File: 1720284983845.png (677.42 KB, 940x655, princesa.png)
No. 2079951
>>2079943not trying to be judgmental
nonny but how much are you shitting? like are you blasting around diarrhea when you go potty because when i go to the bathroom and wipe i don’t get shit on my fingers or hands/on my phone
No. 2079953
>>2079943Holy shit not you again I remember infighting with you about this exact same thing like 2-3 years ago. How've you been
nonnie?
No. 2079971
>>2079951Like most normal people my poo is normal most of the time.
>>2079953Nah, that wasn't me but I'm glad other anons share my sentiment.
Toilet particles rest in the air in a 1 metre radius after you flush and the traces of poop in those particles will be crawling with bacteria for several days or weeks (this is why you don't put your toothbrushes close to your toilet) and you will enter that cloud at least twice a day and add to it. Now this is a silly hypothetical but what if someone with cholera came into your home and used your toilet, and then you come in playing cut the rope or where's my water on your phone and your phone passes through this invisible cloud of cholera poo air and catches it all. And then when you leave the bathroom and call the ambulance for the dying cholera
victim all those strands of disease are on your face and around your mouth and it's on your hands too. And your toothbrushes.
No. 2080010
File: 1720305534865.png (1.49 MB, 3230x1678, IMG_1593.png)
I agree with this.
No. 2080187
>>2080150>>2080179I mean the old Brittanicas are more reliable than Wikipedia imo but not a lot of people would be willing to buy about fifteen large books that are already pretty expensive if you were to buy only one. There can be a middle ground you know, like for example saving those Britannicas in pdf form from a digital library to have on hand or reading papers from ncbi. If we go back to the original purpose of the internet I feel like everything would slightly better.
I don't know, but while social media is definitely fucked and detrimental to society the internet has some good.
No. 2080197
>>2080176>>2080186I guess I'll be clearer about it: Why shouldn't we have one more source of free, easy to access information? Not everybody in the world has easy access to books or libraries. In some parts of the world, certain books and information are literally banned, and the internet is a way to get past that. Just seems half-baked to say all websites should be banned.
>Wikipedia often censors/changes information based on their own politicsThis happens with books, too, except there's no one around to argue and fact check them in the talk section, and you can't look at multiple external sources if they're not available to you. Tranny jannies are not difficult to fight when you have a wide range of information.
No. 2080208
>>2080197Except that the tranny jannies on Wiki do very effectively lie and hide information all the time while making it seem like it would get 'fixed' or 'cleaned up' or is somehow objective. At least with a book you know it's a book, and lots of different people can write them.
Wiki is good solely for extremely noncontroversial topics like 'what is this fruit' etc.
No. 2080220
>>2080217Live in a place that bans books on certain topics for religious or political reasons, teaches or omits certain things in school, get blocked from accessing "inconvenient" information IRL in general, or in a country that just doesn't prioritize libraries. Have computer or phone with internet, download VPN, look at whatever you want.
This is the case for quite a few thirdies, and some political orgs seem to want that sort of the thing to be the case in more rural parts of first world countries too.
No. 2080240
File: 1720328703357.jpg (179.65 KB, 2500x2500, CS5229_Straight.jpg)
>>2080234i can understand needing some method of communication but, you don't necessarily need a cellphone or a computer to communicate with others. bring back the house phone
>>2080238nope, these were jobs when i was in college and after i left
No. 2080247
>>2080242i'm not sure what to say
nonnie i'm not gonna selfdoxx just for the sake of the conversation
No. 2080249
>>2080247No, I say that because
>when i was in collegeYou need to use the internet to do coursework in college. Online coursework started in 2009, so you are either 40 or 15. In both cases, please leave. You do not understand current society and how things work.
No. 2080259
>>2080249i wrote a whole other post but deleted it because i just now noticed
>In both cases, please leave i was studying from 2010-2013, since when are slightly older users not allowed to be here?
>>2080253thats cool if that was the case for your university or the places you studied at, but when the clock struck midnight on 2012 my teachers didnt come banging down my door forcing me to buy a computer to suddenly do my work for them on that kek. and im really not sure why everyone is suddenly plugging so hard for businesses..? KEK weird to get so sensitive over an unpopular opinion posted in the proper thread.
No. 2080264
>>2080259>Well, my universityUh-huh, sure thing nonna. Even my high school was using online submissions in 2012, and it wasn't even wealthy at all. I'm sorry you went to the world's poorest university (or glad that you went to the world's most accommodating university), but please understand that's not the case for most people kek.
In the unpopular opinions thread, you must be prepared for people to disagree with you.
No. 2080305
>>2080298Right, this is unpopular opinions. But an opinion is only wrong by
your personal definition of what is considered to be "wrong". Because its not a statement thats being made as a fact, it is a statement that is an
opinion. So riding in on your white horse trying to wax poetic of how OP is just so wrong doesn't really do anything
No. 2080323
File: 1720334469726.jpeg (71.15 KB, 600x888, 1649698972230.jpeg)
Cmon guys, can we please just come together. It's all so unserious there's no need to be angry.
No. 2080391
>>2080383It may not be the only website but it is a prominent aggregate for information, easily within someone's first few choices for an introduction into a topic. And still somewhat accurate enough you can functionally use it 80% of the time.
Something like this being defiled for no other reason than a narrow political goal is abhorrent. It shows how short sighted the people doing the vandalism are and certainly promotes confusion in an age already marked by tribalism and rival nareatives.
Do you get upset at how retarded Facebook and Twitter are? Because that's only the start if public sources of historical and topical narratives are raped beyond recognition.
No. 2080605
>>2080252I graduated university in 2013 and all the course signups, as well as most of the homework and submissions and even some exams were online. Even for things that were handed in in person, they had to be typed and printed, any work would be automatically thrown out if it was handwritten.
>>2080597Most of the developed world at least? Maybe you can hand in handwritten papers if you, idk, go to some university in an extremely empoverished area in the jungle or something.
No. 2080614
>>2080606Maybe gen alpha/younger zoomers are starting to panic realizing that you need to know how to type in order to go to most colleges?
>>2080609It's a rule in almost every university in developed countries nonna, and it has been for at least a decade and a half to two decades. It also wasn't a 'shitty' university and I've attended and taught at other universities since.
The way people 'used' to be educated back when handwritten papers were the norm in the 70s-80s (because already typed papers became the norm in the 90s in most universities) was very different in part because class sizes tended to be much smaller and people's handwriting or printing needed to meet a certain standard to be legible, which was taught in primary school. It is not easy to do grading on handwritten papers because you have to read a hundred different people's handwriting nor is it easy to implement edits and so on. Also a lot of homework submissions, quizzes etc. have been on online platforms for ages because they're not done during class time. The whole system has changed a lot since the 80s and it would actually not be easy to go back.
>>2080610Turning in papers is normal at university, but they must be typed at every university anyone I know has ever attended.
No. 2080618
>>2080617Please lurk moar. The conversation is about the internet
period, not just university. That was just a singular example. A large issue with education today is the fact that it is all online, including children’s education.
No. 2080620
>>2080618I'm responding to the posts about university anon, you can't tell me which posts to respond to. However
>University doesn't require internet>Small children's education requires internetUh… you wanna rethink what you're saying?
No. 2080625
>>2080623I assume you are not the only anon responding here because there were tons of posts saying universities don't require internet or typed papers.
The internet is necessary for a current university education, but it wasn't always.
No. 2080628
File: 1720365875152.png (38.79 KB, 697x213, adult.png)
>>2080624Just because young adults are immature doesn't mean they're not adults.
>>208062618 quite literally is an adult.
No. 2080636
>>2080631Sorry if you weren't capable of reasonable thought at age 18 nonna, but not all of us suffer the same plight. I was living on my own, making my own money, paying all my own bills and caring for myself/making my own decisions since age 18 and had no problem.
>>2080630This is another reason, but I think the simpler reason is that a lot of papers that are handwritten are basically illegible, and that turning in homework online solves a lot of problems both for teachers and students at university, since they don't see each other every day. I did teach a class where papers were turned in physically recently though (typed of course) and just checked for plagiarism by typing what seemed to be the plagiarized sections into a search engine. Turning in papers physically works well in secondary school when you can see your students every day, but not at college.
No. 2080641
>>2080624Is it a contest? Someone in their 40s is more mature than someone in their 20s but they are still fully responsible adults who have the presence of mind to make decisions. The only ones pretending otherwise are emotionally stunted dipshits who want to cling to childhood so they aren't accountable for their actions.
>>2080631Are you a 25 year old teenager? Is adulting soooo hard? Get a fucking grip.
No. 2080663
>>2080654Yeah. You can start working at age 15 to have some savings to move out and live alone by age 18. Or live with roommates, which is still 'independent' living as an adult since your roommates don't finance you, pay your bills or tell you what to do, they just share the same space.
Even if it's becoming more difficult for 18 year olds to support themselves due to inflation and unemployment, it's not because they're 'not coherent adults' or too 'unreasonable' to live like adults, it's simply because things are getting expensive. Your average 18 year old is fully capable of living an adult life cognitively.
No. 2080668
>>2080656Lmao what about being a radfem makes you so schizo you start transvestigating? I think you were not hanging out with radfems but schizos, nonna.
Anyway lolcow is not a 'radical feminist' site it just allows misandry unlike basically every other female-dominant space on the internet. People bring up troons all the time because they do affect other people's lives even if they don't affect yours.
No. 2080774
>>2080771She could just say what country she went to school in, since I'm guessing countries where universities don't use the internet/computers for anything are very different from where most of us live.
It's exceptionally unusual for all or most of your essays in university to be handwritten. There are some situations where I can see it happening, like if it's an essay for a sit-down exam or you're filling in a small worksheet or something, but otherwise the vast majority of universities for the past couple decades have had typing standards for homework like essays/papers. Even 10-15 years ago most modern universities had online platforms for quizzes, homework hand-ins, etc. so even physically handing in printed out typed essays wouldn't have been possible for every class.
No. 2080779
>>2080773At least one of the anons who was arguing this said it was like that in 2010-2013, which it definitely wasn't the vast overwhelming majority of places. Also
>>2080597 was clearly talking about the present, as was
>>2080609 as was
>>2080623 No. 2080798
>>2080791"If it requires typed papers" and "if your educators wouldn't accept handwritten papers" mean the same thing. It's not factual that only shitty schools don't accept handwritten papers.
Uh like I said I literally taught college classes for several years and papers had to be typed, which was a departmental requirement and not the individual professors' choice. But I'm sure if it was up to professors most would still say they won't accept handwritten papers as handwriting can make it impossible to actually read the paper (lots of people have semi-illegible handwriting), it can make it impossible to edit papers that need to go through rounds of edits, and it can make it harder to put it into anti-plagiarism software (though not impossible). Also most university papers will have word count min and max limits which can't be checked if a paper is handwritten but can easily be checked if there is a standard font and margin size. Where are these universities where profs accept handwritten papers?
No. 2080803
>>2080798>I taught college classes for several yearsprofessor
nonny kek
No. 2080815
>>2080811Not accepting handwritten content is the same thing as requiring the paper to be typed though. What would be the difference between 'typed paper required' and 'not accepting handwritten papers'? I asked this once already and you didn't or couldn't answer.
Most universities accept some handwritten content for some things (exams, short in-class quizzes or lab reports, etc) but not for most longer content like papers. And that's just papers, most universities also require powerpoint presentations, excel work, etc. which definitely require a computer. If you are in anything like compsci or engineering or physics you also likely need to code in your classes and program things for which you need a computer. If you are in any STEM field you will need to use computer programs for your stats. Even assuming your professors were so impractical they allowed people to hand in 20 page handwritten papers, there would be no way to do the rest of these things without computers and in some cases without internet, plus the research for the papers themselves would require internet at a certain level.
There are tons of other things in universities that currently require internet like course registrations, applications, weekly quizzes, etc. but at least these plausibly could be done (although they would take a lot more time) in person if the university wanted to stop internet-based course registration etc.
No. 2080843
>>2080839Oh where I went to school in the early 2010s physics lab reports and stuff like that had to be handwritten and handed in on graph paper for that reason (required hand-drawn graphs and showing your work with math) but stuff like that is just one of many things you have to do in college. Saying 'no one needs a computer/the internet for university' is plainly false and even the claim that no one should need to use a computer/internet for college is wrong now, because most of the industries university prepares you for require them and have moved to using technology for everything, so of course your education should introduce you to/use the same technology also. Even in fields like architecture where a lot of hand-drawn drafting is required, there are usually some digital drafting courses and assignments too since it's become part of the industry standard, it's the same for any science field that uses heavy stats which pretty much can't be done by hand because computing technology allowed people to invent a bunch of more complex stats, etc. There are a few college majors like probably fine arts or performing arts where there are very few computer-based assignments so profs might be willing to accept them done by hand (although even people I know who did, say, music, needed computer and internet for listening assignments and powerpoint presentations) but in any STEM, social science, etc. field it would be basically impossible and in most humanities fields people are likely to go into jobs that require computing too.
No. 2080896
>>2080872Not only is it essential, but students wouldn't benefit even if it were made less essential for college programs. It's not like most of the computer/internet-dependence of university programs is unnecessary or useless - some is strictly speaking unnecessary but probably saves a lot of time and money, while a lot of the rest is just essential to teach the things that are now taught in universities.
Like just as an example, around the time I went to undergrad, LME was kind of in its infancy, considered 'advanced' statistics for an undergrad level that we didn't know how to do, and simple ANOVA and other stats that were typically used in the sciences and social sciences were still considered acceptable for a lot of science papers. With a small enough dataset something like ANOVA is doable by hand. About 10 years later LME was considered the standard for my field and many others, and I'd like to see someone doing a complex LME on a big dataset by hand. Although there might be some case to be made to teach students 'the simple stuff' first for basic conceptual understanding and statistical literacy, there's no point not teaching students things that they absolutely will need to know and use if they ever want to work in the field or go to grad school or publish.
No. 2080901
File: 1720381431129.jpeg (197.9 KB, 1300x821, IMG_2810.jpeg)
The Olympics is genuinely stupid. It would be funnier if people were randomly selected to participate, like how they choose people for jury duty.
No. 2080906
>>2080725NTA but if you're dealing with a crazy person, there's not much you can do to de-escalate but try and ignore them.
I agree that it a woman has a moid she should expect him to put himself between her and a potentially dangerous confrontation but it's unwise to escalate it
No. 2080929
>>2080911That is really pathetic nona, sorry to hear it. Chickenhawk moids are the most pathetic subspecies
In my (albeit limited) experience it's the other way around though, moids get extra protective of their egos when they're with a girl and will pick fights over nonsense in order to impress (in their testosterone pickled brains) the girl
I once had a date with a guy who decided to pick a fight while we were in line at a corner store because the guy in front of us was taking too long. Got both of them kicked out of the store and I was out of there, these retards think they look cool but the first thing I think of is how unhinged this guy could be with me if he's willing to get physical over waiting in line
No. 2080937
>>2080929I believe you anon but I'm mainly talking about videos I've seen online where someone obviously dangerous/threatening was accosting the woman or the couple, not just random infights about grocery lineups or whatever. I feel like there's a difference between moids puffing their chests around other obviously normal/sane moids to start minor spats and when shit actually goes down and a guy just fucking hides behind his gf or runs away while she's getting spat at, hit, etc. by some schizo or testerical man for some reason.
Thankfully I don't know any scrotes who do what you're describing in public to impress girls, but I know it's a thing some men do. I think they do it because they think there's no real risk of it escalating to real violence though.
No. 2081005
>>2080931I'm from a poorfag country as well and I do appreciate Americans and other westerners for having a little bit of a standard for what poverty is. Just because other people from around the globe have it worse, doesn't mean that they can't complain about things like recession for example.
This type of mentality is one of the many factors (besides ofc greedy and corrupt politicians in charge and shit currency etc.) that keeps poorfag countries poorfag - no, enduring worse forms of poverty isn't some badge of humility and honor.
No. 2081029
>>2081005Also poverty is kind of relative to the living standards of a country. Of course there are 'objective' levels of poverty too - like obviously we know that objectively people living in a hut with no locking doors and no running water are more 'poor' than people living in a 1bd apartment in a US city who have electricity, water and heating, but it's relevant what your level of income buys you relative to the survival needs and standards where you live. If you could buy out a whole grocery store in, idk, Turkey, but you can't buy a week's worth of meals in the US, it kind of doesn't matter how rich you'd be in Turkey, you still don't have adequate food. If you need a phone, computer, internet, and home address to even apply for a job then pointing out that a tribe living in the remote jungle doesn't have internet or cellphones is pretty meaningless to you personally. I know my parents who lived in a Soviet country experienced levels of poverty I couldn't imagine (not having toilet paper or tampons/pads available for sale, not even knowing what oranges or bananas were, having only 2-3 pieces of underwear they needed to wash every couple days) but since that was normal-ish for their time they didn't feel as deprived as someone living in a modern US city who doesn't have enough money for toilet paper. Mentally your perception of poverty and how 'well off' you are relates to the people around you, no matter how much you try to tell yourself 'at least I'm not starving and living in a mud hut.'
No. 2081069
>>2081067Actually pretty people are 'privileged' in every job - more likely to be hired, more likely to get good performance reviews and raises. Men too, not just women. And in many social situations as well that may affect other aspects of your life, for example networking that may lead to job or educational opportunities. A few people will be hostile to very beautiful women (not so much beautiful men who only get privileges) but not as hostile overall as ugly or fat women. The only women who tend to get less hostility are average women who look 'put together' but not stunning, who seem to largely be treated okay but don't get the hostility that either ugly, GNC, or very beautiful women get.
I've been on both sides of this and being pretty is 100x better than being ugly, there are literally zero advantages except possibly a slightly lower chance of catcalling/getting hit on by random moids but it still happens even if you are ugly. If the worst thing that ever happened to you as a result of being pretty was some jealous woman 'staring/glaring' at you from afar, that really shows you that it doesn't create any real problems.
No. 2081074
>>2081070There probably will be superstars again, but likely this will happen after some paradigm changes, it might be someone who's doing something really different musically than what's normal now or the way music is marketed/distributed might change again. I think right now the problem is that we're really oversaturated with extremely obvious industry plants, and for the most part all their music is being written for them by the same few producers whose songs all sound basically the same. Even the popstars who write their own music for the most part are writing music that's very similar to the people who came before them, so it all seems very repetitive. But I don't think this will last forever, there will probably be a new big genre that gains some ground or something.
That being said I think people like Olivia Rodrigo and Billie Eilish are 'bigger' and have more longevity than Ice Spice, Tyla, Chappel Roan, Sabrina Carpenter etc. since they at least do a lot of their own writing and have a more obvious 'style' although they are not Ariana Grande or Britney level famous.
I think actual bands might make a comeback eventually, honestly, as people get burnt out on the shiny shiny pop producer music, but it could go in a different direction as well.
No. 2081076
>>2081069The hired thing is not exactly true though. You must be going off some outdated statistic. There are just as many studies showing that women who look too "well put", too goodlooking or wear makeup are more likely to be turned down from job offers as well.
Theres moids (and some pickmes too) who dont want to hire beautiful women because moids cannot resist doing sexual harassment. Moids literally think women who wear red lipstick are trying to seduce them.
I feel like you are so close to getting the truth when you mentioned average women because i feel like they have it the best compared to ugly and beautiful women. The majority of the world population looks average so something out of the norm whether its a ugly or a pretty woman gets treated differently.
No. 2081085
>>2081076> wear makeup are more likely to be turned down from job offers as well. Where are you getting this from? It is still a basic expectation in a lot of industries that you wear makeup, to the point where you can get fired for not wearing it, in many places. I haven't seen any statistics about how physically attractive women get work disadvantages, though I have seen dozens showing the opposite, but I also have my lived experience to go off of and in my lived experience ugly women have massive, and I really mean massive, obvious disadvantages in the workplace, both with hiring and how people actually treat them once they get the job.
Yeah average women are the least likely to get 'jealous bullying' or 'punching down bullying' because… they are average, but there are many advantages to being beautiful that average looking people don't get anyway. And there are zero advantages to being ugly. Being non-ugly but non-stunning and getting privileges from that is also 'pretty privilege' just a milder form of pretty privilege, the point is if you're ugly you're really screwed.
No. 2081093
>>2081086Maybe it's just where I live but most of the stunningly beautiful people I see don't look anything like influencers and have very diverse looks. I'm glad you're working through your resentment for how they were born though, I wish women would not resent or judge other women for either (being beautiful or ugly/fat/whatever) but it's to some degree biologically ingrained. People naturally think beautiful people are more intelligent, competent, etc. so even if people consciously try not to judge them based on their 'looks' it's likely they're still giving prettier people advantages because they wrongly perceive them as smarter or more talented.
Also I think it's really silly to suggest that men avoid hiring women 'because they'd sexually harass them' lol men always try to put themselves in positions to be able to harass the people they want to fuck, it's the same with adult women and it's the same with pedos who somehow always have a job around kids. Moids do not have the self awareness or self control to avoid hiring women because they're attracted to them, they might just say that if asked so they can pity themselves about how 'everything is considered sexual harassment these days.'
No. 2081113
>>2081106Uh I was mostly bullied for being ugly when I was in my early teens, dressed GNC, had a bunch of orthodontic issues and 'developed early' so I had problems with my posture and was very insecure. People all assumed I was lesbian, claimed I sexually assaulted other prettier girls (everyone believed them), people even literally threw rocks at me and stole my shit and people I'd never met before would gossip about me in front of my face and treat me like garbage. I got sick of it so once I got my weird jaw screw devices off and changed schools I also changed my hair, style, etc., started doing a lot of sports and generally 'grew into' my looks and then was bullied for being pretty but it was not anywhere approaching the same degree of awful. I then went through another ugly phase due to disease but luckily I was a bit too old to be explicitly bullied at that point, I did notice that I lost a ton of 'advantages' in society though and was treated in a much more hostile manner by strangers even though people who actually knew me were not that bad. I'm now more attractive again (not as attractive as before my disease but a lot better looking than I was a couple years ago) and the way people treat me has dramatically improved, although I don't get the same 'privileges' as I got when I was really attractive. The absolute worst was when I was both ugly and visibly very GNC, because in addition to ugly-person bullying I got homophobic bullying.
