Furniture

Lesbians Rule!

 

Lesbians Rule!

Observations relative to male appreciation of the female designating recognition of the lesbian including an efficient discourse challenging prevalent and covetous ideologies.

Preliminary premise;

1. Publishing provided the vehicle for certain ideologists which resulted in a contamination of the collective zeitgeist.

 

1. Along with his inherent potentiality each male is by default guilty by association, this since the Creation is non redundant.

1. The intentionality of this statement is to efficaciously disassociate from all antecedent counterproductive inconsistency and scheming rather than denounce the nebular of incoherency and prejudice.

 

1. This analysis is a variegated investigation interrogating a variety of aspects and ontological dimensionality of the female in an anthropological deliberation.

 

 

 

 

Note 1:

The judiciary.

 

Cognition - Health - Fashion - Expertise

 

 

1.1

Intrinsic symmetry indicates that sexual orientation of males and females is not inter-convertible; this means that sexuality for the male is not the same as sexuality for the female.

 

Therefore what has been labelled homosexuality between males is not the same homosexuality between females; this is true since the accomplishment potential is radically different for men as it is for women.

 

To support this it can be said simply that; when two different beings do the very same thing the results are different; meaning that a male-male sex act is different from female-female sex act.

 

Similarly; when two identical beings do different things the results are different and this can explain the female deconstruction, why therefore human procreation does not promote health as it does in the zoological kingdom.

 

Cognitive discernment deliberates exclusively about any given error here manifesting itself as homocentric structure never effectuating authentic epistemological finality and the enigma prevails.

 

Such cognition bears witness to the biomechanical tendency due to the immune responsiveness such to remember the origin and hence cause of just where and what made one ill.

 

On the other hand a sincere male intensely understands what he must do to establish himself as specifically efficacious and methodically autonomous that is in a demonstration of complete teleonomical androrogation.

 

That is, he must develop the technique whereby he can integrate himself into the infallibly perfect and the inexpugnably eternal which is not other than pure logic itself and it is here where choice engenders grace.

 

Male cognitive appreciation is different to that of the female in that it is non tactile, whereas the female is proximal this implies that the male sexual experience is forcibly non cognitive where as the female sexual agenda is cognitive.

 

Any notion of engagement relationship or love with the male in a sexual encounter is pure myth, this loving male exists as a female driven projection; she projects her latent lesbian onto her male partner.

 

Male appreciation of the female in a sensual appointment the is pure illusion and by nature a human male in such a physical engagement cannot lay claim to genuine emotion since this not being his vocation, ergo unlike the lesbian the male must understand the female only at a distance.

 

Therefore emotion is such a sexual engagement is suspect as is sensibility for the female, since these two sensations are proportional opposites.

 

Understand the conflict between homosexuality and Christianity where the bible condemns male homosexuality but not female homosexuality.

 

Employing a version of Ockham's razor a Jesuit priest once told me that if it is not explicitly written then don't make it up.

 

So if the bible by default is not against female homosexuality it must be in favour of female homosexuality, but at the same time against male homosexuality.

 

This must mean that the bible distinguishes between female and male homosexuality that is; according to this tradition male homosexuality is not the same as female homosexuality, in other words sexuality for men is not the same as sexuality for women.

 

This seems reasonable and must be a relief for a believing lesbian.

 

 

1.2

To learn all about men, the man has no need of another man but only a reflective surface.

 

However the male does need the female because a female is all of what he is not and for the male this yields genesis to the didactic aspect of the female and of female perfection not so much as individual but a virtual universal.

 

It must be said that the male recognition of the female is spontaneous and residual, a male-female genital union is contradictory to cognitive valence, and this since male aesthetic appreciation is within this context counter-transcendental.

 

On a philosophical level such counter-transcendental exegetic of the female is a semiotic and semantic de-radicalisation, however between women such corporeal congruency does not appear to be a problem and seems to enhance to greater prowess hominine dimensionality, efficaciously establishing an intrinsic dialectic to human affairs.

 

The integral male is a priori faithful to the ultimate and is never satisfied by the half measure such is true a fortiori when it comes to his appreciation of the female.

 

It is true that what men like most of women is a posteriori the woman's health but without this being said this aspect becomes an object of covetousness, moreover the greatest female quality is not so much her ideas but her health.

 

Evidently, ideas become proportionally germane with the person according to his or her health, that is to say; that humans are biochemical and that this contingency is formidable.

 

To pretend that a given female is healthy when she is not is like a female pretending a male to be truthful when he is not, such diagnosis is prospectively dangerous.

 

Or to express it with different nuance; what interests the male is not to slander an unhealthy woman by making believe she is what she is not but to legitimize sincerity since the signal is important.

 

When commerce is not the motive force, what a woman has to gain with an honest response is a genuine female as the man an authentic male.

 

 

1.3

Health and development express the female in exemplary quanta; potentially she can thus alternatively yield a complete female formulation, if she so choose.

 

The male cannot at any moment or place impose on the woman a dress ethic not only is it not his responsibility but such act will prove deleterious to his education.

