/ot/ - off-topic

Completely agree with this. Men can be creepy and obnoxious, but nobody can objectify and drag a woman down better than another women.

>>115493
Fallacy #1
"Gender norms and hetero relationships resulting in procreation have been radically challenged by 'radical militant third wave feminists.'"
This is setting up a strawman so the "logic" of the video can flow better. It's easier to say something like this than address how breaking gender norms has been around since the 60s during second wave feminism when works like The Feminine Mystique were published, or phrases like "bra burning" came to represent independence from patriarchal beauty standards. Freeing female sexuality from patriarchy has been around for decades and isn't new, it's practically how women gained the rights to birth control and abortion.
He contradicts himself later by showing a montage of 1900s swimsuit progressions emphasizing just this. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

Fallacy #2
"Slut walks. Well, basically that for a woman to show her power…it must be associated with her right to be a slut and dress like one too."
Using derogatory words will always dissipate the power behind messages. One of the biggest flaws about third wave feminism is trying to reclaim "slut" as a positive, empowering word. It will always be a weaponized word to attach a label to a woman who shows a liking for sex.
However, if you take out the word "slut" and rephrase the message appropriately, it means "A woman's power and independence is directly associated with her ability to assert her sexual freedom and not be publicly shamed, harassed, or assaulted for doing so."
Nobody is asking you to not judge them.
Nobody is asking you to be extra sweet and ask them out on dates for being brave.
Nobody is asking you to find them attractive or virtuous.
Just keep your damn mouths shut in public. How hard is it? It makes perfect sense and no reasonable human would disagree with that.

Fallacy #3
"Bikinis are objectifying."
Speaking of cognitive dissonance, I get the feeling this man hates SJWs and feminists but this is probably the single most tumblrite argument he could make.
Some articles of clothing are not objectifying because we as society have deemed them acceptable and have trained people to not automatically fetishize someone for wearing them.
Were not traditional men and women appalled when during the turn of the 1900s women's long skirts began to show gaspANKLES!11!!!11gasp? I bet they sounded as twattish back then as this guy does now. And jfc he even admits this evolution of thought happened by showing that 1900s swimsuit montage. How is he so blind? It's like saying we need to be dressed in burkas because heaven forbid clothing hugs us in places or gives us shapes.

Clothing changes with culture. That's why in some cultures nudity is acceptable, and topless women are not side-eyed because people are not being told to rev up their fetishes when they encounter it. Any man who says he gets uncontrollable sexual urges at any woman and any article of clothing she wears is insulting himself and reducing the humanity of men into nothing but horny zombies.

Fallacy #4
"Women are indirectly affirming that bikinis are too revealing because some are uncomfortable with being pictured in one or similarly in their bra and panties."
Following the logic of he last fallacy, women are conservative for a reason and not typically doing so just for being conservative. Some women merely like the aesthetic and thinks it flatters them better. Some women are told to do so because of religious or societal reasons.

Moreover, some women don't like wearing bikinis exactly for the reason that OP and his ilk act like untrained dogs who cannot control their red rockets. Yes, some women do not like to wear bikinis, shirts, skirts, and crop tops when there's some creepy dude on Youtube ranting about how their bodies are just so 'accessible' for him and how they need to cover to quell his primitive boner. Then again, other women are perfectly fine with that and want that kind of attention. Regardless, it's never okay to assume all women want sexual attention from strangers if they don't explicitly ask for it.

That "study" he mentioned is a fucking sham. If we could study the brain waves of men who were brought up in ultra-conservative culture and showed them women with ankle skirts and their hair down despite being covered everywhere else, I'm sure we'd get the same "activated" results because the men were conditioned to think any revelation of that nature was sexual. Whereas men in our society wouldn't be as activated because we consider ankle skirts and hair down as pretty damn normal if not conservative leaning.

And then we get that damn yellow fetishism, "U WONT FIND SLUT WALKS IN JAPAN!!!" Gee, maybe, but don't act like the Japanese don't have any sexuality attached to clothes or values that Westerners wouldn't find creepy by their societal values–ie. kawaii culture/idols and the need for grown women to sound and look as young as possible and remain single virgins. They put women on pedestals over there in different ways.

>"oh and btw here's a porn star who regrets going into the adult industry so listen ladies it's totally relatable to your plight for wanting to wear a bikini to the beach without being cat-called, you filthy fucking sluts wanting respect n shit"

Wow, how frustratingly invalid logic lmao.

I'm willing to bet money this thread is by the same sickfuck poster posting all the CP. Yep, you're not a predator at all.

>>115500
Thank you. /r9k/ needs to leave

>>115514
We want them to leave, but they'll never leave. Like all lolcows, they don't learn from experience like the normies do.

>>115500
Go find yourself a welfare nigger that only thinks 5 minutes into the future.

Take a trip to the bottom of the well because you don't want have the energy to find a real white man. Also I am sure you are on your computer/phone 24/7… but you need a guy who will be at your call at all times to be your gratification slave while you get to walk on a red carpet as their white prize cunt.

Don't you realize that before women liberation a man could get a job and support his family?
You miserable bitches wanted to play office instead of house and added two times the amount of people to the workforce. This brought wages down by half. Then you miserable cunts fight for illegal immigrants and multiculturalism and are adding cheap labor to compete with both white men and women.

Now your miserable cunt wonders why your white boyfriend doesn't have the money to wine and dine you every night to keep you feeling cherished and important. You are a fucking downward spiral of indoctrinated retardation and think somehow you have been freed.

I fucked miserable cunts like you off tinder every week and they all have the same thing going for them. A worn out fuckhole who thinks that getting to play handsome tommy is the right thing for women.

Your miserable whore of a cunt is so white flagged you would rather fuck a shitskin because you don't want to deal with the hardship of what a good white family once was.