No. 2081121
>>2081067I've been on both sides of this fence and it's a million times worse to be the ugly, awkward woman who gets asked out as a joke. The only times I ever got "bullied for being pretty" was when I had pickme friends who would gang up on me out of jealousy whilst simultaneously using me as a prop to attract (unwanted) attention from scrotes.
>>2081113Absolutely, the homophobic bullying you get as a GNC or even just awkward woman is appalling. I got outed against my will in school and I can relate hard. You have my full sympathies nonna.
No. 2081124
>>2081118Why would it start an infight?
>>2081114It is mental but also I think it happens to so many women in one way or another that we have more in common in general. It's mostly men that don't really get treated like crap for how they look one way or the other, and are respected regardless.
No. 2081142
>>2081125NTA but I've thinking about similar things recently I feel like at this point of time we don't really have a defined culture in the West anymore besides the internet, and the internet at this stage is homogenous and revolves around being advertiser friendly and everyone is in the same places breathing down each other's necks. Everything feels hollow and everyone wants to go back to a time before that which is why there's so much nostalgia bait or people glorifying the past but even that feels like a empty simulacrum, this is extremely apparent with the current generation's (and a large amount of millenials) obsession with aesthetics and use that or troon out or become a queer spicy straight to play the role of a more interesting person. I'm not trying to imply white people have no culture, I think we definitely do or did at one point just overexposure to it made feel like the boring default state to a lot of people.
I think a lot of creative industries are going to cannibalise themselves, which AI is definitely going to play a major part in for a good while, until something happens to disrupt it. Even indie shit like breakcore is pretty much a walking corpse of what it used to be not even 5 years ago.
No. 2081149
>>2081139I mean sweet
nonnie…the fact that you are only listing influencer and entertainment stuff despite that nonie saying stuff outside that…isnt that kinda proving her point, no?
No. 2081164
>>2081160Yeah that's the thing, the vibe I get is that she is trying to 'make herself useful' in her older age and substantial wealth by just doing one thing that other women around her can't do, and is just doggedly trying to 'open up the conversation' that way. It works I think, she's made it much harder to persecute other women in the UK for wrongthink/wrongspeak about gender/troons, which is one of the main battles for women's rights we're fighting right now since it affects so many other things.
I was never a harry potter fan and I don't really know much about her beyond that but at least she's doing a couple useful things (that and funding women's shelters/charities) which is already more than I can say for most celebrities, so I don't have it in me to be mad that she's not a 'real' radfem.
No. 2081176
>>2081153>Talk about male violence, talk about impossible beauty standards for women, talk about abortion and contraceptive rights.It pissed me off alot when she stayed silent when roe v wade got overturned because i know this woman is chronically online and fights with the troons 24/7 yet couldnt say anything about that. I did suck because many radfems wanted to hear her opinion about that but it was radio silence.
Why cant our leaders or representatives be actual radfems, im tired of right-wing GCers like posier parker, meghan murphy or libfems like JK rowling who dont seem interested in feminism unless its talking about troons being our spokespoerson. Can we find someone from radfem tumblr and make them our spokesperson instead.
No. 2081181
>>2081176There are plenty of 'actual radfems' who were involved in various feminist movements recently too like idk Julie Bindel, Kathleen Stock, etc. but they just didn't gain as much popularity or whatever they were doing had less mass appeal. Actual radfems also keep fighting amongst themselves and breaking up their various coalitions because, e.g., some of them think it makes sense to legally work with conservatives to prevent anti-woman legislation while others think that's a betrayal, so on and so forth. In general there are very few successful 'movement leaders' who are intellectuals/academics because they tend to have less charisma and be less practical-minded, and get stuck in the weeds on academic topics normies don't understand or care about.
FWIW I think Megan Murphy was much closer to a typical 'actual radfem' when she first got famous, she just changed her mind about some things eventually and went somewhat further right. But she does still spend a lot of time and energy talking about shit like male violence, prostitution, porn, etc. either directly or via her website which still platforms plenty of radfems. She was somewhat ostracized by other radfems for her views on COVID which is when she started hanging out with more right wingers because she was basically kicked out of her own group for having different opinions on an unrelated topic - like I was saying, overly academic communities always seem to end up splintering from unrelated infights.
No. 2081183
>>2081146I dont have screencaps but the only bad people i know she has supported were Johnny Deep and Greg Ellis. Meawhile for associating with or interacting she did it with Matt Walsh and Caroline Farrow.
This can be easily found by googling Jk rowlings name together with one of the people i mentiones. She even ended up blocking one of her fans when questioned about why she supports johnny deep.
No. 2081195
>>2081183Idk about the other things but as for associating with Walsh and Farrow it seems like she just replied to their tweets about trans activists (and then went on some podcast with Walsh where they supposedly had an argument, so I doubt she really agrees with him on much). I personally think it's counterproductive to be too critical of people just for interacting with people who have different views I don't like or being willing to talk to them, when they have one or two things in common. I think our society would honestly be better if people were more willing to talk and civilly argue with people with different political beliefs and find points of commonality, as that's one of the main ways people can actually be convinced to your side.
Not really arguing that she is a great feminist or anything but I wouldn't hate or dislike someone on that basis alone, I would be more interested in their own opinions and their concrete actions, and from what I know she has made many concrete actions to help women (like donating heavily to women's charities/setting up shelters etc) so she's still feminist-leaning in my book even if it's the milquetoast libfem variety.
No. 2081197
>>2081181Oh i didnt know that was the reason she left the radfem movement…are you sure it was that? Because i always see people saying different reasons for why she left. I still think its shitty how Meghan used radfems for clout and once she got semi-famous she basically stopped identifying as one.
Posie Parker also did the same thing.
>julie bindelHello no she seems like a schizo and im pretty sure she has admitted to being a political lesbian, id rather have a thousand JK rowling clones than someone like Julie Bindel.
>>2081195She did way more than just interact with Matt, she watched his whole movie and praised it. She shouldn't have given that piece of shit man attention.
I personally dont care that much about her slight interaction with Caroline and Matt just like you said. But you should look into her support of Johnny Deep and Greg Ellis. It makes her look pretty bad.
No. 2081204
>>2081197I don't think that's exactly accurate about Megan Murphy, nonna. I had seen a lot of her talks prior to her 'shift right' and from what I remember she always said she doesn't identify as a radfem, she just associated with a lot of radfems and agrees with a lot of their views (which she still does imo, I don't think she 'abandoned' anyone per se, I think she just changed some of her other political opinions). My understanding is she was always clear about being a journalist who started an online newspaper/magazine about feminist issues, and she was actually extremely, extremely brave in the face of a lot of violence and threats when she was doing stuff no one else in Canada ever even attempted to do for women's rights issues. She more than did her part and put in her time, and last I checked a few months ago her website was still active and still publishing articles by radical feminists, anti-porn people, etc. She was 'semi-famous' long before her shift to the right as well, she was quite well known back in 2016-2017 and her shift to the right happened around 2020-2021.
I watched at least one (possibly like one and a half?) interviews with her after the shift and her explanation was mainly that she was ostracized by other radfems for her views on COVID, but also that she met a bunch of people/went to some events for 'heterodox thinkers' during that time and befriended people and changed some of her opinions about right wingers. I think she also got a boyfriend who was sort of MRA-leaning and he might have also influenced her views somewhat (she was always a massive simp for men though even in her super-leftist days, her interviews with Benjamin Boyce pissed me off so much she was so simpering).
As for Julie Bindel yes I think she might be polilez as are a lot of the famous 'radfem intellectuals,' iirc she also started some big infight with the WolF people over something or other so they stopped working together. That's the problem, a lot of actual dyed-in-the-wool 2nd wave radfem intellectuals who actually know about radical feminism are kind of crazy, intellectualize everything to the nth degree and fight with each other constantly.
That's why people like Posie Parker are more 'effective' and become 'leaders' - she's just some lady who was like 'haha what if I print a bunch of ads that say woman: adult human female?' and it got a ton of sympathy and attention from a whole bunch of feminists but also a whole bunch of total normies so she actually got bigger crowds sympathizing with her because of the simplicity and relatability of the message. Average suburban moms worried about their kids getting ROGD in school or whatever aren't going to sit down and listen to 3 hour long speeches by 2nd wave lesbian academics, even if they would agree with a lot of it. They just find it too unrelatable and confusing and boring.
I saw her praise of the movie and she just seemed to be saying 'thanks for drawing attention to this issue, good job' which why not? The movie itself didn't do anything wrong, and it did get a ton of attention to the issue. I wish more politically/ideologically palatable people than Matt Walsh were making similarly successful movies, but any little bit of attention drawn to the issue still helps and I'm not gonna look a gift horse in the mouth if he alerts all the religious republicans to what's going on with gender therapists. That's a big voting bloc we should want on our side.
No. 2081390
>>2081388That would be absolutely terrible for education though.
I agree with the first nonna who says just make it unavailable to normies.
No. 2081394
>>2081379ntayrt but thats exactly why i feel like it shouldn't be available to the general public, its way too easy to abuse and get away with it. not only following the rules, but also
using your brain to actually formulate your own thoughts to put to paper is crucial to every humans development. AI and shit like that just makes everyone stupider and incentivizes lazy, stupid behavior.
No. 2081396
>>2081393I see people saying that it's
victim blaming to say people who send nudes are dumb or that it's fine if it's just between you and your bf. It's become way too normalized. So many women have their pictures on Telegram groups that they don't even know exist.
No. 2081398
>>2081394Yeah I'm agreeing with you anon. There's pretty much no good purpose for chatGPT except plagiarism/cheating. It doesn't give good/accurate information so it's fairly useless for doing any kind of 'research' (out of curiosity or otherwise), plus it makes you dumber and worse at researching things yourself. It isn't a useful resource for 'teaching' or 'tutoring' since it gets things wrong so incredibly often either, and for stuff like math homework there are already programs like wolframalpha that actually give you correct results and a correct play by play of how and why you do the math the way you do. What else is it useful for, lonely people? Why not just use dumber chatbots or otome games or something if you need to talk to a computer for company. I would like to hear what it supposedly is good for other than being lazy and cheating on things, because no one has ever actually given me a good explanation.
A personage I know who works on an AI (the microsoft version of chatGPT) was recently talking to a guy I know who's a scientist, showing him how 'useful' it is to do scientific lit searches. It was absolutely laughable, pulling up the most random papers that weren't even on topic lmao and this guy kept trying to excitedly explain how it's so much better than existing search engines like a tard. Meanwhile my friend was like 'uh scientists don't need this, I already know what important papers have been published in my field recently since we all keep up to date with that kind of thing.' But if some random student who didn't know tried to do a lit search they would be going down the garden path and reading some incredibly useless lit when they could just use google scholar instead.
No. 2081404
File: 1720410954658.png (274.55 KB, 749x450, lolll.png)
>>2081398After googling it I learned it can help with coding (sounds useful but can't it just be available by license at tech workplaces if so) and also that it's great for writing cover letters! Picrel is the cover letter it wrote. I wonder why it would be time saving to make it write this as you probably input all this info for it in the first place so the only thing you would have to do would be to add a few connecting words so it's in full sentences.
No. 2081408
>>2081406What kinds of things did it tell you, like was it highly specialized and accurate to a specific position or was it just 'general tips' because I feel like there's so many resources on the internet for that kind of thing already.
I agree its use for hiring is troubling.
No. 2081419
File: 1720411537736.png (395.71 KB, 754x797, lolllll.png)
>>2081404It also gives really deep and meaningful relationship advice like picrel, and in the end just tells you to talk to a friend anyway
No. 2081424
>>2081398This isn't specifically about Chat-GPT however I'm very anti-AI but honestly I think it
can be used for good. Some examples are language translation, tool for the disabled (TTS), helps regulate road traffic, etc etc. I just think AI needs to be heavily regulated, there's a major issue when quite literally anyone can access this tool. The worst issue of it all being AI-porn.
No. 2081426
File: 1720412336720.mp4 (392.88 KB, 566x318, lol.mp4)
so i'm fine with ai…outside of porn, like think deepfakes and stuff. at most i feel everything ai generated Needs To Be Tagged as being ai generated, otherwise i just don't care, and i find all the drama and moralfaggotry surrounding it to be really fucking tiresome. the whinging regarding the ~human spirit~ is equally annoying, especially when they're coming from soulless tranny tards whose media consumption is just gacha games and whatever's popular on hbo. you have no concept of soul or taste, you don't know what individuality really is, you happily consume slop that's indistinguishable from ai…why do you care so much? probably because you saw a tiktok that gave you five reasons why """"ai"""" is going to kill us all.
i hate the idea that human output isn't 99.9% total trash anyway. like omg, christ forbid we can generate big boobied anime girls poutily staring into space on white backgrounds or yaoi boys going at it instead of sucking some "artist's" cock to do it for us at the rate of 50 usd an hour. christ forbid we can get that idea that's been rotting in our heads for years out with ai roleplay instead of cruising discord for a they/them with a trigger list longer than the bible. crazy that people who want to cheat on essays for classes that won't matter in their jobs will no longer pay russians over fiverr, they'll just gen one from ai and get a c+. nooooooooo!!!
No. 2081427
>>2081204>I wish more politically/ideologically palatable people than Matt Walsh were making similarly successful movies, but any little bit of attention drawn to the issue still helps and I'm not gonna look a gift horse in the mouth if he alerts all the religious republicans to what's going on with gender therapists.There's failures on both sides imo. 2nd wave+ feminists abandoned morality (particularly sexual morality) as oppressive and this drove them into the arms of the liberal left, who used them as cover while legalizing and normalizing pornography and other forms of sexual exploitation.
The right wing on the other hand is composed of backward looking reactionaries who want to go back to an obsolete relationship model for women (and the economy/society in general), its basically weaponized nostalgia.
If I was some kind of feminist influencer I would dialogue with the right on some issues we agree on (pornography and overall sexual decadence in society) and also see what kind of compromises can be made across the aisle. For example there's a lot of
valid complaints about no-fault divorce ruining the institution of marriage, I would be fine with eliminating it and treating marriage as a legal contract again so long as we have clear protections for women built into that marriage contract so abuse is a
valid reason for ending it.
What I would want from the right in exchange would be giving women who have children in their 20s set-asides for starting education and careers in their 30s, so talented ambitious women can still be successful without having to sacrifice their childbearing years
No. 2081437
>>2081426Just because most people are dumb doesn't mean we should implement tools that make them dramatically dumber, make cheating and plagiarism the norm, destroy people's basic literacy and extremely basic skills, etc. It's not even about morality or how great 'the human spirit' is in every single person, and instead of making it easier for more and more people to go to and pass through college who shouldn't be in college in the first place, maybe we should just limit who goes to college and make it for only the people who actually want to learn again? It's a huge waste of society's time and resources to create a system where a bunch of dumbasses who won't do important jobs anyway and don't like learning pay tens of thousands of dollars and sit in lecture halls for 4 years while asking a mindless AI program to do all their homework so they pass and get a completely useless 'diploma' worth less than toilet paper.
There is nothing chatGPT is remotely useful for for the average person, so why should it be pushed on them? To dumb them down and prevent them from learning even the paltry skills they may have learned. And to indoctrinate people with completely wrong information and make them incapable of even thinking critically about what is true because they don't know how to utilize or find real information. Not everyone is completely dumb, and people don't need to be made dumber.
No. 2081441
>>2081427Most 2nd wave feminists are/were radfems, nonna - they didn't abandon sexual morality and they certainly weren't used to legalize and normalize pornography or sexual exploitation. Although some people have claimed that the early 3rd wave feminists like Camille Paglia were just a different subset of the 2nd wave, I think they're better thought of as early 3rd wavers. We were talking about radical feminists here, not 3rd wave feminists so it's not really relevant to the discussion because one of the 'sides' we were talking about isn't liberal feminism.
The right wing has done tons of things wrong, but Matt Walsh's movie was not really pushing his right wing views or honestly any of his more objectionable views, it was just exposing gender ideology. I know people love to purity test feminists about who they 'hang out with' aka ever talk with, are seen at the same events at, etc. even if they disagree but I think it's counterproductive personally. Purity testing is what has always fucked up former feminist movements and communities, and real radical feminism is never going to be popular so it's always going to have to rely on other groups to agree on stuff to advance most of its political aims.
I'm curious about your opinion on no-fault divorce though, I think that opinion is actually fairly unpopular. Why do you think it's ruining marriage?
Unfortunately I don't think 'give and take' like that usually works in politics, especially when one side (radfems) are a tiny political group with no influence, and the other side (the right wing/conservatives) constitute roughly half of most populations. I also don't think the right wing really cares about no fault divorce very much.
No. 2081448
>>2081445Lol what? No, that's retarded.
ChatGPT serves the opposite function from the internet though, roughly. I think it's an attempt to centralize and control information, and dumb people down while internet access typically does the opposite.
No. 2081451
>>2081441>Most 2nd wave feminists are/were radfems, nonna - they didn't abandon sexual morality and they certainly weren't used to legalize and normalize pornography or sexual exploitation.Maybe I'm mixing my waves up, but from what I've read the tone of feminists shifted in the postwar era from securing legal equality, the right to work free from discrimination and protections from domestic violence and other forms of abuse to removing any limitations on womens'
personal freedoms, regardless of the purpose of those limitations.
A good example of this is the support feminists gave to no-fault divorce as well as eliminating adultery as a criminal offense. This greatly weakened marriage as an institution and makes no sense from my POV given that adultery is overwhelmingly a male crime with female
victims.
Though to be fair, in many cases moral arguments were made for laws and institutions that actually did discriminate against women (Robert Dabney's 1871 essay against women's suffrage "Women's Rights Women" is one of my favorite examples, though he does make some arguments that apply to other elements of feminism that I agree with), so their mistrust of moral arguments has some basis.
>>I'm curious about your opinion on no-fault divorce though, I think that opinion is actually fairly unpopular. Why do you think it's ruining marriage? Marriage as it stands is a meaningless legal contract, because it can be withdrawn from by either party at any time. The original purpose of marriage was to create a legally binding union between husband and wife in order to ensure that children were reared in a stable environment, and to punish people who break their vows in order to protect the legitimacy of marriage for everyone else. When you stop punishing bad actors, this creates a prisoner's dilemma where the cost of getting screwed over by your spouse is higher than the benefit of marrying them in the first place. Marriage is the most important institution in this regard but it filters down into all relationships, if there's no punishment for cheaters you can't risk being trusting and neither can the other person. Its similar to how big cities in the US have de facto decriminalized theft by not prosecuting criminals, and the result has been businesses leaving cities like San Francisco in droves because the losses from thieves outweigh the profits they make in those cities
>>2081444See above
No. 2081457
>>2081439I don't trust AI translations, AI is not that good and it can give you a wrong translation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination_(artificial_intelligence)Drawing is not an "universal skill" though, you either have talent in drawing or you don't.
No. 2081461
>>2081457I meant universal skill as in unlike a language, you can use it in most situations, universally. And, I think pretty much anybody can at least learn to draw to a generally good extent.
Also it's not hard to check if an AI translation is getting something wrong. At least, I trust being able to check AI translations with each other than translators agreeing that a sentence totally said "hey sis from a other miss we gotta social distance"
No. 2081462
>>2081451Yeah you're mixing your waves up. The first wave was in the prewar era and was focused on securing voting rights and a few other rights (like protections from domestic violence weren't really gained by the 1st wave even though they did agitate for them, they mainly just got prohibition passed), women's public bathrooms, etc. The second wave was mostly 'radical feminism' although there were different splinter groups but legally it focused on stuff like DV protections, ability to have your own money/access to banking and credit cards, getting women out of sex work, workplace protections, no fault divorce, reproductive health rights, title 9 etc. as well as intellectually a focus on the idea that patriarchy exists and women are oppressed on the basis of their biological sex and talking about the ways that marriage and social norms chain down women. Radical feminists (who were most of the famous 2nd wavers) were extremely, staunchly anti-pornography, anti-prostitution, etc. Radfeminism was always about women's collective rights as a class, not women's personal freedoms. The 3rd wave (what we usually call 'liberal feminism' or 'choice feminism' although there was an early proto-liberal feminism in the 2nd wave era as well) was the 'omg don't criticize women's choices' wave of feminism that tried to popularize the idea of sexual liberation via sleeping around, pornography, prostitution being good things, 'removing stigma' from femininity, and so on.
While you are correct the no-fault divorce thing happened in the 2nd wave, it happened mainly in order to give women an out from DV, abuse and marital rape situations (marital rape was still legal during the 2nd wave). Adultery is not 'overwhelmingly' a male crime; while it is more common for men it is actually quite common for women also and if men could 'fault' divorce their wives for adultery (which often happened specifically because women were being abused) they could basically leave them with nothing financially. There were very solid reasons why 2nd wavers wanted adultery decriminalized and it wasn't because they supported adultery. If a man was beating and raping his wife every day but she couldn't 'prove' it, she was just stuck legally bound to and living with a man who was beating and raping her until he killed her. That's what happened the overwhelming majority of the time, and that's why no-fault divorce was considered important.
Marriage still functions as a legal contract because there are repercussions for 'breaking' the contract, like with many other contracts that can be reneged on/not fulfilled by either party. People are still punished for breaking their vows (financially, usually) and it happens to mostly be men, now it's just possible for women to make that happen without needing to prove in court that their husbands did something terrible. It's usually moids who 'break' marriages via adultery or other misbehavior, and it's also usually moids who are 'punished' more financially via divorce, as it should be. It's not a perfect system but it's much closer to perfect than the system that existed before. Children are not well off in an
abusive environment either, and it's not 'stable,' so keeping the parents together at any cost is simply not a good idea.
