Why are promiscuous women labeled used goods but promiscuous

>>132189761
key and lock

Systematic sexism and misogyny based on the oppressive hierarchy of gender.

>>132189761
fuck off roastie

Women shouldnt fuck everyone they see and to be selected by one is an accomplishment for any man. Thats the way its been and the way it will be

>>132189761
Women are labeled as used goods because women are objects.

Because that's the only thing men want and if a guy is wasting money on some woman that has slept around too much then he's just throwing money away on used goods with a gaping vagina and more than likely HPV

>>132189761
Imo both are degenerates and should be casted out

Both men and women that behave like that means that they know no boundaries and have no respect for others and themselves.
They could be even seen as arrogant, childish... they're not worth keeping around.

>>132189761
>posits a question
>giving the correct answer doesn't count
Really fucking hate when people do this

>>132190630
This. Fuck off, OP

File: THE WIND IS PUSHING MEEEEE.jpg (48KB, 494x299px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 494x299px

>>132189761
HOLY SHIT FUCKING CYBERCHASE

>>132189761
Because my dick doesn't get stretched out with use.

Women selected the best male of the species to produce good, healthy children, while men are more promiscuous because they produce more seed. Its fuckin biology.

>>132189761
because a guy will fuck what they personally rank a 5 and up in a no strings attached, never see you again, one night stand.

a girl will fuck what they rank an 8.5 and up in a no strings attached, never see you again, one night stand.

girls are choosy on the off chance that they will give birth do their one night stand's offspring and raise it for 18 years. men don't have to raise shit, so they'll fuck whatever they can.

so any girl who fucks a lot of guys is seen as a slut because she's not choosy and doesnt care what happens to her genepool.

File: 15.jpg (46KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 800x600px

>>132189761
Because, biologically, a woman's value rests in her ability to reproduce. Sex is a woman's leverage. She can choose a mate because she has the power. When a woman throws away that power, she becomes inherently less valuable. On the other hand, a man's power comes from his ability to work and provide. Women are far more attracted to wealth, success, and accomplishment than looks. If a man has sex with multiple women, he didn't throw away any of his leverage by getting tons of sex. Women can have pretty much all the sex they want while men have to work for it.

In other words: lock and key.

>>132189761
I'll give you the telegony bullshit then.
Which is can be linked with the key and lock analogy. Yep, it works like that.
On to the next question I go

It's taboo to say it anywhere and everywhere, but men don't respect sluts and whores no man wants to date or marry a slut or a whore.

Women are supposed to be mothers and wives and feminine. Not sucking cock and getting fucked by as many Chads as possible.

Funny how people like OP have no trouble holding men to our gender roles yet women being held to theirs by a few people online just makes them seethe with anger.

Kill yourself, and I'm not bumping your shit thread just to tell you this.

Lock and key analogy my man, lock and key...

>>132191672
Which can be linked to the *
Jeez.

File: 1497589633032.png (1MB, 875x1088px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 875x1088px

>>132189761
because procreating was dangerous for almost all of human history, so we eventually developed disdain for women that would be promiscuous because that would possibly lead to her death and the death of the offspring; an unsuccessful breeding strategy. Nature hates that shit

now that women can fuck without the getting pregnant, they can afford to do it often. we haven't caught up with this because our wiring is that of 10,000 BC, and it probably won't fix itself anytime soon

>>132189761

I fucking loved that show when I was a kid.

>>132191971
What was its name again? It escapes me at this moment.

>>132189761
They are. Men are stronger and smarter than women, also more hardworking. Men dominate society so in this respect they are favored.
Men do not value chastity in themselves as much as they value it in women.
It is the lock and key, basically, but it puts women on a pedestal and gives them the power to select a man.

Because women literally hold onto the DNA of past sexual partners. For the rest of their lives. "Slutface" isn't just a slang term, it's a scientific fact. look that shit up. There's nothing sexist about it, it just science.

>>132191926

There's more chance of a war throwing us back to the stone age seeing that change.*

>>132192055
Cyberchase. The character is called Buzz.

>>132192055
cyberspace
>>132191971
too many memories, anon
>>132192186
>>132192186
Men are spiritual creatures, they view women with a spiritual nuance more than they view themselves with one. This means that women are best when they are pure to one man.

>>132192055
That's cyberchase my nig.

>>132190355
exactly

>>132190630

>>132190269
*puts rake back in the shed*

File: 1497137057078.png (75KB, 900x709px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 900x709px

Lock and key makes perfect sense. That's why it's used

>>132192299
oh shit it is cyberchase
hacker is up to his nefarious tricks again

>>132189761
because it's easy for women to get sex and is a sign of restraint and character if they don't sleep around
getting sex for a man on the other hand was considerably harder and somewhat showed he was desirable
that being said, I think both should be frowned upon but there's not many people thinking like that

>>132191175
>men don't have to raise shit
Look at this based black man

File: 1494476037370.jpg (13KB, 253x372px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 253x372px

cause if a guy fucks a lot of girls it means hes got game, has money/ a job, hes well dressed, well groomed, has a good perosnality if a girl fucks a lot of dudes then it means she just some easy slut. The "double standard" comes from how easy it is for either gender to get sex. For guys they actually have to put a real effort in for girls if youre averge to hot tier then you can literally jusst go up to a dude on the street ask him if he wants to fuck and thats it ur getting laid. Thats why the lock and key thing is a nice quick accurate way of putting it. Also man fluids are going into you and shit thats gross where on the other hand nothing is going into your dick u can just wash that shit off and ur good to go

>>132189761
Cuz it's easier for women to get laid.