Rot in hell, civilization destoyer.

>>115569
"Crackposting"

>>115500
There is literally nothing wrong with venerating female virginity. Promiscuous women fear sexual and moral standards.

Don't white women feel any sense of shame about how you are perceived by Japanese and Chinese and Arabic and Indian men?

>>115575
>There is literally nothing wrong with venerating female virginity.
There is when your entire career depends on it, which is what happens with many idols in Japan. Dipshit.

>>115575
>Don't white women feel any sense of shame about how you are perceived by Japanese and Chinese and Arabic and Indian men?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but white men don't like used up sluts either.

>>115576
Being an ideal virgin girl is a vital part of their career.

They're sucking money from men, their customers, under that agreement.

What if you hired a grass-cutter but then he refused to cut your grass, and demanded that he still keep his job and be paid?

>>115576
Because that's literally what idols are meant to be. These pure things.

Note that singers and idols aren't the same thing. Singers with labels can date who they want and as far as I'm aware the agreement between an idol and her company is an voluntary contract agreed between both parties.

>>115577
I think the distinction is that men like fucking sluts. But don't want to seriously date or marry one. White women don't seem to understand the distinction but Asian women are much cannier and smarter and do.

There was a case here where one of those pakis in a rape gang said to the white girl he was abusing "white girls are trash only good for sex". That's how the world sees them. Shame the few decent ones have to suffer. But just look at people like kabukiqueen.

>>115579
>>115582
>Being an ideal virgin girl is a vital part of their career.
And it's weird and obsessive. Kind of like how Western singers feel the need to validate themselves based on how sexual they are to get the approval of men who lust after them in some unwritten agreement as well.

Both situations are looked down on by normal people because it's fetishizing sexuality and putting women on unrealistic pedestals in either culture.

>>115589
>unrealistic

It's unrealistic to expect a woman to stay a virgin until she finds a man to marry, or at the very least not promiscuously have sex?

It's not like that was the norm throughout many civilizations in history, and many still today (I can show you recent videos from muslims publicly executing a woman who cheated on her husband, they know how to keep their women in line). It was not only the norm, but it was one of the core foundations that supported civilization.

I'm glad women are destroying Europe by flooding it with muslims, once the caliphate of Eurabia is established the roasties will learn Inshallah.

>>115590
Is there a reason she should be demonized for having a boyfriend and flung from a career just because she isn't a virgin?
Filthy weeb waifufags.

>>115592
The career requires her to remain single, that is what the customers (who are the only reason her career can even exist) want.

That's the downside of the career. I'm sure you know about the upsides. The career has an age limit anyway, eventually age will catch up to you. You can make very good pay, become famous, and when you finally quit you could easily find a wealthy guy to marry.

You're not going to get me to feel pity for Jap idols, imagine never getting to have sex (literally remaining a virgin) and never having a bf/gf, except you're also a broke nobody, and everyone treats you like trash.

>>115596
>requires
It's made up bullshit weebscum.

This is a garbage thread, but I think slit walks are stupid. The whole idea of it is just…retarded. Idk. And I think seeing the woman who participate in them is an excellent way to identify crazies and SJWs. No thanks.

>>115596
>magine never getting to have sex (literally remaining a virgin) and never having a bf/gf, except you're also a broke nobody, and everyone treats you like trash.

Kek, if you're talking about robots, you realise most of them are at most 18, in high school and the "getting treated like shit" tends to mean "I was a condescending dick to everyone and they don't like me very much/I made no effort to talk to anyone and people are mean for leaving me alone" or "People don't treat me like I'm the most popular person in school", right?

They're not social outcasts or some shit, just angsty teens who found a hugbox, same as the Tumblr sorts who do the same shit.

Slut walks happen because fun fems have no other worth to themselves than being walking cunts, thus the most objectified they get and the most dicks they get up, the most self worth they feel.

All of this while they expect men to "behave", to keep control over them and while asking "not to be raped please respect me uvu". And let's not get started how these retards are also enablers of trannies and mudslims and sell other women out to follow their liberal mantra.

Of course I don't expect most of girls around here to understand this since this site seems to be reigned by barely underage kids who are obsessed after looks and sex appeal.

By the way, robots, get out. No one cares about your crappy ignorant opinions on female stuff, you are not relevant, get over yourselves.

>>115590
You cannot literally wait for them to invade your country and be chocked on that delicious arab cock, can you little edgy faggot? Go fap to some nigger's dick on porn for a while more, kiddo.

>>115846
Bud, did you even read the entire study? It isn't even a meta-analysis. This isn't a study, or an experiment. It is basically an essay, where some people draw conclusions from really old gender studies. Most of the sources that they analyze (and there are no mathematical analysis done by the authors…try just quote the conclusions of past studies) are from the 1950's to 1980's.

They create a framework based on the theories of old sociologists, and make conclusions from it. They didn't test any theories, or really compare any hard data.

>>115858
Did you see my post saying: "HARD SCIENCE LOL PROVEN WRONG BY HARD DATA LOOK AT THIS SCIENTIFIC FACTS AND STUDIES I'M RIGHT BECAUSE I HAVE SCIENTIFIC PROOF BACKING ME UP".

No, I didn't say that, nothing of the sort even popped into my head. The same thing could have been written on a youtube video description and I would still post it for it's content.

I'm posting it because it's right, not because it's a paper written in a university.

It annoys me that you misinterpreted my post so bad that you assumed this. You yourself are probably one of those idiots that tries to shut-down arguments with "lol where's your scientific proof?", then you act like everything in the world is false unless it's "scientifically proven" up to your exact standards, which would always keep moving even if someone did pull out a "scientific study".

You females are dumb as bricks, why do I post here?(USER HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO PASTURE)

>>115863
But you're not right. Your "source" is meaningless and based off of outdated theories.