If you wanted marriages to 'work better' as contracts you should just make them illegal before age 25, as the overwhelming majority of divorces happen to couples who married before 25. Bam you got rid of 70-80% of divorce.
Do you think men cheated less before no-fault divorce was passed? Because uh… they didn't, so it's not like the theft example at all.
No. 2081468
File: 1720418077563.png (56.4 KB, 705x240, Adultery_Korea.png)
>>2081462An example: South Korea decriminalized adultery in 2015, however prior to 2013 almost 60% of Korean men admitted to cheating on their wives with prostitutes (not even counting other affairs), which actually dropped somewhat after adultery was decriminalized. Korea still doesn't really have a 'no fault divorce' system (they do if it's by mutual consent, but not if only one spouse files). South Korea is considered one of the worst countries for women in the entire OECD, especially married women, despite having these supposedly 'helpful' divorce laws and despite adultery having been criminalized until a decade ago.
Sorry, imgrel wasn't the stat for married men, but this article suggests that there is very little difference in rates of being a john for married and unmarried men:
https://www.econ.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/2012%20Fall%20Honor%20Thesis%20-%20WonSoon%28Revised%29.pdfThis article from a SK newspaper and claims that "According to the Korean Kinsey Report in 2016, which was run by Lina Korea and the Korean Institute for Sexual and Couple's Health and surveyed 1090 adult males and females, 50.8 percent of men and 9.3 percent of women have had an affair. This includes prostitution. According to the survey 42.3% of men in their 30s, 48.4% of men in their forties, 52.5% of men in their fifties, and 56.7% of those in their 60s have had an affair." Also, "According to the Korean Kinsey Report in 2016, 213 men were asked how many women they had had an affair with. The average number was 11.46 women with men in their 50s reportedly having had an affair with an average of 12.4 women. Out of the 34 women who were asked, the average number of men they had had an affair with was 3.62 men. The reason for the high numbers seems to be prostitution." Source:
https://www.jejuweekly.com/news/articleView.html%3Fidxno=5667 No. 2081471
File: 1720418638589.png (301.02 KB, 4140x2397, ageofmarriageby1600.png)
>>2081462>intellectually a focus on the idea that patriarchy exists and women are oppressed on the basis of their biological sex and talking about the ways that marriage and social norms chain down women. This is the Marxist infiltration and subversion of feminism that happened in the postwar era. Marxists took class struggle and superimposed it onto feminism, with the same consequences; make the other side your enemy and destroy any ability to collaborate for mutual benefit. Now we have troglodyte moids screeching about revoking womens rights on one end and radfems with almost as much vitriol on the other end drowning out sensible moderate people on both sides.
>Adultery is not 'overwhelmingly' a male crime; while it is more common for men it is actually quite common for women alsoIf someone breaks their vows and commits adultery, they should be punished, end of discussion. You don't have a right to destroy the stability of marriage for everyone else just because you can't control your sexual urges.
>(which often happened specifically because women were being abused)>If a man was beating and raping his wife every day but she couldn't 'prove' it, she was just stuck legally bound to and living with a man who was beating and raping her until he killed her.This may have been true in the past, but this justification doesn't hold any water today. The overwhelming majority of marriages are ended now due to "irreconcilable differences" without any abuse being cited. And given how easy it is to record evidence of abuse compared to the past, we can include domestic violence and abuse as grounds for at-fault divorce (including legal penalties for the offender) and solve that dilemma.
>Marriage still functions as a legal contract because there are repercussions for 'breaking' the contract, like with many other contracts that can be reneged on/not fulfilled by either party.Technically that's true, but as has been shown in divorce causes the vast majority are no-fault because its two spoiled brats who grew up with the world revolving around them being incapable of setting aside their wants for the greater good. I don't know where you're from, but in my parents case that was the cause and this was also true for most of my friends. Parents got to live individualistic lives again, all it cost was tearing their children's foundations apart when they needed that stability the most.
>If you wanted marriages to 'work better' as contracts you should just make them illegal before age 25, as the overwhelming majority of divorces happen to couples who married before 25. Bam you got rid of 70-80% of divorce. This is something I can get behind, I agree 100% with you there and if you look at western European history, the average age of marriage for women was mid to even late 20s as far back as the 17th century. The idea that women were married off at 14 like cattle in Europe is a lie spread by both neckbearded incels and legbearded
femcels.
>Do you think men cheated less before no-fault divorce was passed? Because uh… they didn't, so it's not like the theft example at all.Yeah in fact, I do. Reason being that it was a legally punishable offense. Frank Sinatra got thrown in jail for adultery. Besides, moids today are by every measurable metric more degenerate and awful human beings than at any time before. The post-1950s sexual liberalism is a direct result of this, when you reject sexual morality as a serious concept you end up with depraved moids because the good ones who would have set examples for the rest are disempowered and the worst moids are empowered.
>>2081468>South Korea decriminalized adultery in 2015,Womens Rights as a concept was alien to Asia until European colonialism, before western influence women were no better than slaves and could be disposed of by their husbands at will. Korean women are given freedom from their moids and the first thing they did was torpedo the whole ship, because of how horrible their moids are to women to this day.
Korean moids are also revolting against women's rights because from their point of view, it is an alien concept imposed on them by colonialism (which is correct, btw). As western influence declines in Asia and elsewhere, we will see women around the world losing their freedoms as countries revert to their pre-western cultural norms that are organic to them.
Point is, you can't compare Asian countries to western countries, they had child marriage and child prostitution well into the 20th century.
No. 2081474
Can I vent here about my hyper fixation since it's an extremely unpopular opinion, it will be recognized, it's extremely cringeworthy but I dwell on it due to it being something important in human lives:
Men can love a woman and still cheat on her because all the conceivable love a man can have in a hetero relationship for a woman is just him loving being loved by her plus sexual attraction, romantic attraction of a man is the same exact that as sexual, no separation between both. I have good real life example I studied of a woman on social media who overshares, specifically less normie but more FDS misandrist type of a woman, not a real misandry but she is anti porn and all of that, the man fit the descriptions of a perfect man Nigelfags all over the world describe: he worshipped her everyday and showed it, told he the loves her, served her, didn't act porn sick in sex didn't jump straight to sexual talks at the beggining of dating, agreed that porn is exploitative, said he wants to get married on a first date to see if she's a good match and was gushing over how cool being a husband must be, gazed into her eyes constantly and kisses her forehead, waited months to have sex and didn't rape her on one of the first dates when she got blackout drunk he just tucked her to bed, she called him the most gentle nurturing person in the world like thousands times and gentle in sex okay with stopping and not continuing anytime without throwing s tantrum, was okay with no anal or more violent versions of certain sex acts, acted sad while going out without her, said he will make this year of her life the best one, called a man at his work a pornsick pervert, said his friends made fun of him for not hooking up with models on a trip, she said people shame him for not having hook ups but he has nothing to prove, she said he wouldn't cheat cause his ex did it to him and he knows how much it hurts, kissed for million hours straight with no sex, acted caring and fed her food, used to pay for many things and took her to expensive restaurants and dates, took no as an answer when she refused sex and lectured her about how she doesn't have to apologize for it, cried at her pain sometimes, his friends said they will hurt him if he harms her, his female friend said he's good.
But he was cheating since the beginning esp during the honeymoon phase when he was sweeting her so much that's why he waited months for sex, he cheated on all of his exes, threatened suicide to them (this is because I think they really want to fuck other women so they are emotional about it all and feel oppressed when they get held accountable), had violent sex with other women while faking his preferences to her to seduce her, texted "I want you to gag on my cock" to them lol, constantly hooked up with other women,his friends knew but lied about it,
Once he sen ther Andrew Tate video but pretended he has no idea who he is, then said he wants her to compliment his life in the best way possible and I immediately knew he wants her to be a naive house slave while he bangs other women on the side. His mom is a tradwife so his gf used to find it amazing and think she's a well taken care of woman(sigh FDS), he threatened to sue her for ruining his reputation and exposing him while knowing she's broke and dependent on an abusive person. He switched on her immediately like he doesn't care if she does or lives. He gave her utis but she thoughts he is amazing because he went to the doctor and took antibiotics without complaining. he promised a house marriage and adopting children together. a good story on how men get off on lying despise it all being authentic(besides the eyes) because the sexual therefore romantic attraction was after all, real. They can love a woman like a healthy non pornsick Nigel's all over the world who serve their women do yet still cheat, if a man desires a woman then he desires other women as well, I'm saving it as an example cause I'm tired of brainwashing. This girl was into female dating strategy a lot, there was no visible red flags to her but all man is a red flag to me. This kind of love and cheating doesn't contradict and those utis are not so mysterious… Married men get off in saying they never cheat it watch porn like they legit just do it makes them feel good imo saying it intuitively, guild appears when catched. All of his behaviors never suggested he will not cheat, his sensitivity was actually what's fooled her cause this type of men can easily pretend things through their calmness and through being a child mentally that gets attached and acts like he needs her then it gives the illusion of something. Moid acting like he needs a woman makes her feel special .
No. 2081495
File: 1720421037558.png (57.8 KB, 763x404, Infidelity_US.png)
>>2081471In the US, currently, 20% of men and 30% of women report being unfaithful in their marriages:
https://ifstudies.org/blog/who-cheats-more-the-demographics-of-cheating-in-americaHowever, this is not higher than over the last 100 years - it is one of the very lowest reported rates in modern history (picrel). I doubt this is because of people lying, since they actually have less incentive to lie now than in the past since it's no longer illegal (in most states - I think it is still technically criminalized in some US states).
>Marxists took class struggle and superimposed it onto feminism, with the same consequences; make the other side your enemy and destroy any ability to collaborate for mutual benefit. Yeah I don't really agree with this. Although I know a lot of radical feminist thought had its roots in Marxist class analysis, I think it was mostly a logical extension of the first wave based on a recognition that men have always been oppressing and harming women based on our reproductive capacity and the physical differences between us and men. Radical feminists didn't cause 'troglodyte moids screeching about revoking womens rights,' men never wanted women to have those rights and have been screeching about it ever since women tried to gain some. What 'vitriol' do you think radfems are spewing that isn't true and what 'sensible, moderate' views are they drowning out?
>If someone breaks their vows and commits adultery, they should be punished, end of discussion.Sure, in theory, but that's not what happened when adultery was criminalized. Since men controlled most of the finances in the marriage and most of the legal system, it was extremely difficult for women to successfully nab them for adultery even though men were committing adultery at higher rates than now, while on the off chance women cheated or tried to leave the marriage, men would destroy their lives and leave them without financial autonomy. The same goes for DV - it had to be proven, and women could almost never prove it, so women lived and died shackled to their abusers. At least now a woman can legally leave her abuser, even if it's hard to shake him off practically speaking.
> The overwhelming majority of marriages are ended now due to "irreconcilable differences" without any abuse being cited. Abuse not being cited in legal proceedings doesn't mean it doesn't occur. Unless you have hard proof of abuse most divorce lawyers will tell you not to cite it as the reason for your divorce, since it can draw out proceedings and cause other legal issues. Most of the time 'irreconcilable differences' is the safest official reason to end a marriage, regardless of your real reason for leaving. If it is so easy to record evidence of abuse and rape, why is it still so rarely prosecuted and convicted? You are basically saying that if a woman is routinely abused and raped by her husband, but can't collect proof and take it to the police, she should just be stuck in the
abusive marriage. I think not even one woman should suffer this fate.
> are no-fault because its two spoiled brats who grew up with the world revolving around them being incapable of setting aside their wants for the greater good.I don't know how you think you know that, but I don't think that is known or obvious. Most of the people I know who divorced divorced because of either infidelity or abuse, and none cited infidelity or abuse as the reason for the divorce (again, for legal reasons). The people most likely to divorce for 'silly' reasons are people who got married young, so again, young marriage should be discouraged.
>Yeah in fact, I do. Reason being that it was a legally punishable offense. As I've shown, infidelity rates are not higher in the US than they were in the 1920s through 1960s, and countries like Korea which never implemented no-fault divorce nor decriminalized adultery (until 2013) have much higher rates of infidelity, which actually went down after it was decriminalized. South Korea also has steadily dropping marriage rates which is not the case in most Western countries today, suggesting that people are not more motivated to marry when no-fault divorce is impossible, but less.
>Korean moids are also revolting against women's rights because from their point of view, it is an alien concept imposed on them by colonialismYeah but the legally imposed institution of marriage and criminalization of infidelity didn't stop them and decriminalization of adultery didn't make them worse.
The US still has legal child marriage and plenty of illegal child prostitution. I don't think it's just an 'Asia' thing.
No. 2081518
>>2081471> Besides, moids today are by every measurable metric more degenerate and awful human beings than at any time before. Not sure this is true either… there were many times in history where moids were in general doing way more depraved shit than they are now because of the lack of legal or social repercussions and the lack of protections for women. A lot of the current forms of new and worse depravity in men are caused by porn and have absolutely nothing to do with marriage or feminism for that matter, at least not 2nd wave feminism which tried to stop the scourge of porn and 'sex work' which was rebuked and shot down by moids and their less 'vitriolic' antifeminist handmaidens. People should have listened to 2nd wave feminists I guess.
But aside from porn and the internet making moids a specific type of depraved they are really no more barbaric toward women than they were at many/most points in history, e.g. during the Roman Empire or even in the late 19th/early 20th century where they were abusing women and then locking them up in mental institutions for 'hysteria,' coming up with entire moidbrained pursuits like 'psychiatry' to pathologize female and child abuse
victims and claim they were projecting because they wanted to fuck their fathers, and yes, marrying children. Although Europe had better protections for women historically at many points than other cultures, one big difference between modern Europe/America/Commonwealth and many of those other countries is indeed that they actually had successful movements of feminism. You could argue these movements happened earlier and were more successful in Europe because Europe already had liberal democratic ideologies and ideas of 'inalienable rights' conducive to development of feminist movements, but many of our moms were still alive when women got the right to have their own credit cards and bank accounts in Western countries, again a product of 2nd wave feminism. This is the main reason why moids in the West appear to be screeching more now than before, because they don't have as much legal and financial control over the women they feel entitled to than moids in other countries, not because they used to be so nice and respectful toward women until no fault divorce made them all start cheating.
No. 2081519
>>2081510(Its my hyper fixation I could find SS of me arguing about it on Facebook groups with other teenage girls from like seven years ago, I used to complain "girls are so naive all it takes is a few sweet words")
It didn't even seem like a love bombing (she overshares every day)
No. 2081521
>>2081471>This is the Marxist infiltration and subversion of feminism that happened in the postwar era. Marxists took class struggle and superimposed it onto feminism, with the same consequences; make the other side your enemy and destroy any ability to collaborate for mutual benefit. Now we have troglodyte moids screeching about revoking womens rights on one end and radfems with almost as much vitriol on the other end drowning out sensible moderate people on both sides.If you know anything about Marxists you know they
do not want to draw a parallel between class and sex in any way, shape or form. 2nd wave feminists took inspiration from Marxism (mainly, materialism, the idea that women aren't naturally weak, stupid and submissive and that we should look at social conditions and historical tendencies, etc) because they thought a materialist reading of women's history and current situation was useful. Sensible people employ these concepts all the time now and don't realize it comes from the ebil extremist class warfare people
>>2081176>right-wing GCers like posier parker, meghan murphy or libfems like JK rowling None of these people are USian. At the end of the day, the US is a country full of religious nuts and there's not much british GCs can do about it
No. 2081524
>>2081495>However, this is not higher than over the last 100 years - it is one of the very lowest reported rates in modern history (picrel). I doubt this is because of people lying, since they actually have less incentive to lie now than in the past since it's no longer illegalSelection bias. Marriage has become an institution for middle and upper class people, with working class people no longer marrying and engaging in unstable cohabiting relationships instead
>Seriously referencing the homosexual pedophile apologist Alfred KinseyPlease, please look Alfred Kinsey's studies up. He used prison populations as sources for his books with the explicit goal of normalizing degeneracy and in one of his masturbatory frenzies (he was a pornography addict) he sawed off his own foreskin with a knife. He also claimed children could enjoy sexual stimulation from the moment they were born, citing a notorious pedophile who sexually abused hundreds of infants. Sociology since Margaret Mead has been explicitly focused on destroying monogamy as a norm with fraudulent research, either using tribal savages as equatable to modern civilized people or by outright frauding the data as Kinsey did in his "Sexuality" studies.
The rest of your citations are highly suspect if they are still quoting Kinsey.
We know from self reported lifetime partner counts that Silent Gen men and women had far fewer partners than Baby Boomer men and women did. Modern forms of contraception and birth control only existed recently, promiscuity in any form would have resulted in diseases spreading or unintended pregnancies. The sexual revolution was only possible in the first place with the technological advances that allowed those behaviors.
>it was mostly a logical extension of the first wave based on a recognition that men have always been oppressing and harming women based on our reproductive capacity and the physical differences between us and men.I don't deny we experienced oppression as a sex throughout history but the Marxist solution to class oppression is class warfare. That was a stupid solution to begin with as the different classes are essential in the function of society. It makes even less sense for sex, because we need each other to reproduce the next generation and, ideally, to be loving companions to each other. And on a more practical point, we need our men to defend the borders of our nations from other men. If we make family formation impossible, our nation starts dying and we get replaced by men from much more misogynistic cultures who do form families and reproduce. Take a look at the Ex Muslim thread on /ot/, the nonnas living in European countries are all fearful of the growing Islamic presence because they are outreproducing Europeans and will impose their values when they have the numbers. There are already Islamic parties in countries like Sweden.
>Sure, in theory, but that's not what happened when adultery was criminalized. Since men controlled most of the finances in the marriage and most of the legal system, it was extremely difficult for women to successfully nab them for adultery even though men were committing adultery at higher rates than now, while on the off chance women cheated or tried to leave the marriage, men would destroy their lives and leave them without financial autonomy.I'm not arguing about the past, I concede that these laws were unfair to us and were used to exploit us. That doesn't mean the concept itself is wrong, it means it was misused. This is no longer the case, with the exception of hyper politicized topics like abortion in the US women have strong representation in the legal fields.
>Most of the time 'irreconcilable differences' is the safest official reason to end a marriage, regardless of your real reason for leaving. If it is so easy to record evidence of abuse and rape, why is it still so rarely prosecuted and convicted?Given how acrimonious divorces can be, especially when financial assets are involved, there is an incentive against taking the no-fault route rather than claiming abuse and securing a better settlement against the ex. As for why its rarely prosecuted and convicted, is this in spite of physical evidence proving it, or because none was provided? I have a hard time believing a modern western court system would cover up proof of rape or assault unless it was done by a protected minority class against an unprotected class.
>Most of the people I know who divorced divorced because of either infidelity or abuse, and none cited infidelity or abuse as the reason for the divorce (again, for legal reasons).Maybe your anecdote is true, but its heresay. My anecdotes are the opposite, in my life experience divorce was from quibbling spouses who refused to change their attitudes to life when they had a family. No way to prove one way or the other which is reflective of reality, except that the divorce system incentivizes spouses to claim abuse rather than not claim it.
>Yeah but the legally imposed institution of marriage and criminalization of infidelity didn't stop them and decriminalization of adultery didn't make them worse. Because its unnatural to them, that's why. Women's rights is organic to western civilization, it developed here and only here. We saw a similar thing happen when black Americans were liberated from white cultural dominance with the civil rights movement. They went from a 16% illegitimacy rate in the 1950s to an 80% illegitimacy rate today, with poorer metrics by every measurable standard when it comes to their family structure or living conditions.
>The US still has legal child marriage and plenty of illegal child prostitution. I don't think it's just an 'Asia' thing.Please show me examples of white American moids marrying 12 year olds and having dozens of legal concubines like Chinese, Japanese and Koreans did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries
No. 2081537
File: 1720424089944.png (91.78 KB, 972x371, nofaultdivorce.png)
>>2081524So first it was 'people cheat more in marriage now' and now it's 'actually they cheat less, but it's only because more responsible people get married.' Earlier you were claiming that marriages fail because the people who get married are too irresponsible to do so, but now it's a bad thing?
>Seriously referencing the homosexual pedophile apologist Alfred KinseyI'm not referencing Kinsey, I'm referencing a paper on divorce rates that referenced Kinsey for one of the time-points. You can ignore that one if you want and look at all the others, they're still all higher than current rates. All survey studies asking about infidelity will be somewhat suspect, but the numbers that were collected at those times suggested they were comparable to higher than now. I don't know why on earth you would think the other citations would be quoting Kinsey, lmao? The Kinsey sample was in the 1940s-50s, not the other decades.
>We know from self reported lifetime partner counts that Silent Gen men and women had far fewer partners than Baby Boomer men and women did. Of course they did, because casual pre-marital sexual dating was much more taboo. That doesn't mean infidelity in marriage was rare. Have you ever actually talked to an older person?
> the Marxist solution to class oppression is class warfare. Radical feminism isn't Marxism and wasn't promoted by Marxists. They just used Marxist class analysis methods to analyse the oppression of women. It's not a 'solution' of any kind, it's a form of analysis of a pre-existing social issue and the reasons for it. It's not radfems' fault men were not 'loving partners' for women throughout history, they (like women before them for centuries) just pointed it out, and applied a different framework to think about the root causes.
>If we make family formation impossible"We" are not making family formation impossible - people are still overwhelmingly likely to form families and have been for the 50-60 years since 2nd wave feminism began. The main reason that some people are less likely to form families now is economic issues, and not anything at all to do with radical feminism. The male politicians who support young muslim men coming to European countries also aren't radical feminists, or feminists at all, and no one is importing muslim males because of feminism.
>That doesn't mean the concept itself is wrong, it means it was misused. And certainly would be misused again, especially if your claim that men today are more degenerate and depraved than ever before is to be believed. Despite women being lawyers, it is still extremely difficult and rare to prosecute rape, abuse, and adultery cases, or prove adultery in divorce court in countries that allow it as a reason for divorce (like Canada).
