# Sexual infantilization of women



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 26, 2019)

So what's the deal with this?

Infantilization, in this case, refers to the behavior you sometimes see where women will act like little girls when trying to act sexy, or when men will treat them like little girls because they find it gratifying.

People have put a fair bit of work into studying infantilization in old 50's advertising, but I think it still goes on to this day. I was once in a department store and there was a fucking "CINDERELLA SECTION" for jewelry. Then there's the weird "daddy" shit. Similarly, couples will call each other "baby" and the like, although admittedly, women due to that to their men too.

It seems to me like in a lot of cases, couples will show a sort of behavior where the nurturing parent-child relationship is layered over the romantic husband-wife relationship. Thus you get men who spank their wives to discipline them and women who laugh about cleaning up after their husbands (like they're a little boy). But the balance is very much towards women being infantilized rather than men. I assume it's due to men generally being the older and more powerful of the two.

If a grown woman wants a "Cinderella" brand ring for her wedding or still watches Disney movies on her own, she deserves a fucking beating. This society.


----------



## AJ 447 (May 26, 2019)

mind your own business


----------



## Rand /pol/ (May 26, 2019)

Asian women look like children and are mentally disabled hence why they act like children, case solved.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 26, 2019)

Ron /pol/ said:


> Asian women look like children and are mentally disabled hence why they act like children, case solved.



But this doesn't explain White women's strange behavior.


----------



## Exigent Circumcisions (May 26, 2019)

What do boobs feel like?: The thread


----------



## Sīn the Moon Daddy (May 26, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> But this doesn't explain White women's strange behavior.


Nothing can explain it. White women just do things. Source: I've dealt extensively with them in the course of my life, sometimes even offline.


----------



## Guts Gets Some (May 26, 2019)

You _actually_ think couples call each other "baby" as a sort of regression, or something along those lines?

For real?

....Wow


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 26, 2019)

I know it's fun to play Shout-Incel-At-The-New-Guy, but you have to admit that it's really, really weird how White women squee over everything Disney now, and there is a long history of them being portrayed like little girls in media.


Guts Gets Some said:


> You _actually_ think couples call each other "baby" as a sort of regression, or something along those lines?
> 
> For real?
> 
> Wow.


Not in the sense of psychological regression, like it's not a problem and it's really common, but yeah, I think it comes out of that sort of infantilizing behavior. Why baby? Why that word specifically?

Contrast that with other pet names, like honey, sweetie, dear, etc. Those all pretty much refer to sweet things (sweet things = good) or are just using another adjective for "thing I like."



emspex said:


> mind your own business


I take it you own a Cinderella ring yourself?


----------



## The Pink Panther (May 26, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> If a grown woman wants a "Cinderella" brand ring for her wedding or still watches Disney movies on her own, she deserves a fucking beating. This society.



Sounds kind of MUHsygonistic.

It's just a kink, my guy. Girls like submission because they like to be comforted by men and one of the ways that women are comforted is through the fashioning of a fantastical father-daughter relationship. People like childlike sensibilities to be translated into weird sexual kinks. I guess that's how adaptation works?


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 26, 2019)

The Pink Panther said:


> Sounds kind of MUHsygonistic.
> 
> It's just a kink, my guy. Girls like submission because they like to be comforted by men and one of the ways that women are comforted is through the fashioning of a fantastical father-daughter relationship.



So then yeah, it is a form of infantilization.

And I would likewise stand for beating any man who, say, collects Star Wars figurines as an adult.


Oh, I thought up another one. Shaving the pubes. Women tend to shave their pubes now and men generally like it that way. But you know what a grown woman has? Pubes. You know what a little girl doesn't have? Pubes.

I never thought about it that way until it was pointed out to me, but now I can see shaving pubes for what it is: a Jewish plot to try to promote pedophilia.


----------



## The Pink Panther (May 26, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> And I would likewise stand for beating any man who, say, collects Star Wars figurines as an adult.



Not worth it. The fun of it is watching them have worthless lives, not killing them. They gotta come to the eventual realization. Everybody does.


----------



## Guts Gets Some (May 26, 2019)

If someone needs to actually explain it to you, I seriously doubt you'd ever be able to understand, but I'll try.

I view it as either an affectionate term of "babe", which has nothing to do with infantilization, or 2. "baby" means they are as dear to them as, say, a baby would be; not in the "I need to take care of you" way, but in more of the "You are my world" kind of way. Add in the fact "baby" sounds more playful to boot, there you go.
This just in: when you're in love and coupled with someone, it's fun to flirt.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 26, 2019)

Guts Gets Some said:


> If someone needs to actually explain it to you, I seriously doubt you'd ever be able to understand, but I'll try.
> 
> I view it as either an affectionate term of "babe", which has nothing to do with infantilization, or 2. "baby" means they are as dear to them as, say, a baby would be; not that in the "I need to take care of you", but in more of the "You are my world" kind of way. Add in the fact "baby" sounds more affectionate to boot, there you go.



I get where you're coming from, I still think it's an odd thing that we all don't think is odd just because of how common it is.

Imagine calling your mate your daughter because she is as dear to you as a daughter would be.


----------



## Guts Gets Some (May 26, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> I get where you're coming from, I still think it's an odd thing that we all don't think is odd just because of how common it is.
> 
> Imagine calling your mate your daughter because she is as dear to you as a daughter would be.


----------



## Sīn the Moon Daddy (May 26, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Oh, I thought up another one. Shaving the pubes. Women tend to shave their pubes now and men generally like it that way.


I don't like having to pick hair out of my teeth.


----------



## Mightykiwi (May 26, 2019)

I feel you, op.  The other day I was listening to Kokomo by the Beach Boys, and I heard the line "Bermuda, Bahama, come on pretty mama", and then I realized something.  This song is Jewish propaganda to convince white, western men to be attracted to their own mothers by infantilizing them.  The Jews are trying to destroy the West's gene pool by having us mate with our own "pretty" mamas and produce retard babies until we can no longer defend ourselves.  That's when the Chinese come marching in...


----------



## The Pink Panther (May 26, 2019)

*OH YEAH! FUCK ME SENPAI DADDY!  PAPI, FILL ME WITH YOUR FRESH CUM IN MY WOMB! MAKE ME YOUR GREATEST DAUGHTER WORTHY OF INSEMINATION! *


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 26, 2019)

Sīn the Moon Daddy said:


> I don't like having to pick hair out of my teeth.



Oral sex is an abomination before God.



Mightykiwi said:


> I feel you, op.  The other day I was listening to Kokomo by the Beach Boys, and I heard the line "Bermuda, Bahama, come on pretty mama", and then I realized something.  This song is Jewish propaganda to convince white, western men to be attracted to their own mothers by infantilizing them.  The Jews are trying to destroy the West's gene pool by having us mate with our own "pretty" mamas and produce exceptional individual babies until we can no longer defend ourselves.  That's when the Chinese come marching in...



That would be the Japanese who promote Mother-Son incest. Anime is likewise satanic.


----------



## Guts Gets Some (May 26, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Oral sex is an abomination before God.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be the Japanese who promote Mother-Son incest. Anime is likewise satanic.



Your posts are topping @Shiversblood for me now.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 26, 2019)

Guts Gets Some said:


> Your posts are topping @Shiversblood for me now.



Well, look at it like this: back when women let their bush grow out, we didn't have trannies.

Now women shave, and we have trannies.

So who's in the right here, fucker? Huh?


----------



## Eryngium (May 26, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> But this doesn't explain White women's strange behavior.


White women are the niggers of white people.


----------



## Guts Gets Some (May 26, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Well, look at it like this: back when women let their bush grow out, we didn't have trannies.
> 
> Now women shave, and we have trannies.
> 
> So who's in the right here, fucker? Huh?



Hold on, gotta go dig out mah screencaps again.


----------



## Sīn the Moon Daddy (May 26, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Well, look at it like this: back when women let their bush grow out, we didn't have trannies.
> 
> Now women shave, and we have trannies.
> 
> So who's in the right here, fucker? Huh?


The women I like act crazy sometimes but not like children. As far as shaving and transgenderism being related... I don't know. Maybe dudes who shave with bars of soap instead of cream have some issues.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 26, 2019)

Eryngium said:


> White women are the niggers of white people.



Fuck, how could I forget?









						Woman Is The Nigger Of The World (Remastered 2010)
					

Provided to YouTube by Universal Music Group Woman Is The Nigger Of The World (Remastered 2010) · John Lennon Gimme Some Truth ℗ 2010 Calderstone Productions...




					www.youtube.com


----------



## Sīn the Moon Daddy (May 26, 2019)

Eryngium said:


> White women are the niggers of white people.


I'm pretty sure a white woman owns me.


----------



## Zeke Von Genbu (May 26, 2019)

What is this thread? Pubes = pedophilia and women want to be little girls because they shave their pubes therefore trannies? Oh and oral sex is satan. What the actual fuck are you on about? This is a joke right?