If you're going to assume so much about women, and ask us to explain ourselves, then I'm going to look at your source. Your source is bullshit and it doesn't mean anything. Please go back to /r/incels.

>>115493
>implying all women in the west are liberal degenerates who participate in slut walks


We had one on my campus once. I was fatties, uggos, and nu males. The type of people who desperately wanted others to think that they had any type of sexual prowess, but probably no one wanted to fuck.

>>115867
It's not a source, he was obviously just making a point. Aren't you capable of attacking his argument?

>>115846
Pretty much everything that feminists classify as "patriarchy" is done primarily by women, and only passively enabled by men trying to adapt to the demands of women.

>>115870
Anyone can fuck with low enough standards.

>>115871
His argument is bullshit and isn't based on fact. So I'm not going to engage with it. Go to reddit if you want to debate.

>>115878
Because lolcow is for mindless shitposting only?

>>115880
I don't want to encourage attention seeking robots/incels.

When a dog is begging for food at the dinner table, do you feed him scraps? Or do you ignore the behavior, and only give him attention when he is a good boy?

>>115871
Why would you engage an argument that's just a random affirmation? There's no logic to it that is anything more than an assumption on his part, and when the argument is worded in such a way as "I, as a man know how womens minds work, and if they tell me that's not how they work it's because they're clearly all trying to work together to silence me", there's really no point trying to address it.

If you met a schizophrenic claiming that almost everyone he met was an alien stalking him and had seen him in the past accuse people of being aliens when they tried to convince him that there wasn't any aliens after him, the correct response wouldn't be to try to convince him of it again, would it? No psychiatrist treats paranoia with facts.

The same applies here, there's nothing we can say that will convince him, and his entire argument is working in a way to make sure that there is nothing anyone could say to attack the points contained within.

Seriously, his entire argument is "See this essay? Yeah, it's right, deal with it".

>>115901
>>115927
>I don't need logic or facts or arguments, I'm a womyn!

In case you ever wonder why intelligent men don't take you seriously…

>>115931
>defending a post that literally had no fact or logical point
This is why womyns don't take you seriously, incelcuck.

>>115932
Aw gee I sure wish I had the intellectual approval of a bunch of hysterical ditzy bimbos, oh well.

>>115931
But anon, that first post you quoted had arguments, and was pointing out that there was nothing to refute except a baseless claim that the robot was right.

I can make up some crazy conspiracy theory that proves all men are evil and if they disagree it's that they're all working to manipulate me and further their own selfish goals, but with no arguments or any real logic to it, I'd not be any better than a schizophrenic.

Worse even, because at least he can rely on hallucinations as his evidence, which he doesn't know is evidence.

Seriously, let me remind you that he said this
>I'm posting it because it's right, not because it's a paper written in a university.

As an argument to the person saying that it's essentially an essay based off outdated information. Going "it's just right" isn't anything we need to refute with anything more than "No it's not".

>>115936
I don't get what you even take issue with in what he said. Are you denying that slut shaming comes primarily from women? Or are you denying that women use sex as a commodity to trade for resources/status?

>>115937
>Are you denying that slut shaming comes primarily from women?
Not the anon you're replying to but yes, I would wager it primarily comes from patriarchal sources.

>>115937
Both the argument of assuming that it's mainly women who slut shame (especially when posted in a thread filled with men bitching about women who enjoy sex), and the argument that women are all manipulative and want to "keep the cost of sex high", which is insanely offensive as it implies that an entire gender is nothing more than hookers, and based in fucking nothing apart from his own obviously /r9k/ influenced delusions.

I absolutely deny what he's saying, because it's really no more logical than (as I've said before) a schizophrenic who believes that everyone is trying to get him to do something or another because they're all aliens in disguise that are stalking him.

It's ridiculous, based off the concept that everyone on the fucking planet is out to fool him, and no matter what you say, he'll just accuse you of also trying to fool him, and dismiss it as a result of that.

It's also less logical when you consider that almost all women prefer to support themselves, and not be completely dependent on a man, which you can see in the amount of people that push for women being able to easily access higher up fields, and the fact that most women work and pay for their own shit, including rent, food, luxury items, the exact same as guys do.


If you can't even understand why someone might take an issue with his claim, you have no fucking business posting outside your containment board over on 4chan, let alone acting like you're in any way someones intellectual superior.

Oh, and just to remind you, what is essentially a longer form of "Fuck off retard" doesn't mean that your shitty bait was effective, it just means that I had 10 minutes spare and nothing better to do in that time.

>>115938
What on Earth does "patriarchal sources" mean? That's a term that feminists use to lump in literally anything that exists or has ever existed in the realm of sociology.

>>115939
Why are you talking about it like it's some kind of conspiracy? Women putting down other women who they feel threaten their sexual worth doesn't require any sort of conscious thought.

And the fact that a woman wants to have independent access to resources on top of it doesn't change the fact that no matter how well off she is, she will always look for a man who has more resources and higher status than her, and base her attraction to men entirely on that. And this is the primary way women acquire resources, because no they don't prefer to support themselves, women who actually support themselves (meaning who aren't supported by men, family, or welfare) are a small minority. But even those who do almost always retain the same strategy at work of getting free shit handed to them for looking pretty or even just for being women. Which, before you get all defensive, is entirely the fault of men who enable and reward that sort of laziness.

The only thing most women will ever put a genuine effort into other than being attractive/popular is motherhood. The kind of pure disinterested love that men have for women, women can only ever have for their children.

>>115941
>Why are you talking about it like it's some kind of conspiracy? Women putting down other women who they feel threaten their sexual worth doesn't require any sort of conscious thought.