>>132189761
1) Women decide whether chaste men have value, in the same way men decide whether chaste women have value. Women have poor taste, hence scumbag men.

2) The kind of men who celibate sleeping with as many women as possible had maybe a couple of decades of having their cake, and eating it too. Now they are either waiting too long, and having to hook up with the least damaged chick as possible(though the larger the age disparity, the more crazy the chick probably is), which usually ends in divorce, cucking, and/or 1.5 fucked up kids.
Don't take common sentiment as the correct* sentiment in sick dying culture. Its like taking health advice in a drug den.

>>132193009
celebrate, not celibate

>>132189761
lock and key is the only answer you get because it's the correct answer. We can discuss r/k selection theories and jungian philosophies, but it all circles back to that lock and key analogy. Reality doesn't care about your feelings.

>>132189761
A penis doesnt become damaged over time the more vaginas it is shoved into.
"Used Goods" is the unavoidable thought that comes to mind when dealing with a stretched, worn out roastie vagina. It is painfully obvious and cannot be hidden. Any product that erodes with use and has been used several times follows this definition, women are no different.

>>132189761

because in the 9 months it takes 1 woman to have 1 child which could kill her from childbirth 1 man can get 1000 women pregnant at zero biological risk

so for 99.9999% of human existence if a woman got knocked up by a man who'd abandon her she could die and then the tribe is at a huge disadvantage so she better choose real good, meanwhile if a man dies who cares another man can pick up his reproductive slack

so you still get cultural things like women being slut shamed but also being physically defended more

>>132191971
>Watch this show religiously
>Be bad at math all through grade school
>Start at community college with Algebra 2
>Finishing BS at 50 Uni honors math program
I guess it paid off finally

>>132193913
*Top 50

Men and women are not the same that's the reason

Because they ought to be and its self-interested degeneracy to say otherwise. It's less damaging, yes, but caddish men are vermin and encourage women to drop their own standards of morality.

Only 10 percent of men are promiscuous

90 percent of women are promiscuous

this is a PROBLEM

>>132189761

who wants an old used dribbling flesh hole?

>>132189761
>Why are promiscuous women labeled used goods but promiscuous men not?
Because women don't.

Men value chastity. Women don't. It's that simple. Now fuck off and buy yourself that cat, whore.

>>132189761

Oh shit Cyberchase! Damn, I practically grew up on that shit! Thanks for reminding me of the good times OP!

>>132189761
Because it's hard for a guy to fuck everything he'll have to be a 8/10 to be able to. A 5/10 women could get all the dick she wanted.

Also each sexual partner maintains some gentic material left inside the womb.


http://time.com/3461485/how-previous-sexual-partners-affect-offspring/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11133203/Could-previous-lovers-influence-appearance-of-future-children.html

http://www.medicaldaily.com/dna-sperm-ex-partners-lingers-female-flies-and-influences-genetics-her-offspring-305934

Norway flag please archive these, i got no idea how

File: Susie Sparks.jpg (11KB, 240x300px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 240x300px

>>132189761
I agree, the lock and key analogy doesn't do justice to the actual reason.

The truth is it's about sexual competition. In our species and in many others the sexual selection is imbalanced, one sex selects and the other competes. This is because it's better in terms of survival if the sex that has to carry the child is actually dedicating time to it. More babies in the oven at once means a more steady society. As a result, genetic health has been placed on the sex who needs only to ejaculate into a vagina to get the job done. The point of all this is not everybody can reproduce to maintain evolution, therefore someone had to take the fall and since women are the ones making more humans, men are the ones who take blunt of that fall.

To put this in perspective, only 40% of men who ever existed have passed on their genes, while nearly 80% of women have. Of course it's not totally black and white, as men are semi-selective and heavily contributed to things such as the shape of female sexual characteristics. Tits being big fatty bags was a result of male selection as these women had better reproductive success and tits resembled a big fat ass which also was a sign of health and fertility.

But ultimately men can lower their standards to pass their genes on. Women can not, you can tell they're selectors because their competition consists of butting females out of their "territory" and spouting opinions on beauty that imply they think they're genetically perfect.

So to answer your question, Women who have a lot of male partners create a mass of men each man has to compete with sexually, with no security in knowing his kids are his own. It isn't a sign of a sexually healthy partner since women can open their vagina to every man in the area easily. Men can only think about who they're competing with; a virgin is the best because they only compete with themselves. Likewise, women see men with a lot of partners as being chosen by a lot of women, therefore good

>>132194401
Always archive or screenshot
>http://time com/3461485/how-previous-sexual-partners-affect-offspring
https://archive.is/JxRah

>>132189761
Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive.

>>132189761
> 1 post by this ID
at least sage if your going to post in bait threads retards

>/pol/ logics

If male has many kids, he fucked alot.
If female has many kids, she got fucked alot.

Getting laid is considered an achievement of male partner in west culture, therefore ''isle that can be conquered by everyone has little achievement in doing so''

File: 1498530894515.png (1MB, 1056x800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1056x800px

>>132191926
This is incorrect. What happened is men got tired of chieftains, leaders, warrior and other chads hoarding women because they realized women were all the willing to hand themselves to the alphas with the only sex coming from when they inevitably cheated on them (throwback from le chimp days). So men made an agreement with themselves as a result of forming civilization, everybody gets one girl and this girl is linked to your property. As a result more men could get women and be more comfortable that their child was there's since the property link gave an incentive for men not to take another mans wife.

