhetoric used naturalistic arguments: they talked about stuff like the "gay gene" that supposedly existed, and the "gay uncle hypothesis". They pointed to twin studies. The actual core movement doesn't care about any of these things; they're generally of more of a gnostic orientation that denies the legitimate authority of any kind of natural order in the first place.
Like all initiatory-through-degrees cults, they'll speak out of both sides of their mouths on this question as a part of the recruitment process: the exoteric spiel (naturalism) is for new recruits who aren't ready for the sick stuff yet, and the spicier stuff (annihilationist luciferian antinomianism) is the foretaste of the later degrees. They keep this antinomian foretaste implicit (and sometimes spoken, with variable false-irony) until, like a frog in a slowly boiling pot, the initiates are ready and willing for the next step.
Thanks belong to @Providence for asking me a question on my profile page that prompted me to write most of this origianlly.
This aspect of women (and especially the fujos) is fascinating to me. What are these "emotions and dialogue" that you speak of, exactly? Are they phenomenologically distinct from non-sexual fraternal creative eros? Here's what I mean by "non-sexual fraternal creative eros":
Copied and pasted (and lightly edited) from another thread:
I think that, phenomenologically, the basic elements of what we call "romantic" emotions are found in many different kinds of relationships (usually related in some sense to the creative process, but that's a discussion for another time). I've confused these emotions for "romantic" ones myself in the past, which is not uncommon among autistic men (and probably many normal ones these days). That or I'm a fruit, but again I doubt it (as I also doubt the legitimacy and immutability of that category). We're just trained to express those same emotions in different ways according to the appropriate context. Some people, though, are for some reason determined to remain slaves to sexuality.
C.S. Lewis has a great book called "The Four Loves", where (among other things) he distinguishes philia from eros. The former is capital "F" Friendship (or comraderie based on similarity of goal and soul), and the latter is best described as the desire to consume a person. He makes a big deal about the distinction, trying very hard to be clear that philia is not gay and totally distinct from eros. I think he goes too far. I think there's a place for the desire to consume another person outside of bonds between men and women; it just can't be consummated sexually. It's consummated through competition, collaboration, instruction, and in an absolutely physical sense (although all of the prior can contain physical components) things like religious rites where you consume the god or God; in other words, actually physically consuming the living being of a person (as opposed to cannibalism, which is a death-oriented distortion).
I think that, phenomenologically, the basic elements of what we call "romantic" emotions are found in many different kinds of relationships (usually related in some sense to the creative process, but that's a discussion for another time). I've confused these emotions for "romantic" ones myself in the past, which is not uncommon among autistic men (and probably many normal ones these days). That or I'm a fruit, but again I doubt it (as I also doubt the legitimacy and immutability of that category). We're just trained to express those same emotions in different ways according to the appropriate context. Some people, though, are for some reason determined to remain slaves to sexuality.
C.S. Lewis has a great book called "The Four Loves", where (among other things) he distinguishes philia from eros. The former is capital "F" Friendship (or comraderie based on similarity of goal and soul), and the latter is best described as the desire to consume a person. He makes a big deal about the distinction, trying very hard to be clear that philia is not gay and totally distinct from eros. I think he goes too far. I think there's a place for the desire to consume another person outside of bonds between men and women; it just can't be consummated sexually. It's consummated through competition, collaboration, instruction, and in an absolutely physical sense (although all of the prior can contain physical components) things like religious rites where you consume the god or God; in other words, actually physically consuming the living being of a person (as opposed to cannibalism, which is a death-oriented distortion).
Edit: adding another spoilered quote
From earlier in that thread (truncated in this excerpt):
In my experience, "loneliness" is alleviated by being understood. It's the feeling when you're able to resonate with a person over some hidden part of your soul. That could be talking about your degenerate /trash/ level fetish psychology with like-minded reprobates, or it could be collaborating on some kind of creative project with someone who "gets it". I recommend the latter over the former. Am I saying that you should get a boyfriend and have AIDS together? No. What I am saying, though, is that if gays—the incestuous version of friendship—are having closer male relationships than you are, it means that you're doing something wrong.
The biggest difference between men and women is that if you ask a man why he had sex, he'll say "because I wanted to" or "I was attracted to her"; you know what I heard an actual woman say once, with my own two ears, when asked that same question? She said—and I'm not making this up—"I was lonely".
That is fundamentally not a male solution to that problem. If a man is lonely he takes his bros to McDonalds.
In my experience, "loneliness" is alleviated by being understood. It's the feeling when you're able to resonate with a person over some hidden part of your soul. That could be talking about your degenerate /trash/ level fetish psychology with like-minded reprobates, or it could be collaborating on some kind of creative project with someone who "gets it". I recommend the latter over the former. Am I saying that you should get a boyfriend and have AIDS together? No. What I am saying, though, is that if gays—the incestuous version of friendship—are having closer male relationships than you are, it means that you're doing something wrong.
