lmfao it's been fucking over

adultery aside, she's definitely a typical woman who likes their young chads

i don't know or care anymore

just want this genetic cleansing incel euthanasia thing to take off already

JFL at stereotypical roasties being suifuel, ragefuel, and lifefuel at the same time

I'm talking to some indonesian cunt who cheats on her husband but she's adamant on it being okay because it's "virtual"... I blackpilled the fuck out of her by saying: if you cheated on your husband because you didn't like his looks, why do you think the same thing won't happen to her son (she has a 5 year old son)

I've literally convinced this dumb bitch that her son is going to grow up to be an incel and kill himself lmfao

This is fucking dark. That woman is quite literally unfit to be a mother. Why is she even raising him? Is he just a sacrifice for her ego?

I can have screenshots for u when i continue my ldar

A good chunk of this is me just being really manipulative and coaxing her into saying and doing certain things, so don't get your hopes up

It's less her being evil, and more her being really dumb that's on display

Screenshots would be appreciated, gotta satiate that 'morbid curiosity' I contracted from normies somehow.

https://imgur.com/a/p4lUvSW

I want to neck myself after reading this shit. Disgusting worthless degenerate bitch.

How the fuck is sending nudes NOT not emotionally cheating? Women are a fucking meme.

I can't get over how astoundingly dumb she is. She's a textbook airhead who unironically references astrology to explain her actions and absolve of herself blame.

Did she ever tell you why she thinks her husband "deserves it"?

Did she ever tell you why she thinks her husband "deserves it"?

why do you think?

For having the audacity to be born sub8.

lol and indonesia is a muslim stronghold too, if i recall correctly. JFL at muslim copers

Tbf it is the most liberal Muslim country in the world. They have public sex festivals and everything.

lmfao degenerates

she's also pretty ugly...did you notice that?

The poly-amorous fucks often are. She probably sends nudes for the validation. JFL at being a slave to your biology.

years No way she said that about her son and suicide.

JUST NO F WAY!

See my other reply

did she get married as a virgin? i really fucking doubt that

play stupid games win stupid prizes

it's virgin or bust in 2018, you're guaranteed cuckoldry if you ain't living by 'no hymen no diamond'

fml

Not /u/Westcoastincel but yes, I think she's a pedophile. If a 25 year old man fucked a 17 year old girl he'd get his name on the registry, be branded as a pedophile and thrown to prison. Fuck double standards in favor of women.

I understand what you're trying to do but two wrongs don't make a right.

If a 25 year old man fucked a 17 year old girl he'd get his name on the registry, be branded as a pedophile and thrown to prison.

Which is obviously completely ridiculous and anyone who says this is a subhuman low-IQ retard. Why would you stoop to their level?

How exactly is that wrong? You can date from 19 and up, absolutely no-one would have a problem with it, but instead you choose to deliberately date and have sex with a 17 year old. It's true that they can consent and all but their brains haven't fully developed yet. In fact their prefrontal complex development is only halfway finished at age 18. It's predator-like to go after teens who are not yet fully developed or skilled in things like decision making, impulse control, logical thinking and risk management. The development can end between the ages of 18 and 25, that's why 18 and below is strictly out of bounds.

It's true that they can consent and all but their brains haven't fully developed yet.

The brain stops developing at 25 and I think even later for women. The Age of Consent should be at least 25 then, yes?

It's predator-like

How is this not the feminist doctrine of 'toxic/predatory masculinity'?

The Age of Consent should be at least 25 then, yes?

I never said or implicated that. I said that people finish their prefrontal development between the ages of 18 and 25, and those who still aren't done with theirs in that age group are very close to being so, which is why I think it's fair game to date someone in that group.

How is this not the feminist doctrine od 'toxic/predatory masculinity'?

I hate feminists as much as the other guy but they don't have much to do with this one. Nor does it have anything do with masculinity, whether it is toxic or predatory. What you're thinking of is the parental instinct to protect, and it's not something that's seen only in masculine people, it's built into everyone to keep their genetic successors secure.