Of course this didn't stop kings and other rich fags from hoarding women but it was sort of effective. Kept slutting at bay as well.

I think this would have all been better if we could form semen plugs like some other primates. Block the cervix up with an excretion so the next time the monkey bitch tries to fuck a male he can't impregnate her.

>>132189761
I'm grossed out by men who sleep around like crazy just like woman who sleep around like crazy.
I get we're animals with urges, but diseases are so easily spread through sex and some can lay dormant for a while.
People in general who just sleep around with out any thought to it, hook up culture, tend to also be very flakey.
I honestly think there should be a revalue of morals and shame both for being sluts.

File: dfgfdg.jpg (3KB, 264x300px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 264x300px

>>132195259

>>132192518
Can you Fucking niggers go back to R/eddit.

They are both disgusting, salvation lies in virginity

>>132189761
A woman isn't supposed to be promiscuous, y'fuck. She's supposed to value her own genes enough not to mix them with any cock coming around, and raise the resulting offspring. A woman is supposed to find the best man to have kids with. She's supposed to value her KIDS, enough to not get knocked up by some random screw.
The very word promiscuous, BY FUCKING DEFINITION, originally means to be indiscriminate and unselecting. Thus why it's become practically the prime meaning of the very word now, and why you are typing it, to denote the meaning of "fucking a lot of various people."
Men sell, women buy. Men propose, women decide. Men seek, women are won over.

Locks guard, keys unlock. Lock doesn't even have to jump for the cock.

File: 1496988986273.jpg (117KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 800x800px

>>132195884
I've found a way to sniff out the donald. They never say nigger, like they're afraid of it. I propose we end or begin every post with it

nigger

>>132189761
Lock and key is never wrong

>>132189761
Key and lock

kill yourself

>>132189761
You tell me. Why don't women consider promiscuous men undesirable?

It's not our fault. We don't get to make the call.

>>132190355
Not if they're vaccinated.

>>132190630
>correct answer
>superficially related metaphor that merely restates the prejudice
choose one

File: 1494104427754.jpg (167KB, 746x378px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 746x378px

t. roastie

>>132195787
Shh, people here don't believe in technology.

>>132190450
I can make your woman squirt, anon.

>>132189761
A key that can open any lock is a master key. A lock that opens for any key is useless.

>>132190830
kek

>Women when they want to have sex
>Oi, let's fuck
>Men when they want sex:
>Millions of dollars, charisma, etc.
Women play life on easy mode

File: white-sharia-social-correction-squad.jpg (93KB, 900x500px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 900x500px

Because pussy is a commodity. That being said;

WHITE SHARIA NOW!

>>132189761
i smell roast beff

lock and key so simple why do you have downs, roaster poster?

>>132196384
Have you got anything other than a shitty, convenient metaphor that doesn't even relate to the subject matter at hand, or have we all just gotten the same anti-sex anti-education course in our abstinence-only high schools?

Because it seriously fucks with their pair bonding ability after like three partners.

Cyberchase?

File: 1471887907584.jpg (889KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

889KB, 720x960px

>>132196598
don't be a statist bootlicker, comrade

>>132189761
>Why are promiscuous women labeled used goods but promiscuous men not?

because men value chastity in a woman while chastity in a men is considered sexually undesireable

is this enough for you?

File: 381880_sexy20anime20girl-1[1].gif (105KB, 600x641px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 600x641px

>>132189761

>Why is this this thing this way?
>But don't give me that reason people always give that accurately describes why the thing is that way!

>>132196768
>because men value chastity in a woman while chastity in a men is considered sexually undesireable
It's a bunch of larp and it's insane, but if that's all we have to go on, well, I guess it's representative of conservatism.

>>132196674
>that doesn't even relate to the subject matter at hand
the analogy explains is perfectly and there's nothing anti-sex about it

>>132196853
That's not a reason. That's a shitty, arrogant, superficial metaphor serving only as a restatement of the situation without elucidating anything.
Is there a REASON or have all we got is anti-sex indoctrination by American tax dollars at work?

>>132196169
Look, these Fucking kikes from the Donald always say "based" or "black man" and overuse "kek" and say "shadilay" its Fucking cringworthy and is prefer it if we mass genocide them.

Nigger

>>132190901
>t.virgin
Neither does a girl. The problem is sticking dragon dildos in there and just having such poor lower body strength that the muscles don't tighten back up. Yes, there's a small difference between a girl who had sex in the week vs one who has been celibate for a week but it's small and really SHOULD fix itself in a few days

>>132196982
>the analogy explains is perfectly and there's nothing anti-sex about it
It doesn't explain it, it merely restates the premises and doesn't provide ANY insight whatsoever.

>>132197035
>hasn't heard of kegel exercises

>>132196891
>It's a bunch of larp and it's insane
why? there's nothing wrong with it. it's how we are biologically wired. men don't want to commit to promiscuous women while women perceive promiscuous men as high-value because they are found attractive by many.

File: 1494723819199.gif (351KB, 495x495px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 495x495px

>>132197034
nigger

totally agree

nigger

>>132197120
>It doesn't explain it
you only say that because the answer to your question doesn't agree with your opinions.

>>132196271
Imo they do, but it's far longer way down on the list of instinctually undesired traits for a woman, only starting to raise up the priority chain of desire to any real notice, when they start to go downhill ~ age 27-40.
After, nature would imagine, that they've already been nicely bred by whatever guy they determine is worthy to knock them up, and at best might be able to crank out one or two more potential kids.
Sure it affects their little Fefe's, the thought of a "fuckboi" but said Fefe's don't give any 'gina tingles. Alpha behavior, fit builds, and confident strides get the nut. Beta bucks get to come in later and may get in later and get an extra baby or two in her. Provided they're bringing home some bacon to help raise her others.