The biggest difference between men and women is that if you ask a man why he had sex, he'll say "because I wanted to" or "I was attracted to her"; you know what I heard an actual woman say once, with my own two ears, when asked that same question? She said—and I'm not making this up—"I was lonely".
That is fundamentally not a male solution to that problem. If a man is lonely he takes his bros to McDonalds.
After asking around and just using observations from elsewhere, I get the impression that women—and I mean this in general, not as an absolute statement—either have difficulty achieving the state of consciousness that enables fraternal creative eros among men, or else are cut off from it entirely: this would mean that their experience of those emotions, many of which are shared with sexual eros, would necessarily be restricted to a romantic context. This is why they need Fox McCloud and Wolf O'donnel to commit acts of sodomy in order to feel something.
Men compete and collaborate within an identity-and-context independent frame of mind; we "shed our skin" so-to-speak. From what I can see, autistic men seem to be stuck in it while women seem to have trouble getting there at all (even if they're very intelligent). This would have all sorts of interesting implications.
From yet another thread, where I elaborate on this further than the (lightly edited) excerpt here:
I don't hate women, I was only in the "women hate thread" to mull over some questions with the fellas.
I don't know if it's true that autism is "excessive male brain", but one well-known symptom does seem to be an excessively male-brained frame of reference: sportsmanship is the frame necessary for games, argumentation, and—more pertinently—role-playing. Part of why it's so easy for an autistic man to throw curveballs and say just flat-out bizarre things in public is that he may struggle to always be mindful of the fact that his words are coming from his mouth in his body—not the disembodied, featureless "objective" perspective that a man assumes during games, arguments, and role-play. If you ask them, they may not identify with their bodies very strongly; instead they may think of it as more of something that they happen to be "wrapped in" or "wearing".
It's easy for a man to switch between identities—whether that be a woman or a seven-foot-tall dragon man—when he lives with his perspective constantly blasted out of his body and locked, "Goku BETRAYED and TRAPPED in the Hyperbolic Time Chamber" style, into the Astral Plane of Debate.
Think of everything that you associate with autists:
Women, on the other hand, seem to have the polar opposite tendency. Women seem to have:
This is all probably stale to you guys, but I'm wondering if this "sportsmanship" angle—specifically in reference to the ability to "set aside the rooted identity for the purposes of objectivity"—could be one of the major keys to understanding the differences between men and women.
I don't hate women, I was only in the "women hate thread" to mull over some questions with the fellas.
I don't know if it's true that autism is "excessive male brain", but one well-known symptom does seem to be an excessively male-brained frame of reference: sportsmanship is the frame necessary for games, argumentation, and—more pertinently—role-playing. Part of why it's so easy for an autistic man to throw curveballs and say just flat-out bizarre things in public is that he may struggle to always be mindful of the fact that his words are coming from his mouth in his body—not the disembodied, featureless "objective" perspective that a man assumes during games, arguments, and role-play. If you ask them, they may not identify with their bodies very strongly; instead they may think of it as more of something that they happen to be "wrapped in" or "wearing".
It's easy for a man to switch between identities—whether that be a woman or a seven-foot-tall dragon man—when he lives with his perspective constantly blasted out of his body and locked, "Goku BETRAYED and TRAPPED in the Hyperbolic Time Chamber" style, into the Astral Plane of Debate.
Think of everything that you associate with autists:
- rules lawyering
- lack of empathy; specifically, contextual blindness
- obsession with specific subjects
- highly "objective" self-image; frequently score INTJ on MTBI tests (/mlp/ was something like 90% INTJ when asked 10 years ago).
- inconsistent or absent sense of personal identity
Women, on the other hand, seem to have the polar opposite tendency. Women seem to have:
- difficulty divorcing personal perspective from objective discussion of a subject
- high awareness of—and sensitivity to—the social context in which statements are made (a very positive and perceptive trait)
- difficulty "stepping out of" their identity—I seem to remember hearing about studies involving how boys vs. girls play with dolls/action figures; the women were typically "themselves" in some way, whereas the boys were "Darth Maul (literally me)"
This is all probably stale to you guys, but I'm wondering if this "sportsmanship" angle—specifically in reference to the ability to "set aside the rooted identity for the purposes of objectivity"—could be one of the major keys to understanding the differences between men and women.
I could be completely wrong; I would appreciate input.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2020
First they take our tomboys, now they take our (not fat) goth girls.Once upon a time in the late 20th century, the goth scene queen of New Orleans was a girl named Melissa Brite, though she preferred to be called “Poppy.”
