There are precisely two reasons why a man cares about a woman's sexual history
| submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | Know-it-all Black Woman Half-breed | 02/28/24 | | concupiscible aggressive library antidepressant drug | 02/28/24 | | heady domesticated chad | 02/28/24 | | henna bull headed doctorate | 02/28/24 | | Cocky Senate Patrolman | 02/28/24 | | burgundy hospital blood rage | 02/28/24 | | rusted nowag quadroon | 02/28/24 | | boyish knife | 02/28/24 | | arousing area | 02/28/24 | | rusted nowag quadroon | 02/28/24 | | Appetizing drunken masturbator | 02/28/24 | | arousing area | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | saffron laughsome sneaky criminal | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | Angry Beady-eyed Chapel | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | Appetizing drunken masturbator | 02/28/24 | | saffron laughsome sneaky criminal | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | Angry Beady-eyed Chapel | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | Cocky Senate Patrolman | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | Razzle-dazzle silver garrison | 02/29/24 | | saffron laughsome sneaky criminal | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | saffron laughsome sneaky criminal | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | saffron laughsome sneaky criminal | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | Appetizing drunken masturbator | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | Appetizing drunken masturbator | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | Appetizing drunken masturbator | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | Appetizing drunken masturbator | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | Appetizing drunken masturbator | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | submissive talented rigpig jew | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | Idiotic fat ankles friendly grandma | 02/28/24 | | Idiotic fat ankles friendly grandma | 02/28/24 | | ultramarine university | 02/28/24 | | Idiotic fat ankles friendly grandma | 02/28/24 | | ultramarine university | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | ultramarine university | 02/28/24 | | Idiotic fat ankles friendly grandma | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | Godawful Immigrant | 02/28/24 | | saffron laughsome sneaky criminal | 02/28/24 | | Idiotic fat ankles friendly grandma | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | rough-skinned shimmering associate | 02/28/24 | | fiercely-loyal fuchsia organic girlfriend locus | 02/28/24 | | sepia piazza gunner | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | rough-skinned shimmering associate | 02/28/24 | | Disturbing Home Hominid | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | Pungent national security agency | 02/28/24 | | Razzmatazz theater sex offender | 02/28/24 | | saffron laughsome sneaky criminal | 02/28/24 | | curious sexy heaven | 02/28/24 | | ultramarine university | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | rusted nowag quadroon | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | concupiscible aggressive library antidepressant drug | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | Idiotic fat ankles friendly grandma | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | rusted nowag quadroon | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | Appetizing drunken masturbator | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | Idiotic fat ankles friendly grandma | 02/28/24 | | Angry Beady-eyed Chapel | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | Drab Passionate Incel | 02/28/24 | | Hot hairraiser bawdyhouse | 02/28/24 | | Drab Passionate Incel | 02/28/24 | | Swashbuckling misunderstood new version business firm | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | Multi-colored casino indirect expression | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | Multi-colored casino indirect expression | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | crawly dead location queen of the night | 02/28/24 | | rusted nowag quadroon | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | rusted nowag quadroon | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | saffron laughsome sneaky criminal | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | crawly dead location queen of the night | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | saffron laughsome sneaky criminal | 02/28/24 | | crawly dead location queen of the night | 02/28/24 | | saffron laughsome sneaky criminal | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | Razzle-dazzle silver garrison | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | Razzle-dazzle silver garrison | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | Razzle-dazzle silver garrison | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | Razzle-dazzle silver garrison | 02/28/24 | | Angry Beady-eyed Chapel | 02/28/24 | | ultramarine university | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | Razzle-dazzle silver garrison | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | Razzle-dazzle silver garrison | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | Razzle-dazzle silver garrison | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | Razzle-dazzle silver garrison | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | Razzle-dazzle silver garrison | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | Razzle-dazzle silver garrison | 02/28/24 | | crawly dead location queen of the night | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | Violet Exciting Macaca Whorehouse | 02/28/24 | | Idiotic fat ankles friendly grandma | 02/28/24 | | Appetizing drunken masturbator | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | motley lime ape school | 02/28/24 | | rusted nowag quadroon | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | crawly dead location queen of the night | 02/28/24 | | Cocky Senate Patrolman | 02/28/24 | | crawly dead location queen of the night | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | amber racy stag film | 02/28/24 | | rough-skinned shimmering associate | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | saffron laughsome sneaky criminal | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | saffron laughsome sneaky criminal | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | ultramarine university | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | cream hall coffee pot | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | indigo offensive regret | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | henna bull headed doctorate | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | henna bull headed doctorate | 02/28/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/28/24 | | Drab Passionate Incel | 02/28/24 | | apoplectic exhilarant factory reset button | 02/28/24 | | rusted nowag quadroon | 02/29/24 | | hyperactive 180 hissy fit | 02/29/24 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 28th, 2024 8:44 AM Author: submissive talented rigpig jew
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446643) |
Date: February 28th, 2024 8:57 AM Author: burgundy hospital blood rage 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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446672) |
Date: February 28th, 2024 9:04 AM Author: rusted nowag quadroon
me experiencing the raw autism in this thread:
https://youtu.be/wlnI6XjWk_k?t=14
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446685) |
Date: February 28th, 2024 9:15 AM Author: Appetizing drunken masturbator
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446719) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 9:51 AM Author: cream hall coffee pot
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446808) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:01 AM Author: submissive talented rigpig jew