I know many people from the right, people who are very far from feminists, who would never let a 25 year old man touch their 17 year old girl. Including myself, in a hypothetical situation of course; I don't have kids.

The fact that they chose to date someone who's 8 years younger and, on top of that, underage, instead of finding someone out of the millions of people in their age group is not only disgusting but also speaks volumes about the person they are. 17 year olds' prefrontal development aren't done, and they are not mentally mature which then leaves them open for being groomed and taken advantage of by an older person. Which is exactly why I wouldn't be comfortable with them speaking to a man who'd see an underage person as a suitable mate for themselves, no matter the gender.

and, on top of that, underage

You suggested that pre-frontal development is singularly important in ascertaining the morality of romanticosexual relations. I am merely taking your argument to its logical extreme -- if we are consider pre-frontal development in this manner, in order to eliminate any potentiality for predation in the form of psychological manipulation, then the only way to reliably do so is to ensure, to whatever (reasonable) extent, that all consenting parties are completed in said development.

Further, we know that men's brains develop quicker than women's; should men therefore be restricted to engaging romanticosexually only which women older than themselves? Should they engage only with their intellectual equals?

I hate feminists as much as the other guy but they don't have much to do with this one.

First of all, the only reason we're having this discussion is because of feminism. A man arguing that one ought be able to marry his young wife in a pre-feminist (pre-judeo-marxist) society would be met with nothing but the deafening silence of implicit resounding agreement.

What I think you're thinking of is the parental instinct to protect, and it's not something that's seen only in masculine people, it's built into everyone to keep their genetic successors secure.

Certainly, but its manifestation in men is and has always been present in marriage. The essential totality of marriages exist within a fundamentally unequal power dynamic; a men typically has the physicality necessary to do what he wishes with his wife, if he wishes. To argue that marriage in this sense is immoral because of some apparent sense of 'predation' would preclude the morality of virtually any marriage, because there is always the possibility of predation; indeed it is necessary for the natural order of marriage to function.

I know many people from the right, people who are very far from feminists, who would never let a 25 year old man touch their 17 year old girl. Including myself, in a hypothetical situation of course; I don't have kids.

And there are plenty of men who are uncomfortable with letting their daughters marry no matter what age they are. Who cares? It's an unhealthy possessive attitude concerning a free individual whom you have already conceded cannot be regarded as possession, and not something upon which to found the romanticosexual structure of society. Do you think the countless men throughout history whose daughters were married off were happy to know that their ""little girls"" were being penetrated? No, they got over it because they understood it was for the greater good.

The fact that they chose to date someone who's 8 years younger

You have presently no argument as to why this ought be regarded as uncouth, only assumed it.

and, on top of that, underage

Again, where exactly is the immorality here? The entire notion of 'underagedness' is founded upon feminist doctrine (if you were unaware, the current tyrannical AoC laws were instated by radical feminist terrorists around the same time they were demanding the "right" to vote and other forms of egalitarianism, for the purpose of deconstructing the aforestated natural order of marriage and therefore the nuclear family (by, in concurrence with 'free love' and normalisation of women's promiscuity, pragmatically ensures that the notions of exclusive intramarital sex, celibacy, chasteness, etc. (all elements of the Traditional Order as manifest in marriage) are rendered inextant)).

which then leaves them open for being groomed and taken advantage of by an older person.

I'm not entirely sure what your conception of 'taken advantage of' is, but this is rendered almost entirely a non-issue by mandated quasi-arranged marriage.

You don't have to take everything to the extreme, you do know that, right? Extremism doesn't have good results most of the time, at least from what I've seen.

Also when we're talking about 17 year olds, we're talking about kids who are not even halfway done with their prefrontal development, that's why they especially are more susceptible to making mistakes. We've all done some dumb shit during our teenage years. You know you've done some questionable shit too. Would you have liked an older person take advantage of your developmental shortcomings in your teenage years?