>>132196674
You're a shitty lock, aren't you?

>>132197148
>it's how we are biologically wired
>muh evo psych argument
No. We. Aren't.
It's almost completely socially indoctrinated, or there wouldn't be so many people who simply don't give a fuck about female sexual scarcity.>>132197148
>men don't want to commit to promiscuous women
Larp larp larp. I feel almost none of that as long as I'm getting my share.

>>132197229
>>It doesn't explain it
>you only say that because the answer to your question doesn't agree with your opinions.
So the answer is only an answer if it agrees with your opinions? That means it's not an answer at all, only a restatement. Locks only open for SPECIFIC keys. Analogy broken.

>>132189761
none of your damn business
when women no longer sue men for alimony and expect a free ride, then you can ask questions and have opinions

>>132197433
Kill yourself, burgerfat. I've had more women than you've had hot dinners.

File: 1491577530892.jpg (52KB, 625x325px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 625x325px

>>132189927

It is called a double standard. Do not knock it. We got the long end of the stick on this one.

It's not hard to get into a guy's pants. It's like OD'ing on dick.

Women are attracted to guys who can bed many women and who live like a king who bulls many girls
Men aren't attracted to the same things unless they are a cuck

File: 1493636764482.png (177KB, 600x528px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 600x528px

>>132197603
>the battle of the sexes
>mfw supposed whites buy into a completely (((manufactured))) rivalry

>>132197477
>or there wouldn't be so many people who simply don't give a fuck about female sexual scarcity
most men are not as attractive as most women. most men are perceived as low-value by most women and this means that most men don't have much choice about who they can commit to so they settle for sluts because they can't do better. the root of it all is on the differences between reproduction costs between the sexes. while men are fertile and are able to produce sperm for their whole lives, women are born with a set number of eggs that get drier and older by the day. women have a short window of fertility and this makes them more sexually picky.

File: here ya go.jpg (70KB, 670x515px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 670x515px

>>132197670
this, women don't really care about sex as an act, more as a social flag. Date a woman then date a man, you'll see difference

File: tumblr_inline_o4tp0sLPSu1qmgufv_1280[1].png (655KB, 740x720px) Image search: [Google]

655KB, 740x720px

>>132196993

You're very judgment about a metaphor that you apparently did not understand.

Females are the sexual selectors of the species. There are larger consequences to sex for them, so they are more discriminating about who they have sex with. Men will give it up to anyone, so it's a worthless commodity. This is why the sexuality of women is innately valuable, while the sexuality of men is contingent on what he has to offer. So a man who can get women to have sex with him is a high quality man that seemingly possesses something that other men would like to possess. Any woman can get someone to fuck her unless she is really grotesque. Therefore a woman that gives it up easily is cheap and easy to obtain. She is not guarding something with innate value very well, because anyone can easily get it from her.

All of this is readily observable in nature, which is why the metaphor makes sense and why it is repeated so often.

>>132190901
The same way your mouth gets stretched out from opening it to put in food all the time?

>>132189761
HACKER!

>>132197524

>Kill yourself, burgerfat. I've had more women than you've had hot dinners.

I believe you because you said so on the internet.

>>132197477
>So the answer is only an answer if it agrees with your opinions?
that's what you were implying on your previous post
>Locks only open for SPECIFIC keys
and that's why sluts are perceived as low-value by men. because they are locks that open for most keys instead of a select few, they have no leverage because they are sexually attractive enough to be promiscuous but not enough to be found attractive by high-value males worth commiting to.

>>132197477
> No. We. Aren't.

You are correct, we are wired on the inverse. We are wired with how people act now. We are naturally degenerate.

However for western civilization we needed to behave in the opposite manner. For social cohesion we needed to not be fucking everything.

>>132197603
it's not a double standard though, it's a standard based on differences between the sexes

>>132189761
Things a man has to do get laid
>be charming
>be funny
>be outgoing
>have a car
>make good money
>have fun hobbies/ interests
>have a 12 pack

Things a girl has to do to get laid:
>sit at a bar for 10 minutes

Now fuck off slut

File: 1493353489506.jpg (356KB, 1600x2812px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1600x2812px

>>132197759

>>132197823
>most men are not as attractive as most women
That's a social construction, too.
>most men are perceived as low-value by most women and this means that most men don't have much choice about who they can commit to so they settle for sluts because they can't do better
(((Yup.)))
>the root of it all is on the differences between reproduction costs between the sexes.
Evo psych is a copout. If it were operative here, it would be operative in all cultures and all societies. Yet there are plenty of cultures where this ridiculous propertarian view of women is simply not taken, let alone taken seriously.

>>132197997
>>So the answer is only an answer if it agrees with your opinions?
>that's what you were implying on your previous post
Which, I remind you, was in response to you writing:
>you only say that because the answer to your question doesn't agree with your opinions.
I think you need to give up.
>and that's why sluts are perceived as low-value by men. because they are locks that open for most keys instead of a select few
Then how many women are "keyed alike", fool? Your analogy only works when you believe in predestination and already accept the double standard.

>>132198150
>You are correct, we are wired on the inverse. We are wired with how people act now. We are naturally degenerate.
>However for western civilization
Literally kill yourself, Edmund Burke.

