Manosphere Marijan Šiklić (ThatIncelBlogger)

Who is Smarter, TJ Church or Marjan Šiklić?

  • Total voters
    342
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Holden said:
And women can do all of that with their husbands.

Female prostitutes don't count. I've explained that female premarital virginity is vital and male isn't and why. Look it up.
Click to expand...

I've seen you explain it, and people already explained to you that in this day and age we have nifty paternity tests. So if it's really something a person is concerned about, there's you're answer.

And if males need to be experienced for their wives, why shouldn't wives need to be experienced for their husbands?

But I find it really interesting you keep dodging my other question, which tells me that the answer makes you uncomfortable.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: NobleGreyHorse, Saney, Randall Fragg and 1 other person
cluelessly said:
And if males need to be experienced for their wives, why shouldn't wives need to be experienced for their husbands?
Click to expand...

If you never, ever get to have sex, a woman just laying there looking pretty is more than enough.

If Holden fucked a girl with some experience, his brain would leak out of his nose.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Saney and cluelessly
For The Internet said:
But you said that early feminism was still about women looking for intelligent men? How did that degrade into wanting stupid men? Men have been 'seducing' women since the dawn of time, it's not a new phenomenon. You blame feminism, yet you're saying that nobody in feminism ever espoused those viewpoints. Biologically speaking 'stupidity' doesn't happen in a few generations.

If anything, you should be arguing that this 'stupidity' began with the second wave of feminism, which is when women began fighting for the right to work in male jobs and to be free with their sexuality.



I'm sure someone's asked this before, but if you want to live in a world where you'd be married at 18, seduction has nothing to do with marriage and women will never leave you, why not move to a country where women have no rights like Saudi? Women can't drive or own property or vote there, therefore the women shouldn't be stupid, right?

Incidentally, you can't say someone's hatred of rape is empty talk when you have no knowledge of that person. I've already told you what my feminist views are - that I support equality for men and women where equality is possible - and that in no way encourages women to only breed with rapist apes. 'Feminist' doesn't have just one meaning, and feminists don't all believe in one thing. Feminists aren't a hive vagina.

Maybe I'll read your entire blog later. Right now I'm doing uni work between posting and that takes priority.


Still waiting on those sources on illegitimacy. I find it kind of amusing you're all up in arms about the rate of illegitimacy and you're relating it to feminism. Do you know what era had a ridiculously high level of illegitimacy? The Victorian era. Women were still intelligent back then according to you, so what's with the insane rate of illegitimacy?

The one thing I noticed from the quick scan of your blog I did is that for all your talk about being intelligent, you don't use citations that aren't just personal opinion. No scientific data to be found, just links to different wiki articles about phenomena you or other incels link to your ideas. You might say 'the attraction to 'bad boys' can be explained by X', but you never post scientific data about how women are more likely to choose a rapist than a non-rapist as a mate, or data on female intelligence compared to male, or quotes from actual feminists supporting what you say about them liking rape. You cherry pick data and then twist it to fit your bias, which is scientifically unsound.

Admittedly I haven't read your whole blog, so if you do have some actual scientific studies supporting your specific views (not just generalised stuff like 'studies show women are more likely to choose a man who laughs than a man who doesn't') then I apologise. However, your lack of citation for your wild claim that 99% of children are illegitimate hasn't even been addressed in passing in your replies, which leads me to believe you don't have citations to give that are scientific.

Maybe it's the feminist in me talking, or maybe it's the scientist, but I believe that for an argument to be persuasive it needs to be backed with fact rather than opinion.
Click to expand...
Well, thank you for your civility but I am annoyed with you.

I gave you a huge article on why women turned to scumbags. You have no time. Ok. But I also explained it many time here - they did so when they no longer needed providers.
Yes, there were men who seduced women in every historical period. But since most societies were patriarchies these men would be killed, and rightly so.

I explained that nobody espoused these viewpoints but that this is what feminism leads to.

I can move to Saudi Arabia for various reasons. I am not a Muslim, don't have an education in oil business etc.

As for rape, you really need to read the article. You can hate rape all you want but your ideas support it.

As for studies and citations you do know this is a scientifically grey area? That none of us can really support our claims as in chemistry or math?

But check http://www.coalpha.org/file/n5125898/db18_Fig_6.png

As for the Victorian age, it had lower illegitmacy rates than modern Britain.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: deductionotaku, NobleGreyHorse, Saney and 7 others
Holden said:
Well, thank you for your civility but I am annoyed with you.

I gave you a huge article on why women turned to scumbags. You have no time. Ok. But I also explained it many time here - they did so when they no longer needed providers.
Yes, there were men who seduced women in every historical period. But since most societies were patriarchies these men would be killed, and rightly so.

I explained that nobody espoused these viewpoints but that this is what feminism leads to.

I can move to Saudi Arabia for various reasons. I am not a Muslim, don't have an education in oil business etc.

As for rape, you really need to read the article. You can hate rape all you want but your ideas support it.

As for studies and citations you do know this is a scientifically grey area? That none of us can really support our claims as in chemistry or math?

But check http://www.coalpha.org/file/n5125898/db18_Fig_6.png

As for the Victorian age, it had lower illegitmacy rates than modern Britain.
Click to expand...

Gee you think that might have something to do with women being granted autonomy and not being forced to stay with shitbags like you? If by some fucking miracle you ever managed to have sex and impregnate someone, I guarantee they would not stay with you and they might even consider an abortion because the world doesn't need any more goatfucking motherfucking rapists.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: NobleGreyHorse, Saney, Randall Fragg and 3 others
Oh, incidentally:

You seem to believe that the majority of males are unfaithful, that their strategy for reproduction is to mate with as many females as possible. If that's the case, why can't we see biological proof of this via microevolution?

If you look at species of mammal for whom that is their biological strategy, you'll notice they tend to have something in common: disproportionately large testicles. Look at a rat. The size of their testes is massively disproportionate to their small size, being roughly 1/2 the size of their skulls. This is so the testes can hold more sperm and they can ejaculate in larger amounts. The more sperm they can produce when mating, the higher their chances of procreation.

However, the opposite is true for mammals whose strategy is to mate with a single partner, such as humans. Males have proportionately small testes (sorry guys!) because they aren't competing during mating. Their success isn't dependent on how many sperm they produce, especially since female humans generally only release one egg at a time.

If what you were saying was true, and men have been using the 'mate with as many women as possible' strategy since women began to lose their intelligence or whatever, we'd have seen microevolution to support that. The 'Omegas' would almost certainly have consistently larger testicles than men who stick to a single mate.

Maybe you should do a study on that?
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: JustAFluffyRodent, Scratch This Nut, Meowthkip and 7 others
Holden said:
Question about exp- Not really. And I fucked experienced women.

I never said that men should be necessarily experienced, just that male virginity isn't needed before marriage and that men have stronger sexual urges.
Click to expand...

In all honesty I wish I had waited until after I was married to have sex. It would have been more meaningful in the long run. But, whatever, please continue with your delusions and perverted entitlement you worthless cock stain.
 
  • Feels
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: Scratch This Nut, NobleGreyHorse, MarineTrainedTard and 7 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back