>All women are out trying to stop sex being easily available to men so that they can keep the cost of sex high to manipulate men into giving them things in exchange for it
>not a conspiracy

>And the fact that a woman wants to have independent access to resources on top of it doesn't change the fact that no matter how well off she is, she will always look for a man who has more resources and higher status than her, and base her attraction to men entirely on that.

But that's not at all true, and this is disproven simply by going out and meeting people. There are many happy relationships where the woman earns more than the man.

>And this is the primary way women acquire resources, because no they don't prefer to support themselves, women who actually support themselves (meaning who aren't supported by men, family, or welfare) are a small minority.

Well this is just flat out false. The majority of women, single or in relationships are working and providing for themselves.

If you're talking about ones in relationships where they share expenses with their partner, that's not being provided for, as they're contributing as well.

>The kind of pure disinterested love that men have for women, women can only ever have for their children.

Fucking hell mate, how can you go from one sentence "men give women materials in exchange for sex" to "Men have pure completely uninterested love for women in the next? That's a huge amount of cognitive dissonance you've got there.

And once again, this is just a baseless claim that is disproven by the insane amount of women who have been ridiculously in love with men, and have sacrificed a lot in order to be able to be with that man or make them happy.


The reason no-one takes you seriously is because you can't even keep your arguments straight sentence to sentence, and even the ones you manage to word in a way that makes sense, your "logic and facts" boils down to "I feel this to be the case, and any evidence that it's not the case doesn't count because I say so".

You've just flat out lied at this point to try to make yourself seem correct, which is ridiculous. This is a forum full of women, you're not going to convince anyone here that we actually think differently to how we do. You're not changing anything except for saying edgy shit and looking retarded, as we prove what you're saying wrong simply by existing.

>>115939
>it implies that an entire gender is nothing more than hookers
And that men are nothing but sperm donors and could never derive meaningful platonic relationships from women. Seems like something only friendless, virgin incels on the internet say though. Thankfully.

>>115941
Patriarchal sources: Religion (ex. Christianity and Islam), culture (ex. "machismo" in Brazil). I'm sorry I made it difficult for you to conceptualize common knowledge.

>>115493
I agree. When I was younger I purposely objectified myself trying to attract attention from crushes. Of course dirty perverts were the ones to notice…
After discovering Islam I realized covering our body (I don't mean anything crazy like the burqa but just covering arms, legs, stomach and cleavage) is more powerful than showing it off. When you cover yourself, you are doing the opposite of objectifying, and forcing men to see you as a person first, sexual being second.
People love to claim that this is a Muslim issue, but studies in Western countries show that the less clothing a woman wears, the more a mans brain identifies her as an object.
The world has become too sexual imo. Less than 100 years ago, even though women showed cleavage, they did sexy tastefully. The female and male body used to be something almost secretive meant only to be seen after marriage. Now it's not exciting anymore, and in fact with porn, plastic surgery, overly stuffed bras, steroids, and skimpy clothing, before someone finishes puberty they've already seen possibly hundreds or thousands of genitalia and even developed skewed emphasis on the physical. When women covered their bodies and saved themselves for marriage and being a slut was shameful and shunned, men couldn't develop the same comparisons between women. They had to see their personality more strongly than today when they have a clear idea of so much. Same goes for women, in the past your husband was the first naked male you truly saw. Today with sleeping around and even porn, often we have comparisons of things like penis size or abs, and this detracts from noticing character in some cases.
We often have unrealistic body image (and I say this as someone who has a relatively good body) due to seeing so many comparisons and knowing others have seen the same comparisons.
Anyway, women objectifying themselves and being called out shouldn't be called slut shaming. I used to get called out for how I dressed despite not being a slut, but men see us for our appearance, unless we force them to see our character! Provocative clothing and women objectifying ourselves and thus one another is a huge issue imo

>>115944
Btw I read a few posts about the immigrants from Muslim countries raping women. Well, I'm guessing the reason 70% are single young men is because they don't want to live the structured Muslim life where rape can equate a death sentence (most Muslim countries consider rape a violent assault so you don't need 4 witnesses), have to pray a lot etc. I mean think about it, they watch Hollywood movies with crazy frat parties and one night stands etc. They are hormonal and want that "Western life". They want to party, drink, fuck women outside marriage, wear whatever and not pray or donate money etc. It's not that the culture caused them to be this way, they are just horny assholes who immigrate in order to act out their fantasies.(USER HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO PASTURE)

>>115944
>>115945
>When you cover yourself, you are doing the opposite of objectifying, and forcing men to see you as a person first, sexual being second.

You're clearly a Muslim in a WESTERN society where–newsflash–your human dignity and rights were already afforded to you BY LAW by women who fought for the right to be seen as more than an ornament or babymaker. Your clothes mean shit. Every non-ignoramus knows sexual objectification happens regardless of what women are wearing because objectification roots in dominance of power, not looks.

You don't live in shithole Muslim-dominated country where women are caned for getting too close with their boyfriends, or wearing pants under their burkas. Or wearing too much makeup and getting stopped by the literal religion police for it.
>"but men see us for our appearance unless we force them to see our character!"
Cognitive dissonance. Men either objectify us or they don't. Pick one. This literally suggests every man is out looking to objectify appearance at any given time.

https://youtu.be/gLGrLiWFCg0
https://youtu.be/Vnf9EDT-JJs
https://youtu.be/VYKAlpJAOqc
https://youtu.be/y0f97JnK6uI

>>115887
Your analogy is flawed because the equivalent answer is to kill the dog.

>>115863
>why do I post here?
Because you're a dumb, useless faggot who's so thirsty for female attention he'd even go somewhere women despise him even more than usual.

>>115934
Why even post here? Oh right, female attention. Boohoo, all girls are stupid whores but I gotta attentionwhore in a girls' imageboard.

Kill yourself.