----------



## crocodilian (May 26, 2019)

I'm probably not supposed to reply seriously to this thread, but:

1. The simple fact is youth = desirability in the case of women. Nothing kills a man's boner faster than menopause. What's evidence of lack of fertility in women? Wrinkles, grey hairs, symptoms of adulthood. A lot of women try to disguise the reality they're getting older in the dumbest fucking ways possible. Self-inflicted infantilization is one such way.

2. An alarming amount of women have no meaningful hobbies. They can't hold a conversation. They have no personality. They don't have any real, substantial reasons to want to talk to them, but they still want male attention. So what do they do? They offer "the forbidden fruit"; an outlet for taboo sexual desires that a large amount of adult men probably have, unfortunately.


----------



## Rand /pol/ (May 26, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Well, look at it like this: back when women let their bush grow out, we didn't have trannies.
> 
> Now women shave, and we have trannies.
> 
> So who's in the right here, fucker? Huh?


Trannies have always been a thing, just look at all those Chinese eunuchs castrating themselves before the revolution.


----------



## Jazz Cat Blini (May 26, 2019)

women don't shave pubes for the vast majority of human history
literally zero transsexuals ever anywhere
women begin to shave pubic region as a common practice
now literally trannies everywhere 
the connection is clear
I, personally, do not see any flaws in this reasoning.


----------



## Guts Gets Some (May 26, 2019)

Jazz Cat Blini said:


> women don't shave pubes for the vast majority of human history
> literally zero transsexuals ever anywhere
> women begin to shave pubic region as a common practice
> now literally trannies everywhere
> ...



I know, rite! 
Did you know we didn't have CARS or CITIES until women shaved their pubes too???? I mean, the connection is clear!


----------



## AJ 447 (May 26, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> I take it you own a Cinderella ring yourself?


I'd never heard of them before, but I just googled it, and now I love them. It's pretty!


----------



## MemeGray (May 26, 2019)

It isn't just women and it isn't just sexual, look at soyboys and their switch selfies or how social media will bend over backwards to wnot offend people. Whole first world is treating grown adults like they're toddlers


----------



## Jazz Cat Blini (May 26, 2019)

Guts Gets Some said:


> I know, rite!
> Did you know we didn't have CARS or CITIES until women shaved their pubes too???? I mean, the connection is clear!



Open your _EYES _sheeple!

Also, 20 bucks says @Ughubughughughughughghlug thought this is what a Cinderella ring was


----------



## byuu (May 26, 2019)

It's always men who post pics of themselves in crapped diapers though.


----------



## AnOminous (May 26, 2019)

REEEEEEEEEEmales.


----------



## UW 411 (May 26, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> But you know what a grown woman has? Pubes. You know what a little girl doesn't have? Pubes.



You're just getting that _now?_
Quite the sexpert we have here!


----------



## heathercho (May 26, 2019)

emspex said:


> I'd never heard of them before, but I just googled it, and now I love them. It's pretty!
> View attachment 772857



Let's sell @Ughubughughughughughghlug as a male whore for a bit, till he's used up, then we'll kill him and sell his organs. How many Cinderella rings do you think we can buy then?


----------



## Guts Gets Some (May 26, 2019)

heathercho said:


> Let's sell @Ughubughughughughughghlug as a male whore for a bit, till he's used up, then we'll kill him and sell his organs. How many Cinderella rings do you think we can buy then?



You couldn't even buy the cupcake.


----------



## verissimus (May 26, 2019)

It's one thing to want to be a child in heart or for nostalgia sake if but for a moment, it's another thing to want to be a child in mind and/or actually believe or literally act like one as a lifestyle.


----------



## Marissa Moira (May 26, 2019)

emspex said:


> I'd never heard of them before, but I just googled it, and now I love them. It's pretty!
> View attachment 772857


Hey that's not an unreasonable price. Usually engagement rings will run you 5 grand while the wedding ring itself will run you around double.


----------



## Wendy Carter (May 26, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Well, look at it like this: back when women let their bush grow out, we didn't have trannies.
> 
> Now women shave, and we have trannies.
> 
> So who's in the right here, fucker? Huh?


This is some scientist-level stuff. We have to spread this information further.

In addition to that, here's another interesting study I've once read - every single dead person on this planet consumed water or water-containing food or beverages at some point in their life. Really makes you think what the government is hiding from us.


----------



## Clop (May 26, 2019)

I don't think this is a fair comparison. One is a dumb brat that gets overly excited by bright colors and materialism and never ever stops crying, and the other's a baby.


----------



## Terrorist (May 26, 2019)

porn probably has a lot to do with it, at least for the spanking/bdsm stuff. few people were into that creepy shit before porn (which was at first catered to a niche market of pervs, but inevitably spread with the internet) normalized it.


----------



## Death Grip (May 26, 2019)

Jazz Cat Blini said:


> women don't shave pubes for the vast majority of human history
> literally zero transsexuals ever anywhere
> women begin to shave pubic region as a common practice
> now literally trannies everywhere
> ...




That's called correlation, not causation.

Also fuck Disney with a ten foot pole.


----------



## Vampirella (May 26, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Well, look at it like this: back when women let their bush grow out, we didn't have trannies.
> 
> Now women shave, and we have trannies.
> 
> So who's in the right here, fucker? Huh?


Because there are less pirates, global warming has become worse.

Both women and men shave their crotch for a number of reasons.

It's cleaner
No rug burn during sex
Not as sweaty
Shaving your junk doesn't make it look like a child's. It still looks like an adult just bald. The 60s was best know for no one shaving anything. Are you suggesting that there was no sexual deviancy in the 60s? The time of free love and drugs, and hippies?

By that logic hippies didn't shave, Charles Manson had an army of brain washed hippies, Charles Manson used his hippy cult to murder people in the hopes of starting a race war. So not shaving = murder cults.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (May 26, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> But this doesn't explain White women's strange behavior.


White girls fuck dogs. Specifically Null.


----------



## Gaat (May 26, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> White girls fuck dogs. Specifically Null.



So Null is getting all the bitches? God-dammit Null


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 26, 2019)

Terrorist said:


> porn probably has a lot to do with it, at least for the spanking/bdsm stuff. few people were into that creepy shit before porn (which was at first catered to a niche market of pervs, but inevitably spread with the internet) normalized it.



I was referring more to the practice of disciplining a wife back in the day, before it was classified as a crime. I’m not sure how common it was, but it definitely existed and was considered acceptable.

In the modern day, there’s these weird groups of fundamentalists who practice something called “Christian a domestic discipline.” I encourage you to look it up; it seems like they’re mostly fetishists who use religion as an excuse so they don’t have to admit it’s a fetish.


----------



## Slappy McGherkin (May 26, 2019)

What's the last sound a pubic hair makes before it hits the floor?


"Pttttfff!"


I suspect someone has never had his face in that special place. Otherwise, he'd understand that being shaved enhances the sexual experience. Besides, seeing old growth forest poking out of a thong or bikini is a boner killer.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 26, 2019)

Slappy McGherkin said:


> What's the last sound a pubic hair makes before it hits the floor?
> 
> 
> "Pttttfff!"
> ...



Well my father taught me that women should not shave their pubes, so they should not shave their pubes.

I just put 2 and 2 together about the Jewish part.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (May 26, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Well my father taught me that women should not shave their pubes, so they should not shave their pubes.
> 
> I just put 2 and 2 together about the Jewish part.


Plot twist: your father was a Jew


----------



## Slappy McGherkin (May 26, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> Plot twist: your father was a Jew



Or a negreaux, as black men do not eat pussy.

We would always fuck with them as we were pulling into port. "I can't wait to find the nastiest whore in town and bury my face all up in that pussy!" They would wretch and we'd laugh like hell. "You white boys be lickin' da hole, you be suckin' the pole!" Ahhh yeah, fun times!


----------



## Basil II (May 26, 2019)

Bowie summarizes it pretty well.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 26, 2019)

MemeGray said:


> It isn't just women and it isn't just sexual, look at soyboys and their switch selfies or how social media will bend over backwards to wnot offend people. Whole first world is treating grown adults like they're toddlers



This is true, though we have, as a society, much less respect for them. Soyboy behavior is a pussy deflector.

It really does piss me off how people call teenagers and even fucking college students "children" and "kids" now. And college dorms tend to be decorated, by the RAs, with goofy shit like you would see in a Kindergarden.


----------



## Guts Gets Some (May 26, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Soyboy behavior is a pussy deflector.



You do have the utmost knowledge and experience on what constitutes a pussy deflector afterall, so I'll believe you.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 26, 2019)

Guts Gets Some said:


> You do have the utmost knowledge and experience on what constitutes a pussy deflector afterall, so I'll believe you.



Post pics of yourself if you're so confident.


----------



## Zeke Von Genbu (May 26, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Post pics of yourself if you're so confident.



"Dox yourself you damn idiot, also I'll need matching ID so I know you're not just showing Chad's pictures from google. If you don't do this you're a pussy faggot."


----------



## Guts Gets Some (May 26, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Post pics of yourself if you're so confident.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 26, 2019)

Zeke Von Genbu said:


> "Dox yourself you damn idiot, also I'll need matching ID so I know you're not just showing Chad's pictures from google. If you don't do this you're a pussy faggot."