>Given how acrimonious divorces can be, especially when financial assets are involved, there is an incentive against taking the no-fault route Not in most western countries, no. The no-fault versus the adultery route actually doesn't change the resource split or custody in a divorce in modern countries like Canada. Women claiming abuse as a reason for their divorces are actually less likely to get full custody of their children in many countries, and the no-fault route also preserves a lot more money for both parties (since the divorce proceedings tend to take much less time and be much cheaper). Most divorce lawyers will counsel you to take the no-fault route in almost every situation, unless you have enough money to sue in civil court afterwards.
>is this in spite of physical evidence proving it, or because none was provided?It is still exceedingly difficult to provide incontrovertible physical evidence of abuse in most cases, but even when it is provided it often still isn't pursued legally/prosecuted/convicted. There are many cases in Europe where videos and DNA evidence of rapes are provided to police and the case is dropped, and even in the rare cases when it goes to court it is convicted but no jail sentence is given. I don't know why you have a 'hard time believing' something that is extremely common knowledge and that you can read about extensively with a quick google search. Especially in marriages things like rape are difficult to prove because how do you 'prove' your husband raped you with 'evidence'?
>in my life experience divorce was from quibbling spouses who refused to change their attitudes to life when they had a family. Even in that case I'm not convinced it's good for them to continue having that family and influencing their children in that way. Depends what the 'quibbling' was I guess, and how severe it was.
>the divorce system incentivizes spouses to claim abuse rather than not claim it.No, it really doesn't.
>Women's rights is organic to western civilization, it developed here and only here. That's not true at all. Ancient civilizations in East Asia were matriarchal or matrilineal, had female queens/empresses. The Ancient (pre-Islamic) Middle East had strong women's rights, in fact women were allowed to own businesses, have their own finances and be heads of families. It is not a Europe-specific thing in all of history.
>Please show me examples of white American moids marrying 12 year olds and having dozens of legal concubines like Chinese, Japanese and Koreans did in the late 19th and early 20th centuriesAny FLDS compound in Utah.
No. 2081538
>>2081518>there were many times in history where moids were in general doing way more depraved shit than they are now because of the lack of legal or social repercussions and the lack of protections for women.I'm talking about within stable western countries, not during tribal times where the risk of dying from anything was far higher than today. STD rates have exploded since the sexual revolution, if moids were as bad before then compared to now we would have seen far more disease than we actually did. Prostitution and venereal diseases have of course always existed, but it was a minority of the most degenerate moids who exploited prostitutes and they paid dearly for it with incurable diseases like syphilis.
>even in the late 19th/early 20th century where they were abusing women and then locking them up in mental institutions for 'hysteria,' coming up with entire moidbrained pursuits like 'psychiatry' to pathologize female and child abuse victims and claim they were projecting because they wanted to fuck their fathers, and yes, marrying children.Those "psychiatrists" were not Europeans. Freud wrote about himself as a Semitic general waging war on "Rome", i.e. western civilization, using psychoanalysis to undermine European sexual norms of the time.
And I'm not saying the past was perfect, I'm arguing that a) it was changing in the right direction, which never happened anywhere else, and b) the solutions that libfems offered to fix these problems only made them much worse by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
>one big difference between modern Europe/America/Commonwealth and many of those other countries is indeed that they actually had successful movements of feminism.Ask yourself this, how did feminism win in the first place when all the power was held by men? We didn't invade European capitals with armies and overthrow their governments, our own men voted to emancipate us and give us legal powers to regulate their behavior.
>but many of our moms were still alive when women got the right to have their own credit cards and bank accounts in Western countries, again a product of 2nd wave feminism.Already answered that argument, I never claimed there was nothing left to fix or that we need to RETVRN. I'm not a conservative at all, I'm a paleo progressive.
>>2081521>If you know anything about Marxists you know they do not want to draw a parallel between class and sex in any way, shape or form. ?
Its written in the Communist Manifesto that women are an oppressed class and that marriage should be abolished as a bourgeois institution. The early Soviet Union had sexual deregulation as extreme as we have it in the west today, with marriage rendered legally superfluous and abortion up until the 9th month legalized. It caused so much chaos in Russia that Stalin cracked down violently on the radicals on the eve of WW2 so Russian society could be functional enough to fight the Germans.
No. 2081547
>>2081537>So first it was 'people cheat more in marriage now' and now it's 'actually they cheat less, but it's only because more responsible people get married.'No, we see lower cheating today compared to when Baby Boomers were married and divorcing because prior to the sexual revolution, all classes of people were married out of custom but that custom has been abandoned for the bottom half of society after the sexual revolution. If cheating was an epidemic as you claim it was, why is it STD rates exploded during the sexual revolution compared to before it? There were fewer medical protections against disease before the 1960s, if anything we should see higher rates of venereal disease compared to before.
>I'm not referencing Kinsey, I'm referencing a paper on divorce rates that referenced Kinsey for one of the time-pointsIf an author is taking that known fraud seriously to cite infidelity statistics, their data is suspect in the rest of their citations. Link the article your originally scraped those stats from, I'd like to look into the citations myself because 9 times out of 10 its bullshit
>Of course they did, because casual pre-marital sexual dating was much more taboo. Why is it Millennials and Gen Z report far fewer premarital partners than Boomers as well then? Sex has certainly not become more taboo now compared to the 1960s-80s, yet we see self reported partner counts down far across the board.
>Radical feminism isn't Marxism and wasn't promoted by Marxists. They just used Marxist class analysis methods to analyse the oppression of women.I.e. its an offshoot of Marxism, using the same methodology the Marxists use with class on sex. Its functionally Marxist.
>It's not radfems' fault men were not 'loving partners' for women throughout history, they (like women before them for centuries) just pointed it out, and applied a different framework to think about the root causes. I'm not disagreeing with the complaint, my problem is using a stupid, easily refutable concept like dialectical materialism to try and resolve those problems. Marx actually made some very good evaluations of the problems inherent in capitalism, but he applied idiotic solutions to them that ended in disaster when they were put into practice.
>"We" are not making family formation impossible - people are still overwhelmingly likely to form families and have been for the 50-60 years since 2nd wave feminism began. All European countries are dying, our populations are all old and birth rates are unsustainable. Politicians are allowing mass immigration because it widens the burden of paying for pensions and social services to more people. I never said radfems were responsible for this, I said it is an inevitable outcome when your societies are so socially borked that they can't reproduce anymore.
>That's not true at all. Ancient civilizations in East Asia were matriarchal or matrilineal, had female queens/empresses.False, they had empress dowagers who were the mothers of child emperors, with a few token empresses in their entire history. And these empresses were ruling over civilizations where men could have an unlimited number of concubines, with no lower age limit to when they could be bought. One of the main factors that allowed Europe to advance was that the marriage age would go up for both sexes in hard times, lowering the birth rate, whereas in ancient China and India the age of marriage for girls actually fell during economic hardship, because more girls would be sold into sex slavery (i.e. concubinage) to elite men, who would overproduce children and maintain the economic hardship for much longer than in Europe.
>The Ancient (pre-Islamic) Middle East had strong women's rights, in fact women were allowed to own businesses, have their own finances and be heads of families.What middle east are you talking about? Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria? All those civilizations had temple prostitution and polygamy, and there were no "businesses" at that time, capitalism as we understand it now did not exist then. 99% of their population was engaged in agriculture and slavery (including sex slavery) was the norm, particularly in ancient Iraq. Libfem historical revisionism has been a disaster.
>Any FLDS compound in Utah.You mean the cult that the US invaded explicitly with the goal of ending their polygamy? FLDS is a tiny sect similar to the Amish in its obscurity, it in no way represents the mainstream
>>2081543Please link the actual website you got that from, I want to check the data personally
No. 2081548
>>2081538I didn't give any examples about 'tribal times' did I? Your STD point makes no sense. We simply don't have good data on STD rates prior to about 1900 since we couldn't/didn't test for most of them back then, but if you seriously believe veneral disease rates were low in ancient Rome you're trippin.
>Those "psychiatrists" were not Europeans.It's convenient how they suddenly become 'non Western' because they're from a European ethnic minority when it's convenient, but even if Freud was from Papua New Guinea it wouldn't change the fact that society accepted his claims and started lobotomizing abused women with Valium in mental institutions with wild abandon. I'm starting to think you're just trying to couch a lot of sneaky racebait in an argument about 'feminism' though, although I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were being sincere before.
>I never claimed there was nothing left to fix or that we need to RETVRN. No, but you did claim that second wave feminism was responsible for a worsening of conditions for women although this clearly was not the case, and also claimed that 2nd wave feminism was the root of moids becoming aggressive toward women, although the only reason for this aggression is they couldn't explicitly legally and financially control us to the same degree anymore. I already addressed your point about Europe.
>written in the Communist Manifesto that women are an oppressed classUh, sort of, but not in the radfem way. Marx called the oppression of women natural but also wanted them to do more labor and wanted to destroy the family unit, this is not the way in which second wave feminism approached the issue at all. There is a type of feminist thought called Marxist Feminism and it is not the same thing at all as Radical Feminism. Radical feminism used materialist analysis, but did not come to even remotely the same conclusions as Marx did about the origin or nature of women's oppression, nor did radfems support 'sexual deregulation.' They were the only bulwark against 'sexual deregulation' in the modern West, and that's why men hated them so much.
No. 2081558
>>2081548>Your STD point makes no sense. We simply don't have good data on STD rates prior to about 1900 since we couldn't/didn't test for most of them back thenYes we could, because they were physically visible on the afflicted moids. Syphilis was well known for centuries as a disease associated with prostitution, and as a congenital disease, and such outbreaks were one of the major motivating factors in eliminating prostitution in Protestant countries. Illicit sex was extremely dangerous for most of human history
>It's convenient how they suddenly become 'non Western' because they're from a European ethnic minority when it's convenientIts not that he was from an ethnic minority, but rather he explicitly considered his psychoanalytic movement as an attack on conservative European sexual mores of the time.
>even if Freud was from Papua New Guinea it wouldn't change the fact that society accepted his claims and started lobotomizing abused women with Valium in mental institutions with wild abandon.Yeah, and most of Freud's clients were rich degenerate moids who wanted moral absolution for cheating on their wives without actually having to repent or stop their behavior. The history of sexual license is rich and powerful men trying to undermine the social mores that blocked them from cheating on their wives and exploiting vulnerable women.
>No, but you did claim that second wave feminism was responsible for a worsening of conditions for women although this clearly was not the case, and also claimed that 2nd wave feminism was the root of moids becoming aggressive toward womenI never claimed that, I said Marxist feminism transformed feminism into class warfare, which eventually made men in general antagonists to women. This is stupid and self defeating, because it created its inevitable reaction of anti-feminism that we are dealing with now
>Marx called the oppression of women natural but also wanted them to do more labor and wanted to destroy the family unit, this is not the way in which second wave feminism approached the issue at all.How is radfem in any way supportive of the family unit? I'm not being combative, I genuinely am ignorant of the finer details.
>nor did radfems support 'sexual deregulation.' They were the only bulwark against 'sexual deregulation' in the modern West, and that's why men hated them so much.I agree with this. My argument is that they unintentionally gave rise to sexual deregulation by making feminism a partisan movement the liberals could easily psyop with libfeminism. Once you abandon the moral arguments and dive into dialectical materialism, you lose, because morality is the only defense you have against the rich and powerful
No. 2081561
>>2081547STD rates exploded during the sexual revolution because of the normalization of homosexuality.
>Link the article your originally scraped those stats from, I'd like to look into the citations myself because 9 times out of 10 its bullshitJust look it up yourself. If you can find better citations go ahead, the Kinsey is the only source I can find that surveyed people about infidelity of that era otherwise I would have found you a different source.
>Why is it Millennials and Gen Z report far fewer premarital partners than Boomers as well then?I don't know, it's certainly not because we banned adultery and no-fault divorce.
>using the same methodology the Marxists use with class on sex. A whole bunch of different people have used materialist analysis on a whole bunch of different issues and none of that implies a Marxist political ideology, don't be silly. It's not 'functionally' Marxist because it doesn't suggest any of the solutions that Marx suggested, or lead to any outcomes that Marxist thought led to. 'Liberal' feminism on the other hand, or third wave feminism which you keep complaining about but wrongly conflating with radical feminism because you are somehow confused about basic feminist history, has led to very 'functionally' Marxist outcomes, ironically.
>my problem is using a stupid, easily refutable concept like dialectical materialism to try and resolve those problems.Uh can you give examples? How was agitating against pornography, prostitution, marital rape, or for women to have the right to open bank accounts 'dialectical materialism'?
>All European countries are dying, our populations are all old and birth rates are unsustainable. Yes, and it's not because people don't want to form families. It's because they economically can't.
>False, they had empress dowagers who were the mothers of child emperorsYou should learn a little more about history if you want to talk like you're smart lmao. Picking a specific time period in those countries' history and then saying 'none of the other time periods in their history existed!!!!' isn't making you look very smart or coherent.
>What middle east are you talking about? The Quran says Mohammed married a successful merchant lady and stole all her money (that wasn't her dad's). But yeah I'm sure the mercantile class didn't exist back then because the anglosphere hadn't imported the word 'capitalism' to the Arabs yet.
>I want to check the data personally.Sure.
https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(21)00341-4/fulltexthttps://childusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2021-Report-on-Child-Marriage.pdf No. 2081570
>>2081558Many of the STIs that account for very high current STI rates are not physically visible (HPV and HSV being two of the main ones that account for a lot of the high rates). And even if they were 'visible' on moids, it's not like they were all getting regular penile checkups and the hospital and punching in their stats in Ancient Rome. Syphilis wasn't exactly rare at all points prior to the sexual revolution, either.
>Its not that he was from an ethnic minority, but rather he explicitly considered his psychoanalytic movement as an attack on conservative European sexual mores of the time.He may have felt that way, but it didn't stop modern Europe from taking it all in stride and accepting everything he was saying about women, even though he was no feminist and it was long before the sexual revolution. You keep changing the goalposts, first everything in Europe was fine and dandy, there was basically no conflict between men and women until the 60s or 70s, and then actually things for women were horrible, but it was all because of people who were 'attacking' European social mores long before feminism and actually that's why moids hated women, but somehow feminists were still wrong and being 'vitriolic' for standing up to these moids and their sexual depravity because it was 'dialectical materialism' to not want to be marriage raped and want their own bank accounts, somehow, despite Marx being against private ownership of capital and also against marriage. You're not really keeping a coherent thread to any of your arguments and I'm starting to think you don't believe any of it.
>most of Freud's clients were rich degenerate moids who wanted moral absolution for cheating on their wives without actually having to repent or stop their behavior. But I thought men never got away with cheating and abuse before no-fault divorce!
>Marxist feminism transformed feminism into class warfare, which eventually made men in general antagonists to women. No, you actually said second wave feminism (which was not Marxist feminism) transformed feminism into class warfare, and yet now you are talking openly about class warfare against women in the 1800s by Freud's wealthy and influential clients who were some of the most important people in society at the time and who popularized an entire 'field' of medicine that was basically formed entirely as a form of class warfare against women.
>How is radfem in any way supportive of the family unit? Although quite a few radfems were not supportive of the family unit per se, they were supportive of bettering the family unit by slowly reforming and improving marriage, other financial and legal protections for women within and outside of marriage, and arguing against the sexually degenerate behaviour of males (and some females). Radfems were staunchly against prostitution and porn, which since then have been almost solely responsible for the steady degeneration of what was left of the idea of the 'family unit' and 'sexual morality' in general. I already explained this though, several times, so I kind of doubt that you are 'genuinely ignorant' or genuinely curious.
>They unintentionally gave rise to sexual deregulation by making feminism a partisan movement the liberals could easily psyop with libfeminism.That's not what happened. Early 3rd wave or "liberal" feminists existed at the time many 2nd wave radfems were at their peak of fame, and they were in direct opposition to each other on these issues. The problem is that the "liberal" feminists won because men supported them more, quite simply. There was no 'psyop' of radical feminism to convert it to liberal feminism, radical feminism was and continues to be opposed to liberal feminism but liberal feminism 'won' because it was forefronted by and supported by males while radical feminism was not, because it was contrary to males' degenerate sexual interests. Radical feminists did not 'abandon moral arguments' at all, that's what liberal feminists did, and radical feminists were famously hated specifically because they were seen as shrill and moralizing. Again, I have explained this several times, and asked you how radical feminism was applying 'dialectical materialism' to achieve their aims, but you do not and cannot explain it because you know it's nonsense.
No. 2081576
File: 1720428284330.jpeg (32.17 KB, 500x375, IMG_5394.jpeg)
I do not give a fuck about sonico figures or women who collect them. I don’t care what most weebs collect unless they unironically collect funko pops because those are ugly as fuck. Bottom line if you’re cool about it idgaf
No. 2081577
>>2081561>STD rates exploded during the sexual revolution because of the normalization of homosexuality.Homosexuality was actually taboo even during the 60s sexual revolution. Even the radicals of that time did not openly advocate for homosexuality, you see more pedophilia advocates like Kinsey or the German Greens of the 1980s than homosexual advocates, though the two were closely connected. I am of course talking about moidfaggotry here with regards to the homo-pedo connection.
The sexual revolutionaries were invariably moids who would push their wives into swinging or open marriages, I even have newspapers from the 60s with distraught wives writing advice columnists about their husbands trying to push them into sexual experimentation. The sexual revolution was on its whole an attack on women and the most extreme elements of 2nd wave feminism probably grew out of a reaction to it.
>the Kinsey is the only source I can find that surveyed people about infidelity of that era otherwise I would have found you a different source.You really need to look into Kinsey and what a monster he was. The entire basis of the sexual revolution came from his "studies" and an even nuttier radical called Wilhelm Reich who openly advocated molesting children in order to overthrow bourgeois society (he was both a Marxist and a Freudian)
>Uh can you give examples?Yeah, instead of saying something is objectively morally wrong, you have to rely on power and oppressor-oppressed dynamics to contort an argument against something. Ideals can't exist in such a framework, the only goal you can have is maximum individual liberty and freedom from whatever you define as oppression. Radfems argued that pornography, prostitution, marital rape etc are oppressive to women (ofc they are, that is correct) but that doesn't mean they are objectively morally wrong in principle because materialism requires you to reject objective morality. This is how liberals were able to create sex positive feminism and confine radfems to the fringes, because if the woman in question decided she enjoyed being a pornstar or a prostitute and found it "empowering", you've just lost the argument. All you can do at that point is claim that the patriarchy brainwashed her (I actually would agree with them on this) but because you don't have objective principles to rely on it becomes a semantic argument and they will just say they know better than you do about what they want. There were plenty of women involved in pornography like Nina Hartley who would use arguments like this.
>Yes, and it's not because people don't want to form families. It's because they economically can't.That's true to an extent but its not the whole story. If we look at fertility compared to income, we see across all socio-economic classes fertility is depressed, not just poorer people. Its especially true for women, and the main reason is because relationships are so unstable now that nobody wants to commit. I grew up as a child of divorce and so did most of my friends, none of us want to go through what we went through growing up.
>You should learn a little more about history if you want to talk like you're smart lmao.Its literally their entire histories, even Sun Yat Sen, the Kuomintang leader who established the government of Taiwan had many wives and concubines.
>The Quran says Mohammed married a successful merchant lady and stole all her moneyDo you know anything about how tribal society functioned in pre-Islamic Arabia? Consider the fact that the modern gulf Arabs are the most socially backwards people in the Muslim world today (when you factor in wealth). One area where Islam actually improved the status of women in Arabia was limiting the number of wives a man could have to 4. Prior to that, Arabs could have as many wives, concubines and sex slaves as they could afford. Of course in practice the Muslims would just collect sex slaves in addition to their legitimate wives, completely circumventing the 4 wife limit, but before then in pre Islamic Arabia there were no laws whatsoever on the number of wives a man could have
No. 2081583
>>2081570>Many of the STIs that account for very high current STI rates are not physically visible (HPV and HSV being two of the main ones that account for a lot of the high rates).Okay, how does that change the fact that STD rates across the board have skyrocketed compared to before the sexual revolution? Even if we only look at the physically noticeable ones like syphilis or herpes.
>Syphilis wasn't exactly rare at all points prior to the sexual revolution, either.I never said it wasn't, I said that the sexual revolution caused a skyrocket in venereal disease across the board compared to before the revolution.
>He may have felt that way, but it didn't stop modern Europe from taking it all in stride and accepting everything he was saying about women, even though he was no feminist and it was long before the sexual revolution. All of Europe didn't suddenly accept Freudianism as
valid, there was widespread opposition to it particularly from the Catholic church. The only people that were even aware of Freudianism were the elites of the time, it wasn't a mainstream movement.
>But I thought men never got away with cheating and abuse before no-fault divorce! When did I say that?
>No, you actually said second wave feminism (which was not Marxist feminism) transformed feminism into class warfareOkay, sorry that I mixed up my waves and subgroups of feminism.
>yet now you are talking openly about class warfare against women in the 1800s by Freud's wealthy and influential clients who were some of the most important people in society at the time and who popularized an entire 'field' of medicine that was basically formed entirely as a form of class warfare against women. This is called moral subversion, not class warfare. It was an elite movement whose goals were to destroy the moral foundation of the society at large so the elites could do whatever they wanted, Harvey Weinstein style, without any resistance as long as it was "voluntary". Men as a whole were not being radicalized by Freudianism to impose Freudian sexual depravity on women, it was entirely top-down.
>Although quite a few radfems were not supportive of the family unit per se, they were supportive of bettering the family unit by slowly reforming and improving marriage, other financial and legal protections for women within and outside of marriage, and arguing against the sexually degenerate behaviour of males (and some females).Well what was their goal exactly? If they didn't support the family unit, their ultimate goal would be to eliminate it even if they wanted to make it better for women in the short term. If we are in an oppressor-oppressed dynamic, all relationships are inherently power struggles. I agree that the original patriarchal marriage system was an oppressive dynamic, but that doesn't mean marriage in principle has to be oppressive.