>>115951
You're right I live in a Western country, but Im well-traveled. You make some great points, but I'd like to mention that a lot of things you are mentioning are based in Middle Eastern culture/tradition rather than religion (even if they use religion as an excuse – which is actually warned about in the Quran). The Quran does not mention the behavior you mentioned being acceptable and actually stated women should have equal rights and discourages violence except as a last resort, and Asian Muslim countries (Indonesia and Malaysia) afford women much more rights because they follow the teachings more closely. BTW I speak from experience in that the way I'm dressed completely changes how men treat me, so even if they can objectify anyone of course they will…but it's less likely to be you when there are plenty of people around doing it freely.

>>115863
lmao females are so dumb with their (((scientific proof))) and (((logic)))

>>115955
>not arguing with me about bullshit is murder

Oh, /r9k/.

>>115987
Google "nun raped".

>>16012
I swear everyone who writes articles for that website has like, this shaved head and this goatee and like, a really oily forehead

>>116049
Drugstore sunglasses, plaid shirt, cargo shorts. These people OOZE masculinity. They're such fuckmachines that everywhere they go women literally gush pussy juice everywhere. That's why they have to wear shorts, so they don't get their pants wet wading knee-deep in pussy cream.

>>115583
This.

so many triggered sluts in the thread.

When women look slutty, men treat them slutty. When women look not slutty, men treat them not slutty–unless she accidentally caters to a certain fetish (covering up everything, but wearing sandals).

Inevitably, you put men and women together and sexual tension occurs. Unfortunately, women who don't know better play the game of "be attractive, but when men respond positively to you, insult them/push back/drag them along, ideally when there's money involved".

Beta men will keep pursuing her until she cucks him. Higher quality men will drop her. Highest quality men will see this coming a mile away, and quit while they're ahead.

>>116058
Every slut hates themselves. Its so funny how they try and act like they're strong independent womyn but started crying when called what they are because they feel guilty and want to be liked by everyone. Everyone doesnt have to accept their dumbasses.

>>116060
That's pretty poor logic. No-one likes being insulted and treated like a lesser person, it doesn't mean you hate yourself for not liking that.

The whole slut acceptance shit isn't about how you have to like it, it's about how it's not actually your decision to make, if they want to sleep with people, they're allowed to.

If you don't want to be with them, don't, you don't have any right to whine and act like a fucking dick because they made a choice you don't like that doesn't impact you at all.

>>116076
Actually I do.

As a female when other women slut around it lowers the value of pussy. Now I can't use sex as much of a bargaining tool to get things I want.

>>116080
nice try robot, try to be more subtle next time ;)

Can admin permaban and rangeban all the robots in this thread?

>>116076
But anon, it does impact them, as the sluts are sluts because they won't have sex with them with their charming personalities.

>>116095
It makes sense that hobos are unbannable I guess

>>116076
>lol just let people do what they want
This is good and all in principle, but when people get up in arms to create some stupid "acceptance" movement, it's effectively the same as a promotion movement. And you should hopefully be able to find a good number of reasons even on your own why it's bad to promote being a slut. No one is being thrown into jail for being a slut, but the social stigma works well as a general protection mechanism. Before some complete moron tries to draw something on the individual level from this post, I'll point out that I'm talking about things on the scale of societies.

>>116126
Kek, please tell me how being a slut is bad?

You're having consensual sex with people, and as long as you're being safe about it, if you want to do that, there's literally no downside to it.

Acceptance movements mean you should shut the fuck up and let people live their lives, not try and force them to live by your morals.

Even if you look at it from a Christian standing, it's outright stated that it's not our place to judge. Probably one of the most famous quotes from the Bible is about that.

No doubt you'll come back with some shit about the sanctity of marriage or the fabric of society or some other very emotion based argument, so don't bother if that's all you have, give me an actual explanation of how them doing that is bad on a societal or individual level.

>>116149
What a great answer.

Are you really that desperate for female attention you have to shit up multiple threads?

Why are people responding seriously to this thread

>>116159
activity on here can be low, at least arguing is something

>>116127
Above all, it massively increases the risk of STD, saying "as long as you're being safe about it" is retarded, absolute vast majority always thinks they're "being safe about it" and they still end up with STDs. Statistically it also massively decreases the chances of being able to successfully settle down later in life - now you might also say, so what, maybe they don't want to, but that's also not true for the majority. One thing you see normalfags endlessly complain about is how they're alone, how no one really gets them, and especially if they're Christmas cake-tier women, about how guys only want to fuck them, not date them. And you can bet your ass that no guy will want to marry you if you've fucked literal dozens of others. It's a clear signal that you have attachment issues and that you are very likely to cheat.
To summarize, the fundamental problem is that younger, stupid and easily influenced girls will see all the "BEING A SLUT IS JUST FINE" propaganda, hop on the train, then ten years later suddenly find themselves in a shithole they'll never climb out of, potentially with a couple STDs to boot. Chances are that in the long term these people would end up happier if they were hammered with conservative propaganda instead, or better yet, neither.

>>116169
>Above all, it massively increases the risk of STD, saying "as long as you're being safe about it" is retarded, absolute vast majority always thinks they're "being safe about it" and they still end up with STD

Condoms friend, and it's not hard to be responsible sexually. If you get an STD, that doesn't impact anyone but you assuming you're honest about it.

>Statistically it also massively decreases the chances of being able to successfully settle down later in life

Correlation doesn't equal causation, and you have no evidence that it's actually being promiscuous that causes those issues instead of personal reasons.

>One thing you see normalfags endlessly complain about is how they're alone, how no one really gets them, and especially if they're Christmas cake-tier women, about how guys only want to fuck them, not date them.

Yeah, because that's something exclusively that happens to people who have lots of sex, isn't it?