So cynical.


----------



## Zeke Von Genbu (May 26, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> So cynical.



You're right I'm sorry. I watch anime so that satanic hypnosis is taking over me. I'll try again.

"Please my fine gentleman, prove to me that you're an "Alpha Chad" as they say. I shall make you a gentlemen's promise to not misuse your photo for any most dishonorable actions. If you do not agree to these conditions then you are not a most honorable gentleman." _-top hat tip-_ "Your move my good sir."


----------



## Guts Gets Some (May 26, 2019)

Zeke Von Genbu said:


> You're right I'm sorry. I watch anime so that satanic hypnosis is taking over me. I'll try again.
> 
> "Please my fine gentleman, prove to me that you're an "Alpha Chad" as they say. I shall make you a gentlemen's promise to not misuse your photo for any most dishonorable actions. If you do not agree to these conditions then you are not a most honorable gentleman." _-top hat tip-_ "Your move my good sir."



Hey, cut him some slack. 
He's right after all; I am a Chad: I've had women genuinely love me before. 

That's all it takes for them.  <-----Also me. I'm just _that_ famous.


----------



## PL 001 (May 26, 2019)

Don't feed the troll, people. Just look at his profile/past postings. He's clearly just a novelty account meant to get a rise out of people.

At least I hope that's all it is.


----------



## V0dka (Jun 1, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> So what's the deal with this?
> 
> Infantilization, in this case, refers to the behavior you sometimes see where women will act like little girls when trying to act sexy, or when men will treat them like little girls because they find it gratifying.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure what you are getting at.  I notice more of a general infantilization of Women in social and in media.  I think it's partly biological.  Men have been considered in the 25,000 years before the last 100 years of industrialization as the protectors, the providers.  Women were too valuable to risk them.  Women had so much intrinsic value in human history, they were considered more valuable than livestock.  While Men were as valued only as much as he was able to provide.

Now with labor saving devices, birth control, relatively the safest time to be alive in human history, and Womens rights, theres no huge need for Men anymore.  Women can do what Men do, do the same things wrong, but get away with it, because humans are biologically wired to protect Women and Children.

I don't think this is a particularly recent trend either, probably just more notice-ble.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 1, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> It seems to me like in a lot of cases, couples will show a sort of behavior where the nurturing parent-child relationship is layered over the romantic husband-wife relationship. Thus you get men who spank their wives to discipline them and women who laugh about cleaning up after their husbands (like they're a little boy). But the balance is very much towards women being infantilized rather than men. I assume it's due to men generally being the older and more powerful of the two.



Okay since nobody has genuinely answered the question, I'll extend a helping hand.


*Men are better than women.*


---

Also, that doesn't mean what you think it means. It's not that all men are better than all women, or even, that on average men are better than women. It's about the fact that women want someone better than themselves as a partner. If a woman is cashier, she wants a store manager. If she is a store manager, she wants another store manager, but one that is also wildly popular. If a woman is popular and a surgeon, she wants a partner that's popular, a surgeon and has written romantic books she loves.  A handsome man, a smart man, there are many things that women want, but almost universal is that they want someone better than themselves.

On the other hand, men want a woman who is fertile. This is why men's sexual prefference for women remains at somewhere around the 16-20 year age range regardless of their own. It's why women have more neotenic features than men; to look younger when they're not. It's why women use blush (women blush more at peak fertility).

The point is that you're supposed to figure these things out and never talk about them, because you'll never hear the end of the whining about it.

----

As for the more explicit infantilization of "daddy", it's just taking things further because like all ways of getting high on dopamine, sex is no different and people take it further and further to get their fix. It's rather ironic that someone posted a video of David Bowie for all the underage teen poon that man has harvested as a rock star.

There's also the whole "sugardaddy" and "sugarbaby" thing for those who aren't honest enough with themselves to call themselves tricks and whores.

----


----------



## V0dka (Jun 1, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> ---
> 
> Also, that doesn't mean what you think it means. It's not that all men are better than all women, or even, that on average men are better than women. It's about the fact that women want someone better than themselves as a partner. If a woman is cashier, she wants a store manager. If she is a store manager, she wants another store manager, but one that is also wildly popular. If a woman is popular and a surgeon, she wants a partner that's popular, a surgeon and has written romantic books she loves.  A handsome man, a smart man, there are many things that women want, but almost universal is that they want someone better than themselves.
> 
> ...



Well it was kind of what I was getting at.  Women have an intrinsic value that tends to lower with age.  Men have to earn value.  You call a Woman ugly and fat?  You are attacking her intrinsic value.  You call a Man a no-life loser?  You attack that he has never earned value.

There's a guy that's super hot, but has to take medication to barely function in day to day life, he can't hold down a job, barely leaves the house.  99% of Women would never be interested.

A Woman thats over 40, not attractive, but is a multibillionaire businesswoman.  99% of guys wouldn't be interested.


----------



## дядя Боря (Jun 1, 2019)

V0dka said:


> Well it was kind of what I was getting at.  Women have an intrinsic value that tends to lower with age.  Men have to earn value.  You call a Woman ugly and fat?  You are attacking her intrinsic value.  You call a Man a no-life loser?  You attack that he has never earned value.
> 
> There's a guy that's super hot, but has to take medication to barely function in day to day life, he can't hold down a job, barely leaves the house.  99% of Women would never be interested.
> 
> A Woman thats over 40, not attractive, but is a multibillionaire businesswoman.  99% of guys wouldn't be interested.



there is more to women than just sexual potential. Hopefully wisdom with age and ability to support her partner in other ways than materially, i.e. being a good mother and cornerstone of the family. Experience does matters.

I'm not completely disagreeing, I am saying it's a bit more complex. A good sandwich is hard to come by and with general infantilization of society, most people in their 20s are dumb as bricks.


----------



## byuu (Jun 1, 2019)

Guts Gets Some said:


> View attachment 773185


Did you hit that poor girl?


----------



## V0dka (Jun 1, 2019)

дядя Боря said:


> there is more to women than just sexual potential. Hopefully wisdom with age and ability to support her partner in other ways than materially, i.e. being a good mother and cornerstone of the family. Experience does matters.
> 
> I'm not completely disagreeing, I am saying it's a bit more complex. A good sandwich is hard to come by and with general infantilization of society, most people in their 20s are dumb as bricks.



I'm talking in general terms.  We often see in real life, the primary factors override the secondary. The super hottie with not a motherly bone in her body with kids she hands off to the nanny, or the high powered businessman husband thats an abusive workaholic.

They'll always have a line of people forming up behind them.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 1, 2019)

V0dka said:


> There's a guy that's super hot, but has to take medication to barely function in day to day life, he can't hold down a job, barely leaves the house. 99% of Women would never be interested.



This is false though. Women would be interested in the genetic top 20% even if they're bums.

I'm sure you've seen the pics of incels posting model pics and having a profile that says he's forced to say that he's been convicted of raping babies (and being unrepetant with some comment of "It is super unfair, but whatever") getting flooded with matches and even girls doing all the legwork in the conversation, just because the guy is in the genetic top 1%

There's also the dual female mating strategy of looking for the best genes to fuck her and the best provider to stick around.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Jun 1, 2019)

OP tl;dr: overthinking things


----------



## V0dka (Jun 1, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> I'm sure you've seen the pics of incels posting model pics and having a profile that says he's forced to say that he's been convicted of raping babies (and being unrepetant with some comment of "It is super unfair, but whatever") getting flooded with matches and even girls doing all the legwork in the conversation, just because the guy is in the genetic top 1%



We cover girls on here that are Serial Killer and Serial Rapist, and School Shooter fans.  It's not that they are good or bad that matters to them, it's that they've distinguished themselves in some way.  They've risen above the rest.  The same as generally a girl would rather get to know the popular comedian on stage than the guy standing next to her in the crowd.  There are no fan pages for bums, unless they aren't a bum through some means, a shooting, some viral incoherent rambling on a youtube video.  Automatically they've just distinguished themselves.

Onision, he's some idiot asshole that rambles on Youtube.  And he's probably got thousands of girls who want to be with him.

Peter Coffin complete moron, married someone I suspect is like a creepy stalker fan.

Breton Tarrant, killed 50 people, I guarantee you some girls flick the bean to his photo, and try to contact him in prison.

The thing that keeps coming up, they distinguished themselves in some way, whether good or bad, or just plain stupid, some girls don't care.



Lemmingwise said:


> There's also the dual female mating strategy of looking for the best genes to fuck her and the best provider to stick around.



I suppose that's also a dual strategy with Men, where they take the best wife and mother, but still cheat on her with every girl in the office.  I don't think that's a particular thing to one sex.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 1, 2019)

V0dka said:


> I suppose that's also a dual strategy with Men, where they take the best wife and mother, but still cheat on her with every girl in the office. I don't think that's a particular thing to one sex.



It is not really comparable. You can't always go "men and women are both like this", because often there are just huge differences.

The reason why it's not really comparable, is that for men, it's the same mating strategy. They're looking for the same kind of mates. They find the same women attractive every day of the month.