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?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446846) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:16 AM Author: Appetizing drunken masturbator
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446895) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:32 AM Author: submissive talented rigpig jew
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446951) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:39 AM Author: submissive talented rigpig jew
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446980) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:44 AM Author: submissive talented rigpig jew
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446992) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:54 AM Author: hyperactive 180 hissy fit
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447046) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:11 AM Author: hyperactive 180 hissy fit
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447074) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:17 AM Author: submissive talented rigpig jew
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447081) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:45 AM Author: submissive talented rigpig jew
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447154) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 12:08 PM Author: hyperactive 180 hissy fit
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447173) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:09 PM Author: cream hall coffee pot
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448022) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:10 PM Author: submissive talented rigpig jew
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448025) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:36 AM Author: hyperactive 180 hissy fit
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447110) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 3:39 PM Author: submissive talented rigpig jew
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).
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447930) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:38 AM Author: Appetizing drunken masturbator
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446978)
|
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:45 AM Author: Appetizing drunken masturbator
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446994) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:51 AM Author: Appetizing drunken masturbator
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447021) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:56 AM Author: submissive talented rigpig jew
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447053) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:00 AM Author: Appetizing drunken masturbator
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447068) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:24 AM Author: Appetizing drunken masturbator
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447086) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:34 AM Author: submissive talented rigpig jew
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447101) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:13 PM Author: cream hall coffee pot
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447362) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:55 PM Author: hyperactive 180 hissy fit
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447514) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 3:43 PM Author: submissive talented rigpig jew
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447944) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:01 AM Author: cream hall coffee pot
"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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447070) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:39 AM Author: cream hall coffee pot
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47446979) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:51 AM Author: Idiotic fat ankles friendly grandma
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...
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447027) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 10:57 AM Author: Idiotic fat ankles friendly grandma
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*
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447062) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:38 AM Author: Idiotic fat ankles friendly grandma
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447119) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 11:41 AM Author: Appetizing drunken masturbator
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447139) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:28 PM Author: hyperactive 180 hissy fit
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!"
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447402)
|
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:52 PM Author: Idiotic fat ankles friendly grandma
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...
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447497) |
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:23 PM Author: cream hall coffee pot
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447391) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:31 PM Author: cream hall coffee pot
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"
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447415) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 2:51 PM Author: hyperactive 180 hissy fit
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447737) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 6:42 PM Author: hyperactive 180 hissy fit
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!
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448634) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 6:51 PM Author: hyperactive 180 hissy fit
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448663) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 1:50 PM Author: cream hall coffee pot
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447486) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 3:21 PM Author: hyperactive 180 hissy fit
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).
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447884) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 6:46 PM Author: hyperactive 180 hissy fit
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448649) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 7:12 PM Author: hyperactive 180 hissy fit
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448744) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 2:43 PM Author: hyperactive 180 hissy fit
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447703) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 2:47 PM Author: cream hall coffee pot
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47447714) |
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:22 PM Author: amber racy stag film
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
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448063) |
Date: February 28th, 2024 4:51 PM Author: ultramarine university
XO: Women secretly desire and crave violent men
Women: Hop on BBC and breed
XO: Not like that!
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448210) |
Date: February 28th, 2024 5:10 PM Author: hyperactive 180 hissy fit
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448310) |
Date: February 28th, 2024 5:39 PM Author: henna bull headed doctorate
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448397) |
|
Date: February 28th, 2024 5:53 PM Author: hyperactive 180 hissy fit
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.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5497054&forum_id=2#47448449) |
|
|