 

Moreover it is impossible not to get the impression of how women can be misogynous, since such is rendered efficacious with certain dress; ergo a refusal of the female by refusing to express the female, nominally this is a quantitative event since this brand of misogyny manifests proportionally with the abundance in dress.

 

Such dress is employed to acquire hindrance to male appreciation as to just what the female is all about, apoptotic misogyny since she refuses female demonstration this important didactic aspect to the female reason of being.

 

The dress ethos it seems is a projection of female ubiquity here health is paramount prompting subconscious reproach of not being in possession of complete health with all that this implies, this response is testament of genuine inherent female potential.

 

This, the female imposes on a given social strata and being a psychological majority she pervades the collective unconscious in blaming anyone this resulting in social divisibility with a certain hierarchical value a sort of pseudo-culture or quasi-religion.

 

Healthier women as it were would feel less the need of superficial props either to scrupulously show to hide herself since they certainly should feel less inadequate, even to the contrary seeing that they more perfectly match Creations eternal idea of the female, which is what one could classify as the eventually feminist archetype.

 

Clothing can become a weapon ironically leveraged against those very same individuals who promote it, men whose very religious proficiency depends on cognizance of the female, hypocritically deny it and invent rules to dissimulate a manifest ignorance, blaming the female but mostly blaming society.

 

On the other hand, it seems that a timid woman can conveniently appropriate the term of religion only to elaborate a camouflage in order to escape from a non compromising world, religion here suited into a self serving definition engendering a variety of female cast misogyny.

 

Self hate, or is it the shame of being woman that under the pretext of religious freedom that the female can escape from society but as well escape from the world and natural objective expression a sort of disembodiment.

 

Proportionally such unnatural props evidently betray the didactic aspect of female demeanour, since the intention of each intervention is a diversion, a sort of mastery by confusion.

 

So by default the woman is a self inducing victim of her own ubiquity, under the pretext of fame she submits herself to an obsequious masquerade of servility and ridicule.

 

The male subconsciously knows this and takes advantage, treating the woman as a child and this she may be in positive response, immaturity the winner on the political stage.

 

Such is evident in the third world or the so called developing countries where the individual is permitted to subsist as the pseudo eternal infant.

 

Notwithstanding this same default mode exists equally for the male pervading the arena of individuality.

 

 

1.4

For the male, lesbianism is no problem since the equivalent of female corporeal sexuality is male cognitive philosophy.

 

It is evident, as all know that the equivalent to male philosophy is female sensuality, where the progeny of division is transcendence and here in unification.

 

That is true philosophy not to be confused with anthropology, anthropology the designated study of ideas.

 

The study of ideas is by the way not philosophy but anthropology, for example the study the thought of an aborigine of some reclusive abode is the same science as the study of the ideas of a said philosopher economist politician etc...,.

 

So why the prejudices, both are thinkers; an aboriginal man as well as a well known writer each with their particularities and lacunas?

 

Philosophy is the study of the Creation and inherent laws thereof.

 

Moreover all things being equal, the philosopher must study the female as much as he must study the Creation.

 

The study of the female; the only remedy for ignorance and the study of the Creation; the only remedy for pretention.

 

The beginning of philosophy evidently was with Aristotle as Sappho was the introduction of lesbianism.

 

Lesbian expressivity to the male is the equivalent to witnessing a gymnastic or sports event with the difference being that with the lesbian there is a real existential winner where as in the sporting event all is just symbolic pretention where all is equitable in sport as in war.

 

It must be said that in sport and in war, men not without miracle have appropriated the female mode of self accomplishment for themselves as though it was theirs and that women are programmed to be perpetually intimidated and ostracized by such magisterial volumetric.

 

But this phenomenon, it might be hypothesised is nothing more than a simple reversal of roles as to modal efficiency that the given male has leveraged on the female immune system via universal domination.

 

This is the reversal of roles in manifest action where these individuals in a subconscious paradigm believe themselves to in fact exercise control within the context of female potentiality and thus assume female integration, which is in turn facilitated by the non existence of female articulation.

 

Strangely enough in return the female projects insensible submission to this delinquent male manipulation; she believes in this brute depravity to be an expression of her own universality.

 

This conceding acquiescence appears to be symbolic belonging to the realm of mythological obeisance that of the dominating female whereas here the part is played by a domineering male.

 

Considering the universe to be based on logic, eventually one must ask; can I maintain confidence in those who enigmatically compromise themselves to achieve a certain end?

 

This evidently obliges the individual to entertain an immature sophistication, which leads to the statement; "Anthropocene: where men are girls and the girls aren't smart!

 

 

 

Note 2:

The political.

 

History – Competence - Epigenetic - Emancipation

 

 

2.1

If it is that men customarily consider lesbianism as treachery it is most likely that he judges female autonomy an imposition on his world view and that in this female authenticity has been contaminated with male primitivism since traditionally he has considered himself her owner.

 

It is not strange that women are lead to belief that they are either obligated or responsible for men, since the male imposes his domination whilst refusing efficacious responsibility.