But women look for two different kind of mates (and respond to both differently in different phases of their ovulation cycle). This gets a bit wonkier if they go on the pill, but that's beside the purview of this discussion.


----------



## TotallyAChick (Jun 1, 2019)

V0dka said:


> Well it was kind of what I was getting at.  Women have an intrinsic value that tends to lower with age.  Men have to earn value.  You call a Woman ugly and fat?  You are attacking her intrinsic value.  You call a Man a no-life loser?  You attack that he has never earned value.
> 
> There's a guy that's super hot, but has to take medication to barely function in day to day life, he can't hold down a job, barely leaves the house.  99% of Women would never be interested.
> 
> A Woman thats over 40, not attractive, but is a multibillionaire businesswoman.  99% of guys wouldn't be interested.



I mostly agree, but... "A Woman thats over 40, not attractive, but is a multibillionaire businesswoman" ? There's nothing wrong with some carbohydrate matriarchs, sign me up.


----------



## V0dka (Jun 1, 2019)

TotallyAChick said:


> I mostly agree, but... "A Woman thats over 40, not attractive, but is a multibillionaire businesswoman" ? There's nothing wrong with some carbohydrate matriarchs, sign me up.



Okay... if that's your thing.


----------



## TotallyAChick (Jun 1, 2019)

V0dka said:


> Okay... if that's your thing.
> 
> View attachment 781011


Dude, I've been eating bread this whole week and she looks well fed. Just kidding, I wanted to be edgy. I am still hungry though.


----------



## NN 401 (Jun 1, 2019)

V0dka said:


> I'm not sure what you are getting at.  I notice more of a general infantilization of Women in social and in media.  I think it's partly biological.  Men have been considered in the 25,000 years before the last 100 years of industrialization as the protectors, the providers.  Women were too valuable to risk them.  Women had so much intrinsic value in human history, they were considered more valuable than livestock.  While Men were as valued only as much as he was able to provide.
> 
> Now with labor saving devices, birth control, relatively the safest time to be alive in human history, and Womens rights, theres no huge need for Men anymore.  Women can do what Men do, do the same things wrong, but get away with it, because humans are biologically wired to protect Women and Children.
> 
> I don't think this is a particularly recent trend either, probably just more notice-ble.





This has been and always will be a lie.


“Protective behavior” is nothing more than mate guarding if you want to be fedora tippingly cynical.

Otherwise, how do you explain FGM, the insane rates of female infanticide the world over, preferences for sons, shitty treatment of women in highly patriarchal societies in the Mideast, honor killings of daughters, and dowries where you literally pay a man to marry your daughter.

Shit, man, we even have names for girls that mean awful things.

Bronaugh, means “sorrow” in Gaelic and Dolores means “pain” in Spanish!


 The lives of women were almost stereotypically associated with suffering at one point.


----------



## V0dka (Jun 1, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> This has been and always will be a lie.
> 
> 
> “Protective behavior” is nothing more than mate guarding if you want to be fedora tippingly cynical.
> ...



It's obvious that not all "protection" good protection.  You might lock someone in a house to stop them from running off and getting in trouble, but you are still imprisioning them.

I suppose it really depends on if you think its better to suffer, or better to die.


----------



## NN 401 (Jun 2, 2019)

V0dka said:


> I suppose it really depends on if you think its better to suffer, or better to die.
> 
> View attachment 781811




Why are you quoting Hilary Clinton at me, or anyone here, like her opinions are relevant?

War tends to spare the lives of and rape children of either sex as well if they’re young enough.


Are you going to argue that by that criteria human society is naturally protective of children?


War also isn’t the totality of human experience especially so when considering so many of us in the first world don’t have any experience with it.


The reason women and children may not usually be killed is because they are a resource to be exploited.

The Greeks after raping everyone in Troy sold them off as slaves.

For money. And no one knows what happened to them.

Hector and Priam, however, died venerable deaths and were eulogized for all time.


 Despite short and brutish lives the ancient world valued that over living under less than honorable circumstances.


----------



## AnOminous (Jun 2, 2019)

V0dka said:


> I suppose it really depends on if you think its better to suffer, or better to die.
> 
> View attachment 781811



And I guess those husbands, those fathers, and those sons lost nothing in the process.  They just went on a nice adventure.


----------



## Syaoran Li (Jun 2, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Oral sex is an abomination before God.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be the Japanese who promote Mother-Son incest. Anime is likewise satanic.



Is this guy a troll or someone who genuinely believes that we're some alt-right incel site because he saw some SJW on Reddit or Tumblr bitch about us?

Between the Chick Tract-tier idiocy condemning oral sex (PROTIP: The Bible never condemns oral sex between heterosexuals, at least if they're already married) and the weird fixation with pubic hair, I can't tell if we have another Shiversblood or if this guy is a /pol/ reject.

Also, Japanese women tend to still have pubic hair. Even in their porn, the women have a thick bush.

Shaving your crotch became popular among American women because IIRC, it started as a trend in softcore porn (think late night Cinemax movies from the 90's and early 2000's) due to weird censorship policies from the late 80's and 90's regarding that type of stuff, but then it went into mainstream fashion because of the internet.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jun 2, 2019)

Syaoran Li said:


> Is this guy a troll or someone who genuinely believes that we're some alt-right incel site because he saw some SJW on Reddit or Tumblr bitch about us?
> 
> Between the Chick Tract-tier idiocy condemning oral sex (PROTIP: The Bible never condemns oral sex between heterosexuals, at least if they're already married) and the weird fixation with pubic hair, I can't tell if we have another Shiversblood or if this guy is a /pol/ reject.
> 
> ...



Hey, you all can point and laugh, but at least I'll go to Heaven and you all won't.


----------



## Death Grip (Jun 2, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> Why are you quoting Hilary Clinton at me, or anyone here, like her opinions are relevant?
> 
> War tends to spare the lives of and rape children of either sex as well if they’re young enough.
> 
> ...




We know what happened to Cassandra. She was taken as a slave by Agemnon who was then brutally slayed by Clytemnestra. 









						Helen of Troy (Part 18) - Final
					

Hope you enjoyed the movie!




					youtu.be
				




#teamClytemnestra


----------



## V0dka (Jun 2, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> The reason women and children may not usually be killed is because they are a resource to be exploited.



I agree, which is my point, Women are valued, whether as wives, as slaves, as loot of conquest.  Men are the soldier ants, they are disposable, in the context of human history.  Men have to succeed in something to be valued.  Sure China valued boys more culturally because in the past they were the ones to be put to work, they were the ones _expected_ to provide prosperity to the family, to carry on the family name and it's assets.  But if there are no Women, their are no children at all, and you see China reaping the cultural impact of the one child policy now.

I'm not saying one has it better than the other, they both suffer, differently.  And Feminism today really seems to minimize Women, make them seem almost vestigial in the context of humanity, as if they themselves are the misogynists, Women aren't good enough unless they are being Men?  It's rather a sexist outlook, to me anyway.

In modern times though, a lot of the drawbacks Women had have been nullified, dying in childbirth, lack of birth control, fear of travelling due to risk of attack from Men.  It's probably the best time in history to be a Woman.  And it's like they don't even realize it.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Jun 2, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Hey, you all can point and laugh, but at least I'll go to Heaven and you all won't.





			
				Matthew 7 said:
			
		

> 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
> 
> 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
> 
> 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?


----------



## Ali della Fenice (Jun 2, 2019)

Ron /pol/ said:


> Asian women look like children and are mentally disabled hence why they act like children, case solved.



I thought this applied to all women.


----------



## NN 401 (Jun 2, 2019)

V0dka said:


> I agree, which is my point, Women are valued, whether as wives, as slaves, as loot of conquest.  Men are the soldier ants, they are disposable, in the context of human history.  Men have to succeed in something to be valued.  Sure China valued boys more culturally because in the past they were the ones to be put to work, they were the ones _expected_ to provide prosperity to the family, to carry on the family name and it's assets.  But if there are no Women, their are no children at all, and you see China reaping the cultural impact of the one child policy now.



What I’m saying is that you are taking a modern value about women and men and retroactively imposing it on people who did not and do not think this.

Many ancient cultures placed a great emphasis on dying well. 
Living defeated, raped and under someone’s boot heel would be seen as shameful. 
Women who couldn’t die in combat were supposed to kill themselves and so were those who got raped.

This was often seen as a sign of great moral character. 

It is a value alien to even medieval scholars who read the Roman accounts of the Rape of Lucretia. 



The Chinese and the Indians literally do not care about the consequences of aborting and killing baby girls.

Pointing out that women are a necessary component of society does not compute to them because it’s all “fuck you got mine”

Sons are intrinsically more valuable than daughters.
Daughters can be raped bringing dishonor and have to be married off causing great expense.

You are underestimating how burdensome that has been for people the world over and how it makes so many of them cynical about their own children.

By the way, who do you think gets beaten and mentally abused if they can’t produce a son?

You talk about how men have to earn their way in the world but so do women and while they might be afforded the greater benefit of doubt their value is entirely based around biological processes that out of their control.