This is what she looks like now:
Based homo.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2022
At this rate, we'll be clocking based off of fingernails alone. And I'm sure we probably have before
She is the exact color of her headphones. Good God, her poor cardiovascular system.
They are too cowardly to do so. Many TERFs are gender noncomforming women who have no problem flaunting unshaved limbs, faces without makeup, short hair and masculine clothes. Doing this takes more bravery and confidence than most would think and if these TIFs were capable of this, they wouldn't have trooned out in the first place.
I vaguely remember hearing about her in my early Internet days and I actually gasped seeing her now. Her eyes (older pics) scream crazy, though. She would have had a true crime fandom tumblr blog, fawning over school shooters and collecting "merch" and writing serial killer and mass shooter gay fanfiction (achievement completed) if she were a millennial/zoomer instead of a gen xer.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2021
I think it's easy to lose sight of the fact that we're talking about adolescents and immature young adults consuming fiction, mostly very popular fiction, as they develop their own identity or get lost along the way and end up in this thread.
Sam and Frodo are good friends doing some heroic damn deeds, being narrated skillfully and with all the stops pulled out on the drama and the world at stake. Their friendship hits the reader so hard that it can overflow into wanting to have them fuck. Like you said earlier, it's easy to mistake a very deep feeling of friendship as a romantic feeling--and this is watching two characters do it, thus necessarily at a remove, in exaggeratedly heroic circumstances that are nothing like you have in your own life.
It's like "cute aggression," where the puppy is just so adorable you have the momentary impulse to rend it to pieces, before the brain kicks in and correctly files the overflow.
(There's also the element of clumsy amateur writing. Increase the angst in the character you're writing about by fridging their wife or burning down their village; let everyone know how much you think these two dudes love each other (nonsexually) by having them make love (sexually). "Show don't tell," right?)
Not to answer a Dave Sim essay with "nuh-uh," but I don't think you can generalize women's perception of love by pointing at pooners.
This doesn't account for the large amount of RP/ERP/fanfiction where women are using canon characters. As we've agreed before, the writing tends to have some unconscious "tells" (beyond obvious things like an 18-year-old girl not knowing anything about 1960s military procedure), but the intent is to write in character. You'll hear complaining about the "muse," i.e. one's ability to get into the mindest of a particular character to finish writing something in their PoV. The attempt is being made.
Of course, the noted phenomenon of the "Coffee Shop AU" is much closer to your "Batman at the prom" example.
- Joined
- May 30, 2023
I remember when the It remake came out and Tumblr wanted to bang Pennywise. And of course, all the endless Joker memes. I think all the 'killer clown' memes and movies just ended up appealing to people who have the sexy and scary wires crossed in their head, and we're just going to have a generation of weirdos with a clown fetish.
Hongourable Madisha
You see, some of us don't know English properly.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2019
I think it overlaps a bit with the "unapproachable" makeup trends and goths and emos and things like that. They like dressing up and decorating themselves partly to signal that they're part of an in-group subculture, and partly to try to make themselves unattractive on purpose. They're too young or immature to want to attract a partner, and they're already getting pursued by gross old men since they reached puberty, so they try to make themselves look scary. It's the same thing with lots of teenage girls wearing big chunky platform shoes, so they can be taller than the old pervs and loom down over them.
Also if they were already a bit homely or had low self-esteem and thought they were, then they can make themselves look uglier and be like "joke's on you, I was only pretending to be ugly".
I think both of these are a big part of the motivation for pooning out, too. It's like any teenage fashion subculture but with far more permanent consequences. At least goths and emos can take the makeup off when they grow up and only have embarrassing MySpace photos as evidence.
Also if they were already a bit homely or had low self-esteem and thought they were, then they can make themselves look uglier and be like "joke's on you, I was only pretending to be ugly".
I think both of these are a big part of the motivation for pooning out, too. It's like any teenage fashion subculture but with far more permanent consequences. At least goths and emos can take the makeup off when they grow up and only have embarrassing MySpace photos as evidence.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2019
I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Somali American pooners. Elephant dicks. Hopefully to be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Okay well, I'll try here.One of the pooners previously posted here and in SRS thread 1, 2 (she had facial masculinization surgery) got punched at the Gay 90s bar in Minneapolis, the same one frequented by friend of the forum Dick Lickeita!
Pooner was upset that no one seemed to care that she got punched and called a tranny. Welcome to manhood sweetie
View attachment 6066882
In a whiter less ghetto place of America this would have actually got people in trouble, so that place is legit creepy.
She sounds as awful as she looks.
Assuming this is a gay men's club, they all hate women there, and I mean really hate them, they want to kill women.
