The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
There are precisely two reasons why a man cares about a woman's sexual history
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 28th, 2024 8:44 AM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home The first is insecurity. Dude is worried that maybe you are better in bed than him. This is mostly fine but, as you said, should not be a persistent issue, as long as he is honest about it and accepts reassurance.
The second reason is much worse, and you mostly get it from men who themselves also sleep around. And to them it’s about control and ownership. They think of women as objects they can own and if they have to “share” her with other men that sense of entitlement is compromised.
There are no other reasons. Whatever bullshit people tell you or themselves about the “sanctity of sex” is fundamentally just a pretense to not have to investigate their own, deeply misogynistic belief system or personal insecurities and sense of inadequacy.
A high body count is actually a pretty good thing, if for no better reason than that it can help you dodge some bullets and avoid some of the worst men you will ever meet. |
 |
Date: February 28th, 2024 8:45 AM Author: abnormal internal respiration antidepressant drug (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446645) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:26 AM Author: Mentally Impaired Cheese-eating Electric Furnace Double Fault Wow. Men are 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447089) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:40 AM Author: Black Stead Fat Ankles (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447136) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 5:43 PM Author: sick turquoise school (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448405) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 6:22 PM Author: costumed main people Tramp (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448562) |
Date: February 28th, 2024 8:57 AM Author: concupiscible twinkling indian lodge Subject: emily post voice Utterly insane. There's quite a bit to virginity that's delicate to explain It's forgivable but teaching the youth there are no consequences to this sort of practice at all is ludicrous. You just don't realize it until you're older, if ever The people wanting to murder whores for being whores are also insane but there is no equivalency for what marriage is ideally supposed to be about between a virgin and a prostitute. Leftist "sex education" is a lilting shrieking carnival of the degraded looking for more soldiers to pollute something they failed to have the sense to value. The traditions surrounding the estimation of such a thing are not perfect but exist for a series of excellent and ancient reasons This said, prizing virginity entirely as a weird libidinal veblen good to salivate over, especially if your own practices don't match, is disgusting and extremely pig-like. Pair people off while they're young and get them the hell out of the "dating market" 🤮 as it only gets worse and worse and especially so in the US where women are generally beaten down by an artificial semiotic cage to match what most men in their own artificial semiotic cage prize at the moment |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 9:04 AM Author: fantasy-prone trailer park me experiencing the raw autism in this thread:
https://youtu.be/wlnI6XjWk_k?t=14 |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 9:05 AM Author: henna sinister dopamine meetinghouse This is sooo feminist! Yassss!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446689) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 9:06 AM Author: talented corner round eye Go back to Reddit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446692) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 9:07 AM Author: fantasy-prone trailer park why do you (the op) keep responding to this thread under different monikers (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446700) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 9:15 AM Author: harsh water buffalo There are parts of "reality" that are very depressing / ugly, and much of civilization is designed to mitigate, or hide these facts.
One fact is that, absent an active choice to endow humans with meaning (usually religious), humans have no meaning, no existential worth.
We are just matter, skin blood whatever. Animals no different from the millions we slaughter daily with extreme cruelty.
The second fact is that you enjoy nothing in life without access to a guarantor of extreme violence. Without a pre-arranged system of inflicting violence, you'd be robbed of every possession, every joy, every dignity. Youd be raped and or killed. Erased from earth along with your family.
The only reason you have anything, any dignity, any life remaining to you, is because whether you are aware of it or not, other men have harnessed extreme violence and use the threat of it, and the practice of it, to protect people like you.
Everything is downstream of these two facts: we have no apparent worth, and anything we enjoy is a product of extreme violence.
Which prompts the third fact about reality, combining the first two: a person's de facto worth can only be truly measured in relationship to their access to, or capacity for violence.
A "genius"? Doesnt matter if he cannot rely on violence. A "billionaire"? Only if he has violence.
Because of this, ugly as it is, women are typically inferior and worth less than men. They can threaten no violence on their own, and the violence they have access to -- police violence, carceral violence, criminal justice violence -- is often pretty remote and inefficient. They had a better source of violence in brothers and fathers, but libs have done much to eliminate this.
So while every human only has worth dependent on violence, women have less worth because they are more dependent on a more tenuous source.
So, in a sense, every man is "property" of someone's. He depends on cops and soldiers and bombs and prison guards to enjoy his life. But he has some agency, some ability to defend self, defend possessions, defend dignity on his own.
Women mostly do not. They are also property.
A man will do violence for a woman, but not unconditionally. He wants the relationship of dependence to be clear. I engage in dangerous violence for you, but I own you.
This is a fact about human life, and the relationship between the sexes, that modernity has done a lot to hide and ignore. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 9:17 AM Author: talented corner round eye 👏👏👏👏👏 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446721) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 9:42 AM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home this is utter bullshit
the violence-capability of the average man against the state is infinitesimal compared to the violence-capability of the average woman to the average man |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 9:51 AM Author: Contagious parlour Let's take this further Women have no violence output and need to be protected by men. Men in turn want to have ownership of their women. What happens when that dynamic is dissolved? Women still need protection. The are vulnerable and need an alternative. Strong institutions are the only recourse for women. The threat of a external force coming in for their protection. We also decided that women need to vote a hundred or so years ago. They have chosen institutions over their husbands. This is they reason we have a "nanny state". It's entirely to the benefit of women. So when you say "the violence-capability of the average man against the state is infinitesimal compared to the violence-capability of the average woman to the average man" what you are actually saying is that "the violence-capability of the average man against the state is infinitesimal compared to the violence-capability of the state to the average man" Because the violence is not coming from the woman, it's coming from the courts, the police, the media. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 9:59 AM Author: Floppy Skinny Woman Garrison (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446841) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:01 AM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home 100% of men are completely emasculated compared to the state, and this has nothing to do with women. men's superior violence capabilities are vestigial and useless.
by your logic, 100% of men are wholly owned by the state, and can be enslaved and bred and raped at will, by their owners, correct?
and the same for top 1% strong men - they can go and rape your asshole because they have probably 10x the violence capability as you, a law dweeb, correct? |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:21 AM Author: Razzle Cruise Ship Yeah those things are more or less true. What point are you even trying to make?
You are an emotional woman sperging out in typical woman fashion because someone happened to suggest that women might not be the single most important thing in the universe |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:27 AM Author: Contagious parlour That seems correct. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446932) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:16 AM Author: harsh water buffalo sure. so state >>>>>>>>>>>> man >> woman >> child > pet
as the violence flows downward, so does ownership
a woman can appeal to the state to do violence to a man, and the state will win. Look at any divorce court, dv court, etc.
But it's inefficient, costly, and remote. A woman cannot appeal to the state when she is about to be raped or robbed. She can keep a man around her for that, but in this way submits to him.
they can strike a bargain. woman: please protect me. man: ok, but there are other women I could choose to protect. woman: well there are other men i could ask.
and the one with the most leverage will strike the most advantageous bargain. Beautiful virgins have more negotiating power than hideous sluts. Tall rich dudes more than weaklings.
Of course this bargaining is more complicated. The woman also wants to signal to her peers, as does the man, etc etc.