Being wanted because someone wants to stick their dick into your warm body is not the same thing as being valued.

And being valued in many places is almost entirely a “what have you done for me lately” proposition.


----------



## Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost (Jun 2, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Well, look at it like this: back when women let their bush grow out, we didn't have trannies.
> 
> Now women shave, and we have trannies.
> 
> So who's in the right here, fucker? Huh?



@debatelimination is this attempt to branch out with your trolling, stick to Sargon bud.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jun 2, 2019)

Are you assuming I’m Christian, infidel?


----------



## JektheDumbass (Jun 3, 2019)

I thought this was going to be about how SJWs like to claim women are not capable of consenting to sex because reasons.


----------



## Wraith (Jun 9, 2019)

Why do people write characters in animu and other fiction to make females more accessible? Accessibility in a positive way is attractive. The infantilization isn't 100% on that road, but it's something like that.
Are you sexually turned on by a stronk feminist womyn who acts like Bree Larson or some other "this is what an adult liberal woman looks like" person?
Something-something accessibility and attractiveness go hand in hand in some ways, something-something.


----------



## Sīn the Moon Daddy (Jun 9, 2019)

Wraith said:


> stronk feminist womyn who acts like Bree Larson or some other "this is what an adult liberal woman looks like" person?


I like tall women. I dated a volleyball player once and she was about 5'11 and in fantastic shape.  Anyway that really explains a lot about things. Well my first gf was 5'10. Did not age well though, she's 35 going on 50 broseph.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jun 9, 2019)

garakfan69 said:


> It's always men who post pics of themselves in crapped diapers though.



Ever heard of Diapergirl? From Mr. Metokur's Deviants series


----------



## V0dka (Jun 9, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> Being wanted because someone wants to stick their dick into your warm body is not the same thing as being valued.



Why not? Wanting a guy because he has a lot of money or moo cows seems just as shallow as someone who wants to stick a dick in it because they're attractive.  Whether you think one gold brick is better than another gold brick doesn't take away from the fact they are both gold bricks.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 9, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> Being wanted because someone wants to stick their dick into your warm body is not the same thing as being valued.



Actually it is. It may not be the same as being treated excellently, but even if you frame it so extreme as an exploitative relationship, then when you want to use someone you are placing value on it. Even if you go so far as to purely objectify, distasteful though it is to frame it as such, you are placing value on it.

People placed value on men for their willingness to risk their lives (protection) and for what they could do/give (resources) and people placed value on women for fertility and motherhood. When either got old they were valued for wisdom.

_edit: heh, simultaneously honing in on the same quote as @V0dka  I see._


----------



## queerape (Jun 9, 2019)

On the other hand, women who are deemed experienced are devalued, and this is where slut shaming comes from. A woman with expereince knows what she wants, so it's harder for you to objectify her in the ways of your own desires. She is not a blank slate, and thus comes with more "unpredictables" than an impressionable virgin. Full disclosure, as a somewhat experienced woman, I'm already finding that certain types of guys suddenly treat me differently when they learn I have experience. They suddenly act like they can't trust me, or that I'd be harder to deal with than a less experienced woman, even if by my age  complete virgins are vanishingly rare. So, women in my position have two choices, either we feign being less experienced (which I personally find insulting to do), or we put up with and avoid the kind of guys that would devalue us.


----------



## NN 401 (Jun 10, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> Actually it is. It may not be the same as being treated excellently, but even if you frame it so extreme as an exploitative relationship, then when you want to use someone you are placing value on it. Even if you go so far as to purely objectify, distasteful though it is to frame it as such, you are placing value on it.
> 
> People placed value on men for their willingness to risk their lives (protection) and for what they could do/give (resources) and people placed value on women for fertility and motherhood. When either got old they were valued for wisdom.
> 
> _edit: heh, simultaneously honing in on the same quote as @V0dka  I see._




This is a naive presumption.

Social credit and ego maintenance out weighs all of this on many levels and across cultures.

How else do you explain people being socially conditioned to kill their own genetic offspring upon the right cue?

By the logic you’ve demonstrated here the prison fuck boy is “valued.”

When the reality is closer to a hostage situation with varying levels off benignity.


Would it surprise you to know that those “hot” women who seem to get everything handed to them adopted a persona that actually requires quite a bit of work?





queerape said:


> On the other hand, women who are deemed experienced are devalued, and this is where slut shaming comes from. A woman with expereince knows what she wants, so it's harder for you to objectify her in the ways of your own desires. She is not a blank slate, and thus comes with more "unpredictables" than an impressionable virgin. Full disclosure, as a somewhat experienced woman, I'm already finding that certain types of guys suddenly treat me differently when they learn I have experience. They suddenly act like they can't trust me, or that I'd be harder to deal with than a less experienced woman, even if by my age  complete virgins are vanishingly rare. So, women in my position have two choices, either we feign being less experienced (which I personally find insulting to do), or we put up with and avoid the kind of guys that would devalue us.




There are few men who will gracefully accept dating a woman where sex is not on the menu.

It used to be perfectly acceptable for a woman, sexually active or not, to date a man and not sleep with him.

We don’t really do that anymore.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 10, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> When the reality is closer to a hostage situation with varying levels off benignity.



It's completely a-historic to believe that women prior to feminism were in a hostage situation. This is a feminist/hollywood rewriting of history.

I'm not sure what your point about women doing work to be regarded as more "hot" is supposed to prove.



queerape said:


> On the other hand, women who are deemed experienced are devalued, and this is where slut shaming comes from. A woman with expereince knows what she wants, so it's harder for you to objectify her in the ways of your own desires. She is not a blank slate, and thus comes with more "unpredictables" than an impressionable virgin. Full disclosure, as a somewhat experienced woman, I'm already finding that certain types of guys suddenly treat me differently when they learn I have experience. They suddenly act like they can't trust me, or that I'd be harder to deal with than a less experienced woman, even if by my age complete virgins are vanishingly rare. So, women in my position have two choices, either we feign being less experienced (which I personally find insulting to do), or we put up with and avoid the kind of guys that would devalue us.



Slut shaming, much like restrictive corsets has its history in inter-women competition and a way to keep for example, the maid from seducing the man of the house (and vice versa, from getting the maid to respond to the man's advances).

It still seems to be more common interwomen, as previous twitter harassment studies show women are more likely to call each other slut and such.

There are more reasons to value a female partner less than just not being "blank slate" for being "experienced". From STD risk, to indications of poor character/fidelity (depends on how much dick she took), reduced pair-bonding, expectations up to michrochimerism if you're looking for a partner to have children with.


----------



## NN 401 (Jun 10, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> It's completely a-historic to believe that women prior to feminism were in a hostage situation. This is a feminist/hollywood rewriting of history.




You are the one who chose to  define the concept of being "valued" to being equivalent to the concept of being "objectified."

I merely pointed out the end result of that line of thought in order illustrate why being desired and being valued has a clear division.

History for women wasn't a holocaust but it wasn't some frou frou Suzy Homemaker shit either.

I've pointed out numerous examples of entire societies numbering in the hundreds of millions that treat their women like shit, murder them before their even born, despite desiring sex and their wombs in order to have _male_ children.

Yet, for some reason no one who subscribes to your line of thought has come up with an answer that accounts for this.

This isn't to score points for the "muh oppression" angle. This is a serious question.




> I'm not sure what your point about women doing work to be regarded as more "hot" is supposed to prove.



I mentioned it because people seem to have this idea that being desirable is something that just happens to some people, specifically women, and they don't have to do anything.




> There are more reasons to value a female partner less than just not being "blank slate" for being "experienced". From STD risk, to indications of poor character/fidelity (depends on how much dick she took), reduced pair-bonding, expectations up to michrochimerism if you're looking for a partner to have children with.



Female promiscuity taps into male secondary sexual strategy and it disrupts social relations between men and women at large.

However, hypocritical it was, there was a reason men were often implored to divide women into two groups. Women of "easy virtue" and the ones they were supposed to marry and have kids with. 

This still rankled women of pedigree back then and Victorian women activists were known of trying to get houses of ill repute shut down, by protesting outside them.

The concern was that the _men_ were spreading diseases to their wives and consequently infant children.


----------



## TerribleIdeas™ (Jun 10, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Oral sex is an abomination before God.



Your mom loves getting throated, though.


----------



## V0dka (Jun 10, 2019)

queerape said:


> On the other hand, women who are deemed experienced are devalued, and this is where slut shaming comes from. A woman with expereince knows what she wants, so it's harder for you to objectify her in the ways of your own desires. She is not a blank slate, and thus comes with more "unpredictables" than an impressionable virgin. Full disclosure, as a somewhat experienced woman, I'm already finding that certain types of guys suddenly treat me differently when they learn I have experience. They suddenly act like they can't trust me, or that I'd be harder to deal with than a less experienced woman, even if by my age  complete virgins are vanishingly rare. So, women in my position have two choices, either we feign being less experienced (which I personally find insulting to do), or we put up with and avoid the kind of guys that would devalue us.