 

This is reinforced with the father willing to profit from the daughter by improving or maintaining his personal exhibition towards the world, such individuals normally hide such commerce behind an emotionally charged disguise labelled as; concern, futurity, responsibility or love.

 

Most traditions propose that the female is property of men and that the female must absolutely find an owner for; self belonging, justification even appurtenance and with this escape or ensconce into the portentous election of matrimony.

 

It is a fact that men generally conceive themselves as superior to the female and having exclusive authority over her; it seems that subversively some women encourage this attitude and here in can propose marriage as her contribution and subterfuge furnishing an escape mechanism from true human development.

 

Such superiority of men over women is the manifestation of the male lesbian complex, where the world finality eventuates into the metamorphosed female and the male is simply assimilated into this vortex, by his own neglect.

 

Desecration as a rule or so it seems must run the conventional gamut from, the repulsive to compulsive, the pervasive pseudo historicity and the omnipresence of male prevalence which eventuates the sanctioning of counter integration modulating a social fabric in a deformed definition of freedom and objectivity.

 

This explains male sexual deviance in its aggregate, from rapist to child predator, through homosexual not excluding either the male or even female transvestite.

 

But in a standard situation one must answer the question; why do some men get aroused when women treat them as a lesbian?

 

Such arousal is not in reference to a given female lacunae manifest as an enigmatic debasement since female health is not the male responsibility.

 

Notwithstanding   that some naïve male may try to supplier the female lacunae in order to implement some sort of self valorisation thusly appearing important, but such comportment is secondary can we imply epiphenomenological?

 

On the contrary it may more often than not prove advantageous for a given female to play the weakling so as to engage the naïve male, female or societal.

 

A definitive response is that this phenomenon is simply a reversal of roles more or less spontaneously proposed to the male delinquent.

 

If one were to theorise on why a given female become aroused one would think it might be that of an episodic actualization of an easy conquer.

 

 

2.2

Why should she believe the various politico religious personalities who through their writing suggest that her reason of being can be rendered with the sustaining of a: tribe, nation, religion or human race via reproduction.

 

Evidently a system which promotes the sacrifice of genuine ontogenesis or individual integrity eventuates the compromise of an ideology which values a complete genetic, but such sacrifice is the argument of these insolent and contumelious fathers, nuisance for themselves as countless others.

 

As we can now comprehend that these writers were subconsciously and symbolically referring to the specifically contained perpetuation of; insects, wolves, plants etc... or any variety of an alternate zoological accomplishment.

 

But especially that of the state whose significance consists in a conforming of any aspect of humanity into a tractable mass and therein suggesting itself to possess exclusive authorisation over the definition of responsibility.

 

The state by extorting humanity feeds on the Creation there in creating so called jobs and here in generating and perpetuating a voting populace.

 

Evidently the notion of country or nation is eminently artificial, unnatural, divisively chimerical, normalised escapism for those who adhere and therefore a temporary structure.

 

All in reference to the myth of democracy fiction since one cannot simply vote a truth, the adept advances the notion that truth is simply a matter of choice or expertise a masterpiece of human machination and not an ultimate or absolute.

 

This formulation irrevocably deprives the Creation merited definition that of substantive reality, source of consistency and law and with this recalling the words of the poet; is it better one satisfied Socrates or a multitude of contented truculent?

 

To believe and eventually vote in such a system is to embark on a fantastical organism an existential aberration.

 

As everyone knows that the only competent in law is the Creation, law is not therefore a human invention, as modern politics and politicians need pretend, that one can and must choose the truth of their comfort.

 

With this they pretend to be more intelligent than the Creation which is in fact the origin and source of definition, perfection, precision and truth.

 

So it must be said that; who therefore gages their lives in function to an artificial system effectively renounces the genuine life, hysterical or neurotic according to the sex implicated.

 

Worse, who submits their personal responsibility to a concocted system no matter how audacious it may appear, finally renounces an authentic existence.

 

Audacity elaborated as an exclusive and irrefutable social vehicle efficacious source of freedom, inviolability, protection or security.

 

This seeming total control over candour simply demonstrates the default mode of male potentiality and manifest failure; aspect of life having never been overcome since the dawn of humanity.

 

 

2.3

Symmetry imposes that; what is evidently female, to the male the opposite equivalent prevails such that; what is unity for the male is entity for the female inversely what is entity for the female is unity for the male.

 

So why does it seem scandalous when a female sells her body, but just when a male sells his mind, this when it is diametrically and proportionally the same thing?

 

The politician specialises in an exploitation of gullible women and inversely the courtesan specialises in the exploitation of degenerate men.

 

But as everyone knows; the first lesson of philosophy is that of qualification the Creation is not automatic.

 

In life sciences the automatic is the apoptotic mode, but the Creation necessitates qualification and works of parasitism or prostitution is an ostensive refining of disqualification.

 

Paradoxically the parasite ultimately feeds on its own quantification whereas the prostitute is revealed as feeding on its own qualification.