But access to violence is a prime component. People are property and virgin female property is more valuable. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:23 AM Author: Floppy Skinny Woman Garrison (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446921) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:25 AM Author: Contagious parlour (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446924) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:27 AM Author: High-end library headpube (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446933) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:32 AM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home a bunch of gibberish
99.99% of violence has been exported to the state
by your logic, you're owned by every man who is stronger than you who you come across. by your logic, a billionaire is owned by a buff construction worker. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:37 AM Author: High-end library headpube you're too stupid to understand this poast and that's why you poast under a pumo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446972) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:38 AM Author: Razzle Cruise Ship Too stupid or too female? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446976) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:39 AM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home no i understand it quite well.
he can only appeal to the state for help if a stronger man were to attack him / mug him/ kill him. therefore he is owned by any stronger man
a billionaire can only appeal to the state for help (or a stronger man) if a bum on the street were to attack him, therefore a billionaire is owned by a bum |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:41 AM Author: Contagious parlour That is the opposite of what's being said actually. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446988) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:44 AM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home a woman can only appeal to the state for help if attacked by a man, therefore a woman is owned by a man
the poster can only appeal to the state for help if attacked by a stronger man, therefore the poster is owned by the stronger man.
literally word-for-word replacement of terms following his own logic |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:49 AM Author: Contagious parlour 80% there. The point of societal structures like that is that you are no longer "owned" by your physical better due to the threat of violence by the state. You're owned by the state. Unfortunately, the state has many obligations and interests. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:54 AM Author: High-end library headpube you're conflating entities/groups with individuals (men versus man). and ignoring the bargained for agreement between woman and man.
he didn't assert all women are owned by all men because all men can exert violence on all women. the state exists to exert collective violence on those the collective determine deserve. but it can only be reactionary and it has many other concerns. so a singular women contracts with a singular man for protection against all others.
in ordinary circumstances men don't have the same concern. but consider a place like prison. you take women out of the equation and the same dynamic emerges. the prison is now the state and weak men are now the women. weak man can appeal to the state, but it's cumbersome and reactionary. therefore they contract with strong man for protection against all others. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:59 AM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home almost no woman is getting into a relationship as a form of contracting a man for violence. maybe in edge cases, here and there, or in extraordinary circumstances. it's all contracted out to the state. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447067) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:11 AM Author: High-end library headpube you're a fool and/or you haven't spent a lot of time around women. this isn't some redpill mumbojumbo, it's something most women will tacitly admit to. how many times have you heard women praise a man for "making her feel safe."
first of all, the agreement is implicit. you feel a duty to protect your wife in a way you don't feel about any other. if you stood up for a stranger you'd be seen as heroic because you acted without obligation. if you abandoned your wife who was being assaulted, especially in an indirect way like being aggressively hit-on, you'd be condemned as a coward because you didn't fulfil a implicit duty we have wired to our core.
second, you're presuming that the consideration for the compact between man and woman is limited to sex and protection. OP didn't say that. there are innumerable things both individuals bring to the table. sex (which can be diminished by looks, unchastity) and protection (which can be diminished by low-status, bad physical shape) are just two of the things. an obese slut is not a desirable as a attractive virgin. and mewling broke weakling is not as desirable as a tall rich chad. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:17 AM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home don't have the time to fully get into this crap
avg woman already makes significantly more than the avg man (yes i know it's reversed at the upper end).
having more $$ and re-locating to a nicer area is more effective at lowering risk of violence than being well muscled/buff.
therefore, in many cases, women play a greater part in reducing shared risk of violence for a couple. and therefore women own men. right? right? lol |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:40 AM Author: High-end library headpube you're being autistic. rich and powerful women still feel safer with a man. they will come right out and say it. and they still seek out more that are more powerful than them. you'll see rich dudes snap up poor CGWBTs but you'll never see the opposite.
this is why men do not desire women that are more powerful than them. the unnatural unbalance is uncomfortable and emasculating. go watch S1 of white lotus. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:45 AM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home i agree there is the desire based in everything you said.
but it's vestigial and no longer useful, and indeed destructive in today's world.
same thing as you said about people being evolutionarily driven to eat sugar. what does that do? mass obesity.
i agree with you there is a framework from nature giving people those drives, and they may run those simulations in their head when picking mates.
but ultimately it's not founded on any reality today, it's certainly not morally justified, and there are many reasons why it's harmful at scale like 75% of adults being fat from eating sugar. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 12:08 PM Author: High-end library headpube even if i accepted your premise that it is entirely vestigial and useless, you're proposing no solution beyond "we shouldn't do it." again, these things are hardwired in. you're not going to be able to convince people sugar doesn't taste good, nice tits aren't amazing, and tall men aren't attractive. in the same way, you're not going to be able to convince men and women not to seek out relationships where the man is the leader and protector. both genders are programmed to want this, and no amount of rational reasoning is going to convince them otherwise.
our rational brains and society moderate our base instincts, and that's good. we're not animals. a literal ownership relationship doesn't exist like it does with primates. we can choose not to eat unhealthy foods. and we can choose not to enter into relationships based solely on our base urges.
but you're never going to erase these impulses and social dynamics completely. nor would it be desirable regardless of how much you dress it up in autistic rationality. sexual desire feels good. gender dynamics feel good. regardless of how much algebra you do on why it's more rational to do something, pleasure and good feelings are valuable too. whether that is sex or feeling protected. i wouldn't would to live in a hyper rational autism society. would you?
also, to be clear, this discussion is inherently based on generalities. in my LIVED EXPERIENCE almost all women, including wealthy and socially powerful ones, want to take a somewhat submissive role in a relationship. but exceptions exist. just because women generally want to submit and feel protected doesn't mean that girlboss mma chicks don't exist at all. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 3:48 PM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home saying "these are evolutionarily driven predispositions that are no longer super functional but nevertheless hard to get rid of" is fine.
what i objected to was the previous poster's pseudo philosophical rant about how men owning women is based in some fundamental nature of reality that still applies today, and somehow doesn't apply to the other examples i drew which are obviously false such as hobos owning billionaires, or random men owning weaker ones. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 3:56 PM Author: Contagious parlour How do you think we get rid of these innate evolutionary gender roles/genetic programming? Are we doomed to live in gender conflict endlessly because our political system/culture/what-have-you prevents us from harmonizing? What is the feminist end game here?
Because I'm just going to tell you now, if your answer is anything similar to "men need to suck it up" on a long enough timeline that's going to stop happening. So it needs to be more appealing to men than that. Frankly I don't think women are very happy with the status quo either. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:05 PM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home obviously people do change away from their evolutionary programming, to varying degrees. no need to go into specifics, but it's obvious which direction things are headed, and no it's not to cavemen days of men having ownership because of physical strength.
stunning that this needs to be said |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:09 PM Author: Contagious parlour If your argument is that sex characteristics can be evolved away, I don't know if that shows that I'm dealing with a serious person. "but it's obvious which direction things are headed, and no it's not to cavemen days of men having ownership because of physical strength." And my intuition is confirmed. Either troll or retard, I am really excited to see what the future looks like under increasing waves of feminism and gender role eugenics. And no, it's not going to end with total androgyny.
