Exactly. Thats why so many societies in the past insisted on controlling female sexuality.
It's not because they just woke up one day and decided to randomly hate women , like progressives would want you to believe.
Rather, it is because the hypergamous nature of female sexuality doesn't allow for a healthy and functioning society. Femoids love to see the bottom tier males suffer and rot.
What's curious is that feminists are acutely aware of this. I agree with them by the way, it's just kind of jarring that you guys are like "yeah, feminist are correct about society wanting to control female sexuality, LET'S GO BACK TO THAT!".
Usually the common misogynistic response is to deny this conception of society by feminists, as it justifies the plight of women.
But the way, some feminists agree that societies needed to control female sexuality and agency before, but with the advent of birth control, abortion and women entering the work force, this is hardly necessary for society to work. Perhaps Twitter leftists make it about society hating on women, but that's hardly an academic take.
Women will fight to keep their sexual freedom, as it's their right, so I would advice you to look for another solution or move to the middle East.
If the bottom 30% of males are left out of the sexual marketplace because the sexual freedom of women is considered more important...
then don't be surpised to see more incels dropping out of society, leechin wellfare, supporting extremist politicians, becoming violent and even going ER.
So yeah, we'll see if that's better for the overall happiness of the population in the end.
I guess we will see then. But, I've been told repeatedly that what you guys want is more than sex. You want intimacy as per the piramid of needs states. What this sexual Independence of women has caused is the transparency of women wishes and sexual needs that, in turn, determine intimacy as opposed to using sex as a coin for financial stability. Point being, you can get society to force women to fuck men directly or indirectly, but intimacy cannot be forced.
And also, don't blame women for your shitty political views or going insane and killing people, that's your shit, be an adult and sort it the fuck out. Half this subReddit is men blaming women for men being violent monsters, it's pathetic.
And also, don't blame women for your shitty political views or going insane and killing people, that's your shit, be an adult and sort it the fuck out. Half this subReddit is men blaming women for men being violent monsters, it's pathetic.
You think sexual and social validation from women or the lack thereof doesn't affect male behavior and/or political views in any way? How naieve.
Of course it affects them. But the one responsible for them is the individual, not society or women. Responsible, not guilty. By all means guilt trip society and women all you want, it won't do much to improve your outlook or happiness.
Guilt-tripping society and men worked pretty good for feminists.
For example: Gender quotas are commonplace now in my country, because women apparantly couldn't take responsibility themselves to get the jobs they wanted.
I agree with you though. There is no empathy for male virgins in this world, compared to the massive amounts of empathy and attention women can get. So society will most likely not do a single shit to help us. We will either have to give up or take what we want by force.
And considering we are mostly males from the age of 16-30, we are of prime combat age aswell as the age that most people start becoming a productive member of society. Dropping out aswell as taking what we want by force, both seem like it will severely impact society.
I sort of have mixed takes about quotas and affirmative action. As for women, there have earned every inch through activism, so look at their history and maybe take something from that.
For guilt tripping I meant the whole "give me seen or I will shoot you all"
Of course the lack of validation can affect your emotional state. But you are not a mindless vegetable, are you? You are capable of rational thought and inference; you are capable of realizing that the fact that someone does ot want to do something with you does not mean they are at fault somehow. Their opinion of you should not determine your reaction. There are coping strategies, which do not include misogyny or violence.
God damn, you people make it sound like you have no capability for thought or self-control.
I guess this is all fakenews then? Above article mentions numbers up to 1 in 6, but that includes women who are less likely to be virgin so the majority of those 1 in 6 will be men. So were most likely looking at 1 in 5 or even 1 in 4 guys reporting not getting any sex in the last year.
Yes, all these men are just 'waiting for the right person'. I guess they all don't masturbate either right, because why would you masturbate if you could just as easily get a sexual partner. Inceldom doesn't exist anyways, right.
People can be happy without getting the very best. Often times value-maximization for one individual leads to suffering for another, whereas if things were spread more equally, then both parties would be reasonably happy and suffering would be eliminated.
Right now, females, provided they just keep the spoon out of their mouths, have access to the best (superior males). Marriage is on a huge downslide, while casual relationships or just friendships with benefits are on the upswing.
Let's just pretend that the top 20% of males divided their time and attention among several different females over the period of a year, and the females with several different 8+ males, then this alone could theoretically cover a vast majority portion of the population. Now extend that to the top 40% or 50% of males. Soon enough, we have enough top males to fulfill females' social needs. The numbers obv might be somewhat off, but the concept is sound, even from an evolutionary perspective. So where does that leave males who are like 1s on the looks-scale? It leaves them to a life of abandonment. It's funny how the entire basis of feminism is that each and every female is entitled to fair and equal treatment, even for relatively trivial matters such as misogynistic jokes on television, but when we're speaking of a matter that truly cuts to the sould of our humanity, a need critically joined to psychological well-being, an issue more important than the general case of 'entitlements', then it's like, oh well, sucks to be you!