 

Following the structural symmetry between the sexes we can admit that what is male institutionalism is ontologically proportional to the female epigenetic; the male quasi generic becomes an institution, whereas the female quasi specific manifests as epigenetic.

 

With this the supposition as to symmetry between the epigenetic and a given institution both limiting health, wealth state or place; deformed institutions provoking epigenetic deformation.

 

Feminists hope to be valorised by and through some new social or political structure where women would be recognised by the authorities as being equivalent to men, are birds equal to fish?

 

They are thus in quest of some automatic recognition scheme a contrivance of a sort of artificial intelligence other than herself.

 

Such a structure is far from Utopic exhibiting a simple compromise to self valorisation since it does not involve the definition to an ultimate accomplishment.

 

Why do women respect such an enterprise renouncing the more radical solution which includes a complete engagement?

 

Here arises two questions;

1. Why do these men have such an importance for the feminist?

 

2. Why does the feminist need to be valorised by these men?

 

Now there presents two problems;

1. Women do believe in an artificial world order forced through by unqualified men.

 

2. Women do not believe they possess an adequate or efficacious opinion independent of a traditional male discourse.

 

Thusly there arises two constants;

1. The female is waiting for the male to invent the woman for her which may be understood as the Pinocchio complex.

 

2. The irony persists that each woman knows that the economical-political construction of the world is built on a disqualifying slope such that if the thing in question is other than gratuitous it is disqualified as for meaningfulness.

 

 

2.4

So it appears that the United Nation's women's watch theme "Women in Leadership Roles" is less than genuine.

 

It seems at a first glance that it is nothing more than an attempt to ignore the postulate of an authentic female and simply to clone her into a traditionally contrived male niche.

 

For example male prejudice has it that the traditional Chinese symbol for universal unity the yin-yang is a male-female entity however the disproportion of the two opposing sides rule to the contrary.

 

This symbol is more convincingly and cogent lecture is without a doubt symbolising of two females in union.

 

But the male counter transcendentalism, wants to always see himself at the expense of the female.

 

You have to really believe in this so called inequality of women; pretending to realise the mannequin apparently much easier than ones proper potentiality.

 

This generally accepted conclusion might however prove true if when equality is gauged proportionally to arrogant men, the operator in this case is arrogance.

 

The equality of women in question is that of women who thus aspire to be equal to arrogant men whom the infallibly hold in esteem and since the symmetrical antithesis of arrogance is ignorance this will effectively yield an ignorant woman.

 

Further in response to the United Nations theme "Violence against women: How can we overcome this persistent human rights violation?"

 

The response must be; given any situation where a woman is not completely happy; order, nation, company or marriage, she simply needs to exercise her right of veto.

 

The beauty here is that the woman can and must decide without the need of a man to intervene, moreover if there is any fear of a female conspiracy against men then she would certainly not be in agreement with a male forged solution for women.

 

This veto is imposed as a;

a)  Refusal to furnish a vote in the case of rogue world order.

b)  Refusal to furnish a population in the case of an unjust nation or society.

c)  Refusal to furnish work in the case of a less than efficient company or work place.

d)  Refusal to furnish a conjugal union in the case of a non desired husband or marriage.

 

Certainly all women are in agreement with this postulate as this is evidently the natural methodology, since here all women without exception have total intrinsic control and this explains why this is the only possible remedy to violence rendered to women.

 

Evidently any situation where the woman feels less than totally comfortable she would certainly not impose a given situation on another person especially a child, so here there is never a problem since the female can exercise genuine feminine intelligence.

 

Thus a shift in values is expedient; the female does not do art she is art.

 

So what should be universally undisputable is the fact that a woman is her own expert and what she maintains as perfection for herself no man should doubt or imply that she may be mistaken or strive to improve her definition, even if she wants you to.

 

When considering human male and female proportionality and the rubric of intrinsic potentiality one would anticipate a corresponding response mechanism.

 

This is made manifest in the event of human conflict, for example when man hates man he displays this in an outward aggression towards the other man but when a female hates the female she displays this in hatred toward herself.

 

This is evidently the delinquent mode of coping and is the same on an individual scale as with the collective.

 

But we should as well speculate as to the efficacy of such animosity as it is reflected towards the alternate sex, thus the question is; how does the male-male animosity present toward the female and the inverse; how does the female-female animosity present toward the male?

 

All things being equal, if the male-male animosity manifests in an outward projection then in the mind of the male this will be inwardly established toward the female, this ineluctably manifests as hyper emotionalism.

 

This situation when it is about a female-female animosity will inevitably manifest in an outward projection leveraged toward the male in an exaggerated sensibility.

 

This is how the aggressive male finds refuge in justifying his disposition as an emotional or subjective act and inversely the aggressive female self justifies herself in terms of developing her objectivity.

 

This is how aggression is perceived in terms of normality and the misogynous female is portrayed as a determined individual.

 

 

 

Note 3:

The medical.

 

Ecology – Evolution - Reproduction - Parthenogenesis

 

 

3.1

Ecology of comportment can enumerate four factors that exercise on the female subject preference as to the choice of fitness; proof of worth, the war effort, a social cohesiveness and the healthier partner.