I think it's something else.  Virginity and by proxy inexperience are valued by Men because it's probably seen as an ego boost, a confidence builder, a bit of a ward against sexual rejection, you aren't competing with other Men she's been with in the girls mind.  When a girl has experience, it's hard to believe them when they say "that was amazing",  unless they are egotistical ass they are always going to be questioning in the back of their minds.  "Did she just say it to make me feel nice?".  Will they leave because they can can pretty much have any type of guy with whatever type of skills they want around in 15 minutes if they picked up the phone?  Does she just act like shes enjoying it because she feels she has to?  

Let's be honest, guys are easy to please, but girls, not so much.

Plus theres that study I read about.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 10, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> You are the one who chose to  define the concept of being "valued" to being equivalent to the concept of being "objectified."
> 
> I merely pointed out the end result of that line of thought in order illustrate why being desired and being valued has a clear division.
> 
> ...



You know what? A lot of the things you write make so little sense that I've decided to delete my part by part response.

I don't think you're coming at this with a genuine intent to further your or other's understanding, I think you're coming at this with a chip on your shoulder and an axe to grind and I'm not going to get pulled into an endless back and forth on that.

To give one example of that is where you talk about the history of men spreading diseases. I can't think of any other reason that you're bringing this up to get into some women-good men-bad tug of war. Because that entire point has nothing to do with men today having a prefference for women with less sexual partners. It comes across to me as you being bitter about that. 

Finally there can be no long history of killing baby girls in wombs, because we don't have a long history of detecting the sex of the baby of a pregnant women. That tech was first pioneered in the 60s. But who am I kidding? You weren't talking to me. You were talking to "people who take my line of thought", whatever you conceptualise that to be.


----------



## NN 401 (Jun 10, 2019)

I am not trying to argue with you.

I do not have a chip on my shoulder.

I just want to know how maxims like “women have inherent value and men don’t” square away with things I have pointed out that are counter to this.

I am asking you very politely and sincerely to change my mind.


How do you account for dowry, honor killings, and female infanticide?
How do you account for suicide as an acceptable response to being raped for women?

Are prison fuck boys “valued” or “objectified?


Also, it might interest you to know that female infanticide did not only began with ultrasound tech.

Are you aware that rural third worlders murder female children when they are born?
This is a persistent historical FACT that hasn’t gone away with the modern era much to everyone’s chagrin.

I pointed out the “men spreading disease” bit as a way to illustrate that both male AND female promiscuity is harmful to the vast majority of women in a stable relationship and their children.

I am not responsible for what you read into that. I thought I had made a pretty neutral statement.


It is a biological fact that while men are much harder to infect with STDS, unless they are bottoms in a gay relationship and don’t use protection, the males who ARE carriers are primary vectors for female populations because female biology is especially vulnerable to infection.

Some men get sick from a minority of promiscuous and/or infected women and then it spreads to the greater gen pop.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 10, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> How do you account for dowry, honor killings, and female infanticide?



Dowry is the way that women inherited; it was the resources to supply her with security in the world. It's one of the ways that shows that women were valued.

Honor killings are a response/revenge to a woman squandering/cheating her inherent value/fertility (typically for alduterous wives or pre-marriage sex).

I'm not really speaking about pakistani, china or indian culture, so female infanticide is outside of the scope of the discussion. I'm sure you've read why people do it. A son can be economically exploited, but a daughter must be economically provided for, because to not provide for a daughter would be dishonorable. Daughters are expected to be valued so high, that some don't want to bear the burden and do the unthinkable.

These same cultures like to have sons for the expectations of the resource value that the sons will give them.

This is precisely in accordance with the view espoused earlier, not a contradiction.


----------



## NN 401 (Jun 10, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> Dowry is the way that women inherited; it was the resources to supply her with security in the world. It's one of the ways that shows that women were valued.



Which is taken by the In laws.

The woman doesn't get to keep it and if she leaves her husband the dowry stays with them.

Indian women, specifically, were given a set of wedding jewelry that's supposed to be her inheritance. That she can take with her provided the In Laws do not take it from her first. That is _not a dowry._

Dowry is one of the major reasons female children are killed. Because they take wealth away from the parent family and transfer it to another family.





> Honor killings are a response/revenge to a woman squandering/cheating her inherent value/fertility (typically for alduterous wives or pre-marriage sex).



Honor killings are a Mideast cultural _tick_.

A region also known for verbal triple talaq. This is supposed to be the safety release valve on unsuitable wives.

NOT MURDERING THEM.

Men aren't stuck with them. Divorce in Mideast countries is far more common than people realize and in earlier times so was remarrying widows and divorced women.

Muhammad married more non- virgins than virgins. 

Certain Bedouin tribes have been reported to hand over their concubines, wives, to guests for sexual release. The women have no say.

Premarital sex in certain Mideast countries leads to the stoning of both participants, not just the woman by the way. 

Do you consider stabbing a young girl to death because she told someone she had eyes for a blue eyed British soldier to fit your criteria of squandering her virginity?

Or wearing jeans? Or listening to Western music? While living in the West?

Do you think beating a wife, who can't leave her house, raping her, and treating her like a walking uterus is conducive to bearing children and indicates that the men in this culture see her as having "inherent value"?

Or just maybe it has more to do with abstract concepts of "honor" that are the result of a culture that is deeply narcissistic.  

https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/02/another_honor_killing_that_isn.html

https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2008/05/my_daughter_deserved_to_die_fo.html





> I'm not really speaking about pakistani, china or indian culture, so female infanticide is outside of the scope of the discussion.



You've just eliminated most of the world population and its cultures and not provided a good reason why its "outside of the scope of the discussion."




> I'm sure you've read why people do it.



I've had front row seats to why people do it.



> A son can be economically exploited, but a daughter must be economically provided for, because to not provide for a daughter would be dishonorable.




People abandon their baby girls to the elements all the time when they can't strangle her themselves.

And killing her isn't "dishonorable"? Having abortions isn't "dishonorable"? 

The only reason why people don't abandon girl children en masse is because they either love their female children despite the heavy burden she will be, or its illegal and they're afraid to go to jail.

Dishonor is an offshoot of "shame" cultures.  These people only care about their public personas and how their peers see them. They don't neccasarily have any internalized guilt the way Westerners do. They are only contrite when caught.

And being carted off to jail, the _shame of being seen dragged off to jail, _ is what's keeping these people from openly throwing their babies into the gutter outside their home.

Baby girls are also not only a massive economic strain but they are a living, walking Achilles heel for their fathers.

All someone has to do is spread rumors about her and now you're marked as man who _has no control over his family._




> Daughters are expected to be valued so high, that some don't want to bear the burden and do the unthinkable.



Is that why they beat their wives when the woman fails to give them sons?

Also...

The same daughters who can't bury you when you die, and won't carry on your name? The one you have to save up a lifetime in order to pay a man to marry her?

You are now carrying the water for child murderers, and wife beaters. 
These are the main reasons these people cite to Westerners when interviewed.
They're not making up excuses for their behavior so why are you?





> These same cultures like to have sons for the expectations of the resource value that the sons will give them.



Surprise, surprise! When India instituted a serious push for female education these same families began to understand that by sending their daughters to school they could have female children from which they could depend on economically and 'extract resources from'!

The baby girl murder rate dropped and the gender ratio balance began to even out.



> This is precisely in accordance with the view espoused earlier, not a contradiction.



These arguments haven't been very convincing and don't bear out with what the data and research has shown.

I also don't think you've had much contact with cultures outside of that Western ones.


----------



## queerape (Jun 10, 2019)

Honor killings are cultural, not religious. They are not limited just to Islam, but have also occurred in ultra-Orthodox Jews, fundamentalist Christian, ultra conservative Sikh and Hindu communities as well.


----------



## kadoink (Jun 11, 2019)

I miss seeing women act like women and not stupid teenagers or spoiled brats.


----------



## Tasty Tatty (Jun 11, 2019)

JektheDumbass said:


> I thought this was going to be about how SJWs like to claim women are not capable of consenting to sex because reasons.



Same.

To contribute something to this super r/etarded thread, the answer to the original post ain't that hard: men like vulnerability and youth in a partner. Youth because it's a sign of fertility, vulnerability because it means a woman who will stay with them. Most women nowadays can't tell the difference between BE vulnerable and ACT vulnerable, mistaking it for being the same as a weak sap who needs to be rescued or needs constant help, hence, a child. Add that to how Feminism telsl women how they shouldn't suffer any consequence for their actions, and not only you have a child, but a spoiled brat.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 11, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> A region also known for verbal triple talaq. This is supposed to be the safety release valve on unsuitable wives.
> 
> NOT MURDERING THEM



See this is what I mean? You're not interested in understanding, you just want to argue your point. Argumentative at every point. Lady, believe what you want to believe.

If you take an instance where you know the supposed method of divorce is the verbal tripil talaq, then you know honor killings aren't the basic accepted cultural norm.

Besides, Islamic nations treat women badly? No shit.

And you also argumentatively go into the china/india point, despite the fact that I addressed it anyways.