Lesbian clubs often still allow men and straight people where gay men's clubs are cut-throat for men only.
Straight people were not even allowed to sit with their gay friends that were just trying to look out for them.
It's a pretty raunchy scene you know, going alone is dangerous.
But the gay club doesn't want your straight friends there unless they're gay, and that also removes safety for a lot of people who have more straight friends than gay friends.
When gay men want you to leave and don't just say it, they play games about it and make you guess.
If you aren't guessing you will probably get hurt for not leaving.
Gay clubs cater to horny sexist men and I wouldn't even tell a real gay man to go there.
I know plenty of gay people that don't club for the same reasons I don't as a straight person.
brocktherock
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2023
This is one of the worst creations I’ve ever seen posted here. I don’t cape for women saying they all must be damaged groomed uwus to become pornsick and can never be naturally deviant like men but, as horseshoe theory prevails, was this bitch molested as a child? Even without the tranny mangina shit, the pregnancy-parasite-fetal X ray and fetal-death thing is worse than /d/, the average /d/ user can’t fap to this. Including the fetus as part of the “kink” is deeply disturbing and she looks like a fucking pedo too. Take her out back and put her down, jesus.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
This post title just caught my eye and it was too comical not to share. Little pooner ends up blocking the male toilet at work for a month. Of course, no one at work suspects a thing about her not being a true and honest dude but she is now panicking about being found out.
EDIT/UPDATE: general email was sent to all, turns out the tampon was not mentioned and there are problems with the (old) infrastructure therefore it was not the main problem. Email didn’t mention the tampon
Probably a lot of people are going to laugh about this but I am panicking and freaking out.
First week at work like 10 months ago, I went to toilet as usual and then could not find a place where to throw away my tampon while 20 other people were outside and other men were in the toilets. So I flushed it. After that I asked the executive assistant to indicate me where the nearest gender neutral (those for wheelchair) toilet was, which is gender neutral and has a garbage bin. Admittedly how it all went was hilarious but also so stupid, and had no way out..
I am closeted at my work, while some people know indirectly, the subject never came up. Only my boss and the executive assistant know, for safety reasons. Everyone is extremely trans/lgbt friendly where I work, but I still don’t want people to know I am.
Now 10 months later, the men's toilets have been blocked for a month, we all men complaining about it and having to go to the other side of the building to toilet.
As I was working, after the entire morning, I hear the (external) repair guys repairing the toilet saying that they found said tampon blocking the toilet "from a woman, oh wait, maybe transgender!" ( laughing).
I am now shitting my pants into knowing these guys will tell the entire department of 120 people that a tampon blocked the men's toilet, and there is obviously 1 trans people among the entire building of 3000 people: me.
I am praying that the executive assistant won't gossip about this... or that these guys will tell it to others from the workplace.
help.
TIFU: I blocked the men's toilet with a tampon
EDIT/UPDATE: general email was sent to all, turns out the tampon was not mentioned and there are problems with the (old) infrastructure therefore it was not the main problem. Email didn’t mention the tampon
Probably a lot of people are going to laugh about this but I am panicking and freaking out.
First week at work like 10 months ago, I went to toilet as usual and then could not find a place where to throw away my tampon while 20 other people were outside and other men were in the toilets. So I flushed it. After that I asked the executive assistant to indicate me where the nearest gender neutral (those for wheelchair) toilet was, which is gender neutral and has a garbage bin. Admittedly how it all went was hilarious but also so stupid, and had no way out..
I am closeted at my work, while some people know indirectly, the subject never came up. Only my boss and the executive assistant know, for safety reasons. Everyone is extremely trans/lgbt friendly where I work, but I still don’t want people to know I am.
Now 10 months later, the men's toilets have been blocked for a month, we all men complaining about it and having to go to the other side of the building to toilet.
As I was working, after the entire morning, I hear the (external) repair guys repairing the toilet saying that they found said tampon blocking the toilet "from a woman, oh wait, maybe transgender!" ( laughing).
I am now shitting my pants into knowing these guys will tell the entire department of 120 people that a tampon blocked the men's toilet, and there is obviously 1 trans people among the entire building of 3000 people: me.
I am praying that the executive assistant won't gossip about this... or that these guys will tell it to others from the workplace.
help.
California Newt
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2024
@Aunt Carol
Had to look up Dave Sim.
I appreciate the patience with my yapping; if you'd rather not read a novel go to the tl;dr.
Had to look up Dave Sim.
I appreciate the patience with my yapping; if you'd rather not read a novel go to the tl;dr.
Their friendship hits the reader so hard that it can overflow into wanting to have them fuck.