People can be happy without getting the very best. Often times value-maximization for one individual leads to suffering for another, whereas if things were spread more equally, then both parties would be reasonably happy and suffering would be eliminated.
Right now, females, provided they just keep the spoon out of their mouths, have access to the best (superior males). By maximally exploiting this privilege (only giving action to 'Chads'), we see that a huge sector of the male population ends up entirely unfulfilled. Marriage is on a huge downslide, while casual relationships or just friendships with benefits are on the upswing.
Let's just pretend that the top 20% of males divided their time and attention among several different females over the period of a year, and the females with several different 8+ males, then this alone could theoretically cover a vast majority portion of the female population. Now extend that to the top 40% or 50% of males. Soon enough, we have enough top males to fulfill females' social needs. The numbers obviously might be off to a degree, but the concept is sound, even from an evolutionary perspective. So where does that leave males who are like 1s on the looks-scale? It leaves them to a life of abandonment. It's funny how the entire basis of feminism is that each and every female is entitled to fair and equal treatment, even for relatively trivial matters such as misogynistic jokes on television, but when we're speaking of a matter that truly cuts to the soul of our humanity, a need critically joined to psychological well-being, an issue more important than the general case of 'entitlements', then it's like, oh well, sucks to be you!
I think the difference is that the solution to the injustice suffered by men who can't find a partner would require suspension of other people's free will - namely, suspending free will of the women who do not want to be with those men.
That is completely unacceptable, unlike various solutions to the problem of female discrimination (even if we can agree that some solutions to those problems have bad sides)
To play devil's advocate, let's say someone owns a business and prefers to hire men (working with men vs working with women makes a big difference in his happiness level). Now females will argue that they are entitled to those job positions (equally with men). How is forcing him to hire women not a violation of his free will?
Look how butt hurt all you dumb shits are. Of course women don't want low tier males, too bad there's nothing you can do about it.
You have the right to be miserable shits and women have the right to turn their backs on you.
"Female sexual freedom" is redundant and inimical to fostering agreement. You can't have straight sex encounters without men, so drop the female part and people will be more receptive to the message. We pardon the proverbial Chad for his part in the process but the truth is, he's just as complicit.
Who said we're operating on a binary? It's a spectrum, not a dichotomy. You can have varying levels of freedom, it isn't a choice between total freedom or none. If it was, we'd be in a state of anarchy or under the thumb of a totalitarian regime. The world isn't so black and white.
I'm but a man. Any proposal I could come up with, especially on the fly, would be flawed and incomplete. My initial inclination is something prohibiting sex before marriage (I don't believe in God). I think it's one of the few ways you can curb this inevitable societal disaster without compromising anyone's bodily autonomy.
Legalizing prostitution and maybe even subsidizing it is a short-term solution but only a long-term painkiller. It only treats the symptoms, not the disease. The deficiency incels suffer from is a lack of love and no sex of any kind will remedy that.
Banning sex before marriage sounds like something a totalitarian state would do. And it most definitely is a violation of somebody's bodily autonomy, namely that of mena nd women who would have consenting sex.
Legalizing prostitution might be ok, from a social perspective, but incentivizing it is absurd. Why would the state do that? That seems like too much babysitting from the government for my taste.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's not coercion. It requires the maintenance of an honour-shame dynamic which suppresses hypergamous tendencies. In countries in the Middle East or India, for instance, a woman who goes out of line is harshly reprimanded socially. Whores are not forgiven. Bring back slut shaming!
According to current day society we should totally respect a foid's choice to keep a harem of top tier males and unnatractive males should just shut up, eat shit, and rot for life.
Lol nothing is more awesome than witnessing your anguish. It's not just that you are deluded. You are pissing your life away being angry that you don't get a say on what other sentient beings do with their bodies. An entitlement so grand, it just may crush you one day.
And women will not even notice you're gone.
I feel badly for many incels and root for some even but you?
Things are as they should be.
What makes you think you deserve literally input on what anyone's vagina is doing? What justification is there?
If it were genuine superiority, you wouldn't be here. You would be the Chad women fight over. But you were born male so what is your excuse?
Pouting because being born male is not enough? You are angry society didn't award you a whole human being too?
Lmfao!!!!!
This week I just may donate to a feminist organization for the very first time.
I can't even dream what a shit show this world must have been with men like you before..
Lol. Oh well. Go shower, get a hair cut. And fix your personality tee hee
What makes you think you deserve literally input on what anyone's vagina is doing? What justification is there?
I laid out a justification in the original post. Briefly, given that women exclusively want Chad, and lack the mental capacity to make rational decisions about their own sexuality, it is in society's interest to make take away the "rights" they have.
Women are like children. We're allowed to make collectively decisions about children (e.g., mandatory education, for instance), so it's not unreasonable to make decisions for women (who invariably have the mental capacity of children).