>>132189761

>b8 thread but I'll bite

>if a key can open any lock
>it's a master key
>if a lock can be opened by any key
>it's a shitty lock

>>132189761
Loose women make bad mothers.

>>132198369
Second-wave feminism was where women started competing with men, and that shit is indeed toxic. I don't see any problem with gender equity at all. (Not equality, mind you. Horses for courses, but the capacities of women are ridiculously underutilized when all they do is perpetuate men.)

>>132197034
t_d is fine ya fucking roastie-lovin' nigger

File: 1483584721986.jpg (16KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x360px

>>132189761
>>132190830
>>132191971
>>132194344
>>132197938

Watch an episode why don't you, and why not watch the pinnacle episode?

Problem Solving in Shangri-la

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-XpSeWU0SE

>>132198599
>t_d is fine ya fucking roastie-lovin' nigger
THEN
STAY
THERE

File: a345.jpg (23KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 250x250px

>>132198599
>t_d is fine

>>132198386
>That's a social construction, too.
attraction is purely biological no matter how hard you try to deny it
>Yet there are plenty of cultures where this ridiculous propertarian view of women is simply not taken, let alone taken seriously.
it's not a "propertarian view of women", it's biology. women are born with a number of eggs that get older and lose quality by the day while men produce millions of sperm cells daily. this difference makes women the sexual selectors of the species. which societies are you talking about?
>I think you need to give up.
i won't because you're wrong.
>Then how many women are "keyed alike", fool? Your analogy only works when you believe in predestination and already accept the double standard.
why that question, does it even matter?

I don't know. Men don't dictate the standards that women have for men.
Men just don't like sluts (or, at least, are not keen on taking sluts as longterm partners), and this makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. A slut is more likely to have old lovers who fuck like animals and could easily tempt her into adultery.
If you're a female, your genes are carried on regardless of whether or not your lover cheats on you. This is not the case for men.

You can argue that people shouldn't denigrate you for your life's choices, and I agree with that up to a point, but raging at men preferring virgins is like raging at any other human social behavior.

>>132198843
nice try ctr shill

>>132199022
>If you're a female, your genes are carried on regardless of whether or not your lover cheats on you. This is not the case for men.
this too

>>132189869
fpbp

>>132199022
>denigrate you for your life's choices

Why not - those choices form who you are. Some empathy at times for peoples situation may be required but when it is of their own making?

File: 1457820160605[1].png (40KB, 825x635px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 825x635px

>>132189761

>Don't give me the lock and key bullshit.

>>132198386
>If it were operative here, it would be operative in all cultures and all societies.
conservative institutions that take away women's sexual freedom override our biological imperative to an extent.

File: feminist.jpg (1MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3264px

>>132196325

/pol/ figured this out last year
this has been posted and copypasta'd hundreds of times
no one has bothered to try to attack it because it is undeniably true
a priori true

>>132189761
because loyalty in women is harder to find than men

in the old days a womans husband would go to war
if he died then she could just open her legs and let the invaders knock her up
life goes on for her

a woman gets to live life on easy mode

a man who can rack up high numbers is considered a stud because his genetics are so superior that they appeal to a variety of women

>>132199012
>attraction is purely biological no matter how hard you try to deny it
Attraction doesn't last more than a few months. Within that time, you have to build something else to base a relationship on, and that is purely social.
>it's not a "propertarian view of women",
>locks and keys aren't about protecting property
Sure, kid.
>which societies are you talking about?
Any number of matriarchal societies in Africa, South America, Asia... hell, let's go to western Europe, where monogamy is a don't-ask-don't-tell proposition, at best.
>why that question, does it even matter?
It does, because it discredits the lock and key analogy as poor and devoid of insight.

>>132199266
>conservative institutions that take away women's sexual freedom override our biological imperative to an extent.
Relationships with women are only necessary as a matter of biology?
>wheredoyouthinkyouare.jpg

>>132199399
>a priori true
A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience. That is, you made that shit up and can't prove anything.

>>132199458
>a woman gets to live life on easy mode
>>>/r9k/

File: 1488884236659[1].gif (906KB, 450x360px) Image search: [Google]

906KB, 450x360px

>>132199543

>Ignores all the replies giving substantive responses
>"you made that shit up and can't prove anything"

File: 1370347872130.jpg (54KB, 379x485px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 379x485px

i'll answer it seriously for you:

because it just fucking is.

it's been that way since humans decided to switch from females mating with whichever alpha ape beat the shit out of the betacucks, to choosing their own partner. when it evolved into women actively wanting to seek out their "prime" partner (instead of just females refusing men below them), that's when men started becoming final deciders.

thousands of years of literature and stories have made the ideal woman "pure" and the ideal man "conqueror".

in the last couple hundred years, women have become very active seekers for fuckyfucky, especially the last 50 years with feminism. so when men are at a point in their life when they are able to actively pick and choose someone to build a family with: guess what fucking happens?

sluts get out REEEEE

>>132199721
>the same lock and key analogy taught in abstinence-only high school sex ed
>evo psych just-so stories
>the selfish gene
>hypotheses, opinions, and metaphors taught as if they were essential, immutable fact
>substantive
In other words...

>>132199760
>because it just fucking is.
The usual excuse that authoritarians use when they get called on their own bullshit by someone they think is inferior.