 

Proof of worth stemming from a low self esteem calling to mind perfection of the universal female, the war effort to combat the enemy her lesbian lover is confounded in the mind as the enemy, social cohesion to draw attention from ones acquaintances and the healthier partner as source of intimidation.

 

In the conjugal union the male is a stand-in for the lesbian lover and is subconsciously apprehended according to the institution and this diversity of choice would be advanced according to the ensuing bias of the subject; the world in the universal case, the enemy in the generic case, the group in the individual case or the athlete in the specific case.

 

Such expediency reveals a male clad in a shroud of female immune constellation, but ironically a given female must feel it comfortable for it to work.

 

Instead this should however lay claim to certain repugnance on behalf of any given female?

 

The so called mythological primitive consciousness has it that the female regards the male as her lesbian lover, in this case she does not see herself as possessing her proper ontology this vital aspect is overshadowed by the male and is by definition pretention.

 

Strangely enough the delinquent male does not see the difference, for he has chose to forfeit his cognitively efficient transcendence, insignificant and without interest neither the world nor his partner and this by definition is ignorance manifest, in economic terms a long.

 

When the female compromises her achievement and renounces her personal accomplishment as a genuine female in order to raise the offspring for a male or male social system this is called by evolutionary biology as genomic dilution, in economic terms a short that is, selling what she does not have in order to buy it back when the price drops.

 

Evidently the challenge of being a woman is included in the beauty to choose which male thinker that she deems the most perfect, this is the equivalent with the male to choose which females are the most complete.

 

If the error is as catastrophic for the female as to manifest on her integrity as radical as to decide on her genome, one must only reflect on how equally devastating or mind blowing as it must be on the male i.e. as a total compromise on his socio-political configuration.

 

 

3.2

Evolved transcendentalism makes it that the male has out grown coition whereas the female now grows into coition, experience of which men have stolen from women and women have bartered.

 

Speciation is evolving qualification, men and women must each evolve into their respective species and as philosophy is the male modality of speciation, lesbianism is the proper female methodology where choice begets grace and grace engenders choice.

 

So taking the ideal is a given in Creation, human sexuality evolves from producing someone else to pure self production and such must be the case for female evolution as is foreshadowed by the lesbian.

 

The lesbian is a veracious self-governing individual without whom there is no claim to feminism, apparently the woman who relies on some male institution or contrivance risks to contradict to the definition.

 

Where axiology qualifies, ontology quantifies and such ontological quantification is exemplified in reproduction moreover this reproduction radicalizes each human act towards total specificity.

 

Who says species says; taxonomic specificity, which is like saying; the thing and itself, animal reproduction reinforces specificity, but for the human this means himself only being a radicalism contained ontology in a sort of complete autarchy.

 

Further applying the concept of symmetry to what constitutes the ontology of male specialisation implies that the female ontological equivalent would be not so much a specialisation but a generalisation.

 

The Creation is efficient of the individual, but strangely enough the individual in order to be countenanced before a scrutinizing society has to be doubled up into a convenient conjugation, a sort of nitrification.

 

The one partner marriage fallacy appears to be just another hangover of a domineering male imposition, which is not more than symbolic within species of the animal realm.

 

The average human is invited to reproduce some zoological conformity in order to demonstrate social acceptation similar to a sort of pheromone contiguity amongst certain insects of a given colony.

 

For cognitive variance to transcend there must exhibit to the extreme a definite sexual alterity this means that there is no male cognitive articulation of the male without knowledge of the female and vice versa this is efficacious since the male and female as conceptual entities are symmetrical; you cannot have one without the other.

 

The problem with marriage is that the male cannot understand the female unless he has access to all females; his comprehension is inhibited when limited to a mere aspect.

 

 

3.3

Modern medicine introduces itself by dissimilating culpability and in blaming non obstante the Creation as being guilty for human genetic lacunae, therein profiting in a self valorisation.

 

Dissimulation an extraordinary mitigation for slander since it is obstreperous pretension for the male mind to entertain such an hypotheses.

 

However; culpable for genetic defalcation depends on those whose accomplishment potential such generation belongs and with this observation induction imposes that any pervasive perception that the Creation as being the responsible dissolves.

 

Or is it worse to disregard liability and in so doing perpetrate injustice and contribute to dysfunction by failing to recognise human potentiality, but rather proposing a vector of guilt but who so ever fails to recognise fault does neither recognise success or what they recognize as success is entirely something else.

 

The result looks something like a sort of female conspiracy which is mounted by following this path and where the puppet master has become the first slave.

 

A posteriori; contrary as with animals plants insects etc…, heterogeneous generation cannot be identified as the agent for the completion human health, as this would spurn health as a variant of human potential and in so doing present a risk of further genetic disintegration.

 

Exclusively, the cognitive engagement precludes control where as with heterogeneous generation the human female has vouchsafed this control so where intellectual in-put is lacking neither is there a concluding result.