I understand this, but more-so when it's a hostile rivalry. The absence of a fraternal bond makes it feel less incestuous, reading it as a man.
I totally get women seeing things this way, but it's a bad sign that men are starting to more and more. I'm obsessed with the interpersonal dynamics of the creative process, which is what motivates nearly all of my posting. I see all other serious interpersonal dynamics as reflective of the creative process. As you've seen before, I think that the attitude that all other dynamics are grades downward from the sex drive is a disastrous product of our philosophical, historical, religious, and political circumstances.
It's like "cute aggression," where the puppy is just so adorable you have the momentary impulse to rend it to pieces, before the brain kicks in and correctly files the overflow.
This is alien to me; I've heard it described, though.
let everyone know how much you think these two dudes love each other (nonsexually) by having them make love (sexually). "Show don't tell," right?
This one's a little harder to wrap my head around, but I think I get it.
I don't think you can generalize women's perception of love by pointing at pooners.
How can I generalize it? I'm looking for the fundamental mechanisms; I'm looking for the point of contact between men and women. More specifically, I'm looking for the granularity in a woman's consumption of a man. As explained in the next spoiler, men are able to consume one another granularly though individual aspects.
I'm curious about how women do this, if so; I suppose it's all holographically contained in the seed, so no need for granular aspects, but is a woman satisfied with that? Do men and women also have their form of competitive inter-communion, where the marital context levels the playing field (where normal competition in other contexts would be difficult or impossible due to strength or skill mismatches)?
Do women only get a partial praxeological (talent-exercise based) exposure of the man, and the seed compensates for the difference?
I know that homosexuals are obsessed with the seed (and phallus) of the man to a greater (or at least more depraved) degree than women, but in a purely symbolic sense (as the seed is dead for them). They're usually praxeologically confused or frustrated: more information in another thread (I'll post an excerpt):
"Sexuality is an easy shortcut to exploit feelings of potency in the lizard-brain, side-stepping the need for sportsmanship altogether. Not all gay guys are incapable of sportsmanship (it's 2024 and people get groomed into all kinds of things, even auto-groomed; what are you gonna do) but the ones who are are going to get real pissy if the anal 'sex' cope is questioned."
This is relevant to the pooner thread, as I doubt that the pooners themselves understand how they may be isolating themselves by screwing with these dynamics.
This doesn't account for the large amount of RP/ERP/fanfiction where women are using canon characters.
I probably shouldn't have included that image. It occurs to me that it's not 1:1 related to the idea I'm trying to express, which has less to do with women's ability to roleplay as it does with the degree to which they're willing to put aside their embedded context in a collaborative setting. Also, if I had a barbie I wouldn't take her to the dream house; I'd make her the Joker. Maybe it's just that little girls don't want to play Batman.
What I'm talking about with the "sportsmanship" mindset is the difference between casual and serious engagement in "game-like" situations for men. Casual stuff is for socialization, but serious stuff is what socialization is for: to find collaborators towards accomplishing or reaching something external to yourselves. In a game, you're after "the perfect game"; that's why a close match is a "good game" as opposed to a one-sided blowout. You're essentially mining for a giant diamond, and the rules of the game are the quarry.
In that context, you can't bring identity or social context into it; being anything less than ruthless is a waste of everyone's time. Plus you're hiding a part of yourself (your strengths/teeth), which are revealed during the effort.
I don't think that women work in quite the same way, generally. They seem to be more oriented towards getting to the bottom of "people" rather than "things". I haven't read a lot of their fanfiction, but I doubt that they're writing about the technical specifications of the propulsion systems that the spaceships use. The two tendencies are complementary, and in my opinion women have the advantage in some respects—God is a Person, not a "thing".
There's more about this in the next spoiler.
I understand this, but more-so when it's a hostile rivalry. The absence of a fraternal bond makes it feel less incestuous, reading it as a man.
I totally get women seeing things this way, but it's a bad sign that men are starting to more and more. I'm obsessed with the interpersonal dynamics of the creative process, which is what motivates nearly all of my posting. I see all other serious interpersonal dynamics as reflective of the creative process. As you've seen before, I think that the attitude that all other dynamics are grades downward from the sex drive is a disastrous product of our philosophical, historical, religious, and political circumstances.
It's like "cute aggression," where the puppy is just so adorable you have the momentary impulse to rend it to pieces, before the brain kicks in and correctly files the overflow.
This is alien to me; I've heard it described, though.
let everyone know how much you think these two dudes love each other (nonsexually) by having them make love (sexually). "Show don't tell," right?
This one's a little harder to wrap my head around, but I think I get it.
I don't think you can generalize women's perception of love by pointing at pooners.
