I hate feelsguy shit but these are pretty good.
The moid attempt to create a “scandal” with BP, and it backfiring in them immensely, will never not be funny.
Thread tax:
View attachment 6158379
>If she used her feminine traits
No she would be called a manipulative cunt, because when women do use their feminine traits in order to survive they are called manipulators, deceiving and malicious because how dare they use their female traits for their own benefit and not for the man's. When they mean "feminine traits" they don't mean women's ability to be enduring, self-reliant, resourceful and cunning things that would ensure survival, they mean demure, submissive, gentle, frail, soft and inexperienced, traits that require that woman to be dependent on a man.
>Men would literally go to war for women!
They say that as a flex and boast but we all know that in a hypothetical scenario where women would send them to a war, they would be screeching and seething at them because of the possibility of facing death while women allegedly would live a cushy life in their eyes.
>Women have that power men
Again if a woman said this, this same person would call her a malicious manipulator who plays with men's lives and feelings.
(Again, people who seem to think the late Nineties were some haven of 'gender peace' just didn't fucking live through them.)
I talked about this in this thread before, but moids who cry about how 90s and even 2000s were way better for gender relations because women were "more lax" and more "approachable" while in present day they look at men with contempt, with either women completely ignoring them/refusing to engage with them in any type of conversation or just outright telling them fuck off, are failing to realize something.
They fail to realize the reason why they think 90s-2000s were times of "gender peace", why women
seemed to be more "lax" and "approachable" was because men were allowed to approach them out of nowhere, force them to divert their time and attention to them. Men were allowed to say whatever they wanted to those women, they could say the weirdest shit to them, be completely pushy and invade their personal space, but people around them would play this off as a guy being a goofball or a jokester. Meanwhile women were discouraged from complaining or raising a fuss about this, because when they did do that they were labelled as buzzkills, sensitive, hysterical, neurotic, get accused of overthinking it or trying to ruin this man's reputation because they couldn't just take it easy. It's not that women wanted to be lax, they
had to be.
Obviously now women don't have to play by those rules anymore, but sadly
still women get called buzzkills and pilloried when expressing discomfort or pointing out that something is not normal. Case in point, the whole "Karen" phenomenon or how women get called misandrist or uptight by libfems for pointing out that porn is harmful for women and not empowering at all.
Do you think men actually feel a deep shame about how many of their sex are complete degenerate sexpests, rapists and child molesters? I always feel like men just close their eyes towards that stuff or simply don't consider those men "real men" like the gay poop-eaters and the child-grooming trannies aren't "real men", despite them obviously being men.
But at the same time men are always extremely eager to point out that "women are bad too!!! No women are actually worse!! Fake rape accusations are worse than rape! Women who say mean things about men online are the same as incels who commit mass shootings!" etc. So they do know deep down that they just look really really bad, just the crime statistics alone should tell you who is "worse", otherwise why would they feel the need to constantly deflect and point fingers elsewhere?
That's why I found the pearl-clutching in that BP DM chain leak so gay and disingenuous, especially the part where they tried to push the narrative that one of the female users was a "rapey lesbian" because she made a joke about women getting freaky with each other when drunk.
You don't get to cry about on this site for YEARS how it's fucked up that those jezebel women who regret having sex while being drunk would rather ruin some poor bloke's life by labelling him as a rapist than taking responsibility for getting drunk and having sex with somebody that they don't know, even if both parties in that situation were drunk when that sexual encounter happened, but then say a lesbian woman is a rapist in the very same situation. Give me a break.
So if a woman acts as perverted as a man it really sticks out to them.
Because when they imagine a woman being perverted, they still imagine it in the most moid way. They imagine her being sex obsessed, thinking about dicks and getting railed by other men while embracing that she's a harlot, even in her own perverted fantasies she's still the object and the one in the submissive position. But when they see actually see women fantasizing about cruelly dominating men not in the "femdom" way they think of, but in the same fashion as men do with women, they get freaked out because they never entertained the possibility of a woman having fantasies to brutalize men through sexual means or force them in degrading submissive positions where they are the object.
They hate when emasculation is forced upon them, because they associate it with submission, which they associate it being something "default" for a woman, because a man being forced into a "woman's position" to be submissive is degrading for them. Why do you think they run hoops defending men that want to try anal with their girlfriends as something "normal" and just trying trying to justify it as "sexual curiosity" , but then get disgusted with the act of pegging or goids who willingly take the "submissive" role of a bottom, even though in the end this is the same thing, with the only difference being players getting switched around?