>The problem is that the "liberal" feminists won because men supported them more, quite simply.Yeah, we needed more restrictions on moid sexuality, not less.
>Radical feminists did not 'abandon moral arguments' at allWhat's the underlying justification for their moral arguments then? What is objectively right and wrong according to radfems?
No. 2081589
File: 1720431185965.png (93.9 KB, 579x506, STDprevalence.png)
>>2081577Honestly I appreciate that you have put effort into this conversation but I think you need to go do a lot more historical reading, as well as reading of the philosophy you keep citing and claiming things about, before trying to have conversations like this in the future. The points you're making are very self-contradictory and incoherent, and when I point out points of incoherence you don't clarify or try to make them coherent, but mainly this discussion isn't fruitful because you just keep talking about things you don't know very much about. Just a few examples off the top of my head
>Getting your entire knowledge of East Asian history from kdramas (apparently?) and thinking Han Imperial China was the only culture/period of time in East Asian history>Being unaware that child marriage is still legal in most of the US and many European countries>Being unaware that businesspeople and businesses existed prior to Adam Smith>Being unaware of both the timeline and content of Western feminist history>Not understanding the basic ideas behind materialist analysis>Lack of awareness of basic historical facts about STDs (most STDs were first identified during/after the sexual revolution, hence the 'higher rates' of STDs after that point because they didn't functionally exist before, see picrel) or the fact that gay men account for a majority of many of them. And many more than I can possibly list. You keep speaking in contradictions like 'it's because of feminism that people are so much more sexually active today and spreading STDs everywhere' then suddenly turning around and claiming 'actually we're so much less active today than before' etc. I can't keep up because I'm not sure you yourself have a coherent theory about this. I appreciate you might be spitballing but it's hard to discuss something with someone who keeps contradicting themselves. I'll respond to a few of your points but I really think you'd be served best by doing a bit more reading before you try to make up ideas about feminist history and thought on the fly and how that relates to trends in sex and marriage you yourself seem not to have ever looked up.
>Even the radicals of that time did not openly advocate for homosexualityThat doesn't matter, the high rates of homosexual unprotected sex during the sexual revolution still largely accounted for the STD rates exploding (as well as the fact most STDs were discovered then) after the sexual revolution, even if 'radicals' didn't 'openly' advocate for homosexuality. Chlamydia doesn't care about the political beliefs of the time about the person it's infecting.
>The sexual revolutionaries were invariably moids who would push their wives into swinging or open marriagesAnd yet you've spent this whole time claiming radfems caused the 'war' between men and women because they pushed back against the sexual revolutionaries? Interesting choice to lay blame on the women who were trying to stop these 'sexual revolutionaries' rather than the sexual revolutionaries themselves. Seems like you want to absolve the pedo swinger moids by any means possible.
>You really need to look into Kinsey and what a monster he was. I know about Kinsey, but it doesn't change the fact that his survey on rural white men is the only source I (and other authors, apparently) can find on infidelity rates in the early 1950s. Do you want me to, idk, make another study by a less morally objectionable person poof into existence?
>Yeah, instead of saying something is objectively morally wrongI don't think any major radfem thinker had any difficulty saying something was morally wrong. Here, an academic paper summarizing their work says outright: ". This work comes from such radical
feminists as Dworkin, MacKinnon, Janice Raymond, and Gena Corea. Their descriptions of women’s objectification are radical in at least two respects: 1) they assume that all objectification of women is morally wrong"
https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1347&context=philosophypubAt any rate, I don't know where you are getting this frankly bizarre idea that second wave feminists didn't think anything was objectively morally wrong, but maybe you should look into what they actually thought before going on long screeds about it. Materialist analysis is defined thusly by Oxford reference: "A wide umbrella term for forms of criticism which share a concern with the mode of production of the object under scrutiny; an analysis of the socio-historical relationships between the object, its moment of production, and its moment of reception; and a reliance on the material, or concrete, substance and effects of its existence. The term ‘materialism’ comes from philosophy, and denotes the belief that matter is the fundamental reality." Nothing about this implies that you must reject objective morality in order to materially analyse something, and in fact I've never met a single radfem or read a single radfem text in which moral relativity was implied. Maybe you could find me one? I bet you won't, though, you haven't provided a single source for any of the nutty things you've said throughout this entire discussion although I have provided many.
>Ideals can't exist in such a framework, the only goal you can have is maximum individual liberty and freedom from whatever you define as oppression.You're also completely wrong about this, both conceptually and historically. Again, neither materialist criticism nor radical feminism itself are concerned with 'maximum individual liberty,' that's liberalism/libertarianism, and it is associated with Third Wave, not Second Wave, feminism. I have said this at least a dozen times throughout this discussion, but it seems like you can't read.
>This is how liberals were able to create sex positive feminism and confine radfems to the fringes, because if the woman in question decided she enjoyed being a pornstar or a prostitute and found it "empowering", you've just lost the argument.No, this is not what happened, and again maybe you should spend a solid half hour looking into the history of feminism instead of just making shit up and spitballing. No radfem thinker 'capitulated' to liberal choice feminism, they were vehemently against it, and some of the radfems from the second wave who are alive now still continue to be. It's almost stunning how consistently wrong you can be after being repeatedly corrected, in almost every imaginable way and on every imaginable detail. If you're not interested in this, just say so, and stop trying to talk about it.
>That's true to an extent but its not the whole story. If we look at fertility compared to income, we see across all socio-economic classes fertility is depressed, not just poorer people. To maintain high income, women need to keep their jobs. In countries with strong work and childcare protections for mothers, like Sweden and France, women of higher socioeconomic status actually have more babies. It's just not possible in most other countries, because the only reason they have high SES is because they aren't having many children.
>relationships are so unstable now that nobody wants to commit. This is total bullshit. People (women) want to commit, but men are such deranged pornsick freaks who won't even get a job and the economy is so bad for women that it's just harder for people to. The vast, overwhelming majority of human beings want relationships if they can find suitable ones. FWIW tons of 'children of divorce' I know are happy and glad their parents divorced, your experience isn't everything.
>>You should learn a little more about history if you want to talk like you're smart lmao.Its literally their entire histories, even Sun Yat Sen, the Kuomintang leader who established the government of Taiwan had many wives and concubines.
Ah yes, the last 150 years of Chinese history is the entire history of East Asia. East Asia was actually under the sea until 1900, when it rose up from the sea by magic, and then Chinese civilization was born.
>Do you know anything about how tribal society functioned in pre-Islamic Arabia?Yes, I do. Upper class women had property and inheritance rights, similarly to much of Europe where peasant women weren't exactly greatly respected either but noblewomen occasionally were.
No. 2081597
>>2081583>STD rates across the board have skyrocketed compared to before the sexual revolution?I'm saying they likely haven't, and the few that did definitely skyrocket around then (like HIV/AIDS) were due to gay culture at the time.
>I never said it wasn't, I said that the sexual revolution caused a skyrocket in venereal disease across the board compared to before the revolution.For which you have provided no evidence, and given the example of Syphilis which was widespread for centuries. By the way, Syphilis rates were higher in the early 1950s than in either the 1960s or 1970s.
>All of Europe didn't suddenly accept Freudianism as
valid, there was widespread opposition to it particularly from the Catholic church. The only people that were even aware of Freudianism were the elites of the time, it wasn't a mainstream movement.
Again, wrong. The fallout of psychiatry was most definitely mainstream. Many women were put in mental hospitals and other institutions and abused, which the Catholic Church also did by the way - e.g. the Magdalene Laundries. But I'm sure that was Freud's fault too, or you'll come up with something about how the Irish aren't really white Europeans and it was all a veiled attack on European values by the Catholic Church.
>This is called moral subversion, not class warfare.It was class warfare. Tens of millions of women were medicalized following the Freudian revolution by "psychiatry." If this isn't class warfare against women I don't know what is. It being an 'elite movement' doesn't change that it was a movement of elite men targeting women, propped up and supported by the women's fathers, husbands and brothers.
>Well what was their goal exactly?To stop the abuse and subjugation of women, you don't even know this much about feminism? The central idea of radical feminism was to liberate women and society from the oppressor-oppressed dynamic, which would mean if the goal was met relationships would no longer be power struggles. As long as marriage is an institution to oppress women it should not be upheld.
>Yeah, we needed more restrictions on moid sexuality, not less.Exactly. That's what Radical Feminism was trying to accomplish. But people like you are for some reason mad about it while whining that the radfems were meeeeaaan to the poor men by trying to repress their depraved sexual urges, and that therefore men are right to be ANGY at the radfems for trying to stop their sexual depravity.
>What's the underlying justification for their moral arguments then?You could try reading their texts, if you are at all interested! That could be really fun!
No. 2081612
>>2081589>Honestly I appreciate that you have put effort into this conversation but I think you need to go do a lot more historical reading, as well as reading of the philosophy you keep citing and claiming things about, before trying to have conversations like this in the future.If I'm wrong about something, feel free to correct me, but use sources I can look into please.
>Getting your entire knowledge of East Asian history from kdramas (apparently?) and thinking Han Imperial China was the only culture/period of time in East Asian historyHan China was the Rome of Asia, its cultural norms set the standards for Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and Thailand. And in all these cultures you see the same conditions of polygamy and restrictions on women's freedoms that you saw in China.
To use Korea as an example, women were confined to their own section of the house and were not even permitted to be seen by outside men unless in attendance of their husbands, and this was as reported in the 17th century, not ancient times.
>Being unaware that child marriage is still legal in most of the US and many European countriesChild marriage is prepubescent marriage, and in the original context I was using it I was referring to prepubescent marriage. Yes, all of it is wrong (marriage age limit of 25 is a great idea), but we can agree that a 10 year old girl becoming a "wife" or concubine is an order of magnitude worse than a 16 year old marrying a 19 year old.
And I read your source, it says that child marriage in the US (defined as marriage under the age of 18) declined by 97% from the year 2000 (76,396) to 2018 (2,493). It should be zero, but this isn't comparable to countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia where the AOC for marriage is 9.
>Being unaware that businesspeople and businesses existed prior to Adam SmithThey existed but they made up 1% of the population. You can't extrapolate the existence of a tiny rich elite to the entirety of an agrarian civilization. And even then, its irrelevant. Polygamy is ground zero for the status of women. When you have polygamy, the gender imbalance caused by it drives down the age of marriage for girls and increases the age gap, and by necessity lowers the status of women as they become a commodity to be bought and sold. There were wealthy elite women in the Muslim sultanates as well, it doesn't change the fact that sex slavery was widely practiced by them.
>Lack of awareness of basic historical facts about STDs (most STDs were first identified during/after the sexual revolution, hence the 'higher rates' of STDs after that point because they didn't functionally exist before, see picrel) or the fact that gay men account for a majority of many of them. Here's a source for you:
>Results Temporal Patterns of Gonorrhea among Teenagers. Beginning in the early 1960s, the annual number of reported cases of gonorrhea among teenagers increased dramatically, peaking at approximately 276,000 cases in 1975. Thereafter, the number of reported cases declined slightly, although the age- and sex-specific rates remained stable (Table 1, Figures 1 and 2). Since 1975 over 250,000 cases of gonorrhea have been reported among U.S. teenagers; nearly 60% of these patients were female. Over the last two decades, gonorrhea rates for older teenagers have been persistently higher than those for younger teenagers (Figures 1 and 2). However, within the two age groups, the gender patterns differ. In the 10- to 14-year age group, rates for females were higher than those for males in the 1960s, and rates for females have risen faster than those for males, particularly in the early 1970s. In the 15- to 19-year age group, gonorrhea rates were higher for males (Figure 2). However, as of 1966, the gonorrhea rate for females in this age group began to rise faster than the rate of their male counterparts. By 1973, the gonorrhea rate for older teenage females overtook that for their male counterparts and remained higher through 1981. From 1960 to 1970 the rate at which females had gonorrhea tripled, while the rate for males increased twofold. For all teenage females, the gonorrhea rates have been quite stable since 1975, i.e., approximately 75 cases/100,000 females ages 10-14 years (Figure 1) and 1,400 cases/100,000 females ages 15-19 years (Figure 2). https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001717.htmAnd the history of venereal disease goes far back. In fact the primary driver for the secular banning of prostitution in Europe was the 16th century Syphilis epidemic that decimated European armies. I'm not claiming all of history was one straight line from perfection to depravity, I am arguing that the gains made by first wave feminists in eradicating prostitution and therefore VD were reversed dramatically by the sexual revolution. And no, we see the rates of VD rise for both sexes, with girls rising faster than boys. This makes sense biologically as we are more vulnerable to VD transmission, and it makes sense under the presumption that overall promiscuity went up for both sexes during the sexual revolution. I'm 100% certain moidfags spiked those VDs much higher than any other group per capita but they weren't driving the VD wave.
>Again, wrong. The fallout of psychiatry was most definitely mainstream. When did it become mainstream? Not in Freud's life. Psychoanalysis was a top-down project that took over elite circles before being spread down to the general population
>Many women were put in mental hospitals and other institutions and abused, which the Catholic Church also did by the way - e.g. the Magdalene Laundries. But I'm sure that was Freud's fault too, or you'll come up with something about how the Irish aren't really white Europeans and it was all a veiled attack on European values by the Catholic Church.When did I say the Catholic church was infallible? I just pointed out they opposed psychoanalysis, as did the broad mass of the population at the time.
>It being an 'elite movement' doesn't change that it was a movement of elite men targeting women, propped up and supported by the women's fathers, husbands and brothers. Its as much of an elite movement as transgender ideology is today. There are plenty of parents gleefully letting their daughters mutilate themselves because the Science Man reassured them that its the right thing to do. Every moid who allowed lobotomies to be performed on their wives or let shrinks institutionalize them is morally culpable, but that doesn't mean this was a conscious effort of one group to attack another group, anymore than the parents letting their children be mutilated are collectively engaging in class warfare against their children.
>people like you are for some reason mad about it while whining that the radfems were meeeeaaan to the poor men by trying to repress their depraved sexual urges, and that therefore men are right to be ANGY at the radfems for trying to stop their sexual depravity.When did I say this? Please point it out
>You could try reading their texts, if you are at all interested! That could be really fun!It should be really easy to explain though. I can start from the principles that adultery is wrong, promiscuity is wrong, breaking vows is wrong, all on a moral level, and we should oppose these things in principle. Pornography is morally wrong because it perverts sexuality from its intended purpose into masturbatory gratification. Its also wrong because its fuelled by sex trafficking and economic exploitation of women, but that argument can be countered by liberals saying "well what about self produced OnlyFans? What about this woman here who says she is reclaiming her sexual independence through nude modelling for Playboy?" When you don't have fundamental principles behind your beliefs, they can be weaseled out of by edge cases.
When you look at first wave feminists, they were overwhelmingly religious women motivated by genuine social justice with underlying moral principles to appeal to. And those women were strong enough to get alcohol banned in the entire USA, the actual success of that program notwithstanding.
By the way, do you know how pornography was legalized in the United States? Its a very interesting story.
No. 2081646
File: 1720436047958.png (229.61 KB, 998x896, louisthefourteenth.png)
>>2081612No matter how many times I have explained second wave feminism (and many other things) to you and given you sources, you have ignored them, continued repeating the same already contested falsehoods like a broken record, and provided no sources whatsoever for all your completely nutty claims. For example, you seem to think that Han China or Joseon Korea were the first civilizations in East Asia and that no civilizations existed before them, because you watched a kdrama once I guess. Despite the fact that I have asked you to check your facts repeatedly, and all it would take would be a 2 minute google search. For example, you are now talking about how gonorrhea increased from the early 1960s until the 1970s, which it did, but failed to point out that it was higher in the 1950s than in the early 1960s, and that it is at the same levels now that it was in the 1950s… oh and that from 1990 until around 2015 it was at much lower rates than the 1950s. So apparently the sexual revolution just sort of magically led to less sex, and less STIs, after a decade or two! We've been practically sexless since 1990, compared to the 1950s! So what is your point again? People were doing a lot of free love shit for a couple decades, and then radical feminism became popular, and then… the radical feminists caused the sexual revolution that radical feminism was a response to, and… and?
By the way I liked how you first tried 'all STIs increased' and then when I pointed out that's not true you tried 'syphilis' and when I pointed out that's not true you tried 'gonorrhea' and picked out an article on a 20-year period ignoring the fact it went wayyy down after that and was higher in 1950 than in 1960. Like what point are you even trying to make? Do you yourself know? Can you tell me the argument you think you are making and how STI rates rising before the intellectual movement of radical feminism is helping you make the point?
>Child marriage is prepubescent marriage, and in the original context I was using it I was referring to prepubescent marriage.Source on prepubescent marriage being common in 20th century South Korea?
>it says that child marriage in the US (defined as marriage under the age of 18) declinedYour original claim was that child marriage was not legal or happening in 1900s America or Europe. I just showed you that it is still happening (there were 10 year olds getting married to adult men in the paper I sent you, which I guess you didn't read). And it is still fully legal in the US, unlike South Korea, where it is completely illegal with no exceptions. You're not being sneaky talking about Saudi Arabia when South Korea was the reason you brought up child marriage.
>They existed but they made up 1% of the population. Noblewomen with rights made up a tiny proportion of European women, too. Polygyny and open concubinage was common throughout Europe as well, especially for noblemen and royalty. For example, French Kings had multiple 'official' mistresses who were given positions in court and apartments within the royal palace, similar to the Chinese system of concubinage around the same time (see picrel, I ran out of space to scroll so I missed a bunch sorry). I really think it would do you some good to develop an interest in history.
You don't even need to know about history to know that sex slavery is commonly practiced in the West. For example, brothels (of almost entirely trafficking
victims) are entirely legal currently in Germany and the Netherlands, and that's just the countries that officially allow it. The US currently practices large-scale sex trafficking of both women and children across the border, aided by official border guards.
>When did it become mainstream? Not in Freud's life. Psychoanalysis was a top-down project I was talking about the psychiatric mistreatment of women following the birth of psychiatry and the gradual acceptance that abused women are 'hysterical' and need to be institutionalized and medicated, not 'psychoanalysis' specifically.
>Its as much of an elite movement as transgender ideology is today. Okay? That's entirely irrelevant. Also troonism quite literally is a conscious effort by moids to attack women.
>When did I say this? Your very first post which started this discussion. You said:
> There's failures on both sides imo. 2nd wave+ feminists abandoned morality (particularly sexual morality) as oppressive and this drove them into the arms of the liberal left, who used them as cover while legalizing and normalizing pornography and other forms of sexual exploitation.
Also:
> Marxists took class struggle and superimposed it onto feminism, with the same consequences; make the other side your enemy and destroy any ability to collaborate for mutual benefit. Now we have troglodyte moids screeching about revoking womens rights on one end and radfems with almost as much vitriol on the other end drowning out sensible moderate people on both sides.I only started arguing with you in the first place because you blamed second wave feminism, a reaction to overwhelming moid depravity, for causing moid depravity. And you keep insisting upon that in every following post you make, while consistently admitting you 'get your feminist movements mixed up,' making it very clear you know absolutely nothing about feminist history, etc. Then you admit that moids were depraved, screeching troglodytes with no sexual morality who were oppressing women long before the second wave even happened, but go back to insisting it all started because of Second Wave feminists trying to rein in men's depravity anyway. Which is it? Was Freud subverting European civilization in order to corrupt sexual morality in the 1800s or did the second wave feminists invent male sexual depravity from whole cloth as you keep insisting elsewhere? Was the sexual revolution full of depravity starting in the early 1960s as you have claimed or was it somehow a result of the second wave of feminism that occurred as a result of it? I guess we'll never know because you'll keep changing your story.
>It should be really easy to explain though. You shouldn't feel entitled to people's time and attention even if it's 'easy' for them when you do absolutely nothing to defend or explain your own views or correct yourself when you are repeatedly shown to be wrong. If you have genuine curiosity about this topic you can look it up. I'm only responding at this point to correct the many falsehoods you keep repeating for the sake of anyone who might end up reading this, not because I genuinely think you are interested or want to know. I don't know what makes you assume you are the only person in history to have discovered having fundamental principles behind your beliefs, but I assure you, you are nowhere near as unique in this as you think you are. You would learn a lot about humanity by reading and maybe realize that ideas like "I can start from the principles that adultery is wrong, promiscuity is wrong, breaking vows is wrong, all on a moral level, and we should oppose these things in principle." are not new or unique to you and they're not actually rare beliefs to hold. You're not the first or even the millionth person to have discovered the idea of morality and it seems to be some extreme form of NLOGism/hubris that is making you think you are special for having morals and projecting on everyone else that they don't.
No. 2081663
File: 1720439031695.png (47.72 KB, 968x169, radicalfeminismwikipedia.png)
>I've never met a single radfem or read a single radfem text in which moral relativity was implied. Maybe you could find me one? I bet you won't, though
Guess I was right.
Anyway I don't actually agree with radfems that moids as a group are savable in this or any other lifetime but it is kind of funny that male-lovers are now attacking a movement known for the (imo overly generous) ideology of 'men don't have to be this bad, they aren't this bad naturally, and if it wasn't for the patriarchy we could all get along and be equals' for being too 'amoral' and 'vitriolic' lmao. The real reason moids and radfems will never get along is because radfems wanted to deny moids free sex on demand, and moids will not stand for that.
No. 2081685
>>2081646>No matter how many times I have explained second wave feminism (and many other things) to you and given you sources, you have ignored them, continued repeating the same already contested falsehoods like a broken record, and provided no sources whatsoever for all your completely nutty claims.You corrected me on misattributing Marxist feminism to 2nd wave feminism in general, but you acknowledged that radical feminism adopted Marxist methodology. You deny that radical feminism is therefore Marxist, arguing that the slightly different conclusions Marx himself came to in the 19th century compared to 21st century radfems proves this. Its a strange argument to make. If you collectively designate women of all economic and social classes as a class themselves in the class struggle, you will come to slightly different conclusions because your Marxist analysis has different fundamentals, but its the same class warfare model. The oppressed (women) have to overthrow the patriarchy (men) and establish a revolutionary utopia, same basic formula. If you're talking about original feminism, it was elite women from educated backgrounds addressing specific examples of oppression (for example, allowing higher education for women, eliminating prostitution, challenging legal inequalities relating to inheritance, property rights, equal status in marriage, etc) with the goal of improving overall society. They had the moral high ground because women are innately morally superior to men, and at the time this was widely recognized by men themselves.