And women will not even notice you're gone.
No, they won't. They don't notice non-Chad men.
If it were genuine superiority, you wouldn't be here. You would be the Chad women fight over
Chad is Chad because of his looks. It has little to do with his political astuteness.
This week I just may donate to a feminist organization for the very first time
lmao. Btw, didn't you say you weren't going to respond to me on an earlier thread? Can't get of enough of me, huh. I think the reason you're particularly salty is because you know what I write is true. Deep down, you know you're just a useless hole who exists for Chad's pleasure. You lack any other abilities or assets to societies. And a part of you knows that you're truly not cut out for the rights which have been granted to free men. Because you're a woman. You think with your cunt, and you write with your cunt.
Just a useless hole huh. A useless hole that has robbed you of your self esteem and your peace of mind. Your joy. Gone. For something that doesn't matter.
So what does that make you?
There is no "we" needing to control anything. You are not chad's equivalent. You are his whimpering shadow. A fan. If you had any sense you would just go be best friends with one and maybe appeal to those he doesn't want. But I'm guessing he doesn't like you either.
You are god damn right I love it when my man is inside of me.
The point is, I want that. And I do what I want.
You never were and never will have a say in the matter.
Lol ever.
I suggest you find better ways to tether yourself to reality.
A useless hole that has robbed you of your self esteem and your peace of mind
Unfortunately, primal sexual desires are impossible to suppress. That doesn't mean you're anything less than a fuckhole, though.
So what does that make you?
I'm a man. A member of the gender that created this world. That already puts me above you, a fuckhole.
The point is, I want that. And I do what I want.
That's what I take issue with. You should not have that privilege. A woman's father should choose a man for her, and that man should be the only man she fucks.
In Pakistan (and other countries in that region), cumdumpsters like you are dispensed with swiftly.
Isn't female bodily autonomy a much more important value than the psychological well-being of any number of people?
From a strictly utilitarian perspective, no.
We typically have exceptions to nearly any given freedom. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, even though you technically have "bodily autonomy" for your mouth and tongue.
I mean, I know it is.
You mean, you believe it is because you've been conditioned to believe so by a massively gynocentric society. Moral principles are not a matter of "knowledge". They are not absolute or irrefutable truths.
Actually, from a strictly utilitarian perspective, you should say that you don't know. You would have to measure the damage to the psychological well-being of women who would be forced to have sex/relationships with men they don't want to, and then compare that to the damage to the psychological well-being of men who can't find female partners. Only then could you say which one is more important, from a strictly utilitarian perspective.
However, I'm not an utilitarian. My preferred version of ethical theory would probably be some form of rule consenquentialism, with the possibility of a few purely deontological principles. So I believe that the bodily autonomy of people is more important than the psychological well-being of other people (naturally, with the limit that we would not count person A violating person B's bodily autonomy as the exercise of A's bodily autonomy)
From skimming the article, it seems that it does not say what you say it says.
It says that, in the US and Western Europe, women were happier during the 1970s than in 2000s, right? How do you get the claim that ''"liberated" women are less happy compared to their counterparts in monogamous patriarchies'' from that data? Do you consider US and Western Europe in 1970s as monogamous patriarchies?
Furthermore, the article suggests an explanation which you fail to mention. Namely, that opening of job opportunities to women wasn't followed by equal domestic workload, which actually means that women have to work more than men. That seems a perfectly sensible reason for the drop in happiness. We should compare women who live in roughly equal households, in the sense that their husbands do a roughly equal share of chores, and then see are they happy with the fact they can have a career.
It's a matter of preferences, then.
You're reading too much into my expression. Preferences can be intellectual, in the sense of ''X is my preferred philosophical theory, because I find arguments in its favor compeling''. Which is what I actually meant with the phrase I used. That kind of preference is very different from a purely arbitrary taste, or the selection of a morl theory just because it benefits my goals and desires.
And what's with the ''brethren'' talk? You guys sound like a sect.
It says that, in the US and Western Europe, women were happier during the 1970s than in 2000s, right? How do you get the claim that ''"liberated" women are less happy compared to their counterparts in monogamous patriarchies'' from that data? Do you consider US and Western Europe in 1970s as monogamous patriarchies?
Furthermore, the article suggests an explanation which you fail to mention. Namely, that opening of job opportunities to women wasn't followed by equal domestic workload, which actually means that women have to work more than men. That seems a perfectly sensible reason for the drop in happiness. We should compare women who live in roughly equal households, in the sense that their husbands do a roughly equal share of chores, and then see are they happy with the fact they can have a career.
Can you be so naive as to think household chores are the root cause of this?
Look at the skyrocketting mental health issues among women. Self-harm, depression, anxiety, anorexia. Do you really think that household chores are the root of all of this?
It's a non-explanation.