How can I generalize it? I'm looking for the fundamental mechanisms; I'm looking for the point of contact between men and women. More specifically, I'm looking for the granularity in a woman's consumption of a man. As explained in the next spoiler, men are able to consume one another granularly though individual aspects.
I'm curious about how women do this, if so; I suppose it's all holographically contained in the seed, so no need for granular aspects, but is a woman satisfied with that? Do men and women also have their form of competitive inter-communion, where the marital context levels the playing field (where normal competition in other contexts would be difficult or impossible due to strength or skill mismatches)?
Do women only get a partial praxeological (talent-exercise based) exposure of the man, and the seed compensates for the difference?
I know that homosexuals are obsessed with the seed (and phallus) of the man to a greater (or at least more depraved) degree than women, but in a purely symbolic sense (as the seed is dead for them). They're usually praxeologically confused or frustrated: more information in another thread (I'll post an excerpt):
"Sexuality is an easy shortcut to exploit feelings of potency in the lizard-brain, side-stepping the need for sportsmanship altogether. Not all gay guys are incapable of sportsmanship (it's 2024 and people get groomed into all kinds of things, even auto-groomed; what are you gonna do) but the ones who are are going to get real pissy if the anal 'sex' cope is questioned."
This is relevant to the pooner thread, as I doubt that the pooners themselves understand how they may be isolating themselves by screwing with these dynamics.
This doesn't account for the large amount of RP/ERP/fanfiction where women are using canon characters.
I probably shouldn't have included that image. It occurs to me that it's not 1:1 related to the idea I'm trying to express, which has less to do with women's ability to roleplay as it does with the degree to which they're willing to put aside their embedded context in a collaborative setting. Also, if I had a barbie I wouldn't take her to the dream house; I'd make her the Joker. Maybe it's just that little girls don't want to play Batman.
What I'm talking about with the "sportsmanship" mindset is the difference between casual and serious engagement in "game-like" situations for men. Casual stuff is for socialization, but serious stuff is what socialization is for: to find collaborators towards accomplishing or reaching something external to yourselves. In a game, you're after "the perfect game"; that's why a close match is a "good game" as opposed to a one-sided blowout. You're essentially mining for a giant diamond, and the rules of the game are the quarry.
In that context, you can't bring identity or social context into it; being anything less than ruthless is a waste of everyone's time. Plus you're hiding a part of yourself (your strengths/teeth), which are revealed during the effort.
I don't think that women work in quite the same way, generally. They seem to be more oriented towards getting to the bottom of "people" rather than "things". I haven't read a lot of their fanfiction, but I doubt that they're writing about the technical specifications of the propulsion systems that the spaceships use. The two tendencies are complementary, and in my opinion women have the advantage in some respects—God is a Person, not a "thing".
There's more about this in the next spoiler.
From this other thread (excerpt):
Male Fraternal Praxeological Attraction:
Men are very outwardly-oriented creatures. They tend not to really make the intuitive connection between the outward world and their inward world. They don't think about the link between the aesthetic of what they're pursuing, and the isomorphic corresponding potency within themselves that allows and motivates them to engage and succeed in that pursuit. They don't understand that the things they love are a holographic projection of themselves, and that a woman might prefer the source over the projection.
This is why poets all come off as at least a little gay—their job is to connect those dots. Men love each other fraternally for the same reason that women love men romantically—the difference is that men see it as "Oh, cool. This guy gets it." The man always conceptualizes it as a mutual interest in a third thing that's located out in the macrocosm, rather than in something within the microcosm of the other guy. At most, such as in a mentorship relationship, it's something that comes through the other guy from the macrocosm. Masculine intercommunion is praxeological rather than physical.
The emotions might even be many of the same ones as in a romantic relationship, but they're never understood, mentally categorized, or expressed in that way. The medium of the interaction is always the outer world.
The only exception is religious worship of a figure taken to be the source of the macrocosm, who Himself is understood to project the universe into being in the same kind of holographic fashion. Ordinary hero-worship doesn't even count, as the fantasy there is usually to play the big game with the guy—religious worship, on the other hand, involves a direct personal communion of the deity (the microcosm-as-source-of-macrocosm). In many religions, such as Christianity, this is even a physical (although non-sexual in this case) communion as well as a spiritual one.
More thought on that last part regarding Christianity here
Applications for Women:
While not impossible, there are a lot of difficulties women obviously would run into with the praxeological mode of interfacing with men. The first one is that it's very difficult for women to compete with men in many areas—most especially those that are physical. Women might also have trouble—even if they're otherwise very intelligent—with locking into that pure sportsmanship "autism mindset" that men get into when they compete or collaborate. This is a necessary precondition for pure focus on the external pursuit: you can't let natural embeddedness in your social context get in the way of the goal. It's also, in many men's minds, the purest expression of "himself": a faceless amalgam of talents in their fullest mode of exercise.