>For example, you seem to think that Han China or Joseon Korea were the first civilizations in East Asia and that no civilizations existed before them, because you watched a kdrama once I guess.First of all, I generally don't like kdramas though some of them are cute. But that's besides the point, there were indeed no East Asian civilizations before the Shang dynasty, that was the beginning of the bronze age in China. There were hunter-gatherer peoples like the Jomon in Japan and neolithic farming tribes scattered throughout southern China, but they were overwhelmed by the Yayoi and Shang, respectively. I'm going by recorded history of urbanized civilizations, where they write in their own words what their ethical standards and social norms were. And in all of them, without exception, polygamy and concubinage were accepted norms and children from concubines and additional wives were considered legitimate heirs.
>or example, you are now talking about how gonorrhea increased from the early 1960s until the 1970s, which it did, but failed to point out that it was higher in the 1950s than in the early 1960s, and that it is at the same levels now that it was in the 1950s… oh and that from 1990 until around 2015 it was at much lower rates than the 1950s.First of all this isn't true, picrel. There was a brief and rapid spike of gonorrhea during WW2 because of prostitution by soldiers, and this dropped with equal rapidity after the war when the soldiers returned home. The rising wave of gonorrhea during and after the sexual revolution was primarily in teenagers and involved both sexes, and stayed high until the 1990s when we had widespread contraceptive use, cheap pharmaceuticals and STI awareness. Also the collapse in fertility after the 1960s contributed to this, as the infections were primarily in young people who became a smaller and smaller proportion of the population as time went on.
>Louis XIVYes, mistresses existed in Europe. Their children were not legitimate and could not inherit, this is the difference from Asia where children of concubines and additional wives had inheritance rights just like the children of the primary wife. Kings were above the law at that time, and the sexual decadence of the later Bourbon monarchy helped bring about its demise in the French Revolution. Society at large did not have any legal recognition of mistresses however, it was only legally permissible to have one wife and only children from that wife were legitimate for inheritance purposes. If you can't see a difference between a king having mistresses and illegitimate children versus the entire society legally codifying polygamy as acceptable, I don't know what else to tell you.
>You don't even need to know about history to know that sex slavery is commonly practiced in the West. For example, brothels (of almost entirely trafficking victims) are entirely legal currently in Germany and the Netherlands, and that's just the countries that officially allow it.And who allowed those brothels to open and operate? The right wing (and by right wing I don't mean "conservative") was basically outlawed in Europe post-WW2, everything shifted rapidly towards the libleft since then.
>The US currently practices large-scale sex trafficking of both women and children across the border, aided by official border guards.That could be solved overnight if the US had an actual border, but it doesn't. Who is responsible for keeping the US-Mexico border open for human traffickers?
>I was talking about the psychiatric mistreatment of women following the birth of psychiatry and the gradual acceptance that abused women are 'hysterical' and need to be institutionalized and medicated, not 'psychoanalysis' specifically. Psychiatry as a field began with psychoanalysis. Rigorous empirical psychiatry didn't begin until Behaviorism gained ground in the early 20th century, and even then it was deeply flawed, but women being blamed for "hysteria" came to an end by the mid-20th century when medical approaches to psychiatric problems became standard practice. Its good fortune that Freudianism had no empirical basis and collapsed within a few decades of Freud's death.
>troonism quite literally is a conscious effort by moids to attack women.You mean in general? That's the first I've heard of that. Until recently, most of the pushback on transgenderism came from the conservatives (albeit losing as they always do) who are not exactly allies of feminism.
>Your very first post which started this discussion.>you blamed second wave feminism, a reaction to overwhelming moid depravity, for causing moid depravity. I misattributed Marxist feminism to 2nd wave feminism, but that's a semantic argument. There is a clear and sharp dividing line between pre-war feminists and post-war feminists in the framing of their beliefs. Pre-war feminists appealed to traditional morality as the basis for their arguments (or, for early feminists like Wollstonecraft, enlightenment ideals) positioning women as morally equal or (in my opinion) superior to men. Post-war feminists gave up the moral high ground and embraced Marxist methodology instead, which alienated the sympathetic centrists and conservatives on one side and neutralized any critiques of the sexually debauched libleft on the other side. They just have to reject your Marxist framework, say they feel free doing whatever they want and there's nothing you can do to stop them.
>I don't know what makes you assume you are the only person in history to have discovered having fundamental principles behind your beliefsIts not about "discovering" fundamental principles, its about whether you accept them as a priori true or not. If we go back to Aristotle, his Nicomachean ethics were rooted in teleology, or determining the morality of an action by its natural intended outcome. In the case of sex, its natural purpose is procreation, therefore the only morally acceptable sex acts are those that conform to its purpose. I'm not necessarily making that argument myself, but it is an example of objective sexual morality.
As far as radfems go, what's the objective principle they can rest their values on? How do they judge something as being morally right or wrong, outside of the oppressor-oppressed dynamic?
>>2081663See this is what I mean. They don't like the decline of monogamy but they can't make an argument against it other than it hurts women. I agree 100% with that assessment but that's not a rational argument, all you need to beat that argument is have some libfems come up and say that they are polyamorous or some other nonsense and this is empowering to them. You need to be able to say that something is wrong in principle, not just appeal to whatever harms it may or may not cause.
>Anyway I don't actually agree with radfems that moids as a group are savable in this or any other lifetimeMoids can be fixed if women have the police power to enforce social norms and sexual morals. They are not able to control their own sexuality, they fall into vice and corruption easily, but that can be solved by eliminating vice and corruption and raising the standards of male behavior as close to us as it can be. We were well on our way to getting police power up until the post-war era, because we were relying on moral truths, the ideals of which are best represented in femininity, instead of just power dynamics. Public morality was improving under feminist influence, alcoholism and prostitution were being sharply curtailed where we had power, the change in women's rights and social power between the 18th to early 20th century was enormous
No. 2081688
File: 1720442109802.png (12.2 KB, 800x532, Chart_of_gonorrhea_infection_r…)
>>2081663>>2081685Sorry forgot the pic
No. 2081706
>>2081673so true. they enjoy the sympathy and attention they get from misguided people who think they are
victims all while going back to their moid for more because they secretly love the drama. it's the only thing that excites them because they're otherwise dead inside.
No. 2081772
>>2081765So when a woman accidentally gets pregnant everyone is quick to say its her fault and how she shouldn't sleep around if she doesn't want the consequences, call her a whore etc, but if a man accidentally gets a woman pregnant all of a sudden he's a rape
victim? So retarded. Why does contraception always become the woman's responsibility? Men could always do spermicide or get a vasectomy or double up on condoms or some shit but don't because they think it's not their responsibility.
No. 2081806
File: 1720448946721.png (62.65 KB, 817x651, gropeywomen.png)
>>2081752Someone linked to this reddit and the top posts about rapist women just sound like whining or fantasies. My fave post is this about a guy who went to a BDSM sex club and it was full of women who didn't respect men! Omg! And he thinks he got raped because a woman groped him.
No. 2082355
I think barry keoghan is cute, especially when he was a young boy but I’d date him in his current form as well
No. 2082599
File: 1720510158957.jpeg (6.73 KB, 194x259, download (15).jpeg)
>>2082589This five head moid would beg to differ
No. 2082761
File: 1720524517695.jpg (96.74 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault (3).jpg)
The whole "sanrio girls are evil!!!" thing parroted across social media is just a variation of the "thing that young girls like = bad" stuff
No. 2082867
File: 1720533840661.webp (37.21 KB, 1080x651, 8honfr643yg71.webp)
>>2082761i agree although i do think the luna slater types who post pictures of their xanax in a hello kitty tin or dotted across a kuromi plush are pretty obnoxious. they're not evil but benzo addicts are some of the grodiest people alive and i think it's especially retarded when they pretend their brain-frying habit is cute.
No. 2083357
File: 1720562142394.jpg (209.5 KB, 1436x1949, 20240709_164719.jpg)
I think the Melanie Martinez fanbase is just as toxic and crazy, if not crazier than the /b/ scrotes that followed and harassed Jessi Slaughter. Whenever there is a person Melanie no longer associates with, the fans go apeshit on them. No matter who you believe, no matter who's side you're on or whoever you like or don't like, doing shit like this isn't right. Oliver tree, Elita, Timothy Heller, and more to come actually. Just reminds me how 4chan edgy teens and adults went onto Jessi Slaughter's tinychats to record and bug her. All that behavior is one and the same.
No. 2083369
File: 1720563307633.png (975.21 KB, 720x709, IMG_20240709_161234.png)
I'm happy for Gypsy Rose no matter how much the media wants to portray her as a monster
No. 2083447
>>2083444Idk
nonny I think I’d rather eat a chicken that’s been eating some wheat than a dog that’s been eating his own shit, I don’t think it’s morally different or anything though
No. 2083522
I think if people actually thought obesity was a 'health crisis' like they claim to think it is, they'd make sure shit like Ozempic/Wegovy, other weight loss drugs, WLS, nutritionists, and even gym memberships/personal trainers were insured. A lot of the diseases that often 'result' from obesity and metabolic illness like T2D, heart disease, high cholesterol etc. have all their drugs and associated operations fully insured, so if our societies were concerned about weight as a health crisis they would insure weight loss measures too, even just as a preventive. The reason people don't is their main issue with obese people is a sense they are 'morally bad' so they'd rather see them actually get diabetes or heart disease than see them losing weight before they develop worse health issues, or they want to see them using 'willpower' to fix it. People actually enjoy shitting on fat people for being fat and don't want them to get thinner.
No. 2083542
>>2083536Julia fox just came out as a lesbo
No. 2083602
File: 1720579533893.jpeg (236.65 KB, 1412x1080, IMG_3561.jpeg)
Slut shaming is a good thing. If we still had it then trends like “showing your moose knuckle”, wouldnt exist. Western women are too far gone to porn sickness.
No. 2083631
File: 1720581711963.jpg (155.32 KB, 1200x800, img.jpg)
>>2083622I honestly think people who say this (on lolcow or other sites) are just stuck in middle school when anime was for "weirdos" and not normie or attractive girls. Its 2024, everyone is a weeb and everyone and their mom has watched stuff like SNK, Naruto, MHA, and JJK. Plus she's been doing the anime thing since the beginning of her career, picrel is from 2018 iirc. I'm not saying that she doesn't play up the weeb thing because as a celebrity she has to have a public persona and appeal to the general public, but I don't think that necessarily means she's faking her interest in anime.
No. 2083633
>>2083626it doesnt help, the attention they receive still makes them feel special even though its negative which only perpetuates their sluthood
>>2083631> everyone is a weebOh nonna, you have such an optimistic worldview.
No. 2083636
File: 1720581993418.png (606.99 KB, 993x1033, comparison.png)
minecraft skins with 1x2 eyes and lips are cuter than the ones with 2x2 eyes in my opinion.
No. 2083705
File: 1720592154961.jpg (24.47 KB, 220x325, Karate_kid_ver2.jpg)
I unironically like this movie—mostly out of nostalgia. It wasn't that bad and I really liked Jaden's romance with the Chinese girl, it was sweet.
No. 2083773
>>2083660>I think a lot of younger girls/women just genuinely think they have to or shouldYou're not entirely wrong because I remember being bullied if I didn't dress like the popular girls at my school. I remember it going something like
>male attention = social capital, the more you have the prettier you are assumed to be>the prettier you are considered, the more you'll be admired by other girlsSo a lot of girls dressed slutty just to be as cool as possible to their peers, male attention was just a tool to get there and so were boyfriends. Of course you had the option to not do this and you would still be liked, but only if you looked pretty and carried yourself with the confidence of a rich girl. If you were an ugly duckling, being a frumpy nerd who gets no male attention on top of that would get you bullied pretty badly because you're on the bottom of the teen girl food chain. Yes it is dumb, but that is teenagers for you.
No. 2083795
>>2083780>>2083791The moidlets in question are not
victims of course, even moids themselves laugh when the media pearl clutches over teacher sex scandals
These women should get some serious penalties however, idk if jail is appropriate but they should be banned from getting anywhere near a classroom again
These hoes destroy women as authority figures in the minds of the moidlets they fuck and all the other moidlets who see or hear about it happening
There should be an age limit of 35+ for teaching highschool for either sex, teachers can start off in grade school and become highschool teachers when they reach that age and seniority level
No. 2083812
>>2083428>>2083520She killed her
abusive mother, she shouldn’t have even been sent to jail in the first place. People just hate to see abuse
victims actually defend themselves.
No. 2083859
>>2083812She sounds like my mom who says that women who kill their
abusive husbands should go to prison because they still killed someone.
No. 2083902
>>2083768I care if boys get groomed by female relatives or raped by men but I don’t care if some 29 year old teacher has sex with her 16 year old foot ball playing student because they’re both consenting. Women need to save their empathy for real
victims and stop crying over 16-23 year old males, the only people who ever care about this stuff are women.
No. 2083951
>>2083945Teen scrotes are still scrotes and they can sniff out insecurity in women from a mile away and they’re going to press you to get laid if they can sense it(TikTok related). It takes a young woman who is very secure in herself to be a teacher to young men. I think women who weren’t attractive growing up are more susceptible to it. I don’t think these women go into these jobs trying to find boys but they are just extremely insecure and emotionally immature and the boys can sense that.
No. 2084339
>>2084306well
nonny it is called the dog
hate thread, not the dog ambivalence thread
No. 2084380
>>2084376I just feel physically sad in my body when I read someone’s vent and see people responding meanly to a
nonny who’s clearly strugglin
No. 2084381
File: 1720645994643.jpeg (708.35 KB, 1241x2133, IMG_3568.jpeg)
>>2084369Not all women are easily manipulated but I think the ones who end up fucking teens are. You expect me to believe some geeky 23 year old is a predator to a 18 year old scrote?
No. 2084386
>>2084196>The teen boys are not going to be praised by their peers. They're going to be mocked.Kek, what is this retardation? Teenage boys mocking a peer for sleeping with his female teacher? In what world?
>>2084238This. It's so fucking annoying. Babying huge neandhertalian PREDATORY teenage boys, it's so fucking tiresome.
No. 2084410
>>2084404I know a scrote who was very sexually aggressive in middle school and high school but ended up with a young teacher. Of course he ended up on a talk show where he played it off like he was a groomed
victim.
No. 2084424
>>2084413>why does it bother youSorry. I forgot you can't disagree with anyone on lolcow.farm, especially not in the unpopular opinions thread.
Anyway I've already said this but, it's the fact that anon is calling adult women easy targets for teenagers. I am not saying that women cannot be manipulated at all. I'm saying it's strange to act like if a woman entered a relationship with a teenager, it must've been because she was manipulated (or actually sexually assaulted, which I guess is the new angle you guys are using) and absolutely COULD NOT AT ALL have just choose to have done something wrong. I'm not even saying that teenage boys don't flirt with their teachers. I'm saying that if a woman actually falls for it it's because she WANTED to reciprocate it, not because she was just didn't know better and was manipulated into it. Anyway I'll let it go now since we're all just going in circles and repeating the same shit. I'm just saying, I see through what that anon was trying to do.
No. 2084427
File: 1720648362163.jpeg (849.16 KB, 1284x1434, IMG_3464.jpeg)
>>2084424Nta but teen boys rape elderly women. You find it hard to believe they’d be able to pull a fast one on some young teacher aide?
No. 2084461
>>2084460I care about women who have issues with it because they talk about the negative effects. I only see men and boys talk about how great it is because they like it. You want me to care because your future sons are going to be degenerates and it
triggers you that there are women out there who don’t care
No. 2084464
>>2084461excusing pedophilia in any form is disgusting
to be sexually attracted to children is disgusting
simple as
No. 2084467
>>2084461Well you can read the story of the 34 year old teacher getting pregnant by her second known
victim and then birthing the baby and telling a teenager he'll make a great dad. She was in a previous long term relationship with a peer so she wasn't some touch starved insecure virgin who never got male attention. She's now in jail. I'm sure the
victim she left with a kid isn't bragging about it.
No. 2084471
>>2084466you don't seem to understand that excusing female pedophiles leaves
girls to be abused by them as well
No. 2084477
>>2084472Well yeah obviously. Like I said it's retarded and shows weakness of character to fuck students. But boys sexually mature faster than girls and are fully capable of rape, harassment, etc. at that age so I don't see them as poor
victims either and I just don't have the energy to be omg shocked at the pedophilia of a 23 year old woman dating an 18 year old moidlet. It's retarded to date a student, but I wouldn't really call the woman a pedophile, and most likely she was not a 'predator' either knowing how moidlets that age act toward women.
No. 2084478
>>2084476if they willingly copulated with a child, they are
>>2084477>it's retarded and shows weakness of character to fuck studentsNo, it's evil. All people who fuck children are evil. You don't fuck a 14 year old, you wild animal.
No. 2084484
>>2084479Yeah, again, I don't think women doing this should be allowed to teach, and the behavior is inappropriate. She should be fired.
No one ever has this kind of energy thought to call out 23yo moids who date 18yo girls 'pedophiles' though even though moids are far more likely to act predatory.
>>2084481No I was talking about the one posted above who had a relationship with an 18 year old student. A woman who sleeps with a 14yo is a pedophile, yes.
No. 2084486
File: 1720650291775.jpeg (858.5 KB, 1284x1277, IMG_3569.jpeg)
>>2084478>chidEdward furlong was 17 here and his ex was 29 here. They barely look out of the same age group. Emotionally immature?yes. Pedophiles?no
No. 2084489
File: 1720650363832.jpg (465.26 KB, 1200x1623, 1200px-Stoned_Fox (1).jpg)
Unpopular opinion: I've said this before, but I don't understand why anons go so hard to defend female predators or teachers who enter relationships with their students. They're such a ridiculously small minority that it makes absolutely no sense to whiteknight for them so hard. It can't be for feminism or defending women as a whole because, again they're a small minority, defending predators doesn't benefit women in general, and it opens the door for excuses to be made for women that do things like prey on young girls or groom girls to be assaulted by men. And regardless, I think there's something wrong with you if you're attracted to teenagers so I'm never gonna be on their side. Again, they're such a tiny amount of women but anons act like you're a raging misogynist if you don't support them.
No. 2084492
>>2084485I don't 'keep jumping around events' I think you're mistaking me for another anon. I only referenced the woman who dated an 18yo.
>>2084482Idk about other nonnas but I have no desire to 'defend' women who act this way, I just think it's a double standard that men who do this are always given a pass and it's seen as normal by society but when a woman does this all the men go 'omg so jealous' while women fall all over themselves to defend the precious little angel moidlets when men don't even care. The number of female teachers who sleep with students is probably less than 1% of all the student-teacher relationships yet it gets brought up 500% more than male teachers sleeping with students. I'm just sick of people always bringing this up when it's so disappearingly rare and when adult moids in their 20s-30s-40s dating teenage girls is completely normalized in a lot of sections of society. Men rarely get this upset over a 23yo moid dating an 18yo girl.
No. 2084501
>>2084489this why they are suspicious at best
at worst, they were the women telling me I couldn't have been abused by my teacher as a child because she was a woman and women just simply can't ever be pedophiles
No. 2084509
File: 1720651169085.jpeg (530.87 KB, 664x1556, IMG_3570.jpeg)
Most women who care about looks are more prone to falling for teenagers and young adults. Women who don’t care about looks are more likely to stick to their own age group. I’m 35 and this scrote is the same age as me and these are the men I have to date/fuck. Try to have a little empathy for us.
No. 2084517
>>2084509I care about looks but I haven't been attracted to teenagers since I was one, I think the most attractive age for moids is usually around 25, and later if they take good care of themselves and have good genetics. I wouldn't date a 25yo moid because they're too immature but they look attractive, I don't think teen moids look attractive.
I am just tired of how much late teens moids are infantilized when they are often so fucking creepy while people act like girls that age who get into relationships with older men 'knew what they were doing' and put the full responsibility on the girls. In fact moids sexually mature earlier and are far more likely to be extremely violent and depraved at those ages, while girls are much more likely to be innocent around that age. I rarely see mass societal outrage at moids dating 18yo students, people are just like 'oh well she's an adult' but when women do it suddenly there's a pandemic of female pedo teachers when 99% of creepy teachers are males and no one gives a shit most of the time. I think I was groomed by a 30yo male teacher when I was 14 (it never progressed to anything sexual but I started avoiding him when I became weirded out and got weird vibes) and everyone told me I was overreacting.
No. 2084534
File: 1720652165532.jpg (7.65 KB, 260x194, 1719951495655.jpg)
>>2084514And that makes it okay to prey on boys how exactly? Holy shit you can care about more than thing at once, like for example I think boys only and girls only schools should be the norm for public schools because both sexes require different environments for learning and to minimise boys lashing out at girls because they're literally retarded as well as pickme NLOGs bullying other girls. Boys being disgusting retards doesn't mean you get a free pass abusing them, like you wouldn't hurt a chimpanzee for no fucking reason if you really want a comparison dehumanising them.
No. 2084535
>>2084527You responded to my post, which was a response to this post:
>When you age over 30 youll be called a pedo for liking those guys just as much as a woman who finds an 18 year old attractiveSo you tell me?? Why are you saying finding 25 year olds attractive is 'being attracted to school aged minors'?
No. 2084557
>>2084549Men are embarrassed they kissed other men, not ashamed. Shame implies moral culpability, feeling bad because you did something morally wrong, not just humiliation that you did something your bros might tease you for.