BlastDoors41 said:


> I also don't think you've had much contact with cultures outside of that Western ones



Both wrong and showing once again that yes, you are argumentative and have a chip on your shoulder about this issue.

I might have developed a chip on my shoulder about it too if I witnessed baseless honor killings, but I wouldn't lie about that personal motivation. I wish I had trusted my gut, rather than your words and not wasted the time.


----------



## V0dka (Jun 11, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> Which is taken by the In laws.
> 
> The woman doesn't get to keep it and if she leaves her husband the dowry stays with them.
> 
> ...



No ones arguing Women don't have it bad. But really, people have it bad.  Not just Women. What many of us have been saying is that generally, culturally women have an innate value, no matter how shallow you think it may be. But in the context of the discussion, it feels like you are working out of bounds.

It's like if someone came in and said "Men got to own property and shit so they live like kings, Women have always had nothing" and then someone comes in and mentions the probably billions of men that have died or been maimed or tortured, defending that personal property, their loved ones, from animals or criminals or armies or fighting in massive wars.  The more stuff Men have, the more social responsibility they take on to protect it.  And it's expected, probably not just culturally, but likely biologically as well.

Simply put a Man with no responsibilities is not a Man, but a child.

A Woman with or without responsibilities will always be a Woman.


----------



## ES 148 (Jun 11, 2019)

V0dka said:


> No ones arguing Women don't have it bad. But really, people have it bad.  Not just Women. What many of us have been saying is that generally, culturally women have an innate value, no matter how shallow you think it may be. But in the context of the discussion, it feels like you are working out of bounds.
> 
> It's like if someone came in and said "Men got to own property and shit so they live like kings, Women have always had nothing" and then someone comes in and mentions the probably billions of men that have died or been maimed or tortured, defending that personal property, their loved ones, from animals or criminals or armies or fighting in massive wars.  The more stuff Men have, the more social responsibility they take on to protect it.  And it's expected, probably not just culturally, but likely biologically as well.
> 
> ...



Lmao this is hilariously sexist towards men


----------



## NN 401 (Jun 11, 2019)

V0dka said:


> No ones arguing Women don't have it bad. But really, people have it bad.  Not just Women. What many of us have been saying is that generally, culturally women have an innate value, no matter how shallow you think it may be. But in the context of the discussion, it feels like you are working out of bounds.
> 
> It's like if someone came in and said "Men got to own property and shit so they live like kings, Women have always had nothing" and then someone comes in and mentions the probably billions of men that have died or been maimed or tortured, defending that personal property, their loved ones, from animals or criminals or armies or fighting in massive wars.  The more stuff Men have, the more social responsibility they take on to protect it.  And it's expected, probably not just culturally, but likely biologically as well.
> 
> ...




I'm not arguing that women have had it bad or that men have had it bad or anything.

What I am trying to get across is here is that human societies do not organize along as rational an impetus as you suggest.
Even if what you are saying is true, and it seems true on a logical basis, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that the status of women as a whole varies wildly when a cross section of multiple eras, civilizations and peoples are accounted for.

Human conflicts and civilizations are more messy and counter intuitive than anyone wants to admit.

Even now you are making a broad and sweeping generalization that men died in wars and women didn't.

Which is true... _Some of the time. 
Sometimes everybody died. _
Women were punished for having sex outside of marriage... _Some of the time. 
Sometimes people didn't care so much about virginity as they did about sexual continence. _
Women couldn't inherit property... _some of the time. 
Sometimes they inherited entire kingdoms from their fathers and became supreme ruler._


Furthermore, I don't think this sentiment is a completely accurate assessment of War vis a vis gender relations.
I think the model everyone here thinks about regarding men going to war is one where the vast majority of men have little agency in because the ruling class are the ones who made the decision to do so.
Peasants being leveraged for battle in the Middle Ages, WW1 and 2.

Or a purely defensive one where the goal is to preserve what you have.

But war comes in many different flavors. There are plenty of examples of warfare and entire civilizations built on a mutually agreed upon decision to go fuck someone's shit up because we want to.

How do we square that away?

Lastly, what exactly is a 'man without responsibilities?'

Historically, before the advent of the modern era a man "without responsibilities" is someone who doesn't work, doesn't get married, and doesn't produce an heir to continue his House.

Am I correct?

99% of the world's population did not have the luxury to choose to not to have responsibilities.

You don't work. You starve and die.

You don't get to choose to not get married. Your father controls that.

Not producing an heir due to biology has always been distressing to everyone in every culture. Not producing an heir on purpose would be seen as _perverse and grounds for divorce/annulment._

Women have shared with men in all three of those things and often got the blame for the last one.

The only people who escape this are those who are so wealthy they are beyond any real consequences but those people aren't most people.







Lemmingwise said:


> See this is what I mean? You're not interested in understanding, you just want to argue your point. Argumentative at every point. Lady, believe what you want to believe.
> 
> If you take an instance where you know the supposed method of divorce is the verbal tripil talaq, then you know honor killings aren't the basic accepted cultural norm.
> 
> ...



This is the second time you have accused me of arguing in bad faith and now you're 'tone policing'.

What a way to take a page from those nasty feminists you hate so much.

If I'm so transparent in whatever it is you think I'm doing then why can't you answer any of the anthropological questions I put to you.

I'm an ideologue right?

Then defeat me with facts,  it should be easy for you.

Riddle me this: If women have inherent value and men don't.

Why did the Beti Bachao Beti Padhao program achieve a drop in female infant murders and foeticide in Haryana?

The dowry system.

Female infanticide in general.

Honor killings.

And my favorite:

Are prison punks "valued" by their rapists?

Now let's do you:



> If you take an instance where you know the supposed method of divorce is the verbal tripil talaq, then you know honor killings aren't the basic accepted cultural norm.



Are you kidding me with this?

I pointed this out because despite having a legal way to rid yourself of a wife some men will still go out of their way to murder their women in order to save face.

And not face any real consequences for this with public adulation from their peers.

With the amount of sperging on Kiwifarms done about how awful Muslims and the Middle East are culturally are you telling me you are absolutely ignorant about this phenomenon?

Fun fact:

You don't get prosecuted in Pakistan for killing your kids or attempting to kill them.
Elsewhere you pay some blood money and never see the inside of a court.

If that isn't a culturally accepted norm, I don't what is.



> Besides, Islamic nations treat women badly? No shit.



They treat their women badly because they don't _value _them.



> And you also argumentatively go into the china/india point, despite the fact that I addressed it anyways.



You addressed it _poorly. _

And without anything to back up your assertions except some bizarre and _wrong_ apprehension of what the dowry system is by calling it an inheritance when its a transfer of wealth to the groom's family.

Then running with that false concept you basically went and said people murder their baby girls because they're so high value, and that _not _taking care of them is somehow more dishonorable than suffocating them with a rice, flour and milk mixture.

This is so far and away from the reasons these people give for doing what they did from their own mouths, and from the reality on the ground it was _painful _to read.



> Both wrong and showing once again that yes, you are argumentative and have a chip on your shoulder about this issue.



Then your experience was an extremely shallow one.
But you can always prove me wrong by providing specific examples.




> I might have developed a chip on my shoulder about it too if I witnessed baseless honor killings, but I wouldn't lie about that personal motivation. I wish I had trusted my gut, rather than your words and not wasted the time.



Do you treat everyone who politely disagrees with you like this or just the ones you _think_ are women with a somewhat opposing viewpoint?


The only thing I see here is that you're upset that a deeply held philosophical maxim for you doesn't align 100% with reality.

To which I say: welcome to the club.


----------



## ES 148 (Jun 11, 2019)

This thread is like 4chan if 4chan wasn't funny


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 11, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> I'm an ideologue right?
> 
> Then defeat me with facts, it should be easy for you.



Didn't you say before that you're not here to argue? Not really keeping that mask on right, are you?

There isn't even anything wrong with wanting to argue.

In general I like to argue. Particularly if I think there's something that can be gained from it, either for me or for the person that I'm communicating with. It's the deceptiveness in you pretending that you don't want to argue that I find disgusting. Like assuming you really did first hand witness honor killings, how could you experience that and not have a close personal motive in relation to the topic? Are you that dishonest with yourself about it or just with me?
Again there isn't anything wrong with such a personal motive either, but it's the willingness to use deception that teaches me that time spent on you is ill-spent.

There are a myriad of reasons why I wouldn't enjoy communicating in such way with you. The fact that you're continuing to try and manipulate me and goad me into a discussion with you when you know I have no interest in it, is yet another reason why I wouldn't like to do so.

I wrote this mostly to discover and articulate exactly why I'm so revulsed by reading what you write.


----------



## NN 401 (Jun 11, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> Didn't you say before that you're not here to argue? Not really keeping that mask on right, are you?
> 
> There isn't even anything wrong with wanting to argue.
> 
> ...




Pointing out how icky I am, and gross, and how I have cooties and you don't want to hold my hand doesn't answer any of the questions I asked.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Jun 11, 2019)

Vrakks said:


> This thread is like 4chan if 4chan wasn't funny


Welcome to Deep Thoughts, enjoy your stay


----------



## DuckSucker (Jun 11, 2019)

emspex said:


> mind your own business


You heard it here first Emspex is into DD/LG shit.