Stunning that this needs to be said |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:02 PM Author: High-end library headpube more like: the differences in the genders are inexorable and denying that causes strife and frustration. they are neither good or bad, they just are. recognizing and embracing these differences does not mean we should embrace a wholly natural state and act like barbarians or animals. societies role is largely about tempering the consequences of our natural urges (men shouldn't allowed to subjugate women), not asserting that our nature can or should be denied completely (there is no difference between men and women). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447999) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:10 PM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home well i'd say this one is bad and should be changed/nudged/shifted over time. and it is, has been, and will be.
you don't have to agree with me, and i'm sure you don't, but most of society does.
it's hilarious seeing you guys suddenly discover that societies can cause people to change, that civilization is meaningfully different from nature, etc. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:13 PM Author: Contagious parlour Yawn. That's like an Obeezy/Rudolph/Upset Jew response. Yes yes libs and feminists are totally going to win in the end, we know. Everything is going so well, we're definitely marching into a gynocratic utopia. (Haha yeah)
Okay I'm done here. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:24 PM Author: High-end library headpube the state (created by men, operated by men, with violence enforced by men, which has included the protection of women from abuse by men since the beginning of recorded law) tempering our base urges has never been contested. no one here has said we should return to barbarism. you just interpret a frank discussion of nature and society as that. because you have a birdbrain that causes you to react emotionally to perceived attacks. demonstrating the truth of our argument.
and society doesn't agree with you, no matter how much it's blasted through the airwaves. these truths are embraced by most successful couples. and no matter how many bitter 40 year old cat ladies say otherwise on youtube, it'll always be that way. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:52 PM Author: costumed main people History has shown progress is certain and civilizations never fall and reverse back to savagery. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448220) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:57 PM Author: High-end library headpube time only moves in one direction. except when things happen i don't like -- that's called regression. when things happen i like it's called progress. see, roe getting overturned was regress, not progress. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448257) |
|
Date: February 29th, 2024 3:26 AM Author: Tan point Libs never met an empirical observation about reality they didn't hate and seek to destroy (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47449823) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:17 AM Author: Floppy Skinny Woman Garrison why do you think women overwhelmingly prefer tall men? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447080) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:20 AM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home it's perception and aesthetics
like 1% of "tall men" even get into a fight once in their adult lives |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:29 AM Author: Floppy Skinny Woman Garrison No, it's human biology, which is why our bodies still crave sugar even though current society has an abundance of it. Many such cases of evolutionary traits not being aligned with current environment. But that doesn't mean these desires aren't powerful. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447093) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:37 AM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home agree it's an evolutionary byproduct
but it's irrelevant on a practical level today, and making strong prescriptions based on it is foolish |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:43 AM Author: Floppy Skinny Woman Garrison that's like wondering why people still crave sweets when sugar is so abundant. that's not how it works. human desires and behaviors are still dictated by these ancient forces. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447146) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:36 AM Author: High-end library headpube perception of WHAT? WHY are tall men inherently more aesthetically pleasing? why don't most men find 6'2 women more attractive?
you're dismissing it as aesthetics and perception without considering *why* we're wired to think that way to begin with.
people accept it is scientific fact that men find women with bodies that are perceived as more capable of rearing children as more attractive. that's hard wired in, and not a conscious decision. a man will find a woman with nice hips and tits more attractive even if he finds out she is infertile.
likewise, women find more physically imposing men more attractive because of the hardwired desire to seek protection. even if she knows that the big strong guy has a glass jaw and the BJJ twink could kick his ass. it's not a conscious, rational decision based on an actual calculation of the capacity for protection. it's in our bones. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:39 AM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home i agree it's based on evolutionary/subconscious reasons
doesn't mean in our society, which has subverted evolution/nature in so many other ways, we should structure relationships as "women submit to men" because "might makes right" like the other guy was saying |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:44 AM Author: High-end library headpube he's not asserting that society should do this, he's recognizing society for what it is and will always be. we created to state to check our base instincts. divorce and dv court wouldn't exist if the bargained for protection between men and women was a perfect system.
also, he's using words that are obviously not meant to be taken super literally or aspirational. when he says that a man owns a woman i don't think he's either saying a literal chattel ownership structure exists or that it should. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 3:39 PM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home he's saying we still essentially living in that state of nature when it comes to male-female relationships, hence men should own women. any appeal to the power of the state or civilizational constructs is illegtimate because, at the end of the day, a man can kill a woman before the cops apprehend him
i was just pointing out that by the same logic, hobos should own billionaires and any stronger man should own him, too.
his "argument" is just cherry picking nature when it suits him (men should own women), and the state when it suits him (he doesn't submit to the multitudes of stronger men he sees on a daily basis). |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 3:45 PM Author: High-end library headpube this flame jumped the shark several poasts ago but sincere congratulations for masterfully triggering the bort autism today. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447951) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 3:56 PM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home you two are really dumb (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447979) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:03 PM Author: High-end library headpube also a masculine quality (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448003) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:38 AM Author: harsh water buffalo youre being obstinate
a clear headed reading of my post suggests that the billionaire can employ all kinds of access to violence that the construction worker cannot, including security guards. You think Musk rolls around alone?
and of course, the billionaire can call his political connections after the fact to ensure the construction worker is sentenced accordingly.
women can also do this after-the-fact stuff, much better than men. They make great victims in courts, and those who do violence against them are made to suffer far more than when the sexes are reversed.
but, no, this doesnt mean a woman can walk around Mumbai or the Bronx as carefree as any man. She cannot. She will not. She knows she is vulnerable to 99.5% of men. This loss of freedom makes her life worse, makes her less valuable, makes her inferior.
|
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:41 AM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home security guards is still outsourcing violence to someone/something else. hence the billionaire is "owned" (in your sense) by his security guards? lol
and what about you? you'd be destroyed by any number of stronger men you see on a daily basis, and would have to appeal to the state if attacked. so you're owned by them in the same way you claim it's justified for you to own a woman lol |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:45 AM Author: harsh water buffalo you REALLY want to return the conversation, again and again, to humiliating me as a person. It just suggests a weak mind on your part. "Oh you argue there is a hierarchy, well that means YOURE NOT KING! Gotcha!"
But really, I dont mind. Of course its true that I am "owned". Im dependent on lots of men who dish out violence. If all cops and prison guards in my county decided, this afternoon, to fuck off... I would be in deep deep trouble.
But I have facility with guns. And lacking that, I can go toe to toe with many men and win. Many still would beat me.
I stand somewhere in the spectrum of winners and losers. I can tell you this, in that spectrum, almost every adult woman stands below me. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:47 AM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home glad you admit to being owned by lots of strange men
if you were in a relationship with these stronger men (work, familial, or otherwise), how do you submit yourself to them, given that they own you? |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:50 AM Author: Contagious parlour Once again; the state is empowered so you can be owned by the state, not your physical betters. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447019) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:51 AM Author: harsh water buffalo lol, this is so erotic for you isnt it?
well i submit in a million ways. I pay them my money on April 15. i follow their rules about how to drive. I resist the urge to take shit I covet. I keep my hands off their wives.
And i invest resources in weaponry and relationships and other avenues to violence in the case that I may need them.
You? You suck dick and paint your face.
We are property, to varying degrees. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:56 AM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home i didn't mean how you follow the rules laid down by the government.
i mean the average stronger man around you - how do you interact with them on a daily basis? i'm assuming you don't suck their dicks do you?
i'm assuming their being stronger than you doesn't impact your interactions much at all. because you know that, despite them being able to bash your head in, the state trumps all.
so their being physically stronger and "owning" you, doesn't mean anything on a practical level.
that's what most people feel should be the case between men and women.
so any argument that women need to be owned by and submissive to men because of superior violence needs to argue as well that weak men should be owned by and submissive to strong men for the same reason.
but you're not saying that, because you're disingenuous and dumb |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:00 AM Author: harsh water buffalo no, that is true. a stronger man *could* try to take my wallet, or make me suck his dick.
these things will happen all over the world today, feb 28.
i do, and have done, innumerable things to try to avoid this. I have made myself healthy and ready for a fight. To a world class MMA fighter, this may not mean much, he could abuse me.
To most men, it would be a very bloody fight, and no matter the winner, probably not worth it. Most men will leave me the fuck alone because of this.
I have also leveraged my access to violence to gain wealth and live and move around in areas where buckwild rapists and muggers are not allowed.
Doesnt mean Im not free from danger. But Im aware of violence and how it is being played out all day, every day |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:11 AM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home *creates civilization, rule of law, etc. where weak men no longer need to give their lives, labor, and boipussies to strong men anymore, which completely overturns previous hierarchies based entirely on physical strength into something completely backward wherein a decrepit 80 y0 billionaire can just deploy capital to slaughter millions of able bodied young men*
*but muh muscles and guns and shit. shieet. women are owned by men, and here's my retarded philosophical screed as to why* |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:24 AM Author: harsh water buffalo this is getting silly when you ignore entire components of my claim and i respond by repeating them.