>>132199543
>Attraction doesn't last more than a few months. Within that time, you have to build something else to base a relationship on, and that is purely social.
i agree with you on that but have in mind that there are studies that correlate the number of previous sexual partners of a woman to loyalty and the capability of pair-bonding. sluts are uncapable of being faithful and men know that.
>Sure, kid.
it's a propertarian view of women's OWN sexuality. it's about how much she's worth herself keeping it to score a high-value male or not.
>matriarchal societies
these don't exist
>South America
not even here
>It does, because it discredits the lock and key analogy as poor and devoid of insight.
there's no need for any insight because it's true
>Relationships with women are only necessary as a matter of biology?
of course, women have nothing to offer besides pussy and childbearing and this permeates all heterosexual relationships. sexuality is the base of all relationships and that's why you need attraction first to form a couple with someone of the opposite sex.
>wheredoyouthinkyouare.jpg
/pol/, and you're shilling feminism in the wrong place.
just refer to this post:
>>132196325

>>132199543
>>132199399
>99399
>99543
Shut up nerd.

>>132199559
Its true

Dont need to work as hard, men will provide
Bitch, moan r cry your way out of any problems
All you have to do is stay physically fit and look attractive
You get the safety net of other women backing you up when you get smacked the fuck up, cant cut it in the real world, feel overwhelmed, etc
The low standards of typical guys means even if youre a 5/10 you will be guaranteed some dick
the list goes on

>>132200026
>taught in abstinence-only high school sex ed
doesn't discredit it's truth which was explained for you in various post time and again in this thread.
>The usual excuse that authoritarians use when they get called on their own bullshit by someone they think is inferior.
while you ignore the posters that teach it is purely biological because of the different reproduction costs of men and women.

File: the more you know.jpg (18KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 640x480px

>>132189761
>but promiscuous men not?

Are you talking about man-whores?

Or are you talking about chads?

Or are you talking about players?

Or are you talking about scrubs?

Or are you talking about pick up artists?

Or are you just living in a total fantasy world because that's what is most convenient to your righteous indignation?

>>132199760
that's seiba, I can't be convinced otherwise, that picture portrays the king arthur

>>132200101
>Within that time, you have to build something else to base a relationship on
depends if you're a high-value or low-value male
if you're high-value your own attractiveness is enough to score a high-value female (an attractive virgin) while when you're low-value you need to commit and provide for her.

>>132189761
They're both degenerate.
This causes the spread of deadly diseases and poverty.
This is why you should get to know a person before just fucking. Fuck this dumb ass planet

>>132189869
>>132191672
>>132191659

a key is made for one lock.

a lockpick is a thief that opens many lock to steal what is of value (sex) and never return

>inb4 master key
a master key implies ownership of a lock, its contents it protects, and consistent use.

most of you idiots don't understand promiscuity of men is just as bad as it is for women

men are suppose to raise their children, the ones that aren't invested in offspring are subhuman.

>>132200101
>loyalty
It's begging the question. Sexual experience disinclines one to be content with sexual inexperience and monotony. But why in hell would anyone actually want inexperience and monotony?
>it's about how much she's worth herself keeping it
Your judgment here is that sexual inexperience is valuable. I contend that it is not, and in any case, I value extensive sexual experience.
>there's no need for any insight because it's true
Begging the question.
>>132200101
>women have nothing to offer besides pussy and childbearing
8/10 good shitpost m8

>>132200158
>Dont need to work as hard, men will provide
Suckers. All of you are suckers.

>>132200215
>doesn't discredit it's truth which was explained for you in various post time and again in this thread.
It's social truth, not objective truth. In other, less neurotic societies, and even in enclaves within this one, it doesn't hold true unless everyone's playing the same head game.
>while you ignore the posters that teach it is purely biological
But it isn't, or it would be more widespread than it is. I contend that it is programmed through (((movies and TV))) and other stories. I missed out on a lot of mainstream culture as a teen because I had better things to do with my time. Most of the non-monogamous people I know were the same way, or simply refused to put the bullshit ahead of their own impressions and own experiences.

>>132200697
Yuor sophistry gave me cancer. gb2rebbit

>>132197914
More like when your stomach gets stretched out after you eat a lot of food. Keep filling it with things, and it will get bigger to accommodate more food.

You stupid nigger.

>>132200861
"objective truth"
thats like people who claim shit like street smart > book smart

youre delusional if you think women have it harder than men

>>132200026

>Known biological and sexual differences between women. The risk of pregnancy. Women generally preferring sexual partners with strong emotional connections. Millennia of stories about men having to woo women across all cultures in the world.
>"because it just fucking is."

Yeah, it just fucking is. It just fucking is because every single method we have of collecting and verifying information save a tiny niche of non-rigorous post-modern social-science suggests that it is true. What do you want, a fucking mathematical proof? Did it ever occur to you that you might be wrong, as opposed to the entire rest of the world being wrong?

>>132200861
>But why in hell would anyone actually want inexperience and monotony?
reproductive success, the man knows that the child is his. what you just did is a terrible comparison because commiting to a virgin doesn't mean monotony nor inexperience because experience can be acquired by the couple as they bond and the man teaches the woman how to have pleasurable marital sex.
>Your judgment here is that sexual inexperience is valuable. I contend that it is not, and in any case, I value extensive sexual experience.
in regards to commitment, only women value extensive sexual experience while men find it repulsive because of all the reasons listed in this thread.
>8/10 good shitpost m8
nice argument
>It's social truth, not objective truth.
nope. it's biological truth, thus objective. it's printed in your DNA which traits and behaviors you find sexually attractive or repulsive.
>But it isn't, or it would be more widespread than it is. I contend that it is programmed through (((movies and TV))) and other stories. I missed out on a lot of mainstream culture as a teen because I had better things to do with my time. Most of the non-monogamous people I know were the same way, or simply refused to put the bullshit ahead of their own impressions and own experiences.
no. they are probably liberal millenials that weren't brainwashed by TV but by the internet.

by the content of all your posts you're likely a liberal slut that is nearing the end of the years in which you were once attractive and i won't indulge in this stupid discussion anymore. it was fun but you don't seem to accept very simple concepts about nature. so be it.