As I've said above most if not all people complete their prefrontal development between the ages of 18 and 25 and that's why I think it's fair game to date in that age group. I've got nothing to add to that.

we know that men's brains develop quicker than women's

Not true. Have you checked your argument's scientifical plausability? Women mature at 21 years old at worst, while men mature at 25, so men don't develop faster after all:

https://www.medicaldaily.com/men-mature-after-women-11-years-after-be-exact-british-study-reveals-246716

Now I'm not saying "should women not be able to date younger men" or something like that in return, no, I've never said anything close to that.

All I've been saying is that anyone can date a younger person as long as they're both of legal age and I would have no problem with that. But if you're fully mature, dating someone underage, who's susceptible to making mistakes and nowhere near close to being done with the development of the prefrontal area of their brain, is strictly out of bounds.

And that is why I think the age difference is what matters the most in this instance. You could do whatever you'd want with a 17 year old if you were 18, 19 whatever. You're not much older, and probably not done with your development anyway. You're both immature and relatively new to the world.

Some mentally handicapped people are most of the time not able to make very good decisions due to their disabilities so they need a caretaker of some sorts. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to have sex, not at all, let them. But let them have it under the supervision of their caretaker.

As for feminism, what you're saying isn't true at all. First wave feminism focused on women's suffrage, rights and general equality. There is nothing said about the age of consent in the Wikipedia page below, at least not in the subsection about the United States:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism

The age of consent were raised on a national level across the US by the year 1920:

"The ages of consent were raised across the U.S. during the late 19th century and the early 20th century. By 1920 ages of consent generally rose to 16–18 and small adjustments to these laws occurred after 1920."

Second wave feminism started in the year 1960, which again didn't have much effect on the ages of consent as the proper laws had been established 40 years earlier that are mostly still the same today. Even though the laws had been in place for 75 years, the studies in 1995 concluded that men still kept taking advantage of underage girls:

"After the 1995 Landry and Forrest study concluded that men aged 20 and older produced half of the teenage pregnancies of girls between 15 and 17, states began to more stringently enforce age-of-consent laws to combat teenage pregnancy in addition to prevent adults from taking advantage of minors."

True, a man could potentially physically get what he wants from a woman, married or not. But it's not something that is accepted in society, and the laws in place make sure the man is punished for doing so. Which is exactly why age of consent laws are in place. Society doesn't accept it, not because of feminism or some other ideology but because the urge to protect children has always been there. The topic of letting your daughter be penetrated sounds disgusting to talk and write about so I'm not even gonna get into that, my apologies.

Nature doesn't give a shit about rights and consent but society does, and the laws are to bring equality and justice to the best of our abilities to an unforgiving and cruel world. We're not some baboons who act primarily on instinct, not anymore, and we're trying to show that the best we can.

By taken advantage of, you know what I mean. Being manipulating, emotionally attacked, generally harmed.

I have no problem with quasi-arranged marriage. Sexual freedom was a mistake, so we're mostly on the same page on that matter.

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 185046}

no im just upset that i will never get to fuck a woman esp a milf when im underage

its over for incels

I'm telling you.

implement the Shariah of Allah swt.

Narey takbeer

No thank you :)

y

Implementing the Shariah to solve society issues is like burning your house down because your ceiling is infested with spiders.

fixes the problem in the end. better no spiders then a lot of spiders.

You forgot the house factor in your equation.

no spiders > a lot of spiders - indeed

no spiders + no house <> a lot of spiders + house - not so sure?

Fixes the problem by creating a bigger problem: your house is in ashes. But maybe you like to live in ruins, then I guess it's OK for you.

Sounds like she's be one of them teachers who sleep with her students and risk her career

Brutal agepill.

Used up whores will still desire young Chads forever and ever. Betabuxing is simply a cope.

i met some very interesting women at r/incels too

Brandon Flowers is a closet gay

https://tips.fbi.gov/

Falsely accusing someone of a crime is generally a crime in itself, so I'd do it only if you have reasonable evidence. Maybe reach out to child protection organisations in the UK to see what can be done about it.

Age of consent in the UK is 16. Still dodgy as fuck, but from a legal standpoint perfectly fine.

Yeah she's not actually done anything legally wrong. Especially if she was 25.

In the UK, 17 is seen as fairly mature nowadays for it not to be creepy.

