The Top Pickup Artist Forum On The Internet: Fast Seduction 101

Home | 

Theory about modern women%25B4s bisexuality

mASF post by ASOK

<< Home ... < Relevance Matches ... "postings"

Theory about modern women%25B4s bisexuality
You can search for more articles and discussions like this on the rest of this web site.

Acronyms used in this article can be looked up on the acronyms page.  To get involved in discussions like this, you can join the mASF discussion forum at [posts in this section may be edited, but only for spelling corrections and readability]

mASF post by "ASOK"
posted on: alt.seduction.relationships, July 7, 2005


I enjoy reading your postings very much. Here is my reply:

>Well actually I did not know I was
>reframing an already existent feminist
>theory. I hear about this theory about
>male bonding actually for the first time
>from you. Actually I was never
>interested in feminism until I started
>to study Seduction on a more scientific
>level. As natural I barely paid
>attention to the whole feminism thing.

There was not really "theory" that came along my way. ("Feminist theory" would
be an oxymoron anyway.) Rather, feminst lecturers will make single statements
that imply a certain theory, taking for granted that it is valid. Well, they
are women, and they don't even need to adjust to science in the humanities.
What I have written is, therefore, a sarcastic paraphrase of what I have heard
from several persons.

Studying literature in university is something very vague. Lecturers draw their
authority from using words nobody understands - and when the students catch up,
they invent new words for the old ones. Occasionally, they import theories from
other disciplines, and treat them as authorites (e.g. Freud). There is little
wisdom to be found in this subject, I believe. Which is why feminists love it -
they can say what they want without having to worry to much about the real

OK, the only concrete things I remember:
- Stam Broker's Dracula reveals male homoeroticism (forgot how).
- Men get together in groups, exclude and despise women, become powerful, and
supress women.

I am repeating myself, but my interpretation is this: Nothing is more scary to
women than men who don't need them. They know that the more a man is stringed
to a relationship, the more sexual power the female has. However, if a lad
spends a lot of his time with his mates drinking beer, hunting in packs for
ONS, the woman he does will be expendable. If his identity is founded on the
sports team he has been in for years, this can continue for decades in a
marriage. They fear this, so they hate it. They hate it, so they smear it. They
call it gay. Now, they can't say it's homosexual, because people know what they
like for themselves. Instead they call it homoerotic, which nobody understands,
bluring friendship, love and horniness.

Unless otherwise noted, this article is Copyright©2005 by "ASOK" with implicit permission provided to for reproduction. Any other use is prohibited without the explicit permission of the original author.


 Learn The Skills StoreStore