>And you can bet your ass that no guy will want to marry you if you've fucked literal dozens of others.

You projecting doesn't actually make for a compelling argument. Your insecurities aren't global.

>It's a clear signal that you have attachment issues and that you are very likely to cheat.

That's ridiculous. Enjoying sex doesn't make you a sex addict, a slut isn't the same hing as a sex addict in the slightest, and it's incredibly dishonest to equate features of sex addiction to someone who just has casual sex.

>Chances are that in the long term these people would end up happier if they were hammered with conservative propaganda instead, or better yet, neither.

Yeah, because people who have their sexualities massively stigmatised are super happy, aren't they?

As I've said, accepting it simply means recognising that your morals aren't universal, and people not sharing them doesn't make them wrong, because they're not hurting anyone doing what they do, not even themselves. It's literally just consensual sex between adults.

Saying that you have to learn to be able to cope with people having different opinions to you isn't the same as saying we should pressure youth to have lots of casual sex, and once again, it's incredibly dishonest and verging on fallacious of you to draw such a false comparison like that, though it's not the first time you've used an argument like that.

>>116169
>it massively increases the risk of STD
Not if they're safe about it. Not if the guys they're fucking are also being safe and getting tested regularly. Or if people could just be truthful. If everyone on this planet could just take some god damn responsibility for themselves, STD occurrences would decrease exponentially.

I've legit heard more accounts of women and friends who have told me that they've gotten STDs from serious boyfriends who didn't inform them they were positive for carrying an STD. My boyfriend's friend actually got HPV from a past bf who purposefully gave it to her and then went and fucked other women from town while lying and saying he was clean.

It's not because of sluts, it's because people are lying psychotic mongoloids who prefer to infect people with STDs than have to have uncomfortable discussions, get rejected, or put in effort to get tested regularly. Has nothing to do with proclivities and everything to do with responsibility.

Same thing with marriage. There's baby boomers on their fourth or fifth marriage right now and it's not because they're "sluts," it's because people rush into marriages on impulsivity and don't think about the responsibilities it takes to maintain relationships. I'm sure you're conflating younger women marrying with "sluts," but the same conditions apply. The reason why young people are more likely to divorce is because they rush into it too early and don't know what it takes to maintain long term relationships. That's why the institution of marriage as a whole means diddly anymore because people in general don't know how to handle shit.

>>116170
>>116173
I'm surprised even two people took issue with the STD risk when it's the most blatantly obvious truth. Both of you made the same point that I already addressed in that very post. You, personally, if you are very careful, always use protection, and try really hard to find trustworthy partners, you may well be able to get away with fucking tons of people without getting an STD. But that is completely irrelevant because it's a matter of fact that a higher number of sexual partners correlates with a higher risk of infection and the very best protection against STDs is abstaining from fucking every other person you meet.
>>116170
>you have no evidence that it's actually being promiscuous that causes those issues instead of personal reasons
A correlation does mean a correlation though. If we give the greatest benefit of doubt possible, then the woman that doesn't have any personal problems and could settle will still be negatively affected by the image sluts have, that is that they typically have problems settling down, and she will have a harder time finding someone. This is also not a stereotype that any amount of campaign could possibly change in the near future.
>because that's something exclusively that happens to people who have lots of sex, isn't it?
Never said it was, I was just following up what I'd said previously. Put a bit more effort into reading posts.
>You projecting doesn't actually make for a compelling argument. Your insecurities aren't global
I don't think I've seen a male make a case for marrying sluts in my whole life. Conversely, I've seen a whole fucking lot of people talking about how sluts are only good for pump and dump and nothing else. But yes, it's anecdotal evidence, I just thought that this was obvious to everyone.
Also, I don't necessarily care about the number of past sexual partners, but it's a really specific thing and not worth going into here.
>Enjoying sex doesn't make you a sex addict, a slut isn't the same thing as a sex addict in the slightest
I never talked about sex addiction in the first place, but if you find it perfectly okay to have had 20+ sexual partners and just casually hook up for sex, to me it looks pretty obvious that you put less emphasis on sex as such and would logically show greater tendency to be open to things like partner sharing and/or open relationships and/or cheating. Inb4 another >BUT I DON'T DO THAT, okay, no shit.
>As I've said, [..] they're not hurting anyone doing what they do, not even themselves
You did say it but that was in spite of not actually disproving what I said on STDs, so yeah they kind of are hurting themselves
>isn't the same as saying we should pressure youth to have lots of casual sex, and once again, it's incredibly dishonest and verging on fallacious of you to draw such a false comparison
Well it's a great thing then that I didn't draw that conclusion, isn't it? Back to you though, it's incredibly dishonest to take my "promote" and rewrite it to "pressure" and suddenly make a strawman case about me being dishonest in the argument. And even if I had done it, it certainly would've been the first time since that was my first post in this thread.

>>116173
>second, third paragraph
Anecdotal evidence aside, the more people you fuck, the higher the chance of running into someone who has an STD and doesn't disclose it. This obviously includes serious relationships too, but since you can also have a dozen "serious relationships" it doesn't actually mean anything. Maybe it really is more common to get STDs from a relationship than simple hookups, but so what? Bottom line is still that the more people you fuck, the higher the chance of getting infected.
>it's not because they're "sluts," it's because people rush into marriages on impulsivity and don't think about the responsibilities it takes to maintain relationships
Those two things don't seem that far apart from each other in principle, given that one brand of slut is the type that goes through several boyfriends a year

>>116185
>But that is completely irrelevant because it's a matter of fact that a higher number of sexual partners correlates with a higher risk of infection and the very best protection against STDs is abstaining from fucking every other person you meet.

The very best protection against it is abstinence from sex forever, I don't hear you advocating that. And you can still catch some even if you don't have sex, so just never touch anything anyone else has touched in the last week.