I guess our equivalent would be if it was a 22 year old woman and a 14 year old guy.

EVERY old woman cheats. All these women that come on this board are cheating or have cheated. This is the way for them to cope, to tell themselves: look at these awful men, they are worse than what I did.

Women always make excuses that they don't want an age difference. They drop all things they say when chad comes along.

17 year old boy.

17 year old man.

Yes, i kept in contact with a psycho cunt that has a major fetish for teenage boys. Is that considered a pedophile? I mean they aren't little boys but she definitely has a thing for the 14-18 look.

With all due respect my m8 i think you might be fucking retarded.

yeah ok lmao. enjoy being mogged in every sense possible by 17yo "little boys". enjoy having your worldview shaped by feminists and marxists despite what is clearly true.

so not only are you mentally weak you also have no understand of basic human biology

whether they are well-built or not they are ESSENTIALLY the same, they are adult men.

Yes, I know that, and it's completely fucking wrong. Just because normies and judeo-marxists would label him a 'pedophile' (meme word) doesn't make it true. Why are you arguing for the normies?

Having a 'cut off age' is pretty silly. It is customary in my traditional tribal culture for hte females to be wedded to men when they become women, at around 10-11, and the marriage is consummated at the same age. I don't think it should be illegal to have sex with the girls below that age, however, provided one is married to said girl.

They are fertile and capable

What's an IT alt?

OK I accept. "Sanctioned" is cool. I'm not bad at boxing. Might be hard to organise though.

Will you tell me?

I genuinely don't know what an IT alt is, only remember now that you had already replied to one of my comments by inviting me to flush myself because we are not on the same line of thought.

I'm not in the US that's why I said that, I'm in Asia

Thanks for the answer. I'm somehow new to Reddit so discovered recently that Incel is involuntary celibate. So... what's an incel tears? what's an alt? I'm from Europe not USA, I think I miss on translation sometimes.

Would you really consider organising a boxing match with someone from internet because you don't like his replies? it's funny but a bit brutal I think. Also it seems like you could go on a forever world tour for that. But I like the concept of old school duel, sanctioned boxing match with rules and witnessed, worst case you get some beating and your pride is damaged.

To be honest, I would probably not dare saying the same troll shit as I post online to anyone IRL because I'd be too embarrassed. That's why we made Internet anonymous.

Besides that, are you saying that in general as a way to call all Redditer stooges and pussies, or is it because you are physically impressive and a very good fighter? I mean, the day someone accepts what will you do? :)

I guess I'll have to trust you on word on that that one. You are very big, very strong, scary and boxing expert. Enough to make you right in every argument. It's OK because I'm also very big very strong and a martial art expert.

I was being a smartass indeed, so were you all the time. I didn't feel dunked on because I thought we were having an intelligent conversation but now you're loosing it and become a little bitch. So I start to believe that I would actually beat you in said boxing match.

Wow I was with you until here :)

Do you have an argument

I mean I liked what you said before but you lost me at getting married and consuming marriage at 10-11 years old. I believe it's too young, that's still childhood, especially being married with an adult.

Well 10-11+ year old women are women, not children. I mean, they are pubescent, they can conceive... if that isn't the paragon of womanhood I don't know what is (hundreds of years of tribal convention vs. some arbitrary number number assigned by the state a few decades ago -- I know what I choose). If females are married off at womanhood (with suitable partners, chosen by their father) they are secure and protected. If forced to wait until a few years later (however old you see fit) they are essentially directionless and will succumb to promiscuity if given even the slightest opportunity. It works out better for everyone this way, and our ancestors understood this; that's why they did it for hundreds of years.

My contention is that I don't think a 10-11yo girl is a woman. I think she is a kid. Not sexually capable, not yet capable to conceive.

Hundreds of years of tribal convention vs. some arbitrary number assigned by the state a few decades ago

Tribal conventions come from middle age and belong to middle age. It's applicable to tribal societies. Do you live in a tribal context? Imagine doing that in a 10 million people modern city, where people live until 80+ years old, go to university, work?