Male suicide rates are only higher because they're more violent and chimp out more, women attempt more suicides but they think about how it will affect their families and choose more 'peaceful' methods (which are more likely to fail).
No. 2084567
>>2084565Yeah the Jordan Peterson point dovetails with what I'm saying, men only feel 'shame' or embarrassment when they're judged by other males, especially males they feel are in positions of authority.
Women mocking men for grooming younger women or girls won't make them feel real shame, it just might make them feel embarrassment at most because they don't want women to judge them as being 'lame' in some way, but it doesn't make them feel actually bad about what they did, it just makes them think they should hide it better next time. Very few moids are ethically whole enough to feel actual shame because a woman tries to shame them, and they're the ones least likely to do this shit in the first place.
No. 2084573
>>2084391I sometimes think women can't help, but do so. You need to concsiously stop yourself going this route. I know anons here talk a lot about how men project all the time, but i think women project all the time too.
>>2084510You're right, they don't actually metamorphise into a rapeape at 16, they do it much earlier. Especially in our hypersexualised age, the rapeape onset comes at earlier and earlier ages.
>>2084533You must be right.
No. 2084585
>>2084573If women in this thread don't realize how young some boys become unsaveable rape apes they should just peruse the 'news stories that fuck you up' thread for a few minutes to see countless stories of moidlets age 10-16 gangraping girls and women, killing 6yo girls for not performing porn acts for them, telling other moidlets to go rape unconscious gangraped girls in the park in their group chats, etc. I know 'not all moidlets' but moidlets are built different than girls that age, who tend to be far more innocent and have intrinsic moral instincts.
I don't think this excuses female pedos at all and I know (very rare) female pedos do exist, but we can't assume teen moids are the same mentally as teen girls.
No. 2084600
File: 1720653826915.jpeg (840.57 KB, 1284x1424, IMG_3572.jpeg)
>>2084585Nta but women who plan on giving birth are holding on to the hope that men are made by their environment and not born that way. They hope their parenting will make a difference.
No. 2084611
>>2084605No it didn't? Gay still means homosexual. We learnt it wasn't to be used as a slur because its not an offensive state of being.
Being a pedo is offensive.
Honestly. In the age of a billion different terms for sexualities you're trying to argue people won't be able to make the distinction in severity about going after prepubescent children and teenage aged minors? No one honestly thinks anyone is a pedophile for going after a 25 year old. You need to get your autism checked out
No. 2084620
File: 1720654413749.jpeg (817.57 KB, 1284x1730, IMG_3573.jpeg)
>>2084613Idk how he did it but he did
No. 2084622
>>2084617Okay well my point which I think I made pretty clearly was that, I quote
> If everyone just calls anyone who likes an adult 4-5 years younger than them a 'pedo' it will completely lose all meaning as a 'slur' and no one will take the concept seriously. I think we should only call actual pedos pedosSo if you agree with me then idk why you are arguing with me at all.
No. 2084648
>>2084636Gay was used as a slur. It was an offensive term but not considered a bad word like fuck shit or dick that an adult could punish you for saying. It was used in a derogatory manner and it's shameful that it was and I get embarrassed if it still slips out into my lexicon.
Pedo is an offensive term and in that merit it would be a good contender as a slur and I think kids instead of saying all their skibi weird shit they should call creepy adults pedos and lame shit pedos. That could be their wonderful counter culture from the gen zs and their "pedo" gender identities (did you see what I did there)
No. 2084652
>>2084600I want to be a mother someday but one of my biggest fears is that my kid will end up being one of those psychopaths who were just born that way no matter how much of a positive environment I raise them in. Nightmare fuel.
>>2084620That babysitter was so stupid for leaving but I feel so bad for her. Imagine learning about the murder and knowing it happened because you left the house. Fuck.
No. 2084656
File: 1720655178954.png (511.41 KB, 1798x487, blue-goat-pancake-fly.png)
not really my opinion but i'm sure it's unpopular on lc, and she was so real for it
No. 2084681
File: 1720656164880.jpg (92.13 KB, 1268x859, degeneracy.JPG)
>>2084647Study anon again: This is a graphic from the study that shows all I talked about. It is called "Sexual Attraction to Others: A Comparison of Two Models of Alloerotic Responding in Men" if you nonnies are interested in looking it up, it is available for free.
No. 2084713
>>2084705
Not only that but even if you want to compare humans to other mammals, or birds or other 'intelligent' animal species, there's a wide variety of behaviours within those species both across sexes and between sexes. Like in many mammalian species the females are far less prone to fighting than the males, which suggests that aggression is not just socialized. In some mammalian or bird species males are actually very prone to 'making nests,' decorating and dancing for females in order to copulate and attract females rather than engaging in same-sex aggression to fight over females. Several other mammal and bird species pair-bond and are fairly peaceful and cooperative within their colonies. Even just looking at apes alone some are much more prone to aggression than others, and the aggression in the more aggressive ape species is mostly within the males. So you're right that humans aren't other animal species, but even within other animal species it's normal to have both variety in survival strategies and sexual dimorphism in behavior. This is actually one of my main points of disagreement with radical feminism - I think some behaviors are sexually dimorphic by nature so 'getting rid of the patriarchy' wouldn't get rid of all sex differences, even though it would flatten many of them.
I'm not entirely sure that human nature is all about being just, kind and loving, I think human nature is not as benign as that, but the nature of larger human societies is to become more altruistic and cooperative in order to enable higher survival rates for the whole group, so humans do have a tendency to 'tend' toward justice and goodness as societies, even if not every individual is 'wired' that way.
No. 2084750
File: 1720660082048.gif (3.77 MB, 480x640, tumblr_d4d5f7dffd4b11304f8223a…)
>>2084726Mfw I wish there were more women in cool and niche hobbies (not sportsball vidya and coom) but theyre all laying in the grass.
No. 2084753
File: 1720660532245.jpg (81.06 KB, 1024x768, CNrK_-xWIAACiKm.jpg)
>>2084752>Sperging about sperg women on the sperg woman websiteWhy are you even here
No. 2084759
Emetrol tastes really fucking good
>>2084750same, I wish there were more women dominated communities that were centered around spergy stuff that wasn't like anime or some shit, moids complain about women in "their" communities all the time so there's no point in interacting with them. Although I have some ""Feminine"" hobbies(I dont consider hobbies masculine or feminine tbh).
No. 2084762
>>2084752you reminded me of how men will usually almost always have a fantasy of going out guns blazing when presented with a hypothetical apocalypse while women either would kill themselves if it were a nuclear or zombie scenario or try to build a community. You also this differentiation in doom preppers, the men will collect actually retarded amounts of weapons and firearms all while having about three months worth of water rotting in plastic containers and a measly shelf of tomato soup.
>>2084753She's not wrong though, and I'm a sperg woman
No. 2084793
>>2084782NTA but this was what I was trying to say in my reply above yours, every 'niche' thing was ruined by the centralization and de-niche-ification driven by social media. A really obvious example of this is anime/manga which was never exactly unpopular in the west but it was considered a sort of 'niche' thing and then as soon as everyone moved to the same 5 social media websites it's the most normie thing imaginable. I think this started well before the covid lockdowns but the lockdowns definitely made it worse since (at least for people who were actually following restrictions) the only way to really interact with other human beings was the internet and every interaction was getting funneled through the same handful of platforms. The proliferation of bots is likely as a result of this too, they wouldn't have had much use if the internet was more disperse and decentralized like it was before and if people interacted with each other in more unique ways. Social media made most of the people in the world all adopt the same tone, the same sense of humor, the same weird linguistic tics and everyone started repeating same dumb 'arguments' and thought terminating cliches.
I actually think so many young people now would functionally gain like 10 IQ points if they had to spend a month off grid/off the internet just interacting with actual human beings in ordinary settings and learning to do some basic life tasks for themselves without a how-to video but using their own instincts and creativity. This doesn't even apply to young people either, I noticed even boomers got worse at reading social cues and relating to other human beings irl.
No. 2084835
>>2084834well yeah..i wasn't trying to speak for anyone else, thats why i said "you couldn't pay
me" not us
No. 2084887
>>2084835Honestly my problem with a lot of the currently stereotypical male hobbies is they are very consoom-based and passive which I think is likely to improve your happiness less in the long term than more active, generative or creative hobbies which tend to have a lot more life benefits aside from just being 'fun' in the moment. Of course there are some feminine stereotyped hobbies that are pretty consoom-based too like makeup, and there are some male-stereotyped hobbies that are active too and build skills.
I think overall if we lived in a less patriarchal (and less capitalistic) society though and just had a healthier society overall, most people would gravitate more toward hobbies that are active, creative, and involve cooperation and skill building since these tend to be the most fulfilling. A lot of those are 'female stereotyped' currently. I don't think women would all start gravitating toward what are all now currently male-typical hobbies and interests. Something like carpentry I can see many more women getting into if it wasn't as male-dominated as a job field, but not most of the other stereotypical male hobbies listed. People get a lot more joy from, e.g., making things as a long term pursuit than they get from buying things or consuming media.
No. 2084912
>>2084887>carpentry I can see many more women getting into if it wasn't as male-dominated I used to think this, but I've noticed that one of the larger barriers to entry for a lot (not all!) of women picking up more physical/labour-intensive hobbies and skills is actually the physical effort required– I've tried to help other women get into similar things after they express interest in joining me in my hobbies, but the second most of them have to lift anything heavy or put their back into something, their interest dies. It doesn't even have to be anything particularly gruelling or stereotypically 'manly' either, doing a couple hours of outdoor gardening can be too much for them. I get that it's normal for people to seek the path of least resistance and all that too, but men either know they'll be bullied for giving up or have been taught to find the effort rewarding/acceptable to achieve their goal, while a lot of women get used to having a guy/someone else do physical tasks for them without being chided for being weak or lazy and see doing these things themselves unappealing and unrewarding. I'm not saying all women should be out there doing strenuous things for fun, but it's something I've noticed both from my friends and when I've helped teach courses aimed at getting women into hobbies like wood and metal working or gardening/landscaping (again, there are women who discover that they enjoy these things and the effort required to do them, obviously).
We need for women to idolise being capable more imo (which includes stereotypically feminine hobbies too btw), but I see a lot of 'im just a smol delicate stupid weak girl who can barely feed herself tee-hee' being bandied around lately, which is kinda depressing tbh
No. 2084967
>>2084912I think you're right that many women just don't gravitate toward hobbies that are too physically laborious, but I also think if we lived in a 'healthier' society most women would be physically healthier and fitter and not afraid to build muscle/trying to be as dainty as possible. My family all came from farming backgrounds and all the women even after they moved to cities or whatever had hobbies like hiking, climbing trees, gardening, building things, etc. I was very healthy and athletic growing up and tons of my hobbies were physically intense, I then developed a chronic illness and feel much weaker/more tired but I still have many quite physical hobbies. I notice women who are scared of even stuff like 'light' carpentry where you don't do that much heavy lifting are usually women who were never given an opportunity to build adequate muscle mass; once you have built it and are used to using your body you can do these things even if you become more physically weak and tired than you were before. My grandma is still heavily gardening in her 80s with many health problems, like for many hours a day in a rather large plot of land.
Actually with carpentry I think the bigger issue might be women's (rightful, to some extent) fear of power tools because women tend to be a bit more naturally risk-averse. But there are aspects of stuff like that that even more risk-averse women could do too, not every project like that requires very dangerous power tools, you could just be making smaller things and using less powerful tools and stuff and it would still be a similar hobby.
>men either know they'll be bullied for giving up or have been taught to find the effort rewarding/acceptable to achieve their goalIn my experience the opposite is true. With the exception of the (relatively rare) moids I know who are into extremely physical hobbies and sports, most moids I know have hobbies that are extremely passive, don't require much skill building and don't require much patience, and they are also very easily frustrated and quick to give up. I've done a lot of more 'extreme' sports in my life or combat sports and the girls in those sports usually were much less likely to quit out of frustration near the beginning, most of the dropouts were men who were frustrated because they thought they would 'naturally' be good and quit when they weren't good right away. I used to do physical summer jobs like landscaping, working with farm animals (cleaning up their poop, moving hay bales etc), and janitorial work since those were higher paying jobs than service work for people my age and it was usually the male teens and twenty-somethings hiding in the back avoiding all the heavy physical tasks while the girls and even older women employed there ended up picking up the slack and doing all the really heavy duty tasks. I rarely meet any women in my life whose hobbies are just 'sit in front of TV/gaming console all day' or 'go to sports game' while I meet tons of men where that's their hobby or like researching philosophy lightly in their free time or something is their 'hobby.' When I ask most women my age about their hobbies it's more likely to be actually creating and making things, building complex skills, etc. The only type of hobbies I find relatively well-matched for gender that are high effort are sports, and ironically they're typically much easier for moids but I still see fairly even numbers of women doing them.
No. 2084985
>>2084912>>2084967I read somewhere that girls and boys have similar (or near-identical?) levels of physical activity as children but it drops at puberty for girls and doesn't go back up later in life. I'm optimistic about it because you can reverse this if mothers/teachers incentivize girls to keep practicising sports to counter the fear instilled in girls to be anything but a dainty little flower. My parents did and even though i'm a lazy fuck and hated PE as a kid i have no issue working with power tools and love 'physical' hobbies.
>When I ask most women my age about their hobbies it's more likely to be actually creating and making things, building complex skillsYep. Women also have consumption-based hobbies (they are voracious readers) but it's more even. Also think that older men (boomers et al.) are more likely to get into crafting stuff because they typically have more space, own homes and have more disposable income to work with wood/metal etc. I've noticed 'masculine' crafting hobbies are most popular with retired men, when they work they fall back on passive computer-based hobbies or sports (unless they're into crafting replicas of cars/mecha/diorama). Honestly both men and women should give 'feminine' crafting hobbies a try, it's very compatible with tight schedules and it feels less daunting than chopping wood for a project
No. 2085006
>>2084985Even the women I know who are into reading are more likely to actually spend time discussing books and talking about what they learned from them, reading a mix of fiction and non-fiction and implementing some of the stuff from non-fiction in their lives. The men I know who are just into vidya, game of thrones and star wars just rewatch episodes over and over or play games repeatedly collecting fake virtual items and achievements (I don't hate gaming I play some video games myself I just don't think this is healthy as a main/only hobby) and rarely seem to engage critically with these things, discuss them carefully or learn anything from them. I think you're right about retired men being more into crafting stuff due to the space, but you can do smaller crafting projects with limited space. I don't do full blown carpentry but I refurbish furniture in my small apartment sometimes, like cutting off bits with a saw, reinforcing broken parts, sanding it down and painting little murals and pictures on it. It's not as useful of a skill as building entire furniture pieces would be but it's satisfying and cheap and then I end up with things I can use and like. I agree re: 'feminine' crafting hobbies, my mom got both me and my bf into knitting but he went way further with it because I had a much more time-consuming job, and he ended up enjoying it a lot and wanting to make things for me and himself. It came in handy for me too when I was on a multi-day car trip as a passenger with no other forms of entertainment, very fun and relaxing and you get something out of it you can use. I also used to sew and do 'fashion design' when I was younger, now I don't have the space or money to do sewing as a hobby anymore but the skill comes in handy when I need to repair or alter clothes I own or just convert spare fabric to curtains or whatever. You're never going to lose anything from having these basic skills or food-related skills like cooking, backing or preserving/canning. It's a very good way to prevent food waste and makes your life better and healthier, it's not 'lame' at all to at least have the skills even if you rarely use them.
No. 2085066
>>2084967ayrt I agree with you, and I should have been clearer when I made that comparison between men and women's responses to being confronted with the realities of more laborious tasks/hobbies– there absolutely are men who are passive in their hobbies or content to be completely useless, or react like spoiled children when they try to do something 'masculine' and it, shockingly, doesn't actually come easy to them just because they're men and then they shun the activity. But in my experience, guys are much easier to get to even try these hobbies than most women and are more likely to put up with (or even react positively) to the strain, even if they come from more passive hobbies like gaming etc., but tbf this might also just be anecdotal/biassed and not reflective of broader trends outside of my area kek
>>2084985I've heard that too, which I remember finding surprising at the time because most of my peers did something physical during our teens, whether at school, as an activity outside of school, or while hanging out. I'm forever grateful that my parents raised me fairly neutrally alongside my brother and encouraged me to do stuff that interested me like scouts and swimming and rock climbing kek, while also accepting me as a quiet turbo nerd.
I think part of more 'masculine' crafting hobbies being more common in older men also comes down to them having backgrounds that had them picking up similar skills– my grandfather worked in a furniture shop for his first job, and a computer technician for his last, and so he already had a skill set (that is hard to pick up now due to most furniture no longer being locally hand-made) that allowed him to jump into making custom miniature motorised boats. Most guys now (hell, people in general) go from school to a generic job like burger flipping to an office job or something else that doesn't require any craft on their part, so it's unsurprising that they default to more 'passive' hobbies that also don't require them to create anything from scratch.
No. 2085156
>>2083997Not true unless you’re a male. People are desperate to paint beautiful women as evil.
Maybe one or two simps will let a beautiful woman get away with stuff but the rest of the world demonises them for just existing. You’re more likely to get hired or promoted as a pretty woman but only because scrotes want access to you.
No. 2085186
>>2084196You're naive and misinformed. Please don't try to pull the Redditor's Trick on us. He's going to get high fived by his peers who have to make do with their right hands or pillows. They will experience 0 (zero) adverse effects. The young man will never complain, the only time legal action is taken is when the jealous father finds out. "If I can't fuck a hot teacher, neither should my son!" And sometimes the teacher is the
victim. She's blackmailed or threatened into sleeping with her student and sometimes straight up raped. A 30 year old woman is MUCH less dangerous than a 16 year old male. In fact, 12 year old males perpetuate more rapes than adult women of all ages combined. You're worried about the wrong sex and projecting your female fears onto him. Stop anthropomorphising. He's not scared of her, he's not going to drop out of school to take care of a baby he wrecked his body while birthing. He's not going to get killed or pimped out. Relax.
No. 2085341
>>2085336I don’t usually see men shitting on Gypsy, it’s usually women. I think because Gypsy is a
victim who has a cocky attitude, didn’t become a
victim, gets money and does whatever she wants. They want to see
victims abused by scrotes, losing in life and crying all the time because that’s the kind of abuse
victim they are and they’re pissed/jealous that they didn’t win like gypsy did.
No. 2085350
>>2085341I typically see both men and women doing it, a lot of them trying to doubt her abuse all together despite it being one of the most well documented cases of child abuse I've ever seen.
>They want to see victims abused by scrotes, losing in life and crying all the time because that’s the kind of abuse victim they are and they’re pissed/jealous that they didn’t win like gypsy did.Literally it. Look at how many people got pissy when she left Ryan despite people admitting he was suspicious. Not even the first time I've seen people get upset about abuse
victims profiting off of their story as they should? We get compensated for any other shitty events why can't we get compensated if our parents abuse us?
No. 2085359
>>2085350People don’t like seeing abuse
victims profit off their stores because they don’t like the idea of the people they have abused doing better than them or they were abused and no justice was served. The people who don’t like Gypsy are abusers or just jealous.
No. 2085369
>>2085359Abuse
victims should always profit off of their abuse, especially since child abusers typically never face actions for their consequences and the
victims never get compensated and end up having to pay for therapy out of their own pocket + have trouble with employment, education, etc. unless people are going to instill laws allowing abuse
victims to get compensated and harsher sentences towards abusers,
victims should do whatever the hell they want to take life on easy mode
No. 2085398
File: 1720710127255.jpeg (954.94 KB, 1284x1364, IMG_3576.jpeg)
>>2085383I’ve seen ex con men get modeling deals and married to rich women just because they fit normies standards of beauty for men. Pretty privilege is probably even better for good looking men because they can find sugar mommas who are good looking and have money.
No. 2086019
File: 1720755462433.jpeg (29.09 KB, 739x415, Nanamin.jpeg)
He's ugly.
No. 2086032
File: 1720756421081.jpg (257.56 KB, 1079x606, Screenshot_20240712-135140_Goo…)
>>2086021NTA but I hate his clothing. It's like something Patrick Bateman would, and I mean the book version where everyone was making fun of him but he was too retarded to notice. I'm a suitfag and this is not it.
No. 2087189
File: 1720842060297.jpg (19.21 KB, 640x427, AP24194812056397-(1).jpg)
I still think Alec Baldwin deserves the death penalty.he at least should have gotten prison time.hate this crusty old fuck and his worthless baby maker wife.
No. 2087322
>>2087189Absolutey correct. Ive seen so many defend him because "he didnt mean to", suddenly negligence absolves responsibility in court.
Imagine dying young for a vanity film project from a negligent discharge of a firearm by a dude so narcissistic he felt the need to use real guns so his dick felt better because of the "authentic sound". And the armorer was a nepo baby zoning out the whole time.
No. 2087341
>>2087189I don't know what penalty is right in this case but he's definitely guilty of two things. He's the producer of the set, he's got the authority and responsibility to make sure his staff is safe.
1. He screwed up on that part, big time. Even his second in command David Halls got punished for that offense, because he was the second person to make sure the staff on set is safe and failed to provide that safety too (not just by not hiring a professional armorer, just the step daughter of a real pro to save money, but also for not double checking the props and blanks to see if everything is in order).
2. Second screw up is him pulling the
trigger because he likes going off script. During the Gutierrez's trial we saw footage of some shooting scene, Baldwin continues to shoot blanks way after the director says "Cut" and when the real safety distances to not harm the filming crew are not there. Not only does it show he's
trigger happy and unsafe as an actor to be around guns, even though armorers always inform actors on set about safety measures
Props or not, especially since the gun was a replica and not a fake, an armorer on a set makes sure that the staff using the guns handle them as if they're real , but he's also wasteful because every blank shot on set are money being shot - props/armorer staff rent blanks.