1. this "civilization" you describe... what supports it? oh, that's right - the actual threat of being burned alive by a bomb or locked in a cage. thats the ONLY thing that supports it
2. this civilization, does it allow you to frolic drunk in the bronx? I can do that. Why can't you? Why has the civilization treated me so differently?
anyway, thats my last response. xoxohth |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:34 AM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home your entire "argument" is that women should submit to men because in a state of nature, might makes right
but when asked why billionaires don't submit to hobos, or you don't submit to a construction worker, you appeal to all these civilizational constructs
then you say these civilizational constructs are not real.. when discussing women. but they're perfectly real in preventing the billionaire and yourself from becoming lunch meat.
it's all just superficial illogical contrarian nonsense, applied to advance your conclusion that, well, women should submit to men. very dumb, but i can see why it appeals to other dumb men. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:13 PM Author: Contagious parlour Not exactly, it's more like this. "your entire "argument" is that women should submit to men because in a state of nature, might makes right" Not really, his argument is that if you want additional protections that the state cannot offer than you must submit to the man. This is purely your choice as the state can offer you what it can but most strong men require a form of submission. Weak men will require less submission from you but will also be less capable of protecting you (which will inherently make you less attracted to him) "but when asked why billionaires don't submit to hobos, or you don't submit to a construction worker, you appeal to all these civilizational constructs" That's true. "then you say these civilizational constructs are not real.. when discussing women. but they're perfectly real in preventing the billionaire and yourself from becoming lunch meat." Also an imprecise reading of the argument. The state is capable of protection to an extent, but when a man in an alley comes at you, there's very little the state can do that is not post-reactive. That's true of women, billionaires, etc. It just happens to be true of almost all women compared to men. "it's all just superficial illogical contrarian nonsense, applied to advance your conclusion that, well, women should submit to men. very dumb, but i can see why it appeals to other dumb men." Weird insult and all in service of a poor reading and poor refutation of the original argument. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:55 PM Author: High-end library headpube also you've already explained the wealth is a social construct that is only powerful because it can compel people to do things. of course, she didn't address that at all, dismissed it as "gibberish", and continues to assert that OP's argument must mean that a physical superior hobo is more powerful than billionaire.
ignoring the dumb assumption that direct violence derives from bare knuckle fighting, ignoring that a physically weak man with the capacity and willingness to use a gun could kill randy couture, what does she suppose the power of wealth derives from? you can't eat it. it's an imaginary social construct that we accept as a means of exchange i.e. tokens that can be exchanged to compel a person to give you something or do something.
billionaires aren't routinely robbed by hobos because the hobo knows that the billionaire has a superior means to inflict violence. in times where the state had less power, i.e. the capacity to inflict violence on criminals, highway robberies were common. and so the wealthy would hire private security. that still happens routinely today, too. but less often in areas where a state's power is substantial. if the wealthy man can't rely on the state, he will rely on his wealth to compel others to lend them their violence. would these people do it out of altruism? absolutely not. and if a billionaire walked through detroit with a big of cash and is spotted by a hobo who is certain he won't get caught? good chance he's getting robbed.
the only reason why the billionaire is less powerful in one area and more in another is the capacity for him to inflict violence through his wealth or status. it's no different than if you and i were in an alley and i was physically superior to you and you pull out of knife. the relative value of my ability to inflict violence on you has changed in your favor. and if i pulled out a gun, it would shift back.
in situation where wealth has a superior capacity to inflict violence, the wealthy man is more powerful. if the us collapsed tomorrow and the dollar was worthless, that wealth's power would drop to 0. because it no longer has the ability to compel anyone to do anything. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 2:42 PM Author: Contagious parlour Great work ITT btw (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447693) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 2:51 PM Author: High-end library headpube you too brother this was a fine way to waste a day (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447739) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 3:43 PM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home billionaires rely on the police and security guards to defend against violence.
women rely on the police (and sometimes security guards) to defend against violence.
how are they not the same thing?
the poster above was saying women relying on police is illegitimate because it's not brute physical strength, hence men own women.
but billionaires can somehow rely on police without being owned? why? both of you are just cherry picking to suit your purposes.
fundamentally dishonest argument, dumb, vapid, etc. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:01 AM Author: Contagious parlour "so any argument that women need to be owned by and submissive to men because of superior violence needs to argue as well that weak men should be owned by and submissive to strong men for the same reason."
I believe you think this is some sort of substantial own, but I can't think of many people that disagree with this. I think it's foreign to most women a man's desire to become stronger and better - we are all attempting to climb the hierarchy. Men should submit to stronger better men until the moment they are able to defeat them, which may or may not ever come. Those that practice weakness will stay weak. Women unfortunately will stay weak in most cases. All men should be aiming to increase their strength. This is part of being a man. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:39 AM Author: Contagious parlour This feels very much like a "point-and-sputter" response. Yes, a billionaire loses a fight to a buff construction worker. But what is a billionaire? A billionaire is societally constructed concept that allows a man to utilize other men's power for their purposes. Essentially contracting out his violence to other more powerful men. It's not so simple as "every strong man is owned by the person that's stronger". This is actually the point that's being made. To tie it all together: 99% of husbands can beat their wives to death if they wanted to do. But part of the reason they don't (other than the obvious reason that it would be wrong and unloving to do so) is because the violence has been contracted out. A man knows that men will come and arrest him. Men will come and sentence him. Men will come and write articles about him. A construction worker can beat a billionaire, but a billionaire has many allies. Vengeance will be swift. I don't think you are disagreeing with us. It just seems like this is the first time you've considered this. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:45 AM Author: aquamarine weed whacker home that's a bunch of gibberish to defend his simple, idiotic "argument" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446995) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:47 AM Author: Contagious parlour That's your feeling; I see no point by point refutation of anything he said. Just a lot of questions and sputtering. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446997) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:58 AM Author: High-end library headpube you know you've lost an argument where you make an assertion, someone makes a thoughtful response, and you just repeat your conclusory retort.
"lol gibberish. qed. not responding to that word salad! i win, ok, byebye!" |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:49 AM Author: bearded menage To be fair,
Oh wow, "the state"! Good thing for the strength and viability of your sputtering-mad retort that "the state" is a permanent and immutable creation that was fashioned on High and handed down to mankind by God himself, and not merely a transient and extremely changeable (has literally fallen and risen in countless forms thousands of times across human history) byproduct of the very sick and sad human nature that intelligent people are discussing in this thread. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:48 AM Author: bearded menage (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447008) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:48 AM Author: Confused Temple Why wouldn’t women just own guns and keep a big dog? These are more efficient and effective ways to protect yourself in modern society than keeping a man (who is most likely a coward) around (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447010) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:51 AM Author: bearded menage To be fair,
One weird trick women can do to ensure that the current society they presently live in will never collapse again (for the 100000th time in human history), and that even if it somehow does, they certainly won't all end up being summarily raped and enslaved by more physically powerful men again (for the 100000th time in human history): "Just own a gun, and a dog. Duh."
Wow, amazing! It's all over now, men. Sorry, at least you guys had a good run of being the more powerful sex on Earth pretty much everywhere -- right up until she got a gun, and a dog.