This is why nobody likes playing board games with "the girlfriend". She could be twice as good at the game as everyone else, but can't leave her social embeddedness off of the board. The boyfriend goes easy on her, she responds poorly to being ganged up on, and the pursuit of the "perfect game" goes on a rain-check until she's gone. Are all women like this? Of course not—but practically no men are. Autism is the opposite problem, where men have trouble embedding their minds in the social fabric even when it'd be appropriate. They're stuck in game-mode (and can wind up spending days writing long screeds such as this one on forums).
It's obviously not totally impossible for women to do it too, though, and women are blessed to be able to have both the physical and praxeological modes of interface as options. For men, it's really just the praxeological mode plus a bunch of hideous and self-destructive non-options—in fact, the "options" are so bad that the people who go for them are often ones that due to some weakness or personality defect are unable to participate in the praxeological mode.
Male Fraternal Praxeological Attraction:
Men are very outwardly-oriented creatures. They tend not to really make the intuitive connection between the outward world and their inward world. They don't think about the link between the aesthetic of what they're pursuing, and the isomorphic corresponding potency within themselves that allows and motivates them to engage and succeed in that pursuit. They don't understand that the things they love are a holographic projection of themselves, and that a woman might prefer the source over the projection.
This is why poets all come off as at least a little gay—their job is to connect those dots. Men love each other fraternally for the same reason that women love men romantically—the difference is that men see it as "Oh, cool. This guy gets it." The man always conceptualizes it as a mutual interest in a third thing that's located out in the macrocosm, rather than in something within the microcosm of the other guy. At most, such as in a mentorship relationship, it's something that comes through the other guy from the macrocosm. Masculine intercommunion is praxeological rather than physical.
The emotions might even be many of the same ones as in a romantic relationship, but they're never understood, mentally categorized, or expressed in that way. The medium of the interaction is always the outer world.
The only exception is religious worship of a figure taken to be the source of the macrocosm, who Himself is understood to project the universe into being in the same kind of holographic fashion. Ordinary hero-worship doesn't even count, as the fantasy there is usually to play the big game with the guy—religious worship, on the other hand, involves a direct personal communion of the deity (the microcosm-as-source-of-macrocosm). In many religions, such as Christianity, this is even a physical (although non-sexual in this case) communion as well as a spiritual one.
More thought on that last part regarding Christianity here
Applications for Women:
While not impossible, there are a lot of difficulties women obviously would run into with the praxeological mode of interfacing with men. The first one is that it's very difficult for women to compete with men in many areas—most especially those that are physical. Women might also have trouble—even if they're otherwise very intelligent—with locking into that pure sportsmanship "autism mindset" that men get into when they compete or collaborate. This is a necessary precondition for pure focus on the external pursuit: you can't let natural embeddedness in your social context get in the way of the goal. It's also, in many men's minds, the purest expression of "himself": a faceless amalgam of talents in their fullest mode of exercise.
This is why nobody likes playing board games with "the girlfriend". She could be twice as good at the game as everyone else, but can't leave her social embeddedness off of the board. The boyfriend goes easy on her, she responds poorly to being ganged up on, and the pursuit of the "perfect game" goes on a rain-check until she's gone. Are all women like this? Of course not—but practically no men are. Autism is the opposite problem, where men have trouble embedding their minds in the social fabric even when it'd be appropriate. They're stuck in game-mode (and can wind up spending days writing long screeds such as this one on forums).
It's obviously not totally impossible for women to do it too, though, and women are blessed to be able to have both the physical and praxeological modes of interface as options. For men, it's really just the praxeological mode plus a bunch of hideous and self-destructive non-options—in fact, the "options" are so bad that the people who go for them are often ones that due to some weakness or personality defect are unable to participate in the praxeological mode.
Last edited:
MeatSuki
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 2, 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTfBE0Sphgg
So this video is four years old (is it too late to post this?) and here's a pooner bitching about how bad it is to be a man. Is it just me, or do pooners act differently from even the most feminine gay men? I feel like there's some behaviors in women that men just can't replicate. I can't pin point what.
So this video is four years old (is it too late to post this?) and here's a pooner bitching about how bad it is to be a man. Is it just me, or do pooners act differently from even the most feminine gay men? I feel like there's some behaviors in women that men just can't replicate. I can't pin point what.
Izdaja Slika
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 18, 2024
Video needs to be renamed to 'worst parts of pretending to be a man from the perspective of a woman in permanent drag'.
The video is not about the worst parts of being a man. The women kvetches that she has to wait ages for a stall in the men's bathroom because she has to sit down to pee. Men don't have to sit down to pee, sweetie. You are not experiencing life as a man.