>>132200957
>doesn't know about kegel muscles
>>132201219
>"objective truth"
>thats like people who claim shit like street smart > book smart
>youre delusional if you think women have it harder than men
In some ways, they do. They do have their appearance scrutinized to the smallest detail, as evinced by about every second thread on /pol/, and sold an array of (((products))) to supposedly alleviate their induced insecurities. That extends further to the robots picking on how they cross their legs, how they argue, whether and when they stand up for themselves (instead of letting some surely not a white knight anon stick up for them, amirite)... it may not be harder, but it is a lot more complex and a lot more situationally driven.

>>132201277
>What do you want, a fucking mathematical proof?
Where's the controlled experiment? All I see is muh status quo therefore don't change it.
>Did it ever occur to you that you might be wrong
Have you heard of the Asch conformity experiments? Did it ever occur to you that nobody's right, you've all agreed on a completely cretinous standard, and anyone who's not so cucked to it can see right through it?

>>132201510
>what you just did is a terrible comparison because commiting to a virgin doesn't mean monotony nor inexperience because experience can be acquired by the couple as they bond and the man teaches the woman how to have pleasurable marital sex.
Nonsense. He has a fuck puppet for as long as she's willing to put up with it.
>in regards to commitment
Another value-charged word for sexual exclusivity
>men find it repulsive
You're overgeneralizing, and you're also assuming that your norms are worthy of respect without examination.
>nope. it's biological truth, thus objective
No, it's a just-so story that reinforces your prejudices, therefore it's a social truth, therefore subjective.
>it's printed in your DNA
Deranged fantasism.
>which traits and behaviors you find sexually attractive or repulsive.
/b/ proves you wrong.

>>132201510
>by the content of all your posts you're likely a liberal slut that is nearing the end of the years in which you were once attractive and i won't indulge in this stupid discussion anymore. it was fun but you don't seem to accept very simple concepts about nature. so be it.
That's because you're reifying your fantasies and prejudices and calling it nature, and that's just laughable.
t.44-year old male, 30 sexual partners. How about you, robot? Do you come from a place of knowledge or from a place of prideful ignorance?

BECAUSE THE DNA STAYS IN THEM

AND YOUR CHILD IS MADE OF EVERY MAN SHE LET FUCK HER INSIDE AND OUT

YOU"RE PAYING FOR A CHILD THAT IS ONLY 30% YOURS

>>132201824
Nigga plz
Everybody is judged on appearances
First impressions do matter
Men are held to the same standards, if not more
Women are complex because they disregard logic/reason and use emotions to make decisions
They are like children, just more retarded with more disposable income

File: giveafuck.jpg (40KB, 500x491px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x491px

>>132201824

your half-sentences are unintelligible compared to the brazilian's.

i literally don't know what the fuck you're talking about in this post and your last one

"deranged fantasism"

"/b/ proves you wrong"

literally unintelligble

>>132201912
oh no he called him robot on a website where young and lonely disenfranchised men typically congregate

fuck off you larping cunt

>>132201824
>Muh keeguls
Memes won't help you justify slutty actions. When I'm fucking a girl I want it to be naturally tight, I don't want her to have to flex just for it to feel tight at a certain spot.

>>132198620
Wow. This holds up surprisingly well

File: Meeting_2ea313_285717[1].jpg (23KB, 296x319px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 296x319px

>>132201824

>Where's the controlled experiment? All I see is muh status quo therefore don't change it.

You want a fucking controlled experiment, to prove what exactly? That women would end up just as promiscuous as men, if not for some cultural practice? Males wooing females completely transcends the species, much less any particular culture in it.

>Did it ever occur to you that nobody's right

Listen, sunshine, I will simplify this as much as possible for you. You are claiming that something nearly every culture in the world has always done, something that most animal species on the planet do, that modern women continue to do even when freed from the negative consequences of doing that thing, is merely the result of social pressure in a culture that has existed for an infinitesimally small amount of time relative to the behavior you are suggesting is the result of that culture.

So really, it's time to stop. Take your hand off the keyboard now, and realize that you are just not cut out for deep thinking. It's alright, not everybody is. But when you find yourself unironically contesting one of the most deeply rooted and easily verifiable components of animal behavior because a psychologist from the 1950's did a conformity experiment that is completely unrelated to the point you are making, you need to simply accept that you are too edgy to participate in a serious discussion of any topic. Allow other people to make decisions for you, because your reasoning powers are bottom-tier. Failing that, please continue posting here so we can laugh at your "everybody but me is wrong" thesis on reality.

File: looks like i win again smuggie.jpg (50KB, 599x461px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 599x461px

>>132196853

OP rn

>>132189761

lock and key is human biology

woman can only have 1 man's child at a time

/thread

>>132189761

Vaginas are an oven for disease, dumbass.

>>132189761
Because men's dicks don't get less hard the more people you fuck. A woman's vag gets loose, even without having kids, if she's a huge slut.

>>132189761
A womans value comes from her fertility. If she's offering it to others, she becomes less valuable.