 

In the best of all worlds, the female should have exhibited total control as generating dynamism, but evidently this is contradictory when it is about a genuine acting human, since the individual here in has chosen to relinquish.

 

The less convincing resultant melds witness to such manifest absence and the apparent ersatz, ergo genetic deficiency of the human heterogeneous generation reveals it to be undignified of the human.

 

The male must possess his own reason of being and not therefore consign on a mother, wife, daughter or servant to supplement, structure or support axiological or teleological incompetence.

 

The human when in contrast to animals is not just a human by default he is any of the contrary and it is in this where he achieves self qualification; without which he would be nothing more than a mechanical conscienceless device.

 

What excludes the married woman from the definition of feminist is in her persistence to disregard the definition of species and to revert back into the animal mode of automatic existence.

 

Sexism is defined as someone whose ambition is to control another through sexual appropriation, discrimination, domination and exploitation, this definition makes sexism to be the major tool of a married woman.

 

A priori there is no part time feminist, since there is no part time ontology; usage of the word feminist obliges fidelity to its definition and exquisite nature.

 

The dilemma however with this is that it is an open loop system; the copulating individual trades himself off for another individual here that other is the offspring, with this very same responsibility the resulting individual is in turn morally and ethico-politically saddled by the worsened genetic condition, the human genome resembling a dump.

 

This sort of perpetual reboot mechanism appears acceptable when the individual in question is of a quasi discriminating nature, ergo; birds, fish, zebras etc, reproduction as each act must quantify as finality the genuine human act.

 

Human reproduction becomes sort of perpetual reboot mechanism appears acceptable when the individual in question is of an indiscriminating nature, ergo; fish, penguins, walrus etc..., never articulating the human as completed.

 

However as for the intellectually potential Creature such ideology is retrograde to true valorisation of an inherent and genuine reason of being.

 

As alternate conjugation contradicts such efficacy with the event of trading off ones inherent ontology to a different being, in this case the offspring, who in their turn are relegated this very same human qualifying necessity but with genetic recession and aggravated incompletion.

 

A surrogate donor methodology of human reproduction would demonstrably be no different from the conventional methodology undoubtedly yielding a similar result as with the variety of sickness if not more just as in standard generation.

 

 

3.4

Enter parthenogenesis!

 

Parthenogenesis is the potent opportunity for total and immanent female emancipation.

 

Is it true therefore what the philosophers say; that human parthenogenesis is more efficacious, that is healthier than the conventional heterogamous reproduction?

 

They suggest that the recombination or hybridization of two female genomes will generate a unique healthier female genome; naturally the synaptonemal complex selecting the best genetic component, the deficient being as it were extruded by the more perfect.

 

Some may be confused to think that parthenogenesis would lead to a world full of females; this is not what the philosophers say.

 

There would be no problem with an over population of females since the parthenogenetic integration efficacy would absorb the female population with female production, the math is easy.

 

Going even further philosophers suggest that parthenogenesis is the genuine solution for a controlled population since a true mind is ultimately in control.

 

Therefore parthenogenesis would inevitably lead to population control rather than the hysterical and mindless multiplication of the human as the world has already known.

 

Genetic symbiosis eliminating the ever so frequent mistakes: babies joined at the head etc...?

 

Moreover; if hybridization generates a healthier person, heterogamous reproduction in so far as for humans, is in fact counter optimal.

 

If in fact hybridization does indeed put back the female so to speak then this reveals that since the onset of all those people since say Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon were in fact doing it wrong and that they might have only been contributing to the plethora of disease when they could have been better defining the human.

 

Theoretically parthenogenesis eventually and astonishingly implies evolutionary efficacy, this since a healthier person is the result.

 

It might seem a priori that technical intervention proves somewhat unnatural?

 

With this the reply might be said that; what is unnatural in the animal realm is perfectly natural in the human realm.

 

Or what is natural in the animal realm is semiotic transcendentalism in the human realm.

 

Technique yielding testament to human ingenuity, women can finally possess their own aetiology and logic.

 

It should be noted here that this analysis is not novel, that Simone de Beauvoir has said the same thing somewhat differently.

 

The logical implication is important; without parthenogenesis female generation is impotent and illusory.

 

Justifiably it can be implied that the female genome is a by-product of male sexual input and has for effect to segregate ad infinitum the female into a multiplicity of aspect and not always with a beneficial result.

 

Surely this is the message Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley had intended to express in her Frankenstein, where the champion Frankenstein is in fact the author's archetypal lesbian nemesis, the proof being that the synthesis of two females combines the healthier of either.

 

 

 

Note 4:

The economical.

 

Religions – Responsibility - Coition - Spirituality

 

 

4.1

Since the human copulative act lacks in valorising a genuine reason of being as for the intellectually developed human.

 

It may not be that surprising how some have equated the conjugal matrimony system as equivalent to a surreptitious form of "murder-suicide"?

 

One of the partners here is attesting a more or less conscious jealousy of the other partners; health, wealth, state or place wishing to appropriate the other thus and this other permitting such appropriation through shame.