>>2087243>it's definitely the armourer's and prop people's fault for even putting a live round in in the gun in the first placeIt is, and she got her trial and was found guilty by the jury. She was just trying to use her step father's good reputation as an armorer to get a foot into the industry with no prior education nor real experience. She got lucky that no gun exploded in her face (while making IG pictures holding a prop gun), like that prop rifle she loaded with the wrong caliber ammo that was jammed, she got close to get herself and a lot of other filming staff hurt.
No. 2087364
>>2087340breaking bad was a story about a very bad man with very good luck
better call saul was a story about a good man with very, very bad luck
No. 2087369
>>2087357i think youre focusing in on the wrong words and severely confusing what my original post actually said.. they didnt go after anna harrrelson because shes a woman, they were her bothering her
because they are mentally ill. they are not mentally ill because misogyny exists. they're mentally ill because that is the way they are, and they're likely going to attack any human period. i don't know the names of any of the faggots who threw themselves at her, but i'm sure if we pulled up their records we'd find more criminal behavior than just that on their rap sheets. you guys love to think that men are only shitty because women exist, and thats not the case at all. men are demonic because thats what they are. anyways thats off the topic from my original post, which had nothing to do with men or misogyny. i said
people (as in the majority of viewers, including other women) don't dislike the character skylar whitet because shes female. they dislike the character because of how she is written and what the character does over the course of the show. there being psychotic men who think that the TV character is the same person as who the actress is doesn't even have anything to do with that.
No. 2087424
>>2087369Skyler receiving disproportionate hatred has to do with misogyny because it stems from lack of empathy towards women, tendency to exaggerate their misdeeds and demonize them (especially for cheating), and sexist expectations that a woman should just shut up and comply with spoken or unspoken rules set by her husband, show him complete loyalty, and go along with anything, ignoring his mistreatment of her if he has a "solid" manipulative justification for his actions. People (mostly men) think Walter should be absolved of all crimes solely because he loves his family and tries to provide for them but they diminish or completely ignore the fact that, most importantly, he
puts his family in danger (he doesn't think about it in advance, he's not extra careful, he's only focused on the part he's most competent in but otherwise everything's done completely intuitively and he's mostly just incredibly lucky), he makes them worried sick and that's on top of him having cancer and Skyler being pregnant, he lies to her and their son for months and ruins her trust but somehow she's expected to be ok with it. And it's not like he had no choice - we are shown clearly that he could accept the money AND the job offer from his friends and all he had to do is to swallow his pride but apparently it's way worse than making drugs, dealing with psychopathic criminals, killing people, lying to your family and putting them in danger.
It clearly is misogyny because when people are shown two flawed characters they tend to completely overlook the positive in the female character and overblow it in the male, and do the opposite when it comes to flaws and misdeeds. Somehow Skyler is more malicious/manipulative than Walt who literally lets Jane die because it's more
convenient for him. She's not a criminal, she's just a young girl, and she's a girlfriend of Jesse who he allegedly cares for. Well, it's not
cheating, so who cares.
And by the way, this
>on top of being ugly as fuck and looking like a mankeeps getting mentioned as if it mattered this much (and if it does, you can try and think a little
why), especially in the context of everything that's going on in the series. And she's objectively not even
ugly or
manly (plus the character is 10+ years younger than Walt but it's apparently not enough, she has to be super duper extra sexy to have a little right for a liiittle mischief). I guess all women have to be petite, have a button nose and full lips, or else people will struggle to identify their sex? Oh, and it's not misogynistic, right?
Skyler is not perfect and no one has to praise her or anything but the hatred is ridiculous and I feel like you didn't really familiarize with what people usually say about her or you simply fail to recognize sexism and double standards.
No. 2087532
>>2087526Of course. Was there marital rape in the show?
>>2087530I am of the opinion that cheaters of either sex should be executed on sight, actually.
No. 2087563
>>2087552Kyphosis, constant back problems, problems finding one company that makes consistent quality bras and breaking underwiring in one's bras, which then poke into one's skin.
But nah.
Big chested women complain only because scrotes leer over their boobs but they love it in truth, that's the only thing.
I've finally been enlightened.. /end sarcasm.
No. 2087646
>>2087523I kind of feel the same way. If you don’t want to be with someone for the rest of your life, why did you marry them?
>>2087526Marital rape does absolutely exist and is a
valid reason for a divorce and then the imprisonment of the ex husband, but I don’t think that’s what anon was referring to at all. She was referring to people who divorce over stupid shit because they were too immature to have a real marriage.
No. 2087654
>>2087651NTAYRT but
>you must be a man if you think you should fulfill the agreement you made to be married to someone That’s actually the opposite of what men think? Men will fucking cheat on you 2 days after your honeymoon nonna, let’s get real now
No. 2087753
>>2087647No one said it's the most important thing, it's a discussion about characters and how people react to them and what might be the reason for such reactions. Not about sexism of viewers hurting fictional character's feelings lol
>>2087648Anon are you mixing the character and the actress up now kek? Some nona just mentioned that Skyler was so hated some moids even started harassing Anna Gunn. Anna's mental state or anything is not even discussed here. Is there anomalous heat in your country as well?
No. 2088565
>>2088551Sanic is beyond morality. He is truth unfiltered. How nonna's choose to use that truth is where the evil or good comes from.
Use a lesser spirit for your games.
No. 2089481
File: 1720966235643.jpg (15.15 KB, 900x488, adult-Pomeranian-header.jpg)
Pomeranians are ugly.
No. 2089561
>>2089258This is true, every country needs something different when it come to laws and leadership at the present time. As much as people want to pretend we are all the same and can function on one system, we aren’t. Nations are like individual people, they all have different experiences and traumas and they evolve and learn, but they also forget. What a country needs changes all the time, and so it’s not a bad thing to change systems from one to another.
I know this is very unpopular and impossible, but i wouldn’t mind a monarchy for my country. We have been through it all and the long awaited democracy has turned into heavy suffocating bureaucracy after a few decades. People are lost in tons of rules without any vision. When a faith of your country is in hands of one family, they make sure the future wont be terrible for their kids when they rule. When all the stocks depend on one person, they can’t just be quiet and wait for somebody else to "do it" when nobody wants to, as crowds of politicians in democracy do… at least in here.
No. 2089624
File: 1720974253873.jpeg (677.94 KB, 1284x805, IMG_3579.jpeg)
I hate women who spend tons of money on their appearance to look hot. They spend all this money just to date men who look like they are homeless. This just makes life even harder for ugly and average women. For example pic related has had a lip flip, spends a lot of money to keep her skin and hair shiney and vibrant, got anon job to get big tits, goes to the gym…and she gets love bombed and abused by men who look like pic related. My patience with women is dwindling.
No. 2089655
>>2089647studies show that when plants are injured or sick they emmit high frequency sounds which the human ear cannot pick up. There isna actual study about this, yes they are sentient.
>>2089653>anachans see weight loss as a fun challengeThis has to be the dumbest thing I have read on lolcow today
No. 2089658
>>2089656this reminds me of what gen-x and boomers thought of millennials.
I love how its the same thing every generation with the old one bitching about the younger one, we really do live in a simulation.
No. 2089673
>>2089666>no rebuttal>you're fat.OK first of all that makes no sense because most of the people who view anorexia as something fun or like a diet are the fat people.
I'm not fat but lol you are since you amitted it yourself, you're not a anachan anymore calling someone fat does not stick when you are fat yourself, keep eating your hammies while complaining how weight loss isn't fun.
No. 2089678
File: 1720976577156.jpeg (232.57 KB, 1200x1200, IMG_3580.jpeg)
Ice spice isn’t attractive, she’s just light skin and that makes black moids go crazy. I also highly doubt she’s even black because she hides the identity of her father and I assume because he’s also non-black hispanic.
No. 2089846
File: 1720981879880.webp (74.91 KB, 750x938, icespicbetcarpet-30aa2993b36a4…)
My unpopular opinion on this site is that Ice Spice is pretty. With the right styling she can look very pretty when she has hair bangs on, lighter hair color or cute/doll makeup. Ill be posting some picture examples of styling that suits her
No. 2089855
File: 1720982037830.jpg (75.27 KB, 563x699, bc0883a140874fe52a7241b14a5fd2…)
>>2089846>>2089849she would still be pretty, stop taking out your insecurities about being darker skinned out on her. At the end of the day non-black people still see her as black and still shit on her for her black features. This reminds me of white anons who hate white blonder.
No. 2089859
File: 1720982233573.jpeg (96.6 KB, 736x1104, ☆.jpeg)
>>2089846>>2089857yeah I think long curly hair suits her very well
No. 2089860
File: 1720982297873.jpeg (144.76 KB, 736x900, ice spice n kitty.jpeg)
>>2089846hair bangs also suit her very well
No. 2089873
>>2089861no, you should learn to integrate because there is a certain anon here complaining about being darker skinned and about lighter black women and how they wouldn't be pretty if they were as dark as her. That anon has been doing this for atleast 2 years, im not accusing them for no reason. They need to finally get called out.
We call out white women who seethe at blonde white women all the time so maybe its time we start calling out black anons who seethe at lighter black women too.
No. 2089875
File: 1720982586886.jpeg (99.13 KB, 736x917, 8dffcb39-fa2f-49c9-b75a-8f5948…)
>>2089846I think dolly makeup like in this picture also suits her
No. 2089891
>>2089873You are aware there's black nonnies on this site and "woman gets hyped because she's lighter skinned but if she was darker she'd be dragged" isn't something that one
nonnie created. Its a common complaint from black women online about colorism.
No. 2089894
File: 1720983127007.jpeg (796.74 KB, 1284x1475, IMG_3581.jpeg)
>>2089892Idk something about her smile look off to me
No. 2089896
File: 1720983168649.jpg (35.11 KB, 400x600, 4c3043128e55fa96c8258d3eafefc2…)
>>2089876I mean alot of celebs do look weird, its what makes them unique. Just look at Anya Taylor Joy anons worship her here and she looks like a extraterrestrial.
>>2089886She already gets made fun off for her looks though and is aware of that especially with that popular tweet of someone comparing Ice Spice to a down syndrome girl and Ice Spice replying to that tweet that she doesn't care and that the down syndrome girl is pretty.
Idk what more you want, giant billboards that say "ice spice you are the ugliest biatch to ever exist and you are the reason why dark-skin women are not represented "
>>2089891They need to go back to lipstick alley.
No. 2089903
>>2089896>I mean alot of celebs do look weird, its what makes them unique. Just look at Anya Taylor Joy anons worship her here and she looks like a extraterrestrial.this person looks really weird too
I don't care about "unique" looks just for once let's see an actually attractive person in the inevitable ad
No. 2089914
>>2089896>they need to go back to lipstickalleyAre black women not women? I barely see those complaints here in anyway. Colorism doesn't just effect bw, but all kinds of women. The fact you think its one
nonnie let me know its not a common topic on here anyway. We are allowed here and to talk about issues that we face.
No. 2089923
>>2089864I agree that she looks better with the short curly hair. I also think she would benefit from it being a darker shade of red rather than the current mustard yellow.
>>2089896ATJ just has a weird face to me. My brain can't decide if she's pretty or ugly. Her eyes are just very far apart which I've never found to be attractive.
No. 2089969
>>2089913yeah i also suffer chronic pain, that's part of what inspired my post. and i wouldn't say only people with the
exact same issue medically get it, but i think only those with that constant ghost ache that doesn't show up on tests will understand the paranoia and fear and sadness that come along with it. everyone else is eventually going to either get tired of hearing about it or assume you're lying
No. 2089987
>>2089972then some pretty woman will develop more of a
victim complex than they already do, like those who imply ugly women don't get sexually assaulted.
No. 2089996
>>2089972being mean
just because you’re jealous and not because they’re bullying you is kinda pathetic though
No. 2090009
File: 1720987110270.jpg (48.65 KB, 410x623, Capture2.JPG)
>>2089972because the root cause of being jealous is you want to appeal to moids, and being catty in between eachother only serves men. besides, pretty doesnt matter, just be fit and healthy and look somewhat friendly and you'll look appealing to most people and they'll wanna get to know you, social media makes lookism obsession 1000x worse than reality
No. 2090158
File: 1720994631601.jpeg (177.99 KB, 750x1000, IMG_2192.jpeg)
>>2090147You know, in a way you’re kind of right. I re watched it and there’s not too many movies I can think of that actually have this many interesting violent women killing and beating the shit out of people. The foot shit was terrible though and Bill was annoying and his reasons for doing what he did was retarded as fuck kek.
was satisfied with how she killed him though>>2090154I agree. There was a description an anon made in the old movie thread about Silence of the lambs and I really liked how she described how the movie is about how men prey on women. Buffalo Bill is still as relevant as ever.
No. 2090163
File: 1720994925929.jpeg (471.88 KB, 2700x1800, IMG_5723.jpeg)
The Love Witch doesn’t deserve to be shilled as a feminist movie despite being directed by a woman. It tries to be self-aware yet the protagonist gets fucked by ugly old men on-screen. I loved the costumes and set design though.
No. 2090676
My unpopular opinion is that the current female rapper aesthetic is fuck-ugly.
>>2089863>>2089859>>2089855>>2089848>>2089846She looks horrible. I can't stand the disgusting forehead mustache wigs and clashing troll doll colors. All she needs is the giant snuffleupagus lashes to exemplify everything I hate.
>>2089860 looks better because of the bangs and sensible color coordination, though.
No. 2090698
File: 1721020546761.jpg (30.45 KB, 300x300, megan-thee-stallion-wins-bbmas…)
>>2090676I don't think this is very unpopular nona. It looks unflattering on most women and makes them look like troons. Someone that looks ugly in trooncore styling yet keeps doing it is Megan thee Stallion.
No. 2090720
>>2090715>that anon literally making a post insulting both white women and black women and saying they look like certain troon phenotypes
>you suddenly making it about race like anons attacking blks only.Is this the white moid who is obsessed as roleplaying as a black woman.
Dont get me wrong their post is gross and is a reason why gender criticals are hated but why did you make it look like they were singling black women out kek.
No. 2090727
>>2090718Imagine if women started imitating clothes that men wear and then men started calling clothes that men wear as trooncore just because some women who wanted to imitate men wore that often?
Men would never do that but for some reason you retarded bitches would. Blackpill feminists were right about everything.
No. 2090728
>>2090713>>2090713radfems especially of the yt variety are literally cut from the same cloth of the yt males they so claim to hate. They are just a projection of white men. They don't care about women just the protection of all that is white. Most radfems are fucking married boy moms LMAO
>>2090718no you dizzy bitch calling any woman you know is a fucking woman especially a black woman a man is dangerous as fuck. Stop playing stupid. I bet if i called you a Karen you'd have a 20 page dissertation of how its akin to a slur.
>>2090720no dummy im a black woman tired of you white bitches saying racist misogynistic dogwhistles thinking no one will correct you. Its ugly and its always done more to black female celebrities. Stop pretending to be dumb in 2024
(infighting) No. 2090731
>>2090718There are literally people posts below yours admitting that they find her like a troon because of her body and not what she wears.
I wonder how do all the gnc anons feel about this, suddenly they are nowhere to be found when anons are calling womens bodies male or troony…weird huh
No. 2090733
>>2090728None of tayrt but
>dangerous as fuck ?
>karen is a slur i don't think anyone on this website has ever claimed to feel that way nonnita
No. 2090736
File: 1721022393471.jpg (358.35 KB, 1080x1296, tumblr_b4eef346b980493623c52da…)
>>2090725>without makeup and some oversexualized outfit she does look slightly ambiguousNo offense nonna but I think you might have BDD or something. Like kpop brainrot.
No. 2090740
>>2090733>anons never said karen is a slurIm not that unhinged anon but can you make it look less obvious that you are a newfag?
There was a debate abiut that word here some time back.
No. 2090741
File: 1721022488312.png (322.98 KB, 416x482, megy meg meg.png)
>>2090736thats a posed and styled photo
nonnie, use a real one next time kek
(bait) No. 2090747
File: 1721022657603.jpg (274.95 KB, 1280x1920, megan-thee-stallion-makeup-fre…)
>>2090741Even then, she just looks like any female celebrity on a walk. That's supposed to look like a man? Why crop out the "masculine" body too?
No. 2090749
>>2090733its also a good thing your shitty thoughts arent reality because I HAVE. so stay out of it if you just gonna say nothing of value.
>>2090736these people are anti black you can show them a full blooded woman but because she is black they suddenly dont see her femininity meanwhile always try to emulate it. WEIRD. FAN BEHAVIOR. It is not black women's fault that our body type is the most emulated by EVERYONE men and women of all races for CENTURIES. We cannot control that and the fact that these bitches that probably cant empathize but in fact ADD to the CONTINUED dehumanization and masculinazation of black women across continents due to THEIR ancestors perversion and obsession with our bodies. Its sick and disgusting i hate you bitches fr.
(racebait) No. 2090750
File: 1721022731963.png (974.8 KB, 2340x1116, dude dsad.png)
>>2090746There's literally been a Karen thread kek
No. 2090755
File: 1721022857531.jpeg (176.85 KB, 1706x2560, 21-06-24_M_OF_V07_1061_2x3-sca…)
>>2090747anon she has a similar body to this man. i really don't know what you want to hear. they're both likely the same height and weight
(bait) No. 2090763
>>2090757The post you responded to says "i dont think anyone on this website has ever claimed to feel that way nonna" and you responded saying "i have"? so…are you saying
you claimed Karen is a slur?
No. 2090768
>>2090760this is why i say white people are the plague and i stand by it. THEY brought this shit here
>>2090763arguing with yt women is akin to arguing with yt men yall jump to a random straw man to miss the overaching point on purpose. just like them LOL
(racebait) No. 2090771
>>2090748All you demented tradthots who larp as gnc know to do is harp over women wearing makeup or calling women degenerates or whores if theyre dresses a certain way.
Thats why you are okay with actual biological women being called troonish or manly and even transvestigated in some cases.
No actual gnc person would be okay with that. But actual gnc people also dont say they would vote for men who want to take womens rights away just so they can own the troons so this site is obviously tradthot center currently, especially with the Trump thread
No. 2090772
File: 1721023190013.webp (34.18 KB, 590x590, 1485510098_meitu.webp)
>>2090753This is what some underage and mentally ill nonnas on this site think women should look like
No. 2090775
>>2090772No they are too racist for that. We all saw the weird seething they did over asian women a week or two ago.
Their perfect feminine woman would be some anachan underage russian/ukrainian/ girl who is being exploited by the modeling industry.
No. 2090777
>>2090760NTA but
>protruding brow ridgeAnon, do you go outside? Do so right now or on any sunny day, frown, and take a photo. The existence of shadows will make you suicidal.
>downturned noseThis is just mental illness
No. 2090781
File: 1721023742999.jpeg (583.82 KB, 1706x2560, layered.JPEG)
>>2090766i took the time to layer these photos just to reassure that yes, they do have similar bodies
No. 2090785
>>2090778>broadsWho the fuck uses that word in 2k24 other than sleazy moids.
I understand you are a moid built like a bobble head with shoulder only 2cm longer than your head. I would call women masculine too if i was built like the average 4chan and kiwi moid.
No. 2090796
>>2090787I doubt that. You can tell from
>>2090747 that she doesn't have a protruding brow ridge, you really sound like you don't know what humans look like anymore.
No. 2090799
File: 1721024280436.png (66.17 KB, 180x168, foreehady.png)
>>2090796do we need to zoom in? also, doubt what…? you doubt that light and shadow can't magically make all your bones grow?
No. 2090802
>>2090800The devil men
we breed? I don't want to start an infight about black men because that would go on for days but KEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
No. 2090809
File: 1721024625877.png (367.61 KB, 503x493, brow.png)
>>2090799Yes, to show that you don't know what a prominent brow ridge looks like. Here is one, kek. And I doubt you've seen the sun.
No. 2090811
File: 1721024641483.jpg (32.16 KB, 780x470, Mory-Morgan-Pop-Culture-Crisis…)
>>2090772No, this is lolcows ideal woman apparently.
No. 2090822
File: 1721024968352.jpg (107.46 KB, 560x844, 21b6327705c07f748909963b8734e5…)
If Megan Thee Stallion resembles a man, that would make most of the women in Hollywood even more masculine, and like 90% of the normal women in America you see daily outright gigachads. Some anons seriously need to touch grass.
No. 2090825
>>2090811I remember finding it so weird how anons were defending this girl so hard considering the girl is a vile pickme tradthot who panders to redpill moids. They were so sympathetic to her.
And now it all makes sense, that's because they were just like her all along and now some anons masks are slipping and they are removing the fake radfem label they gave themselves and are embracing who they really are : tradthots.
No. 2090829
>>2090826nta but
> almost and now you’re on lolcow at 1 am…
No. 2090835
>>2090820YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOURSELF. you can start by getting off of imageboards that warp your mind into thinking heinous things about people of all races and especially women at your big young baby uwu im just a girl who just got here idk about systemic oppression and the ripple effects it causes and i directly benefit from although i practice it every time i come on here and absorb blatant racism and do nothing to stop it but everything to PERPETUATE IT. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. YOU CONTINUE YOUR ANCESTORS LEGACY BY BEING ON IMAGEBOARDS.
Most of you come from 4chan and kiwifarms you girls literally grew up on yt supremacist dogma and continue it in your adult lives. You guys confess to it everyday on here. You are not low and you are just like your ancestors. Maybe even worse cuz you lie to yourself. They at least were honest in their depravity.
No. 2090862
File: 1721026500626.jpg (146.28 KB, 1300x956, paris-fashion-week-women-ss-20…)
>>2090852Some of these women aren't drop dead gorgeous (Sora is though) but you can tell they are at least somewhat attractive in a conventional way. That's what I meant.
>>2090854Because all blasians are dominican. Ok.
No. 2090897
>>2090891Proof? And have we seen her grandparents?
>Don't play; I know what you're trying to do by saying Ice Spice looks blasian. Sorry, I'm not American and I don't get what you mean. Is there some political thing to this? What I'm saying is that she has features commonly had by both black and Asian people, and I'm familiar with both. I don't find her ugly, either.