Fuck, if only men could ALSO find a way to own guns and dogs... |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:58 AM Author: Confused Temple What are you ranting about? I’m responding to the post about individual bargains between men and women trading sex for protection. On an individual level women don’t need to rely on men because they still have the state. To guard against individual threats of violence, not marauding tribes of rapists, guns and dogs are suitable if not superior replacements for a man. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447063) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:17 AM Author: High-end library headpube your problem is that you view everything in isolation because the other considerations aren't explicitly spelled out for you.
there are other considerations between the capacity to exert force. for example, a woman might find it somewhat inconvenient to always be walking a vicious trained shitpit while carrying an AK on her shoulder. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:32 AM Author: Confused Temple It’s more “inconvenient” to end up with an abusive husband which is unfortunately common. Even if he’s not physically abusive there are many downsides for most women who end up with low value men. Not everyone can marry the gentleman who is strong, hard working, brave, kind, and good with kids. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447097) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:36 AM Author: bearded menage To be fair,
Lmao @ you, you irate slimepit |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:54 AM Author: High-end library headpube what is your pitbull's name? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447160) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:52 AM Author: Contagious parlour The radfem goes mask off here lmao (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447030) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:54 AM Author: racy state toaster dogpilled as fuck (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447042) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:56 AM Author: Floppy Skinny Woman Garrison > Why wouldn’t women just own guns and keep a big dog?
because women cannot beat men who own guns and dogs. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:57 AM Author: bearded menage To be fair,
Radfems: "Uh, we're going to make that ILLEGAL soon, bigot. Didn't see THAT COMING, did you, you stupid men?! #Checkmate #YasKween"
*Celebrates by pulling out iPhone and poasting duckfaced selfie to IG* |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 9:51 AM Author: Contagious parlour Very good post (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446810) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 9:34 AM Author: Soul-stirring doobsian kitchen ladyboy High body count is a sign that a woman is not going to be a good wife, everyone knows it. Sorry sluts. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446767) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 9:37 AM Author: Rough-skinned bawdyhouse codepig (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446776) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:11 AM Author: Stimulating Pocket Flask Love Of Her Life (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446879) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:20 AM Author: High-end library headpube this ancient wisdom has been coded into our brains. libs will lisp about how it's "cultural" while ignoring that every culture on earth, including isolated ones, have reached the same conclusion.
the denial of facts we all just know in our bones that has been around since ancient history is the root of all our modern problems. one day some academic was like "ackshually, it's, uh, culture and the patriarchy" and everyone just nodded and rebelled against our biological programming. now we're reaping the whirlwind. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:30 PM Author: Soul-stirring doobsian kitchen ladyboy Agreed, 100% (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447411) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:51 AM Author: Blathering shivering half-breed ratface (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447024) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:51 AM Author: Contagious parlour (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447028) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:55 AM Author: effete hunting ground (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447052) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 9:38 AM Author: Pearl Swashbuckling Locale Doctorate High body count women are bad mothers that produce dysfunctional children (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446779) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 9:51 AM Author: Floppy Skinny Woman Garrison ok doobs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446809) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:33 AM Author: chest-beating mint center travel guidebook no its because high body count women are insane and will make both a bad wife and a bad mother and make your own life terrible (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446955) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:50 AM Author: Confused Temple What’s considered a high body count? None of you married virgins despite whatever convincing lies your wife told you during courtship. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447015) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:54 AM Author: Contagious parlour Great trolling ITT, you unfortunately flew a little too close to the sun with your blatantness at this point, but you we're doing a great job for awhile.
Oh wait, you're a different femoid pumo. Carry on. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:55 AM Author: fantasy-prone trailer park its doobs and youre all fucking idiots (or just his split personalities) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447048) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:55 AM Author: Contagious parlour That is so fucking 180. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447051) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:31 AM Author: Mentally Impaired Cheese-eating Electric Furnace Double Fault Women may not lust after your cock, but gay men do so put that in your pocket for a rainy day. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447095) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:34 AM Author: Contagious parlour This thread made me realize that women become fairly emotional when debating and are not particularly well-equipped for line by line refutation. I will need to meditate on this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447099) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:38 AM Author: bearded menage To be fair,
Real Talk: Aside from Jews, most issues with the modern world can be traced to weak men being unwilling or unable to stay strong in debates with angry, emotional, childish women.
Never back down, never give them an inch. That toddler doesn’t decide what you buy (if anything) in the cereal aisle, you do. Never forget that and act accordingly, no matter how much of a scene they make. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:40 AM Author: Contagious parlour Everyone ITT is doing a great job of staying on point and hammering the point home as the femoid pumo above sputters, throws personal insults, and brings up irrelevant distractions from the main point. Literally, not joking, warms my heart. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:41 AM Author: fantasy-prone trailer park You guys really showed this totally serious internet pumo. Based! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447141) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 12:04 PM Author: Contagious parlour Thank you for supporting women "sandtrout faggot". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447168) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:41 AM Author: harsh water buffalo agreed. a thread worthy of meditation. a couple of thoughts id share with you, brother
1. people in arguments sometimes interject that if their opponent's claim is true, there would be negative consequences for the opponent irl. "If access to violence rules the world, and you do not have best access, you do not rule the world! haha!"
this amazes me. it betrays that their understanding of argument is merely self-flattery. Not the pursuit of truth, but self-promotion.
Its unthinkable that I could promote a claim that doesnt benefit me.
2. women enjoy an insulation from violence that men cannot fathom. they truly feel the apparatus of the state, and their sexual market value, makes them invincible. Its breathtaking.
3. The male mind and the female mind are alien to each other. We basically live with aliens, breed with aliens, etc. Its wild that amid all the tranny talk of our era, this most striking fact of reality (men and women are irresolvably different) is hidden, when its one of the most fundamental and wildest facets of human life
4. a millionth example of liberalism having no content. it is a prime lib tenet that members of a group enjoy the self-determination to claim and explain their preferences. Men prefer virgins, always and forever. Yet with no hesitation a lib female will tell men this is either untrue, or misunderstood by men, or nefarious |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:44 AM Author: Contagious parlour the first point blew my toupee off You can actively see her do it up and down this thread. "Don't you know that you can be physically dominated by stronger men?" Yeah that's actually just self-evidently true. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:03 PM Author: High-end library headpube (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447338) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:28 PM Author: High-end library headpube it's wild to me that everyone in this thread aside from the fempoaster understood that by violence you didn't mean immediate direct violence. she jumped right to "well then the rich man is owned by the brawny hobo!" without considering that things like money and status are only valuable, ultimately, because of their capacity to inflict violence. and that the capacity for immediate individual direct violence isn't the sole (or primary) consideration.
i've run into this before when discussing how the state derives all it's power from violence and might does make right.
"the state's power doesn't derive from violence, we've evolved beyond that!"
"ok, why do people pay their taxes?"
"because of social responsibility and the state's need for resources."
"and what about the people that will evade that duty?"
"no violence is inflicted, they are sued in civil court."
"and what if they refuse to participate?"
"no violence is inflicted, a monetary judgment is assessed."
"and what if they refuse to pay it?"
"no violence is inflicted, the state enforces the judgment."
"and what if they resist enforcement?"
"no violence is inflicted, they will be held in contempt."
"and what if they refuse to participate in those proceedings?"
"no violence will be inflicted, they will be arrested."
"even if i accept your premise that a loss of liberty is not violence, what if they resist arrest?"
"well, no major violence will be inflicted... the state will use the least violent means to arrest them peacefully..."
"and what if they resist strenuously? what if they refuse to be arrested and will and will resist it to the death?"
"well, they'd be killed."
"so doesn't that mean the state's power ultimately derives from violence?"
"no, that's different, they're not being killed for not paying their taxes, they're being killed for resisting arrest!"
"so, if the state had no physical enforcement mechanism to collect taxes, would everyone still pay them out of social obligation?"
"well... no. but that doesn't mean people pay their taxes because of the state's capacity for violence!"
|
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:52 PM Author: bearded menage To be fair,
Lol CR
"Oh yeah, well if you're right, that ackkkkkshually makes you A GAY PATHETIC BETA LOSER by your own logic!"