Though in Europe in middle age it was already not like that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern

My contention is that I don't think a 10-11yo girl is a woman. I think she is a kid. Not sexually capable, not yet capable to conceive.

That's just factually, objectively not true. Every single pubescent woman on this planet as we speak can, provided she is healthy, conceive a child without problem. Indeed, not only is conception possible, but it is probably, optimally so. Unfortunately, this is a fairly elementary datum of biological knowledge that is now lost on the modern masses (I don't mean to insult you personally for not knowing this, of course). (It is even possible, as has been demonstrated in some famous historical cases, that pre-pubescent girls can conceive, but this is anomalous and, being likely to lead to complications, isn't something that I support.)

The issue of 'sexuality capability', whilst, I contend, not entirely subjective, is not as cut-and-dry -- it is of course contingent on how one defines capability. There is a very important element of objectivity here though, concerning the physicality of sexual relations between pubescent women and men; without being too crude, young women are indeed physically sexually capable, i.e., they will not encounter any 'logistical' problems during the penetrative process, at least no more than the average virginal woman (the depth of the vaginal cavity, independent of course of the effects of long-term sexual relations, does not change significantly post-puberty). This is the construal of the notion of capability that is singularly important, in the original context.

Tribal conventions come from middle age and belong to middle age.

Well here we unfortunately have a fundamental disagreement. I don't see the way our ancestors behaved as being 'backward' and 'outdated', but in accordance with perennial, timeless truths (in an ethicomoral sense -- of course our ancestors had not the epistemological understanding we enjoy today, but, as acquired knowledge, this is a distinct matter; they were no less apprehensive of ethicomoral matters).

It's applicable to tribal societies.

I don't really see why a moral custom in a tribal society would cease to be moral in a (e.g.) modern society.

Imagine doing that in a 10 million people modern city, where people live until 80+ years old, go to university, work?

I'm not sure I see the mutual exclusivity between the traditional model of marriage and this characterisation of modernity. Even if the society is densely populated, and the women choose to pursue education through their womanhood, etc., how does this contravene upon the traditional model? There is a reason traditional customs and practices are traditional -- it's because they work. They are atemporal, incontrovertible.

Well it was assumed from the start that we would not agree, so I answer with an open mind.

"this is a fairly elementary datum of biological knowledge that is now lost on the modern masses"

I'm not expert in biology but from what I understand from reading scientifical articles, girls start having periods around 12-13 and I think the peak of their fertility would be around 16-18yo. I think most 10-11yo girl still dream of princesses and stuff and are not even into kissing boys. Though there are some exceptions, I know girls who were sexually active at 10-11, they don't make a rule.

I talk about context and time, not to say your ancestors were backward, but outdated definitely. Rules that work well for a social structure of 1000 people do not work well for a social structure of 10M people. But this is irrelevant, I don't know where you live. Again, traditional wedding in the West would be around 18-20, it's not a new phenomenon.

An Indian friend of mine is getting into an arranged wedding with a girl he met 1 week ago, I have nothing against that. It works. My original point is that you are placing the age bar too low. If you were saying 16-18 I could agree. But even from a personal point of view, as twisted that I can be, a girl much younger than me doesn't attract me.

OK let's see it from a different point of view, if a girl was to be married 10-11 years old, how old would the guy be? 10-11 as well? 14? 16? 40? I could conceive a society where both guys and girls get married very youngs, and grow together.

Sorry I'm at work and don't have so much brain power to construct answers, I'm more like throwing thoughts.

girls start having periods around 12-13

This may very well have been true as early as a few decades ago, but, for a number of reasons (incl. estrogenisation of produce), girls are reaching puberty earlier and earlier -- most girls get their periods around 10y.o.-11y.o. (of course, there are many examples either side of that range -- with girls menstruating as early as 8 and as late as 14 -- but I would be comfortable placing the mean at 10-11).

I think the peak of their fertility would be around 16-18yo.

