What do you mean by “humanity”, dear?
That which is above animal?
Would that ever factor into an instinctive decision process?
It is not lack of humanity that women abhor, that is just what they like to say. Yet, they would promptly lay with an animal with the right… assets, and nonchalantly brush off the accusations of hypocrisy with a simple “you don’t know him like I do”.
It is weakness, desperation… that is the stench that they can catch in the air from miles away, and instinctively avoid…
Have we found out how to make poon readily available to everybody equally yet?
Certainly would subdue those highly sexual men everywhere being that women are the primary instigators of male competition, violence, and overall aggression.
[Although the feminists don’t want you to know about that tid bit and for reasons of their own of course.]
Women are like female Mountain Rams watching two male Rams beat each other in the head in total excitement of who the victor is that they then base their sexual mating habits with.
The males are pressured into fighting and violent exchange of competition to get the females attention or sexual arousal.
When women say what they want providers what they really mean is that they want the champions of survival which in a nutshell means the most ruthless or competitive.
The vicious cycle never ends…
I never take women seriously when they speak about social equality because of this. Truth is that women don’t want social equality especially when it is the inequality that they benefit and thrive upon the most. Who really is the more wicked sex?
Maybe the species of Chimpanzees are more smarter where instead of a troop of males taking their aggression on each other they decide to just skip all of that and rape the females instead. It certainly puts the females in their place and the procreation of the species still continues.
A pretty good rule of thumb is to never take anyone seriously when they speak about social equality. 
Of course, especially when they are females.
Females make the world go round, baby.
i’m not a woman, but in my experience the guy who wants it “too much” is by definition a guy who lacks confidence, the confidence of a healthy male human. The humanity I’m referring to means a guy who can want a woman but also be himself, laugh, share, enjoy himself, and even be kind, generous and compassionate, all without strings. He wants, but he is not terrified of not getting, to the point of paralysis, crazed, desperate. A guy who wants it too much is yes unconfident and weak in some ways, but beyond that, he’s just not much more than a twitching, heaving dick. That’s what i mean by losing his humanity. “Too much” means he wants it so much to the exclusion of every other normal human behavior. He is so invested in it that he can’t loosen up and enjoy other aspects of the interaction. This is different from being passionate or aggressive or horny. This is something else, more akin to fear.
Necessary whoredom.
A woman doesn’t want a guy to be himself.
She wants a guy to be exactly what the television says that a guy should be.
More importantly wealthy, influential, aggressive, competitive, and with power.
The prostitution of women is so fucking obvious and blatantly out in the open everywhere that it always amuses me that people want to debate me about it. 
Women will try so desperately to hide this reality from themselves and more specifically from men.
They don’t want men to know what kind of deceptive, selfish, and exploitative creatures that they really are.
It’s always best for rattle snakes to pass themselves off as gentle and angelic house pets.
Everybody wants to say that men are the more violent and aggressive sex but very few intelligent people ask what motivates men to be so.
More importantly, who motivates men to be so? Well, I think we all know who…
To ask that question would be impolitically correct and we would be hearing the screeching harpy voices of billions of women everywhere in protest if we did.
The socialists shot themselves in the foot when they decided to solely direct their attention focusing on men concerning human aggression, violence, and conflict.
What they should be doing is focusing their attention on the other sex completely. That’s where you will find the root of all that pent up aggression. Ah, but that will never happen.
As usual this giant shit show amuses the hell out of me.
We agree on the desperation part, on that being repulsive.
Where I disagree is on the loss of this “humanity” being what repels women. A man can do none of those things and still be very attractive. In fact, a serious, quiet, distant man is one very common stereotype of attractive male. I’m sure you’ve seen it in the movies.
That distance implies disinterest, and that is the opposite of desperation. A position of power.
Bullshit. The more loud and obnoxious men get all the women. A majority of them anyways.
The charismatic vocalist vs. the mysterious guitarist… Who gets laid the most?
The answer is who cares, they’re both rich and famous
A honest whore. Rare thing these days.
You don’t remember me, do you?
In the Sexocracy, no one has access to guns apart from highly trained, psychologically assessed military, security and police personnel. No civilians get access to guns, especially mentally unstable types like Elliot Rodger, Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Seung-Hui Cho. What they do get is excellent mental health care based on their status as human beings rather than their ability to pay. Those individuals were all products of the American rage machine, but Anders Breivik proves that even the most peaceful country can produce terrible individuals. That’s why the only way is total civilian gun control. Fuck the second amendment.
Vaguely. I know you’re either a woman pretending to be a man or a flaming homosexual.
Possibly even transgendered. Am I correct?
It’s interesting that the old goat has his spider here.
The old goat does not have a spider.
Interest (=> will) is the most important thing (perhaps it is really Kant’s “Ding an sich” - “thing in itself” / “thing as such”). A good example is the “sexual selection” that I would prefer to call reproductive interests when it comes to get ressources (including offspring / children), namely either by (a) dominance or by (b) will to appeal. If a female can’t refuse herself and doesn’t want a male or children, because she is kidded - for example - by feminism or other nihilisms, then she is no longer part of the evolution. End.
Who benefits from that?
Despite all of the books on the subject, that actually translates as “Thing as such”.
Thank you, James.
I always took phoneutria as an underachiever, but this is way to easy prey. Reach for the heavens baby. Mabey in another life brother, I’ll see you then.