Wow, hey irate sputtering femoid, sit down for this... |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:59 AM Author: Razzle Cruise Ship Wow. Really makes you think. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447163) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:03 PM Author: High-end library headpube (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447339) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 12:23 PM Author: cream prole OP really needed a man to protect and guide her through the thread. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447187) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 12:28 PM Author: medicated gay hall son of senegal probably could have too if her body count was lower (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447202) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 12:29 PM Author: cream prole (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447206) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 12:31 PM Author: elite fishy stag film Didn’t read over complicated analysis. Lowering the SMV of non-virgin women (“sluts”) makes them cheaper to acquire. HTH (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447211) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 12:38 PM Author: High-end library headpube is ease of acquisition your sole consideration? i'd say it's the opposite for most men, and both genders realize this. which is why the "hard to get" dynamic exists. even if a man knows a woman is chaste and beautiful, he will often think lesser of her if she gives it up too easy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447231) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 12:46 PM Author: Wonderful telephone What the fuck is going on in here? Is that the fempumo that is obese due to her nonstop baking? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447252) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 12:54 PM Author: Contagious parlour Holy shit I think it is (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447296) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 12:59 PM Author: Wonderful telephone She gets histrionic and has temper issues, likely due to her weight and beta cucky husband (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447322) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:01 PM Author: High-end library headpube she keeps using sugar as an example of something we are programmed to desire but has some negative consequences. so i assume she consumes only nutritional meal paste. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447333) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:19 PM Author: white sexy set party of the first part great thread (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447375) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 2:03 PM Author: fantasy-prone trailer park its a bunch of dork enlightenment midwits cumming over their sweet scholarly debate with what is the some of the most paint-by-numbers johnsmeyerian line of flame possible (to such an extent you know it's not even a real thing, just a pale imitation of the Great No-Lay). fascinating stuff (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447559) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 2:05 PM Author: Contagious parlour I like debate even if my opponent is a troll. HTH. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447565) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 2:07 PM Author: fantasy-prone trailer park (Guy who won a drawing contest against two four year olds in a trench coat pretending to be an adult and wants the entire world to know through his Tweets) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447572) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 2:08 PM Author: Contagious parlour (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447576) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:23 PM Author: Contagious parlour Another thing that I think is pretty funny here. This website is pretty consistently misogynistic. I think that whether you subscribe to a religious or evolutionary viewpoint, women are clearly designed to be companions to men. They serve an important role and should be cherished - but they are weaker than men. They are more micromanaging. Less creative. Call this evolution, call this God's design. The result is the same. Regardless, this point is made often here, usually jeeringly. Women tend to ignore these posts. But when a post like the above is made that is well-reasoning, obviously filled with philosophical scholarship (there are flavors of Rosseau and Hobbes in the above screed) and dispassionately stated, femoids swarm it immediately. Why? Because they've been found out. Tasteless misogyny is excusable. A comprehensive argument that gets to your bones is not. Their hatred and inability to contest its points is what proves that it's true. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:28 PM Author: Floppy Skinny Woman Garrison this is a stretch. there's only one alleged female in this thread. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447404) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:30 PM Author: Contagious parlour That's nearly 25% of the femposters on XO then. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447410) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:29 PM Author: white sexy set party of the first part it's just one person anyway ime women are (perhaps intentionally) blind to the incredible capacity for violence upon which the social order is built. I would never say anything like that screed to my wife because (1) it would be very upsetting to her and (2) it wouldn't change anything anyway. this is far superior by the way. there is something off about "redpilled" women and to an extent it's our job to maintain their innocence about these things |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:31 PM Author: Contagious parlour I think you can see this phenomenon in other places as well. My point is that the posts and literature that rile people up are the ones that see them for who they are.
I'm not going to keep women in the dark about this. It is a uniquely feminist sensibility that encourages women to get upset at this basic reality. Conditioning should be broken.
I am sorry if your wife would see the original screed as anything but a truth statement, the same as "the sky is blue" and "grass is green" |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:36 PM Author: Floppy Skinny Woman Garrison > there is something off about "redpilled" women and to an extent it's our job to maintain their innocence about these things
women are much more "redpilled" i.e. realistic and aware of the transactional nature of the relationship between men and women. why do you think women spend far more time and money on physical presentation? both sexes pretend that this isn't the case to the extent allowed by social conventions. what's unpleasant for men is women who completely tear off the facade. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:40 PM Author: white sexy set party of the first part ok sure, this is possible. end result is the same though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447453) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:46 PM Author: Floppy Skinny Woman Garrison i don't think this is the case any more. the social fabric is becoming undone, and our mating practices are undergoing profound transformations, as well as our discourse regarding the subject. the veneer of innocence is realistically unsustainable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447476) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 2:51 PM Author: High-end library headpube autists are true feminists because they lack the social finesse to treat women as anything but equals and pay the ultimate price for it.
i've had so many ostensibly modern women fawn all over me because i go with traditional gender roles. when a woman loves and trusts you she'll straight up say "i just want you to make decisions and take of me." one of the basic bitch prompts on the apps is something like "how to win me over: dinner reservations are for 6 at X."
i feel bad for gen z because they take modernity as it's word and wind up being pussified male feminists and wonder why all of their outwardly progressive women are hooking up with "assholes." this is why andrew tate exists. that shit is just a reaction to seeing modernity as a lie. and it's an overreaction and leads to actual misogny. that's what happens when you lie to people and they discover the truth -- they swing to the other extreme. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 6:28 PM Author: Tan point The equal treatment of women due to my autism has resulted in my genetic extinction tp
Also Abigail Shirer on Joe Rogan just said that studies show boys with lib parents are more anxious and depressed than girls with con parents. The obvious context here is that girls are generally more anxious and depressed than boys on the whole. Having shitlib parents is guaranteed misery for young men. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 6:42 PM Author: High-end library headpube take it a step further and consider the relative emphasis on "mental health awareness, therapy, pharmacology" versus "tradition, discipline, God" is in shitlib families versus conservative families.
but, of course, all the shit we did for thousands of years have been DEBUNKED by the EXPERTS (jewish psychs).
shitlib family with children in therapy, anxious, drugged, fucking and sucking with ruthless abandon -- empowering!
con family dressed in sunday best, kids playing football, prom queen, choir practice -- abusive outdated white cultural supremacy! |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 6:46 PM Author: Tan point That last sentence had my blood boiling. HDY have a beautiful white family playing football in the backyard and dressing up for church. Haven't you heard Norman Rockwell was a disgusting racist. IN THIS HOUSE WE BELIEVE etc.