Here's a more reasonable explanation: there is no deeper purpose in life anymore. It's all about getting what you "want". I want a new iPhone. I want a new Chad to dick me down. I want to lose weight. I want more Instagram followers. The culture is superficial. Life is superficial. This devoidness will inevitably result in an unfulfilling life.
Note that variables still need to be controlled here. Society has improved in many ways (e.g., improved medical care, better infrastructure, less war, less disease) so I wouldn't be surprised if the typical woman in, say, the 2000s is more happy than the typical woman in the 1920s. But this is in spite of feminism and sexual liberation, not because of it. The ideal society, in my view, is one as technologically and scientifically advanced as ours but without the cancerous cultural Marxism.
You're reading too much into my expression. Preferences can be intellectual, in the sense of ''X is my preferred philosophical theory, because I find arguments in its favor compeling''. Which is what I actually meant with the phrase I used. That kind of preference is very different from a purely arbitrary taste, or the selection of a morl theory just because it benefits my goals and desires.
Certain intellectual preferences can be substantiated by meaningful and clearly demonstrable arguments. "Is communism good for the world?" "Are GMOs better than organic food?" "Does going vegan confer health benefits?" Etc.
Morality is a bit of a special case, and I say this as someone who's studied normative ethics a decent bit. Ultimately, what you prefer is just what you feel is right. You can't mathematically or deductively prove that a certain ethical theory is preferable.
And what's with the ''brethren'' talk? You guys sound like a sect.
We all have had similar social and romantic experiences. That allows us to relate to each other, and a sense of comradery develops.
84 comments
1 Soiled_Bugman 2018-05-06
females don't give a fuck.
1 Joemo55 2018-05-06
Basically summarizes it all.
1 its_a_fishing_show 2018-05-06
Thank god whores fight wars and build buildings, or else we might have a problem.
1 Valkyrie131 2018-05-06
Well, God knows none of you pussys could. How must it feel to know women are braver than you?
1 its_a_fishing_show 2018-05-06
dying in the sand for Israel = braver?
1 bcat124 2018-05-06
Exactly. Thats why so many societies in the past insisted on controlling female sexuality.
It's not because they just woke up one day and decided to randomly hate women , like progressives would want you to believe.
Rather, it is because the hypergamous nature of female sexuality doesn't allow for a healthy and functioning society. Femoids love to see the bottom tier males suffer and rot.
1 Rotciv_IRL 2018-05-06
What's curious is that feminists are acutely aware of this. I agree with them by the way, it's just kind of jarring that you guys are like "yeah, feminist are correct about society wanting to control female sexuality, LET'S GO BACK TO THAT!". Usually the common misogynistic response is to deny this conception of society by feminists, as it justifies the plight of women. But the way, some feminists agree that societies needed to control female sexuality and agency before, but with the advent of birth control, abortion and women entering the work force, this is hardly necessary for society to work. Perhaps Twitter leftists make it about society hating on women, but that's hardly an academic take. Women will fight to keep their sexual freedom, as it's their right, so I would advice you to look for another solution or move to the middle East.
1 JaJammerJan 2018-05-06
If the bottom 30% of males are left out of the sexual marketplace because the sexual freedom of women is considered more important...
then don't be surpised to see more incels dropping out of society, leechin wellfare, supporting extremist politicians, becoming violent and even going ER.
So yeah, we'll see if that's better for the overall happiness of the population in the end.
1 Rotciv_IRL 2018-05-06
I guess we will see then. But, I've been told repeatedly that what you guys want is more than sex. You want intimacy as per the piramid of needs states. What this sexual Independence of women has caused is the transparency of women wishes and sexual needs that, in turn, determine intimacy as opposed to using sex as a coin for financial stability. Point being, you can get society to force women to fuck men directly or indirectly, but intimacy cannot be forced. And also, don't blame women for your shitty political views or going insane and killing people, that's your shit, be an adult and sort it the fuck out. Half this subReddit is men blaming women for men being violent monsters, it's pathetic.
1 JaJammerJan 2018-05-06
You think sexual and social validation from women or the lack thereof doesn't affect male behavior and/or political views in any way? How naieve.
1 Rotciv_IRL 2018-05-06
Of course it affects them. But the one responsible for them is the individual, not society or women. Responsible, not guilty. By all means guilt trip society and women all you want, it won't do much to improve your outlook or happiness.
1 JaJammerJan 2018-05-06
Guilt-tripping society and men worked pretty good for feminists. For example: Gender quotas are commonplace now in my country, because women apparantly couldn't take responsibility themselves to get the jobs they wanted.
I agree with you though. There is no empathy for male virgins in this world, compared to the massive amounts of empathy and attention women can get. So society will most likely not do a single shit to help us. We will either have to give up or take what we want by force.
And considering we are mostly males from the age of 16-30, we are of prime combat age aswell as the age that most people start becoming a productive member of society. Dropping out aswell as taking what we want by force, both seem like it will severely impact society.
