Anytime! 
Iām glad that mystery is solved. Women exist and their pussies are real! 
Realunoriginal asked:
āAnd why donāt you āfeel like it at all timesāā?
My response:
1.) Sleepy
2.) Better things to do (Accounting stuff, Listen to music, read a book, play football, play street hockey.)
3.) My penis becomes erect when it is in the mood to become erect and that does not always happen at my command.
4.) Sometimes I donāt know why I donāt feel like it, I just donāt.
Realunoriginal asked:
āWork is sex. If men donāt work, then they donāt get laid.ā
I disagree, there are people that have willing sexual participants though they lack gainful employment. With some women that I have encountered in my years it almost seems that being an unemployed, alcoholic, drug-addict physically abusive loser is an entry requirement.
Realunoriginal asked:
"Why did you āānot want to impregnate anyoneāā?
Because they might find me after I did.
RU, why did you not respond to the rest of what I posted? I am not even sure why this is in philosophy intead of physchology. Feminized male and masculinized female subject matter has more to do with physchology than philosophy. Or it even has a place in social. Philosophy are ways of belief due to reality or lack of.
It encompasses how to aproach life and how to make you a better person. Now if you want to discuss the sociological and physchological aspects of male and female aproach to philosophy that is great. We canāt do that until you realize that every human has philosophies they live by and comprehend.
Can a male truly understand philosophy? No because a male especially a male such as yourself fights life, You do not embrace it. Neener neener chew on that one 
The rest was not pertinent to the points I wanted to make at the time.
Is that what philosophy is??? 
Wow, what an authority youāve becomeā¦ 
I donāt realize that every human animal has āphilosophiesā, or, metaphysical ideologies that they live by and comprehend by degree? ā really?
I fight it on one hand and embrace it on the other, by definition, the words that I already laid out. I havenāt said any different that I can recall.
I embrace weakness, but it doesnāt mean that I succumb to it, not yet anyway.
We all succumb to weakness. Everyday we all succumb to weakness. Do you let it help you to live, do you dismiss it or deny it, thats the difference. Weakness is a tool for learning and surviving, it owns us or we own it. One or the other.
If anything deserves to be put on a pedestal, then it is philosophy without a doubt in my mind, the beginning of all human arts.
I own all of my weaknesses actuallyā¦
Self-denial and hypocrisy are what repel me from others.
See if you put it on a pedestal then you cannot live with it nor learn it fully. Philosophy is an art, it is the art of living.
But, denial and hypocrisy have their place. They are needed in philosophy.
No ā they are not needed within philosophy dear womanā¦
And anything that goes on the pedestal legitimately is considered art. Come on.
See this is how perspectives are different. You study it, I feel it, taste it, roll it around and savor its flavor all of it, the good, the lousy, the sweet, the bitter. Yes lies denial and hypocrisy are important to philosophy because they are survival intincts. Not just the body must survive but, the mind too darlin.
I donāt know. This all sounds pretty āfeminineāā¦
P.S. Kris ā what point exactly are you trying to convince me of, hmm? 
Iād like to convince you that your words are hollow and without substance, but Iām afraid Iād be speaking to deaf ears
I canāt even fathom the distance that so clearly separates your ego and truthā¦ under obnoxious pretensions of profundity, you in turn reveal little else but weakness, insecurity, delusion, and ultimately how ostensibly ignorant you are regarding matters of the self and human psychology in general. Really, itās sad almost to the point of being pathetic =/
Even worse, chap, is that although you almost certainly harbor some grandiose delusions about your own position in the intellectual rank and order, you really donāt even write all that well.
Your name is supposed to contain irony, isnāt it? Even if it does, you thus prove originality provides us no guarantees of profundity or significance.
Your opinions are your opinions and truth, but you are nowhere near even the vicinity of general truth, sorry to say.
This was intended less as mockery and more as a calling it as I clearly see it sort of thingā¦ but I bet, rather than defending your arguments from counterarguments, your egoās pride and pretension will instead seek to protect itself from truth with denial and dismissal.
If you care to show me Iām wrong ā you could begin with the rape and evolution thread ā Iād be more than happy to spend a little time on a critique, but as it stands Iād be wasting my time.
Is there a point? A single point? No. I am not trying to convince you of anything actually. I am just sharing parts of what I know and have learned with someone who has been sharing with me what they know and have learned. You walk away with more and I walk away with more. Its hard to be learned if you look only through your eyes. Thre are those here that see one perspective of you, do you think I see only that perspective or do I see others? You and I have shared many thoughts. At times we cannot understand each other, at other times we are just being stubborn and at others we click. Such is relationship. Over the decades I have learned there can never be any real convincing only something akin to trust.
Thank you darling, I was just curious.
It looks like weāre a part of the same ship then.
I think highly of you. It doesnāt really matter to me what others see me as, because I know they are projecting anyway.
Itās mainly a matter of authorship.
Because you understand this, you know where you stand with me.
What if you walk away with less? Would you continue the relationship or end it?
Hmmm, now I know there is more to that question than just what you put. Its not a black and white question is it?
Such as : what do you mean less? Abuse? theft? manipulation of thoughts? What? Does the relationship give both something even if one has less than what they began with? Because loss in one area does not mean over all loss. If you could put some more information in that question I could anwer it with out alot of ifs 
I only offer praise for what the author attempted to carry out here.
The detractors say: Itās not enough to come to some conclusions about something, the conclusions have to also be in āgood tasteā. Mistake!
Despite this, what resulted cannot yet be praised. What good is a modicum of true vision, snatched precariously from the peculiar effects of oneās circumstances, if you had no greater use for this boon than to look under some skirts with it? The author, knowing this, may consider improvements.
Here are suggestions:
- Reduction to three-five conscise theses, with all inessentials pitilessly removed.
- Consider the architecture (shape) of the complete pamphlet.
- Attempt a generalization of the conclusions beyond the ābattle of the sexesā arena.
Women do not matter, families do not matter, relations and societies, entire epochs of human hubbub do not matter, if you are an even slightly elevated specimen operating in the philosophical mode.
A reasonable person does not expect any of the aforementioned to ever forgive you for this.
There is a tall tale circulating since ancient times about Diogenes. Diogenes was washing cheap vegetables in some forsaken brook by the wayside. Plato, passing by with a cavalcade of eager students, said: āMy good Diogenes, if you knew how to pay court to kings, you would not have to wash vegetables.ā
āAnd,ā replied Diogenes, āIf you knew how to wash vegetables, you would not have to pay court to kings.ā
-WL