California Newt
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2024
Fascinating. "I wish we had more bonding time". Talking about socializing at the soccer game.
The game is the bonding time.
Also, I'm hearing that apparently women poop faster than men. Can womanbros confirm?
MeatSuki
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 2, 2024
I'm calling BS on the claim that women poop faster. I mean, it depends on the individual imo. I've noticed that lately I've been in the bathroom for over thirty minutes due to my shit not coming out fast enough.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2024
WRT fangirls obsessing over teh yoaiz I think it's as simple as some people, women in particular (and particularly young, autist adjacent), will project sexual desire on to same sex friendships where they lack understanding of the dynamics at play because they're not that sex. Girls into fandom stuff turn this into something nigh pathological because it's an encouraged aspect of their chosen circles (internet or otherwise). I've noticed that some gay men do this as well with some fictional or historical male friendships though I think that's entirely out of cope.
It's somewhat easy to put yourself into someone else's shoes when it comes to almost anything because there are a lot of things we can theoretically imagine ourselves doing or may well do we just don't have the circumstances...except for sexual desire. Women are attracted to men and I think a lot of sheltered young girls who don't grow up with a lot of co-ed socialization project the most understanding they have of interacting with guys and that's a crush from afar. If that makes any sense.
All this has metastasized because of the nature of fandom as a hobby and the internet memeing it.
It's somewhat easy to put yourself into someone else's shoes when it comes to almost anything because there are a lot of things we can theoretically imagine ourselves doing or may well do we just don't have the circumstances...except for sexual desire. Women are attracted to men and I think a lot of sheltered young girls who don't grow up with a lot of co-ed socialization project the most understanding they have of interacting with guys and that's a crush from afar. If that makes any sense.
All this has metastasized because of the nature of fandom as a hobby and the internet memeing it.
California Newt
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2024
You're not constipated, are you? Stool softeners work wonders.
I could see men pooping faster.
Sometimes I wonder if the kegel development from a lifetime spent gooning has made some men—not naming names—into lean, mean pooping machines.
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2022
Sometimes it just doesn't happen quick. Ginger and Artichoke worked for me. But also we sit everytime for anything, all the time, so we may be having smaller poos through the day vs one big poo.
According to public court, men also aren't wiping so maybe that cuts down on sit time.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2021
Losing some of your nuance, but also a lot of the words: it's a known human fallacy to mistake sex (or lust) for love, and that's not just romantic love but the human connection in brotherhood or earnest competition.
In fiction it's a cheap shortcut to throw in a sex scene or a romantic subplot when you can't (or can't be bothered) to show a deeper connection. (Much "asexual" bitching on this topic has been recorded.)
Sex ramps up the intensity of feeling; it's one of the base human drives. It's as easy to use sex to make your product desirable as it is to throw bacon on a fast-food hamburger. The canon story is dudes pledging fealty to each other as they fight impossible odds, and everyone loves that part--so you add some battle-brother blowjobs the same way you'd upcharge for guacamole. Maybe not so cynically; people just know they want more.
Access to fictional stimulation (including standard porn) has never been better; human connection seldom worse. We're seeing it hit men and women differently. Pornsick men seek more and more visual stimulation; for all the m/m fanart that's out there, there's a lot more writing, including fiction as well as people reblogging "imagine if" and adding something else.
I'm not recommending you read fanfiction, but you could pick a media property you're familiar with and look at its most popular tags. Improbable romantic pairings are funny to screencap, but there's a lot of whump, hurt/comfort and angst to explain away. Someone finds something that makes them feel more feelings than usual, and after rolling around in it for a bit, they want to amplify it.
Pretend I embedded "Stinkfist" here, I guess.
The nature of men and women and whether each is able to sink themselves into pure competition--I'm not going to pretend to be a philosopher, but it sounds as attractive a concept as it sounds idealized. Other than sports, being used to one's fullest and liking it is rare in the modern world. Most accomplishments have a social aspect; there isn't much achievement (or employment) that's just skill, strategy and/or endurance.
What I have more speculation on and what's relevant to this thread, is the hypothetical psychology of the pooner. We know that men can fall into troonism; the female failing is different in the mechanism, but not the end.
I used to play board games with a regular group and I would take a dive occasionally because one of the dudes tended to flip out and accuse people of ganging up on him if he did poorly all night. Sure do love competition and mutually agreed-on rulesets, but after a tantrum we couldn't play Shadows over Camelot when he was there, and that game set me back like $60. Maybe that's how I can appreciate the autistic male's desire to finally run off the leash and completely destroy all comers in Scrabble with no holds barred, no small talk made, just calculations and victory.