1 CommonMisspellingBot 2018-05-06
Hey, JaJammerJan, just a quick heads-up:
apparantly is actually spelled apparently. You can remember it by -ent not -ant.
Have a nice day!
The parent commenter can reply with 'delete' to delete this comment.
1 Rotciv_IRL 2018-05-06
I sort of have mixed takes about quotas and affirmative action. As for women, there have earned every inch through activism, so look at their history and maybe take something from that. For guilt tripping I meant the whole "give me seen or I will shoot you all"
1 krell_154 2018-05-06
Bull-fuckin-shit.
Of course the lack of validation can affect your emotional state. But you are not a mindless vegetable, are you? You are capable of rational thought and inference; you are capable of realizing that the fact that someone does ot want to do something with you does not mean they are at fault somehow. Their opinion of you should not determine your reaction. There are coping strategies, which do not include misogyny or violence.
God damn, you people make it sound like you have no capability for thought or self-control.
1 -SpinxS 2018-05-06
god damn you think every human thinks the same? are you that naive?
1 imathrowayslc 2018-05-06
It’s cute you think 30% of men are like you. 3% would be high.
1 JaJammerJan 2018-05-06
https://imgur.com/h27SITQ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5696417/Virgin-numbers-rise-UK-fear-intimacy.html
I guess this is all fakenews then? Above article mentions numbers up to 1 in 6, but that includes women who are less likely to be virgin so the majority of those 1 in 6 will be men. So were most likely looking at 1 in 5 or even 1 in 4 guys reporting not getting any sex in the last year.
Inceldom is on the rise.
1 imathrowayslc 2018-05-06
Not having sex, and acting like a someone who who never will are not the same thing.
1 JaJammerJan 2018-05-06
Yes, all these men are just 'waiting for the right person'. I guess they all don't masturbate either right, because why would you masturbate if you could just as easily get a sexual partner. Inceldom doesn't exist anyways, right.
1 Mr-Mercedes- 2018-05-06
People can be happy without getting the very best. Often times value-maximization for one individual leads to suffering for another, whereas if things were spread more equally, then both parties would be reasonably happy and suffering would be eliminated.
Right now, females, provided they just keep the spoon out of their mouths, have access to the best (superior males). Marriage is on a huge downslide, while casual relationships or just friendships with benefits are on the upswing. Let's just pretend that the top 20% of males divided their time and attention among several different females over the period of a year, and the females with several different 8+ males, then this alone could theoretically cover a vast majority portion of the population. Now extend that to the top 40% or 50% of males. Soon enough, we have enough top males to fulfill females' social needs. The numbers obv might be somewhat off, but the concept is sound, even from an evolutionary perspective. So where does that leave males who are like 1s on the looks-scale? It leaves them to a life of abandonment. It's funny how the entire basis of feminism is that each and every female is entitled to fair and equal treatment, even for relatively trivial matters such as misogynistic jokes on television, but when we're speaking of a matter that truly cuts to the sould of our humanity, a need critically joined to psychological well-being, an issue more important than the general case of 'entitlements', then it's like, oh well, sucks to be you!
1 Mr-Mercedes- 2018-05-06
People can be happy without getting the very best. Often times value-maximization for one individual leads to suffering for another, whereas if things were spread more equally, then both parties would be reasonably happy and suffering would be eliminated.
Right now, females, provided they just keep the spoon out of their mouths, have access to the best (superior males). By maximally exploiting this privilege (only giving action to 'Chads'), we see that a huge sector of the male population ends up entirely unfulfilled. Marriage is on a huge downslide, while casual relationships or just friendships with benefits are on the upswing. Let's just pretend that the top 20% of males divided their time and attention among several different females over the period of a year, and the females with several different 8+ males, then this alone could theoretically cover a vast majority portion of the female population. Now extend that to the top 40% or 50% of males. Soon enough, we have enough top males to fulfill females' social needs. The numbers obviously might be off to a degree, but the concept is sound, even from an evolutionary perspective. So where does that leave males who are like 1s on the looks-scale? It leaves them to a life of abandonment. It's funny how the entire basis of feminism is that each and every female is entitled to fair and equal treatment, even for relatively trivial matters such as misogynistic jokes on television, but when we're speaking of a matter that truly cuts to the soul of our humanity, a need critically joined to psychological well-being, an issue more important than the general case of 'entitlements', then it's like, oh well, sucks to be you!
1 krell_154 2018-05-06
I think the difference is that the solution to the injustice suffered by men who can't find a partner would require suspension of other people's free will - namely, suspending free will of the women who do not want to be with those men.
That is completely unacceptable, unlike various solutions to the problem of female discrimination (even if we can agree that some solutions to those problems have bad sides)
1 Mr-Mercedes- 2018-05-06
To play devil's advocate, let's say someone owns a business and prefers to hire men (working with men vs working with women makes a big difference in his happiness level). Now females will argue that they are entitled to those job positions (equally with men). How is forcing him to hire women not a violation of his free will?