 

The term "murder-suicide" can be replaced by "jealousy-shame", analogy substantiated by the fact that an authentic human qualification necessitates a genuine contribution to the definition of speciation rather than bypassing this selectivity and personal intrinsic accomplishment.

 

If a woman pretends to be jealous of any male or even of another woman when this later is acquiring knowledge as to the health attributes of any female including herself it becomes apparent that her disposition is gauged on mounting a commercial ideology; she is preoccupied with a generalised intention to profit through manipulation.

 

Paradoxically male jealousy of the female provides the structural basis of team sport where in an entirely symbolic endeavour each alternating squad incorporates either of a lesbian couple, male shame of the female is exemplified in an equivalent manner in war where each enemy attempts to defeat the other.

 

Excluding Judaism there are perceptibly four major religious systems two of these are protestant to Judaism and are direct derivatives from Judaism, the other two are of eastern origin but the inferences are no less engaging.

 

Each of these four religious systems has been conceived entertaining a particular male attitude toward women.

 

The genesis of these four religious systems are realised according to the kinetics of male potentiality and succumb to one of the four enervations and are classified syntactically as; jealousy, scorn, shame and distrust.

 

Since Judaism is the origin of theism, religion cannot exist apart from being Judaism, this since religion cannot be genuine whilst not existing within and of its source, so all religion is necessarily Judaism or it is not religion.

 

Moreover, Judaism admits symmetry between the Creation and the Creator ergo any detraction from this radicalism will surely inhibit the lecture of either one or the other; Judaism is in favour of a complete philosophy of religion.

 

The Creation is pre-programmed into a necessary apoptotic default mode, this imposes on male potentiality essentialist nature where a choice of non-accomplishment is not allowed and without which all the Creation would produce would be an automaton.

 

Somewhere over the course of events there would arrive the choice to renounce the excellence of the other as well as surrender one's own plenitude thus settling on some inferior calibre where mediocrity is the norm and shielding oneself from an engaging world.

 

Male axiological defection occurs when the husband entertains the notion that he can win as it were a recreational person a living toy; the wife and the enigma stultifies with his owning of a toy person as with progenitor.

 

Is it that female axiological defection occurs as when the wife achieves ontology with a real person in her owning of a husband so it must be then that female axiological defection occurs in her owning of a toy person as with progenitor?

 

Indeed; the real attempt of men and women here is to achieve their respective ontological plenum, how each can conveniently succumb to something else is of an individual odyssey.

 

 

4.2

The oral contraceptive does indeed provoke murder as does the infamous morning after pill if one considers the foetus as a serious living entity not simply amusing oneself with the semantics to the definition of  human potentiality and accomplishment therein.

 

The establishment of this definition is instrumental in relieving the foetus of the burden of transporting human potentiality, the fact being that the foetus is not a potential human or a human in the wings or in the waiting so it must therefore be a presents – this situated at the symmetrical extremity of potential.

 

Human potential is by definition the exclusive realization of either male axiology or female ontology.

 

Insensitivity as to originality eventuates in to insensitivity as to the finality, plenitude of being amputated on both extremities proportionally.

 

The oral contraceptive as everyone is aware does not inhibit or prevent conception, which takes place in the fallopian tube far from the effect of the drug.

 

The oral contraceptive takes effect only when the already conceived foetus migrates to the uterus for further development.

 

It is here in the uterus where the oral contraceptive prevents the foetus from installing itself to the uterine membrane the endometrium.

 

The foetus would then simply be evacuated into the toilet and ergo death to the foetus.

 

Is this effect not dissimilar to pushing someone off a balcony and blaming gravity on any ensuing injury?

 

Or is it that civil law gives precedence to age, implying that the older a person may become the greater his worth independent of personal accomplishment an effect of osmosis as it were?

 

You would suspect that civil law was written by someone with intent on protecting himself, but an analysis of the famous oral contraceptive lays testimony to the fact that the human has conveniently relegated to the foetus the responsibility of his own potentiality resulting in his own native contempt.

 

How can it be that such a theocracy has established it that automatically the foetus is worthless and exponentially human value increases as though through inflation?

 

It seems that it works with in such an efficacy imitating a climactic event but then declining as though life was established according to the axe of the orgasm male or female.

 

From conception here grace of the oral contraceptive the human being can be sarcastically measured in true economic terms as a product of consumption.

 

With this what can be understood is that the sentient human is automatically absorbed into a social system which is dominated by a biological contingent and the enigmatic relinquishment to transcendence in the name of justifying collectivism.

 

 

4.3

A difficulty with the logic of male-female marriage is that of physiological symmetry evidence being that genital  symmetry is better between females; evolution is intelligibly revealing the fact that the woman is better satisfied with another female than with a male, this in contrast to the animal kingdom where the male-female element is contained within a parity of beings.

 

Who is more efficacious in hygiene to explore and integrate than one's own self same being, so what are a more logical complement to the woman than woman and exclusivity to the female archetype.

 

Hygiene is interspecies responsibility making lesbianism nature's female integer, rather than the male another female would be infinitely more efficient; this makes lesbianism the evolved state.