Seriously though, make your partner wear a condom and you'll be fine, they're almost all fluid based bar shit like herpes, which almost everyone has anyways.

>A correlation does mean a correlation though

Which is a pointless thing to say. Ice cream sales increase when drownings do too, it doesn't mean that ice cream causes people to drown. It's a correlation, you see?

>This is also not a stereotype that any amount of campaign could possibly change in the near future.

You could say the same for women's suffrage in the past, that they'd suffer stigma anyway so not get equal rights really, so it's not worth doing.

Pointless to bring up when you admit that it will likely change with enough time.

>Never said it was, I was just following up what I'd said previously.

Then it's pointless. We're talking about people who have lots of sex, not "normies" or whatever fucking /r9k/ shit you want to throw into the conversation.

>I don't think I've seen a male make a case for marrying sluts in my whole life.

The argument that they're better at sex, that your past doesn't necessarily define you, perhaps they've both got a history of casual sex, plenty of shit.

>Conversely, I've seen a whole fucking lot of people talking about how sluts are only good for pump and dump and nothing else.

Then stop browsing 4chan so much, because you're just getting the opinions of teenagers who want to seem cool. No adult uses the term pump and dump.

>I never talked about sex addiction in the first place

You listed features of a sex addict and applied them to someone who simply enjoys sex. They aren't the same.

>it looks pretty obvious that you put less emphasis on sex as such and would logically show greater tendency to be open to things like partner sharing and/or open relationships and/or cheating

Enjoying sleeping with multiple partners who all know it's just casual as a single person doesn't speak to your nature as a monogamous partner at all. A relationship isn't all about sex, and there's a huge difference between what people do while single and in a relationship, even for people who have a normal amount of sexual partners.

>logically show greater tendency to be open to things like partner sharing and/or open relationships and/or cheating.

No, logically that doesn't follow. It's like saying that someone who likes to flirt while they're single will therefore also flirt while in a relationship.

If you were talking about a sex addict, I agree, but you're not.

And an open relationship isn't the same as cheating at all, open relationships are a choice both partners make and there's nothing wrong with it. Cheating is shitty no matter how you look at it, if you want to fuck other people, leave them, you evidently don't care that much.

>Inb4 another >BUT I DON'T DO THAT, okay, no shit.

I've actually never had sex outside a committed relationship, that's a dumb assumption to make that I must be promiscuous to think that people can do whatever they like as long as both parties consent.

>You did say it but that was in spite of not actually disproving what I said on STDs, so yeah they kind of are hurting themselves

Because what you said about STD's is retarded when you consider that condoms are a thing, and having sex with say, 20 people doesn't mean you're out fucking random seedy looking guys from a club.

>Well it's a great thing then that I didn't draw that conclusion, isn't it?

>To summarize, the fundamental problem is that younger, stupid and easily influenced girls will see all the "BEING A SLUT IS JUST FINE" propaganda, hop on the train,

>This is good and all in principle, but when people get up in arms to create some stupid "acceptance" movement, it's effectively the same as a promotion movement.

Now you're just flat out lying.

>Back to you though, it's incredibly dishonest to take my "promote" and rewrite it to "pressure" and suddenly make a strawman case about me being dishonest in the argument.

It's really not. You've been very obviously talking about social pressure and influences here, me using the word pressure doesn't mean I think you're talking about following kids around and forcing them to do it.

>And even if I had done it, it certainly would've been the first time since that was my first post in this thread.

How convenient.

>>116189
You have so much patience. I am so sick of trying to talk to robots about their fucked up views. There's no reasoning with them.

And I've said it before, but why would I trust anything a robot has to say about women, instead of trusting my own experience as a woman?

I feel like they are always clutching their pearls about women and sex, but their understanding of both topics comes from fucking 4chan and MS Paint info graphics.

And the guy you're talking to apparently is just sooooo concerned about the spread of STDs and the lives of young women, but you know he doesn't give a shit. Robots and incels are cut from the same cloth. You know what he's really complaining about…

>>116192
>You have so much patience. I am so sick of trying to talk to robots about their fucked up views. There's no reasoning with them.

Nah, normally I just tell them to fuck off too, I'm just on a lot of painkillers right now.

>And I've said it before, but why would I trust anything a robot has to say about women, instead of trusting my own experience as a woman?
>I feel like they are always clutching their pearls about women and sex, but their understanding of both topics comes from fucking 4chan and MS Paint info graphics.

Yeah, this is the main thing that annoys me about them.

They get their entire worldview from shitposts on 4chan boards and equally shit meme cartoons or infographs, then ignore any studies or even anecdotes from women that contradict them.

I get a lot of them are just kids still trying desperately to fit in and find a reason why they don't fit in properly at high school, but it's just ridiculous when they come here and start telling actual women what women are like, do they not see how dumb that is?

And yeah, you're absolutely right with the last element. It's always what they jump to when you point out that vague hyperbolic statements about the fabric of society aren't helpful at all, and point out that Christianity says not to judge.

Like, I don't even find casual sex an okay thing to do, I really find it distasteful, but it's just because it's not to my taste, others evidently feel differently.

You don't have to make up huge elaborate reasons why you not liking something is objectively correct for you to not like it, yet they always seem to have to.

>>116194
>Like, I don't even find casual sex an okay thing to do, I really find it distasteful, but it's just because it's not to my taste, others evidently feel differently.
>You don't have to make up huge elaborate reasons why you not liking something is objectively correct for you to not like it, yet they always seem to have to.

Bingo. I think both your points above are some key differences between us and robots. You don't like having casual sex…so you just don't do it. There isn't a cosmic reason for it. I don't have unprotected sex, and I'm also not really into casual sex. But again, its a personal preference.