1 krell_154 2018-05-06
Well, that would be the violation of his free will.
Does that happen? In the sense that private business owners are being forced to hire women?
1 Mr-Mercedes- 2018-05-06
Yes, gender based hiring is illegal
(except for vety limited circumstances that do not apply to my example)
1 krell_154 2018-05-06
That's interesting. Can you link the law stating so.
I know that a lot of companies have quotas for female staff, but from what I've understood, they decide on those themselves. Maybe I'm mistaken.
1 Mr-Mercedes- 2018-05-06
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
1 Detoxification- 2018-05-06
Women can't fight though.
1 191132 2018-05-06
they can vote. We need to convince incels to vote more
1 Chimeracide 2018-05-06
Men could reinstate patriarchy in a second if they wanted to. It was only because men foolishly allowed women to be free that they could.
1 35yoGeneticTrash 2018-05-06
The Handmaiden's Tale is life fuel.
1 krell_154 2018-05-06
Are you fuckin serious?
1 Valkyrie131 2018-05-06
Look how butt hurt all you dumb shits are. Of course women don't want low tier males, too bad there's nothing you can do about it. You have the right to be miserable shits and women have the right to turn their backs on you.
Ha ha
1 Zyklon_Bae 2018-05-06
The one thing Muslims are good at, is keeping their wenches under control. Scenes like this are unknown in Karachi http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i1U9iD5ZVv0/TE4_ru8OSNI/AAAAAAAABc4/z56EbDGOCrg/s1600/hot+girl+drunk+in+road+naked.jpg
1 Throwaway1337145317 2018-05-06
"Female sexual freedom" is redundant and inimical to fostering agreement. You can't have straight sex encounters without men, so drop the female part and people will be more receptive to the message. We pardon the proverbial Chad for his part in the process but the truth is, he's just as complicit.
1 Gravel_Roads 2018-05-06
What’s the opposite of “sexual freedom”?
1 Throwaway1337145317 2018-05-06
Who said we're operating on a binary? It's a spectrum, not a dichotomy. You can have varying levels of freedom, it isn't a choice between total freedom or none. If it was, we'd be in a state of anarchy or under the thumb of a totalitarian regime. The world isn't so black and white.
1 Gravel_Roads 2018-05-06
Do you feel the spectrum had gone too far into sexual freedom? What alternative do you see being more ideal?
1 Throwaway1337145317 2018-05-06
I'm but a man. Any proposal I could come up with, especially on the fly, would be flawed and incomplete. My initial inclination is something prohibiting sex before marriage (I don't believe in God). I think it's one of the few ways you can curb this inevitable societal disaster without compromising anyone's bodily autonomy.
Legalizing prostitution and maybe even subsidizing it is a short-term solution but only a long-term painkiller. It only treats the symptoms, not the disease. The deficiency incels suffer from is a lack of love and no sex of any kind will remedy that.
1 Gravel_Roads 2018-05-06
...WELL that’s a well thought out answer, anyway. +1, no further questions 🤘
1 krell_154 2018-05-06
But the ability to freely decide who people want to engage in sexual or romantic relationships with is not total freedom, it's minimal freedom...
1 Throwaway1337145317 2018-05-06
Read the following reply I made to him.
1 krell_154 2018-05-06
I read it. I disagree with it.
1 Throwaway1337145317 2018-05-06
What in particular and why?
1 krell_154 2018-05-06
Banning sex before marriage sounds like something a totalitarian state would do. And it most definitely is a violation of somebody's bodily autonomy, namely that of mena nd women who would have consenting sex.
Legalizing prostitution might be ok, from a social perspective, but incentivizing it is absurd. Why would the state do that? That seems like too much babysitting from the government for my taste.
1 the-Meeks-shall-rule 2018-05-06
I do not.
1 Mest666 2018-05-06
stop calling men bottom only beause of fucking looks.
1 Valkyrie131 2018-05-06
Ok you're bottom because you cannot exist in normal society. And looks.
1 pinkgoldrose 2018-05-06
So what you're saying is that you want to coerce females into sleeping with you through economic and social pressures? Old news.
1 Detoxification- 2018-05-06
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's not coercion. It requires the maintenance of an honour-shame dynamic which suppresses hypergamous tendencies. In countries in the Middle East or India, for instance, a woman who goes out of line is harshly reprimanded socially. Whores are not forgiven. Bring back slut shaming!
1 pinkgoldrose 2018-05-06
Maybe. I guess social pressures alone are not the worst.
1 dsegura90 2018-05-06
Just move to India
1 Detoxification- 2018-05-06
No. I want to make America great again.
1 dsegura90 2018-05-06
It is not going to happen, though. Or do you seriously believe we can go back to the fifties?