 

The definition of concupiscence is then demystified to denote no more than personal hygiene, important with which women establish themselves and maintain their health.

 

With this interest the shift is evident that is not so much to please a man or a politician or any artificial model, but ones caretaker, this reinforces the thesis that; lesbianism is for those women who care for themselves.

 

The philosopher, as the lesbian is indeed an engaging enterprise, there is no such thing as a same sex marriage and between lesbians as there is no such thing as a state philosopher, either it is all or it is nothing.

 

Indeed marriage is just another convention with symbolic constructs reflective of the animal paradigm, and to which is in supplication of ultimate transcendence.

 

The question is evident; why should a given female be contented with only one partner when the world is in possession of many and of whom she may learn very much in a multiple of things.

 

The same is evidently true for the male, who can learn more from the gamut of females than he ever could with being limited to the unique.

 

The man is a philosopher of all things, great and small or he cannot be defined as a either a philosopher or a man and this is efficacious since the human exists exclusively as radical potentiality.

 

Just so when this is applied to the female either she embraces every aspect of women ergo femininity or she disengages from her definition of woman or lesbian especially within the aspect of parthenogenesis.

 

Lesbian coition is unique when compared with alternate animal observations; for instance the bonobo does indeed employ tantric routine and in so doing thus renders the human female-female encounter not dissimilar to that of the individual species.

 

Prospectively the lesbian occupies a place in nature not only real but ideal, envisioning female completion and who says anatomical symmetry waives equally psychological symmetry.

 

The female-female sexual encounter is exemplified as semiotic within the animal realm, this since total specificity is respected and selected as fitness; the lesbian experience should possess potential to express the entire and the generic.

 

The lesbian can therefore transcendentally extirpate herself from the complexity of biological systems, articulating female originality and evolved spirituality as Creations justice.

 

Lesbianism is the genuine feminine methodology for conquering space, as philosophy is the masculine methodology for conquering time.

 

 

4.4

For the post contemporary female as it is exemplified in the animal realms all men manifest an aspect of her lesbian syzygy.

 

Not having unzipped herself into a more inclusive conformity she would be without doubt totally consumed by jealousy so she must ask herself what makes these lesbian dudes look on other women.

 

This must be quite intimidating if not frightening for the female, one can imagine her on a perpetual adrenaline blitz.

 

Taking this into consideration one can abstract how she believes that she is required to engage the male to implement her latent spirituality.

 

It is evident that the lesbian needs no special permission to either express or to exist, lesbianism is by definition advanced ontogeny.

 

Any thesis counter to this effect would ironically epitomize a satirically implausible situation over and above any prejudging society.

 

Society seems to be retrograde to the dividing and refining intentional absolute and teleological ultimate action of evolving human perfection; this is because this other humanity is in fact contingent to a zoological substructure.

 

Nature herself has supplied the star gate to administer to any and all undesired situation and where the well being of women is compromised, for women universally and individually here the boycott is an efficacious and entirely human response to improve her world.

 

Forcibly men evolve from democracy to science and women from science to democracy, self expertise men have understood and have applied rigorously to themselves.

 

As for her personal expression or her individual personalisation, what needs to be improved on this is the best of all worlds and what other resources she may be in requisition of is between her and global destiny.

 

Philosophically it is normal for a woman to be lesbian, by the same token it is not normal for a woman not to be lesbian and who says philosophical agrees to submit to all and satisfy any logical limitation.

 

It becomes exceedingly apparent therefore that lesbianism is Creations revelation of its superior being, so there must therein exist a lecture exclusively articulated exemplifying superlative cosmic symmetry albeit; aero-dynamism categorically metaphysical.

 

Competitive evolution concerning deferential lesbianism is essential to philosophy of nature, this since such persistent originality is Creations paradigm explaining the relative symmetrical contemporaneousness of Sappho with Aristotle.

 

The mystery is as such that evolution has it that virginity is the ultimate immanent female potential generic and the beauty is that the female can remain or develop virginity whilst promoting a complete authentic lesbian expressivity.

 

In an attempt to achieve greater impetus to this resigned descriptive counter association, it may prove important to elicit various parameters as to what differentiates an authentic spirituality from pseudo spirituality of which every religion pretends.

 

Who says spirituality says the intrinsic being; this means that spirituality is a specifically contained configuration; therefore the concept of homosexuality is redeemed by the lesbian as implying for the female genuine spirituality, contrary to what most male carven religious cannons proclaim.

 

This does not mean that there is no male spirituality it just means that male spirituality is sculpted into reality and organically transcending in contrast to the entity oriented spirituality as it subsists between women.

 

Null dare disqualify nationalism as a collectively compliant manifestation of narcissism a prowess proper of insects, submission of arrogance in default.

 

The male potential moves from audition; history-society to vision; Creation-individuality, where as the female potential moves from vision; history-society to audition; Creation-individuality.

 

 

RRK

 

 

 

About the Author

Philosophy student

Tempur-Pedic Ask Me about My Ergo Bed