Craziest thing I can think of is all the shitlib children I remember growing up with insane Munchhausen by proxy moms who wouldn't have a penis today if they had been born 10 years later. Hfs lol. I know exactly who would have done it to their kid if that had been a thing. And now we know those people were just itching to transform their children. Sick and evil. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 6:51 PM Author: High-end library headpube these people truly hate life and goodness.
almost all conservative families i've met are charitable, kind, wholesome, etc. go to a charity event (actually doing charity, not a gala) and see how many libs you see there. it's always a bunch of church groups and shit. even in shitlib areas.
to their core they are virtue signaling frauds. these are the same people that were talking about super predators and DOMA a few years ago. they don't have principles -- they just ape the current thing. and only to the extent it involves hanging a sign or judging others.
conservatives do good deeds quietly and are actually tolerant of others. libs do nothing but virtue signal and are constantly MAF about people who are different than them. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 6:55 PM Author: Tan point Pat and Brittany Mahomes > grow up in Texas, marriage & kids > visit parade shooting victims in the hospital
Taylor & Travis > rootless cosmopolitans > high body count > donate 100k to victim charity, get on the next flight to Melbourne |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 7:02 PM Author: High-end library headpube my girlfriend? not to brag, but she's international pop star taylor swift who has spent the last 20 years creating hit after hit invariably about different guys breaking her heart and her being crazy about it. last season on road games i would psyche myself up by popping in my airbuds and blasting "slut!" on repeat. nothing gets you pumped more than listening to your future wife sing about how she's been fucked and chucked by half of the entertainment industry! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448706) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 7:04 PM Author: Tan point That is one lucky guy (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448716) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 3:08 PM Author: Razzle Cruise Ship Sure I agree but in that case women shouldn't have any "rights" or be "equal" "citizens" in any capacity. Which I'm sure you and everyone else here agrees with too (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447839) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:41 PM Author: Confused Temple It’s all just rationale for hating women. If they choose to settle down with some big strapping buck for the reasons in the OP then XO types hate them and call them sluts. If they refuse to play along and pursue their own interests in life then they’re pathetic shrews. The only women you all might like are your moms and kids. And even that is a toss up. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447458) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:50 PM Author: Contagious parlour Women should be cherished and I love my wife more than almost anything. You can look at the relationship between men and women either religiously or evolutionarily and it is clear: men and women are designed complimentarily. They are a yin and yang; synthesis between them is our teleology. If men and women are consistently not getting along then we need to examine what is causing that conflict, because it is not a normal state of being and makes all of our lives worse. What is the Occam's razer explanation of what has gone wrong? Did men submit more to their wives in the past than they do now? Did this relationship ever work? I think to accept any explanation other than the above is to imply that the relationship with men and women is impossible to harmonize. Regardless, society, marriage, sex as we have set it up in modern society clearly is not working. Reboot to a previous backup? Forge a new path? I feel like we got it right in the neolithic era. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 3:21 PM Author: High-end library headpube exactly.
also, even in traditional gender roles, the submission is equal but different. a constant theme in relationship problems is a woman hating having to tell a man what to do and a man hating being told what to do. the reason men and women don't understand each other it because we often expect them to behave like us. women wants a man to lead -- but only to the place they want to go. and they want you to know it and do it on your own.
a woman wants a man who will intuit her needs and satisfy them. a man wants a woman who will trust him and care for him. almost all the common fights between the gender come from a breakdown in these expectations, usually based on treating genders equally.
what do men complain about? "she's nags me" (she doesn't trust me to do the right thing). and how do women respond? "i have to tell him to do everything." (he's *not* doing the right thing.) "if don't tell me what you want until it's a fight!" (why can't you be like a man clearly say things before you get emotional?) "i want you to want to do these things!" (i want you to behave like a man and do things, and when you put me in that role i am frustrated), "i can't talk to you, when i asked where you want to go to dinner it started a fight!" (why do you get mad when i treat you like a man like society says i should?), "because you get so angry and yell at me over nothing!" (when i have birdbrain glitch outs your role is to daddy me, and continuing to treat me like a man frustrated even further). |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 6:33 PM Author: Tan point My dad told me since I was a kid his Ultimate Theory of gender. His theory plainly states that the #1 thing men want in a relationship is to feel like they can do whatever they want to do without having to explain themselves, and the #1 thing women want is to feel like a priority without having to ask. And this is the central balance of any relationship. He has told me this once a year since I have was a kid. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448598) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 6:37 PM Author: High-end library headpube it took me a long ass time to understand this. lots of heartache, lots of studying. and since then my love life has been amazing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448619) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 6:41 PM Author: Tan point Mfcr. Also the one thing people never tell you is that the best way to be happy long term in a relationship: date someone a lot like you. If someone loves skiing but you hate skiing you're going to be miserable. Look at Tom and Gisele. Tom loves sports, his ex wife loved fashion. Tom was a homebody, Gisele loved travel. You gotta be with someone who isn't straining themselves and bending over backwards to accommodate you, or vice versa. This is why those autistic first dates are awesome where the guy just dings the woman straight away because she doesn't like Star Wars for whatever. It's actually true. So many people try and force relationships to work because they feel like they're stuck with someone because it's what they could get. If you fucking love Star Wars or whatever it may be and your spouse hates it, it will never work long term. It will just build resentment. Choose wisely. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448629) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 6:46 PM Author: High-end library headpube cr except for the star wars example.
there are gender neutral spheres of mutual interest: travel, exercise, etc.
then there are gender biased spheres: sci-fi, reality tv, watching sports, etc.
you want to share mutual interests with your wife. but you don't want her to be a dude. in the same way you don't want her to think like a dude. girls with masculine pursuits are 180 but it's neutral flag at best. if you're going after a girl thinking "gosh i really want a check into capeshit, video games, football, and fly-fishing" you are probably gay. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 6:50 PM Author: Tan point Harsh, but fair!
I will never forget one of the first times the box had an epic spazz on me and she was apologizing she said "I'm sorry for being crazy but at least you know now I'm not a dude." 180 self aware femininity. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 6:55 PM Author: High-end library headpube i've noticed that "guys girls" are often the craziest. i think it has something to do with internalizing the shitlib dogma that there is no difference between men and women along with attention seeking behavior and desperate need for male validation.
i mean, what percentage of "gamer girls" do you think are batshit compared to the general pop? |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 6:57 PM Author: Tan point Uhhh I'd wager a lot that they were mostly insane.
I remember hanging with this 19 year old who was a relatively minor YouTube celebrity a few years back. She was a crazy slut. I just remember her doing insane slutty things and then she would say no one can know about this because I'm "clean" to my fans/following. This chick had banged dudes in their 40s. Jfc women. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 7:04 PM Author: High-end library headpube male attention seeking behavior is probably the the biggest red flag of them all. we used to just call it "daddy issues." sluttiness, e-thoting, etc.... i think they all stem for an unhealthy need to seek attention and validation from men. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448717) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 7:05 PM Author: Tan point This chick was REALLY into attention and validation. My YouTube following tp. God, any chick with social media is a red flag. There's no way they're normal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448723) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 7:12 PM Author: High-end library headpube social media and it's consequences.
before the internet the attention seeking slut shamed by other women for being the town bicycle. it's the longhouse. women correct behavior with shame and social consequences.
social media flipped this on it's head. the 1-2 bunch of shitlib dogma that actually being a filthy slut is empowering along with the normalization and competition with other women on who is the biggest e-thot. women have always competed with each other for male attention but it was subtle and moderated by the longhouse. now it's quantifiable (chad paying more attention to stacy is ambiguous but instagram likes are hard numbers) and encouraged.
we went from porn being only accessible from shady locations and women feeling some level of social shame for being a slut to an endless e-thot slut rat race where these whores are an endless competition with their peers and the entire worldwide female population for male attention.
i hope i don't have a dotter. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 7:17 PM Author: Tan point 😮💨
It's over |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:53 PM Author: white sexy set party of the first part "if you believe the social contract is underlied by a government monopoly on legitimate violence, you hate women" is certainly an opinion. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447503) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:54 PM Author: Contagious parlour (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447505) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 2:01 PM Author: Sable Nursing Home (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447553) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 2:07 PM Author: bearded menage (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447571) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 2:34 PM Author: harsh water buffalo lol deleted. howd I get sucked into replying again (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447673) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 2:43 PM Author: High-end library headpube if you really want to get down to it, the belief that either gender role is superior to the other is a patriarchal concept. the only reason people view the decision maker and physical power as superior is because it's associated with masculinity. if the fempumo really thought about it, the rejection of traditional and biologically driven gender roles in exchange for adopting a more masculine role must be rooted in a belief that the masculine role is superior.
what makes masculine traits inherently superior to feminine traits? throughout my life i've derived much more value from a woman's superior ability to be emotionally supportive, caring, loving, and giving. an infant separated by his mother will surely die but dads are often not around at all.