1 Zyklon_Bae 2018-05-06
The 50s were America's best time, in almost every way.
1 dsegura90 2018-05-06
For white males, sure. Not for anyone else, though.
1 Zyklon_Bae 2018-05-06
White females were taken care of. Black entrepreneurship and marriage rates were very high. Single moms were almost unheard of. The 50s were amazing.
1 dsegura90 2018-05-06
Lol were taken care of. Women dont need us, they want their own thing. Havent you been paying attention to the last 60 years or so?
1 Zyklon_Bae 2018-05-06
They also want to drain men dry of resources, if possible.
1 Zyklon_Bae 2018-05-06
The India of today is almost as cucked as the West.
1 geneticwaste43 2018-05-06
No they just need to stop being so cunty
1 35yoGeneticTrash 2018-05-06
Fuck off Cathy Newman.
1 chillenyo2 2018-05-06
dont you mean bottom 80%
1 The_Real_Cannaman 2018-05-06
The situation got worse due to 1) plenty of cocks to choose from (tinder, okc, pof, bumble...) 2) chads thirst
More like 95%
1 IncelSlayerZero 2018-05-06
According to current day society we should totally respect a foid's choice to keep a harem of top tier males and unnatractive males should just shut up, eat shit, and rot for life.
1 TheSciencePrincess 2018-05-06
Lol no there isn't
1 35yoGeneticTrash 2018-05-06
What an insightful and invaluable refutation, "thescienceprincess". I bet you subscribe to IFuckingLoveScience too?
1 TheSciencePrincess 2018-05-06
Is this supposed to be an insult?
1 35yoGeneticTrash 2018-05-06
Directed at the supposed "science princess" ? Fuck yes, it is. "lmao no". What a fucking intellect. Absolute brainlet.
1 TheSciencePrincess 2018-05-06
I'm obviously not the one who is butthurt bro lol
1 35yoGeneticTrash 2018-05-06
Sure thing, scienceprincess. How many cats do you own?
1 TheSciencePrincess 2018-05-06
Less than the number of dicks I've had in my mouth
1 35yoGeneticTrash 2018-05-06
t. roastie
1 jesuz 2018-05-06
What was happening to that 30% of men pre-sexual revolution?
1 The_Real_Cannaman 2018-05-06
They had wives?
1 goodgirlbadstreak 2018-05-06
You again?
Lol nothing is more awesome than witnessing your anguish. It's not just that you are deluded. You are pissing your life away being angry that you don't get a say on what other sentient beings do with their bodies. An entitlement so grand, it just may crush you one day.
And women will not even notice you're gone.
I feel badly for many incels and root for some even but you?
Things are as they should be.
What makes you think you deserve literally input on what anyone's vagina is doing? What justification is there?
If it were genuine superiority, you wouldn't be here. You would be the Chad women fight over. But you were born male so what is your excuse?
Pouting because being born male is not enough? You are angry society didn't award you a whole human being too?
Lmfao!!!!!
This week I just may donate to a feminist organization for the very first time. I can't even dream what a shit show this world must have been with men like you before..
Lol. Oh well. Go shower, get a hair cut. And fix your personality tee hee
1 Detoxification- 2018-05-06
I laid out a justification in the original post. Briefly, given that women exclusively want Chad, and lack the mental capacity to make rational decisions about their own sexuality, it is in society's interest to make take away the "rights" they have.
Women are like children. We're allowed to make collectively decisions about children (e.g., mandatory education, for instance), so it's not unreasonable to make decisions for women (who invariably have the mental capacity of children).
No, they won't. They don't notice non-Chad men.
Chad is Chad because of his looks. It has little to do with his political astuteness.
lmao. Btw, didn't you say you weren't going to respond to me on an earlier thread? Can't get of enough of me, huh. I think the reason you're particularly salty is because you know what I write is true. Deep down, you know you're just a useless hole who exists for Chad's pleasure. You lack any other abilities or assets to societies. And a part of you knows that you're truly not cut out for the rights which have been granted to free men. Because you're a woman. You think with your cunt, and you write with your cunt.
1 goodgirlbadstreak 2018-05-06
Just a useless hole huh. A useless hole that has robbed you of your self esteem and your peace of mind. Your joy. Gone. For something that doesn't matter.
So what does that make you?
There is no "we" needing to control anything. You are not chad's equivalent. You are his whimpering shadow. A fan. If you had any sense you would just go be best friends with one and maybe appeal to those he doesn't want. But I'm guessing he doesn't like you either.
You are god damn right I love it when my man is inside of me.
The point is, I want that. And I do what I want.
You never were and never will have a say in the matter.
Lol ever.
I suggest you find better ways to tether yourself to reality.
Lol.
1 Detoxification- 2018-05-06
Unfortunately, primal sexual desires are impossible to suppress. That doesn't mean you're anything less than a fuckhole, though.
