even when the topic is gouda appreciation, the meme endures. and I think that is so beautiful.

I’m Hard vs I’m Wet: Value from Performance vs Essence Very few men are so attractive they drive a woman wild just by virtue of lying there. Whereas many women elicit male infatuation by just being naked. The sexual leverage here is skewed because the desire is. This means men must perform to get what they want, and women react and judge this performance. Male sexual performance is more measurable. It's composed of actions like stamina, rhythm, and whether you know how to manhandle just right. He does these things to make her feel good. He must perform both to gain access, and maintain it. Male sexual-market value -- how he gains sexual access in the first place when faced with hypergamous selection effects -- is often a result of his economic performance. Men must perform, sexually and societally, to be worth anything. HOW WOMEN ARE "GOOD IN BED" Pleasing a woman is much more difficult than pleasing a man. This why a man being “good in bed” is seen as a sexual accomplishment. Because female desire and enjoyment is what’s prized, and it’s mostly a reaction to male performance. You have to earn it, she rewards it. A woman being “good in bed” manifests as visceral desire, animalistic moaning. When she begs for it inside her after removing it from deep down her throat, that's her being amazing in bed. It's not an action, but an erotic state of mind. This is peak female performance, because this is what men covet. Heterosexual men don't give a shit about her "form". Just like we mostly don't give a shit about how much money she makes. In essence, female "performance" is how passionately and enthusiastically she consents and desires you and your actions. Because that's what makes it amazing. It takes two to tango: one leads, one follows. One acts, one responds. Being "good" manifests differently for each. Women don’t just volunteer this as their baseline, it must be earned. Men must perform, women judge the performance. Men are the head, women are the neck, societally and sexually. But because this female contribution isn’t a measurable action like stamina, the pictured comment mistakes it for a lack presence. How you make each other feel good is the essence of "performance", sexually. She makes him feel good by virtue of allowing the act of sex, her body and reaction is the prize. It’s why she can just “lie there”, and not only doesn’t need to perform like a man, but shouldn’t. To insist otherwise is to inject toxic political ideology into a divine, natural sexual dynamic. Female sexual performance is closer to artful expression. It varies substantially based on who she's with, mood, foreplay, intimacy, timing, etc.. It’s predominately predicated how attractive she finds him, which is a derivative of his actions, not his looks. Because most men are not physically desirable, male sexual-market value is based on performance, both in and out of the bedroom. If a woman is "good in bed" it's a lens into the chemistry you two have; if a man is "good in bed" it's mostly a lens into the fact he understands this, and can elicit the aforementioned visceral reactions with his behaviors. You perform, she judges, and you both enjoy the experience. I’M HARD VS I'M WET I'm Hard A man whispering into a woman's ear "I'm hard" doesn't spark arousal, because it doesn’t communicate anything useful or sought after. No shit dude, she knows you're hard. We'd all be hard. Men always want it, our sexual stimulation and desires are not coveted, in fact society creates rules to keep it in check and monetizes it (porn) because it’s so easy to manufacture. Being horny is a baseline for us. This is why men are not the gatekeepers of sex, but of commitment. Nature intended it this way. Men are reproductively dispensable, and societal views towards male sexuality implicitly understand this in how it judges it. Women are born, men are made. Men are not valuable just by nature of existing; it’s why they instinctively understand they must perform to be worth anything. In the bedroom and outside of it. Women are valuable by default, their worth is fundamentally not their performance. We have an embodied understanding of this innate value as a species in the rules and protections we create for them: women and children first off the sinking ship. Hitting a woman inspires an immune-system like reaction. No one pities a weak man. Nature intended it this way. I'm Wet A woman whispering into a man's ear "I'm wet" communicates something much more. It says “Your performance makes me want to perform, and if you keep it up we’re going to have a great time together.” Women are the gatekeepers of sex, which means their arousal is coveted. Their stimulation and earning their desire is quite possibly the most sought-after thing in human history, next to land. This means men are the agentic ones in bed: they must act, initiate, dictate, perform, dominate. Thus how “good in bed” men are is based on their actions, they can't just lie there. This is a natural sexual dynamic between man and woman, based on who must earn what. > “That’s not true! I have a guy friend who likes to be pegged and is a findom paypig!” Yeah man I know exceptions exist, and they prove the rule, they don’t refute it. That these exceptions are communicated as kinks illustrate that they’re uncommon, for the same reasons liking boobs and ass isn’t a fetish. How she responds, how “good” she is, is largely based on what you do, natural chemistry, and comfort. Humans fit into dominance/submission hierarchies as naturally as ice accumulates on a windowpane in Alaska; this is especially the case sexually. Dom/sub, bottom/top, do you both whip and tie each other up in BDSM? Does she bend you over after you do her? “Good girl” and “good boy” don’t exist in the same sexual encounter. One party consistently asks to be choked and has certain extremely well-documented violent sexual fantasies, and the other does not. On an aside: I lived in NYC for ~7 years, the girl-boss feminists enjoy these extreme dynamics more than anyone. Political zealotry is often overcompensating for something else that latently lurks beneath… I believe the reason many philosophers are borderline obsessed with sex is because the sexual/carnal is such a raw manifestation of natural hierarchical behavior and value expression. They implicitly understand it as a proxy for a great deal of seemingly unrelated human interaction. Who is valuable just because? Who must act and who is acted upon? As you’re seeing in this essay, much can be extrapolated by who needs to perform, and who can just “lie there”. Link to blog in profile and comments.