Robots also see things very black and white. They say that all women want the exact same things. So any anecdotes are automatically meaningless. If you believe that every woman is hardwired to do certain things, then our anecdotes are obviously lies. Their views about sex dismiss individual differences.

Another thing that I noticed is that I can never get rustled by the sex lives of other people. As long as all those involved are safe and happy, then why do I give a shit? I don't have to participate. I don't have to watch. Why should I give a shit if someone has casual sex?

I guess I just don't understand why they seem to care SO MUCH about the sex lives of other people.

>>116197
>Robots also see things very black and white.

Seeing things in black and white is either a sign of lack of experience or mental illnesses, which cause people to react first and foremost using their feelings. That's why robots hate a lot of things, because it validates themselves. It's an echochamber of hate, you could say.

>>116197
>I guess I just don't understand why they seem to care SO MUCH about the sex lives of other people.

Everything in this world is about sex except sex itself.

Due to biological programming healthy men will think about sex all day, if those men are denied sex or female companionship throughout their entire lives up until adulthood, you get the end result of Elliot Rodgers or robots.

They hate women in general for many legitimate reasons, and they're jealous of the high-status men who get sex and have women competing for them. Women only pay attention to these high-status males (a demographically low percentage of men, maybe 20% at the broadest definition), and the rest of men might as well be invisible. At the same time these women get older and complain "where did all the good men go" (what they really mean: why aren't high-status men settling for me?).

Being a slut primarily hurts other women, and other women are the primary source of slut-shaming. The easier sex is to get for high-status men, the harder it is to make a high-status male settle down with a woman. These high-status men will often just continue to promiscuously have sex with many different women well until their 30s or even 40s. Sluts enable this behavior.

Some women eventually realize this and then decide to just settle for a beta with good income, women who jump off the cock carousel to do this are looked down heavily by males in general.

>>116198
Wow you're such a psychologist, you totally understand it all.

>>116206
That reply is the proof of what I said, isn't it?

>>116206
Robot please leave, no-one cares about your pseudo-science, and you just look retarded trying to tell a forum full of women what women are REALLY thinking.

Can't be fucked replying to what you're saying, it's just the same tired shit that's been addressed hundreds of times before.

>>116198
I'd imagine being locked in mommy's basement deprives them of all kinds of experiences normal people have daily, so this checks out.

>>116206
At least your waifu will never betray you, anon. Stay with her. Leave these nasty, disgusting 3DPD women out of your life.
Buy an onahole today. Don't even come here anymore. Their germs will travel over text and make you miserable. Trust me. Don't waste your time on this forum. In fact, if you can't help yourself from rightfully lashing out at these sluts, why not try deliberately breaking the rules and getting yourself permabanned? You'll be happier for it. We all will be.

>>116227
lel, anon.

>>116227
I've already owned 3 onaholes, they don't feel that good, I mostly just use my hand now. I threw one out because it was actually painfully tight, never buying a "loli" onahole again, they're designed for below-average (already small) asian penis, they definitely didn't design it for BWC.

I may be a virg but I can still tell it doesn't compare to the real thing.(USER HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO PASTURE)

Geez that video is lacking some major point. And that's comparing females to males. Plenty of male sluts who are proud to be calling themselves a player. Plenty of men that can walk around half naked without society objectifying them and calling them names. Women do feel aroused by men the same way, but we are decent enough not to harass that eye candy or think they are such male sluts for sexually arousing us. These are the points where society acts like a total hypocrite towards women.

>>116231
>btw look at how big muh dick is

God, you are miserable.

>>115830
>>115830
/fa/ here. Chuckled IRL.
10/10 post.

>>116192
>And I've said it before, but why would I trust anything a robot has to say about women, instead of trusting my own experience as a woman?

Precisely this, especially since robot just admitted he's a virgy spergy. It's like watching someone talk about what they think of the stock market when they own no shares and haven't a clue how it works.

>>116432
"Look at me I'm actually a Chad xDDD"

You look more pathetic the more you post.

>>116320
GamerGate is a liberal cause, not a right-wing one.

People like Sargon of Akkad are liberals. They're literally liberals. They self-define as liberals. Their entire rhetorical MO is "we're the real liberals and you aren't".

Liberalism and right-wing ideology are fundamentally incompatible.

>>116454
That was my first post in this thread and I'm not male so I can't be "Chad"

I just saw your ebin fedora pic while scrolling through the front page and dropped a comment.

Posting fedoras for everyone you disagree with is the laziest way to argue online.

(Pic related, it's you)

>>116320
>I'm not racist, I just look at the facts.
I don't see the problem with this. Facts are facts. They can't be racist, and you aren't racist for citing them.

>>117141
You can when you take them out of context, assume correlation does equal causation, twist them to fit your pre-existing agenda, and refuse to admit that any other conclusions could be drawn, outright dismissing anything that contradicts you.

That's when it stops just being looking at data and turns into racism.

>>117135
Hahahaha, fedora manlet is on a roll, isn't he.

>>582612
Are you really dunking on an argument from 3 years ago started by a scrote?

>>582613
I didn't even notice that until you pointed it out, kek. The thread was bumped prior to my post and I guess that anon deleted their post.

Is there a scrot raid going on? Been seeing lots of posts that look like they were written by robots with abandonment issues.

>>116206
>Hating someone because you can't have them
>Hating someone because they won't give you the stuff you want
>Legitimate reason

Amen brother, likewise women should shoot men for not buying them Louboutins on command uwu

>>583086
NTA but unironically yes we should absolutely do that

>>583080
Yes, I wish they'd stop posting us on their shit ass boards

>>583080
Definitely. Robots are too prone to sperging out so they fail at integrating and make it super obvious

>>583092
They still do that?

@ robots

This is the second or third years old thread that was randomly bumped. What is going on.