I'm a man. A member of the gender that created this world. That already puts me above you, a fuckhole.
That's what I take issue with. You should not have that privilege. A woman's father should choose a man for her, and that man should be the only man she fucks.
In Pakistan (and other countries in that region), cumdumpsters like you are dispensed with swiftly.
1 Toboratonmi2 2018-05-06
You sound so beta
1 Detoxification- 2018-05-06
Omega, actually.
1 Toboratonmi2 2018-05-06
Lol
1 krell_154 2018-05-06
Say that's true, even though I think you're making a very bold statement (''irreconcilable conflict'', ''30%'').
What should be done about it? Isn't female bodily autonomy a much more important value than the psychological well-being of any number of people?
I mean, I know it is. I'm just confused how anyone could doubt that, as a number of people on this sub seem to.
1 Detoxification- 2018-05-06
From a strictly utilitarian perspective, no.
We typically have exceptions to nearly any given freedom. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, even though you technically have "bodily autonomy" for your mouth and tongue.
You mean, you believe it is because you've been conditioned to believe so by a massively gynocentric society. Moral principles are not a matter of "knowledge". They are not absolute or irrefutable truths.
1 krell_154 2018-05-06
Actually, from a strictly utilitarian perspective, you should say that you don't know. You would have to measure the damage to the psychological well-being of women who would be forced to have sex/relationships with men they don't want to, and then compare that to the damage to the psychological well-being of men who can't find female partners. Only then could you say which one is more important, from a strictly utilitarian perspective.
However, I'm not an utilitarian. My preferred version of ethical theory would probably be some form of rule consenquentialism, with the possibility of a few purely deontological principles. So I believe that the bodily autonomy of people is more important than the psychological well-being of other people (naturally, with the limit that we would not count person A violating person B's bodily autonomy as the exercise of A's bodily autonomy)
1 Detoxification- 2018-05-06
We know that "liberated" women are less happy compared to their counterparts in monogamous patriarchies.
It's a matter of preferences, then. Debating it is irrelevant.
1 krell_154 2018-05-06
From skimming the article, it seems that it does not say what you say it says.
It says that, in the US and Western Europe, women were happier during the 1970s than in 2000s, right? How do you get the claim that ''"liberated" women are less happy compared to their counterparts in monogamous patriarchies'' from that data? Do you consider US and Western Europe in 1970s as monogamous patriarchies?
Furthermore, the article suggests an explanation which you fail to mention. Namely, that opening of job opportunities to women wasn't followed by equal domestic workload, which actually means that women have to work more than men. That seems a perfectly sensible reason for the drop in happiness. We should compare women who live in roughly equal households, in the sense that their husbands do a roughly equal share of chores, and then see are they happy with the fact they can have a career.
You're reading too much into my expression. Preferences can be intellectual, in the sense of ''X is my preferred philosophical theory, because I find arguments in its favor compeling''. Which is what I actually meant with the phrase I used. That kind of preference is very different from a purely arbitrary taste, or the selection of a morl theory just because it benefits my goals and desires.
And what's with the ''brethren'' talk? You guys sound like a sect.
1 Detoxification- 2018-05-06
Can you be so naive as to think household chores are the root cause of this?
Look at the skyrocketting mental health issues among women. Self-harm, depression, anxiety, anorexia. Do you really think that household chores are the root of all of this?
It's a non-explanation.
Here's a more reasonable explanation: there is no deeper purpose in life anymore. It's all about getting what you "want". I want a new iPhone. I want a new Chad to dick me down. I want to lose weight. I want more Instagram followers. The culture is superficial. Life is superficial. This devoidness will inevitably result in an unfulfilling life.
Note that variables still need to be controlled here. Society has improved in many ways (e.g., improved medical care, better infrastructure, less war, less disease) so I wouldn't be surprised if the typical woman in, say, the 2000s is more happy than the typical woman in the 1920s. But this is in spite of feminism and sexual liberation, not because of it. The ideal society, in my view, is one as technologically and scientifically advanced as ours but without the cancerous cultural Marxism.
Certain intellectual preferences can be substantiated by meaningful and clearly demonstrable arguments. "Is communism good for the world?" "Are GMOs better than organic food?" "Does going vegan confer health benefits?" Etc.
Morality is a bit of a special case, and I say this as someone who's studied normative ethics a decent bit. Ultimately, what you prefer is just what you feel is right. You can't mathematically or deductively prove that a certain ethical theory is preferable.
We all have had similar social and romantic experiences. That allows us to relate to each other, and a sense of comradery develops.
1 191132 2018-05-06
they can vote. We need to convince incels to vote more
1 Chimeracide 2018-05-06
Men could reinstate patriarchy in a second if they wanted to. It was only because men foolishly allowed women to be free that they could.
1 krell_154 2018-05-06
I read it. I disagree with it.