rape fantasies aren't something that can be beat, nor should women be made to feel like it’s something they ought to conceal. for the same reason men can’t be shamed out of liking ass and hips. it’s our nature. to varying degrees, being aroused by complete physical dominance is a core part of female sexuality. there are many surveys on this (including how common rape fantasies are) to corroborate what you’ll hear straight from their mouths once they trust you. after awhile, you won’t even need to hear it, you’ll feel it in their embodied reactions. how they’re stimulated, pupils getting bigger, while held in certain ways that are uniquely vulnerable, helpless, etc. the examples below are extremes, but not uncommon. healthy feminine sexuality enjoys dominance, man-handling, and feeling safe while being physically overwhelmed. as you work daddy issues/weak fathers into the mix, that innate, natural desire slowly transmutes into a more destructive form. an absence of healthy masculinity means dark masculinity is all they know. when surrounded by weak men, women begin to seek out blunt-force, corrosive strength. when left with the choice of a spineless man or an abusive one, the abusive one wins easily. he may be toxic, but at least he’s not a pussy. there’s nothing more repellant than a weak man. and that’s how you get stuff like this.

In a More Noble Society: Ye Olde Anthropology thedosagemakesitso.substack.…

Dating tip: Russian women experience daily bouts of ennui and melancholic yearning (common slavic behavior). It's your job to force joy upon them. When forlornness sets it, give her a kiss on the forehead and say “What ails you little snow latina? What would soothe my slavi mami and her peasant soul? Porridge made of turnips? Soup made of beets? Literature made of sadness?” Any vexation is simply passion waiting to be sublimated into joy. They enjoy this.

There are a handful of quality Zoomer neologisms drifting around the discourse swamp, and “posting hole” may be the funniest and most spiritually accurate one. It hits rare linguistic perfection where the phrase is devastatingly precise and embeds tacit ridicule in its simplicity. Something that should retain private, intimate, sacred charge is instead wheeled out into the fluorescent public square like a roast beef sandwich at a county fair. Once you start broadcasting it for the algorithmic townsfolk, it stops being an object of mystery, desire, and erotic gravity. It’s demoted. Stripped of aura. No longer a kitty, clam, or vagina, it's reduced from coveted orifice to mere hole. The phrase is crude because the act is crude. It refuses to romanticize the performance. It doesn’t permit the slut in question to imagine herself as a liberated sensual icon communing with the divine feminine through ring-light exposure. No. You are posting hole. It deploys absurdist shaming by way of clinical literalism: taking the grand self-mythology of sexual exhibitionism and collapsing it into the bluntest possible anatomical description. It peels away the hole-peddler’s fake empowerment and simply points, names, and lets the humiliation bloom naturally. Masterful work by the Zoomers. Occasionally, amid the vaping, horrible music, polycule situationships, and Tiktok attention spans, they manage to cook.

As an aside, IQ strongly correlates with walking speed. The correlation is, like, extremely significant. There are essentially zero outliers. Top quintile walkers are a full standard deviation smarter than bottom quintile walkers.