if masculine traits where inherently superior to feminine traits everyone would spend their time exclusively with men. men and women are simply different, and have different competencies for different needs. it's a team. whether by god or evolution, both parts are necessary. men will die to protect their family, which seems like a biological recognition that a woman's role is more essential than a man's. it's probably why we've erred on the side of children staying with their mom in situations where the dad and mom refuse to be together. have you met any single dads with the mom not in the picture? it's a fucking mess.
also, the fact that the man is usually the ultimate decision maker and is physically superior doesn't mean the woman has no say. a man that imposes his will through force without ever considering his wife is a brute and usually won't have a wife for long. go back to the ancient greeks and all of history -- how do men court and keep women? by pledging devotion, by pledging they will always take care of them, by pledging that they'll protect them, that they'd die for them. who is superior to who when those are the conditions? men spend their entire lives wanting to provide for and please a wife. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 2:47 PM Author: Contagious parlour In religious circles this is known as Complementarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism It doesn't work unless wives submit to their husbands and husbands submit to God. When that does happen, it is a pure good. Bliss for both the man, the woman, and their children. Anything else falls into disorder, resentment, and conflict. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 2:58 PM Author: hyperventilating provocative address I’m gay (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447774) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 2:59 PM Author: fantasy-prone trailer park Now That's What I Call Scholarship (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447782) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 3:01 PM Author: Contagious parlour Thread made me gay for women (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447793) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 3:06 PM Author: white sexy set party of the first part (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447829) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 3:41 PM Author: costumed main people Look at the divorce rate and number of partners a woman has had. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447935) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 3:44 PM Author: white sexy set party of the first part https://ifstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/wolfinger-sex-partners-divorce-figure-1-1.png
NB these are 5-year numbers which is kind of a joke, that's like the very beginning of a marriage |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 3:43 PM Author: High-end library headpube i just realized op is the fempumo. i thought this thread was about making fun of silly reddit quote. now i see it's either an expert troll job or a lonely woman. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447943) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 3:57 PM Author: Contagious parlour I would keep going IMO (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447982) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:22 PM Author: infuriating milky pit Women: "It is disgusting and sexist that men don't want to date/marry women with a high body count. Men need to evolve and stop behaving like fucking cavemen."
Also women: "It is totally normal and natural for women to only date tall, wealthy men who have a full head of hair (and who are not Asian). In fact, if a man who does not satisfy all of these criteria even talks to a woman, it is sexual assault, and the man should be locked in jail and/or castrated."
The reason men don't want to date/marry women who have slept around is because they might be carrying some other dude's baby, and providing resources and protection to another man's baby is an absolute disaster from an evolutionary perspective. Maybe it shouldn't matter in the modern world where birth control exists, but it is deeply hardwired into male DNA, and complaining about it on the Internet isn't going to change that. If you are dating a short, bald, Asian dude who works at a gas station, then maybe you have room to preach. Otherwise please STFU.
xoxo hth |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:26 PM Author: Soul-stirring doobsian kitchen ladyboy it's all the stored up brain cum. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448089) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:34 PM Author: High-end library headpube it's funny women are empowered to select men based on their past and behavior but when a man does it's unacceptable. no one is upset if a woman says "i'm not marrying a fuckboy" but "i'm not marrying a slut" is misogyny.
hypersexuality is a indicator of low self-esteem and mental illness. it's still in the dsm and no matter how much they try to spin it with "impulsive sexuality" or "risky sexuality", everyone knows what it means. and we always will as long as we can see with our eyes. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:35 PM Author: Floppy Skinny Woman Garrison short bald Asian gas station attendant here. OP, please post your body count for consideration. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448128) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:39 PM Author: High-end library headpube chaste women don't go online and have arguments with men that body count concerns are misogyny. if that bought that they would have been sluts. the rare online chaste women like gtttr and fk embrace the reality of the situation. there are no non-sluts who believe this shit. they usually condemn sluts far more viciously than men. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448159) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:57 PM Author: Floppy Skinny Woman Garrison ur right. OP, please don't park at my pump. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448258) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:37 PM Author: Contagious parlour Don't worry evolution will patch that one out in the next software update (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448139) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:52 PM Author: High-end library headpube listen pal, the jews won and the victory is total. resisting endless war for israel is antisemitism. resisting the destruction of western values is white supremacy. denying orwellian doublespeak about observable reality is bigotry. the relentless march towards death cult liberalism cannot be stopped. haven't you turned on the tv? it's as sure as ukraine's victory, biden's mental competency, and trump's election interference conviction. of course, you republicunt's will just deny the science and rely on "noticing" instead of trusting the experts. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448216) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:51 PM Author: Confused Temple XO: Women secretly desire and crave violent men
Women: Hop on BBC and breed
XO: Not like that! |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:53 PM Author: High-end library headpube it's nice to see you've rejected the dogpill and are at least staying within your own species this time. you're trending in the right direction! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448237) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:55 PM Author: Contagious parlour "own species" *leans into mic* BBC is a porn category and not a real phenomenon anyways |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 5:00 PM Author: High-end library headpube even sluts i've been with have said "ew, no" when the topic of bbc has come up. i've never seen a presentable non-black women with a black man irl, aside from a handful of ascended clarence thomas patagonia wearing nigs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448270) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:55 PM Author: cerise forum Cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448246) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 5:10 PM Author: High-end library headpube why do these women always accuse traditional married men of being misogynists? these people always love and cherish their wives and daughters. they tend to have the most children, thus most daughters -- do they really think they want their daughters to become battered broodmares? there are like no traditional western white men who want this outside some orthodox communities and cults.
i guess it's just another example of libs just not understanding conservatives and constantly strawmanning them. no matter how many times MASE says "i love my wife" they will accuse him of hate. and when trad-dad tells his daughter to be careful around boys the lib will scream misogny. and when the lib is encouraging their dotter to start an onlyfans they'll say it's empowering.
they just fundamentally hate life and goodness. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 5:39 PM Author: sick turquoise school I never slut shame. Actually, I do the reverse. Women are scared to look like they are sluts but if you act like you approve, then you are more likely to get laid.
If I get a sense that she is a slut, I put her into the sex only category. No relationship. If I lose interest and don’t call her back, I don’t feel bad. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 5:53 PM Author: High-end library headpube everyone does this. that's what's so tragic. no one is going to moralize to sluts about their sluttiness. that's their parents and priests job.
these women just get fucked and chucked by men their whole life, operating on the delusion that it is empowering, and that guys don't care because they fuck them. then suddenly they're in their 30s and wondering where the good guys went.
you would think this would lead to some introspection and self-critique. but by then they've been programmed for life, have endless faith in their dogma, and make poasts on xo about how guys who care are either insecure or misogynists. women versus accountability has a better record than the harlem globetrotters. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 6:28 PM Author: sick turquoise school It’s really a waste of time to argue with promiscuous women. You don’t want them in the first place so who cares what they do?
Feminism is leading women to their own destruction and stupid women are marching to it. If it’s not a close friend or family member, why bother explaining? It is not as though sluts even appreciate the honesty or good faith. They get defensive because their brains can’t process logic like we can. |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 6:34 PM Author: High-end library headpube it takes a true saint to try to save the world's sluts
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/16/gaddafi-women-islam-rome |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 6:42 PM Author: cream prole (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448633) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 7:40 PM Author: stirring yapping gay wizard idiot What the fuck is this thread (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448831) |
|
Date: February 29th, 2024 7:02 AM Author: fantasy-prone trailer park a bunch of middle aged faggots on adderall (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47449984) |
|
Date: February 29th, 2024 7:20 AM Author: High-end library headpube i am not a faggot (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47449995) |