----------



## FierceBrosnan (Jun 11, 2019)

DuckSucker said:


> You heard it here first Emspex is into DD/LG shit.


Hot.


----------



## V0dka (Jun 23, 2019)

BlastDoors41 said:


> But war comes in many different flavors. There are plenty of examples of warfare and entire civilizations built on a mutually agreed upon decision to go fuck someone's shit up because we want to.
> 
> How do we square that away?
> 
> ...



I understand your arguments, but I'm unsure of the point of view you are trying to convey.  Is it that you believe the structure of human society is the real cause behind peoples suffering?  Because I believe humans in general have a biological programming to behave in certain patterns, and the power structure built upon it is the Human societies attempt to moderate and channel biological impetus into bettering society.  

And yes Women have it bad, as Men do, but as usual, the ways that they have it bad is different.  Because I believe Men and Women operate differently, and they have different things expected of them in general.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jun 23, 2019)

7 pages in and you fucks are still going.


----------



## kadoink (Jun 23, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> 7 pages in and you fucks are still going.


7 fucks in and you pages are....IZZAT HOT!?-Ralph


----------



## Autocrat (Jun 23, 2019)

I've been in a relationship with a woman that frequently acts like a little girl. She has stuffed animals that she referred to as "Littles" (She really wants to be a mom - so, not totally infantilized). She would often do a little girl voice. Sometimes during sex she would look at me like she was mildly afraid and didn't know what was going on (Likely roleplaying something in her head. I never asked).

She didn't do it all of the time. Sometimes, it was fun and sometimes I just wanted to have a normal conversation with a girl my age, and she clearly wasn't in that kind of mood.

I think it came from how she was raised. I know her older brother is gay and apparently does diaper play. What are the chances of 2 siblings sexually roleplaying as being kids? Her dad was distant and her mom was mean. She's turned wanting love as a kid into some kind of fetish.


----------



## V0dka (Jun 23, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> I've been in a relationship with a woman that frequently acts like a little girl. She has stuffed animals that she referred to as "Littles" (She really wants to be a mom - so, not totally infantilized). She would often do a little girl voice. Sometimes during sex she would look at me like she was mildly afraid and didn't know what was going on (Likely roleplaying something in her head. I never asked).
> 
> She didn't do it all of the time. Sometimes, it was fun and sometimes I just wanted to have a normal conversation with a girl my age, and she clearly wasn't in that kind of mood.
> 
> I think it came from how she was raised. I know her older brother is gay and apparently does diaper play. What are the chances of 2 siblings sexually roleplaying as being kids? Her dad was distant and her mom was mean. She's turned wanting love as a kid into some kind of fetish.



Did you ever ask if she was bullied at school?  I found that girls that experience significant bullying in elementary school tend to almost... regress sometimes, as a method of coping?


----------



## Autocrat (Jun 23, 2019)

V0dka said:


> Did you ever ask if she was bullied at school?  I found that girls that experience significant bullying in elementary school tend to almost... regress sometimes, as a method of coping?



She was bullied by her mother, but not by her peers.


----------



## V0dka (Jun 23, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> She was bullied by her mother, but not by her peers.



That might be part of it, I dated a girl that was bullied at age 10, really badly and she used to have moments where she almost became her 10 year old self in a way.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Jun 26, 2019)

I genuinely believe there is not a woman alive that doesn't want to be called a good girl and treated paternally during sex. I have no idea why and it's kinda fucked up if you think about it. But there it is.


----------



## V0dka (Jun 27, 2019)

Your Weird Fetish said:


> I genuinely believe there is not a woman alive that doesn't want to be called a good girl and treated paternally during sex. I have no idea why and it's kinda fucked up if you think about it. But there it is.



Maybe you just gravitate towards that type.


----------



## NN 401 (Jun 27, 2019)

V0dka said:


> I understand your arguments, but I'm unsure of the point of view you are trying to convey.  Is it that you believe the structure of human society is the real cause behind peoples suffering?  Because I believe humans in general have a biological programming to behave in certain patterns, and the power structure built upon it is the Human societies attempt to moderate and channel biological impetus into bettering society.
> 
> And yes Women have it bad, as Men do, but as usual, the ways that they have it bad is different.  Because I believe Men and Women operate differently, and they have different things expected of them in general.



It’s not the organization of people that’s the problem it’s what hijacks it in the end.

Our “biological programming” can have “code” inserted into it via mimetic theory.

A society can go from leveraging the good in people for the betterment of all to a highly stratified shithole where no one can self actualize.

This has a huge effect on male female relationships. 


We might have the bodies of animals and yes we do have a Limbic brain that has its own agenda. Just try not to eat for a whole day or restrictively diet. That’s your reptile brain fighting you. 

Yet, we are not animals. 


What people are missing is the fact that human instinct can often be overwritten by human _psychology._

And I don’t mean the “rah rah girl power” type of psychology or other such “empowering” shit.

I mean the Freudian kind of psychology with a big side of Mimetic Theory and some Nietzsche.


If something is associated with status human beings will override just about every other instinct, including the instinct to eat (anorexia), in order to attain it.

And if they can’t obtain this macguffin they’ll turn around and salvage their bruised egos by beating up on other people.

Therefore in a shitty highly stratified society: Man beats woman, woman beats child and child beats the dog.

People are also content to live in a smoldering ruin so long as their neighbors live in a pile of shit.
Don’t believe me? Just go to the third world and see how western educated Harvard and French polytechnic types run their nations.


----------



## Lioness (Jun 27, 2019)

Your Weird Fetish said:


> I genuinely believe there is not a woman alive that doesn't want to be called a good girl and treated paternally during sex. I have no idea why and it's kinda fucked up if you think about it. But there it is.


I find any parental role in a romantic relationship, or even being threatened with a spanking, deeply repulsive  and my ideal sexual situation with a man is him tied to a chair and screaming


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Aug 16, 2019)

Autocrat said:


> I've been in a relationship with a woman that frequently acts like a little girl. She has stuffed animals that she referred to as "Littles" (She really wants to be a mom - so, not totally infantilized). She would often do a little girl voice. Sometimes during sex she would look at me like she was mildly afraid and didn't know what was going on (Likely roleplaying something in her head. I never asked).
> 
> She didn't do it all of the time. Sometimes, it was fun and sometimes I just wanted to have a normal conversation with a girl my age, and she clearly wasn't in that kind of mood.
> 
> I think it came from how she was raised. I know her older brother is gay and apparently does diaper play. What are the chances of 2 siblings sexually roleplaying as being kids? Her dad was distant and her mom was mean. She's turned wanting love as a kid into some kind of fetish.



That's fucked up TBH.


----------



## Mexican_Wizard_711 (Aug 17, 2020)

I just have this to say, what is women's obsession with True Crime? and criminals?


----------



## tampax pearl (Aug 17, 2020)

Mexican_Wizard_711 said:


> I just have this to say, what is women's obsession with True Crime? and criminals?


Belief that they could have fixed the person if they were there.


----------



## Zero Day Defense (Aug 18, 2020)

I didn't properly process the "sexual" part of the thread title, so I thought this was going to be about how Western societies aren't keen on saddling women with the same expectations and responsibilities of men even as they extend more rights to them.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Aug 22, 2020)

Your Weird Fetish said:


> I genuinely believe there is not a woman alive that doesn't want to be called a good girl and treated paternally during sex. I have no idea why and it's kinda fucked up if you think about it. But there it is.



People who disagree with this listen to what women say instead of watching what they respond to. When you treat the toughest of women this way (and are able to rebuke attempts of stopping you), then it's like rain on arid land.


----------



## Distant Stare (Aug 22, 2020)

crocodilian said:


> An alarming amount of women have no meaningful hobbies. They can't hold a conversation. They have no personality. They don't have any real, substantial reasons to want to talk to them, but they still want male attention. So what do they do? They offer "the forbidden fruit"; an outlet for taboo sexual desires that a large amount of adult men probably have, unfortunately.



This to a degree. However, you should not confuse a lack of male interests with no interests at all. The best quality females I have met do have interests like religion, fostering personal relationships, and art. That being said, there is a good chunk of women I call plastic-women. These are the types who spend hours perfecting their appearance to look like something artificial. They are narcissistic and are constantly taking selfies. They have no ability to hold a conversation that is not about music, entry-level politics, or themselves. I really loath these sorts of females. 

I  think these women are encouraged by modern technology. It allows them to indulge the worst aspects of femininity, while putting off the best. They are rewarded socially for posting pictures of themselves constantly. They do not have to do any sort of real work. Worst of all they are angered whenever someone calls them out on it. 




V0dka said:


> Simply put a Man with no responsibilities is not a Man, but a child.
> 
> A Woman with or without responsibilities will always be a Woman.



In modern society, it shows more with men. The soyboi phenomenon is the perfect example. It is a rejection of the male role for the pursuit of hollow pleasure. The female equivalent of this is more rewarded for their behavior. See my description of plastic-females above.


----------