As I hinted, I don't contend that mid-pubescent (or even early post-pubescent) women are not optimally fertile, but, for the purposes of this discussion, I see this more or less as an irrelevancy. Certainly, it may be rightly said that a 16-year-old woman is statistically more likely to conceive than an 11-year-old, but pragmatically it's irrelevant -- provided her male mate is also fertile, the 11-year-old will have no problem conceiving.

I think most 10-11yo girl still dream of princesses and stuff and are not even into kissing boys.

Haha, this may very well be true of girls slightly younger (8-9) but as soon as puberty comes along that mostly goes out the window. Young women are can quite plainly be said to sexual beings at that point -- I certainly remember how infatuated with girls I was at that age, and boys hit puberty a fair bit later than girls do.

My original point is that you are placing the age bar too low. [...]a girl much younger than me doesn't attract me.

Is this now your reason for contesting my setting the 'age bar' too low -- that you aren't attracted to women that age? I thought your principle contention was that they aren't biologically ready, with which I must wholly disagree. I must make it clear that I don't think there's anything wrong with your not being attracted to young women; it doesn't really make 'sense' to me personally, on a visceral level, because I find them so profoundly attractive, but of course everyone has their own tastes. Predictably, my response here is that any woman that could not be married off because she was too young to be found attractive could simply kept chaste until she is attractive, and then the marriage could be consummated. It's a fairly easy logistical problem to solve; one merely has to wait a few years. Nobody ought to be forced to consummate with a women they don't find physically attractive.

if a girl was to be married 10-11 years old, how old would the guy be?

Ideally, I would say early twenties to early thirties -- old enough so that he is sufficiently mature to take care of his wife and protect his family and so on, and young enough such that he is still physically beautiful and attractive to his bride. Any later and logistical problems begin to be introduced.

I could conceive a society where both guys and girls get married very youngs, and grow together.

This wouldn't work because the husband would be no wiser than his wife, and would be likely be incapable of reliably protecting his family, especially through the years where his young bride is most in need of protection.

Sorry I'm at work and don't have so much brain power to construct answers, I'm more like throwing thoughts.

Yeah no worries, I'm just glad to have a polite discussion without emotion getting in the way, as it often does.

The thing about me not being attracted by too young women was thrown here as it is, a personal taste, not as a statement. You don't need to jump on it as in "that's just your taste".

Do you really believe that in the last decades the basic biology of humans have changed? I would tend to think that people were much more mature in some ways in the past. 100 years ago 10yo kids would know how to look after a house. 1000 years ago they might go to war. Now they play with Snapchat etc.

So no I don't agree. I think optimal child bearing age, from a biological point of view, should be when you are done with growing, girls would reach their adult age around 18.

Same thing for mental age. I believe that 10-11 years old should be looked after by their parents, not by a husband.

In our societies we want people to reach their full potential, it's not only about being taken care of. We want people to make their own choices, I don't think if you ask a 10yo girl if she wants to get married she'll even understand what this is about. That's why we set age limit by law, so that a girl knows what she is signing for and can make her own decision.

that degenerate foid should be tortured to death

When I was 17 I wish I had hooked up with a hot 25 woman :) maybe you should admit that men and women are different and that's why society reacts differently. If a 17yo guy dates a 25yo woman everyone will be like "wow he's a stud", if a 17yo girl dates a 25yo guy everyone will be "wow poor girl she is being manipulated and he must be a supper creep".

I also knew girls in high shcool who were 16 but dating 20+yo guys though, didn't think much of it back then. When I was 14 I would think a 13yo girl is too young for me :)

Obviously she cheated on her husband and was OK with that and moved on. What would you expect from her?

Eh what do you mean? did I say something wrong?

They are fertile and capable

My contention is that I don't think a 10-11yo girl is a woman. I think she is a kid. Not sexually capable, not yet capable to conceive.

Hundreds of years of tribal convention vs. some arbitrary number assigned by the state a few decades ago

Tribal conventions come from middle age and belong to middle age. It's applicable to tribal societies. Do you live in a tribal context? Imagine doing that in a 10 million people modern city, where people live until 80+ years old, go to university, work?

Though in Europe in middle age it was already not like that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern

What's an IT alt?