File: WomCiv1.jpg (918KB, 2405x917px) Image search: [Google]

918KB, 2405x917px

>>132189761
The real answer that nobody will tell you about virgin women is that men prefer them that way.
Because that explanation is literally good enough.

File: 1498561435912.jpg (753KB, 672x950px) Image search: [Google]

753KB, 672x950px

>>132203292
so, are you putting forth the anthropic argument of why sluts are bad?
i.e. sluts are bad because they are

because I like that, makes sense

>>132201947
Why does /pol/ believe an ancient myth as old as the greeks? Those links that talk of women holding on to DNA of every partner aren't saying they're incorporating that DNA in reproduction, it seems to be more of an auto-immune/acceptance thing.

All of a woman's haploid cells are made at a fetal stage before they are born, only altered by genetic damage through age. The formation of a zygote only occurs when a single sperm meets an egg. The DNA of both parents are incorporated in the zygote.

There is no splicing of genetic material with every male she has had sex with at any stage in reproduction.

>>132189761
Instinct.

Most social mammals form a hierarchy around mating behavior, and males and females have different behaviors which establish their place in the hierarchy. Males tend to be ranked based on the number of females they can mate with, while women are ranked based on the quality of males they mate with.

This means a woman isn't necessarily penalized for sleeping with many men, as long as those men are of consistently high quality.

It isn't fair, but it also can't change. It's hardwired into us. Sorry.

>>132203508
The argument isn't even about why they're bad (they are, but that's a whole other ballgame).
The point is that there is nothing wrong with dismissing them as viable partners, which also has a myriad of justifications and explanations, but all of them play second fiddle to the natural instinct men have that says "ew".

And that's literally all the justification we need. What men want is too important in the context of civilization for us to decide to subvert it.

But I'd go so far as to say it's also degenerate, in that it makes public what should remain intimate - that is to say, private, shared only between the relevant parties. Just like any baser function from eating to using the loo, sex is humanized by the veils of opacity we place over it into something greater and more meaningful than an animal function. For a person other than a woman's husband to have carnal knowledge inherently degrades her because it places the extent of the sex act beyond man and wife, including those extra parties, and cheapening the whole thing, reducing it to its baser state. What sort of refinement is it to know that wandering about in public are other men who have been with your wife and seen her at her most exposed and intimate? Repulsive. It makes a mockery of everything we have ever learned about love.

File: maxresdefault copy.jpg (163KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1280x720px

>>132203546

>>132204181
I'm not defending sluts, but please don't be a retard. Please explain the method in which a woman's body splices the DNA of all her sexual partners?

>>132189761
Females have something called a gestation period. If a female has sex, barring the invention of contraception, she gets pregnant and loses her ability to be a potential mate for a full 9 months. A man meanwhile can impregnate as many women as possible, and a man who succeeds at spreading his seed as much as possible is a genetic success, whereas a woman having tons of sex means she loses her value as a potential mate.

File: Screenshot_104.jpg (55KB, 565x358px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 565x358px

>>132204155
it all sounds great on paper, but in practice it's rubbish. I have a fairly normal reaction to women showing interest. I honestly don't care if she just had a train run on her by The Harlem Globetrotters. What is important is that she is with me, even if for a brief moment. I love women and recognize that times have outgrown what should be our standards. I really don't mind if literal virgins call me a cuck, because I honestly am above them, and insults from below never land. Living in the world means settling, but also it shows you that you might not know what you really want if you're just daydreaming all the time

I'd like a car with no previous owners, that'd be ideal. But I'll take what I can get. I'm pretty tired and getting angry on the internet really gets old

>>132189761
>explain to me what color the sky is
>don't give me that blue bullshit

File: snoopberg.jpg (175KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1280x720px

>>132204350
its called SOUL SPERM
inside the sperm of every man is a piece of their soul didn't you ever go to church? what you want me to prove jesus was real next don't you atheist??
when we have sex a piece of our soul goes into the girl whether we have the baby or not their soul is attached to make a new soul
if none is created she just COLLECTS SPERMSOULS AND THE CHILD COMES OUT A DEMON THATS WHY WE BAPTIZE IT YOU RETARD

>>132190269
good leaf

File: 1437191612894.gif (14KB, 416x416px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 416x416px

>>132189761
>>132190830
I didn't expect my childhood to visit me today

File: 1479704497753.png (464KB, 706x706px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 706x706px

>>132189761
Gotta keep the femalefolk in their place somehow.

>>132189761
>why do apples fall from trees
>don't give me that gravity bullshit

>>132189761
you get a dude's dna sprayed inside you and you absorb it. you're marked for life. same is not true for a male unless it's gay sex and he's bottoming.

>>132189761
women are the elevator and men are the guy who farts on them and then leaves. Minutes later another guy hops on it and thinks "wew it smells like shit in here".

>>132196310
The prejudice is there for obvious biological differences between male and female mating behavior. Its really not hard to see this?

File: image_title_5ja2l.jpg (60KB, 500x627px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x627px

>>132204729
And if that is fine with you then it is fine with you.
But we come here and discuss these things because we know there is an illness in this society and the relations between the sexes are the quintessential canary in the coalmine. Men are checking out and they're checking out because they've seen the disease and want no part.

We talk about these things because we know there is a better way, a time when that ideal was once within reach of everyone.

>muscle head whose genes can be spread numerous times and whose life is dispensable to survival of group

>carrier of offspring whose ability to further genes is extremely slow

guess which of the two develops mating behavior that is selective

File: 1497693103704.jpg (47KB, 719x720px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 719x720px

>>132205264
there's a better way to do just about everything, but did you ever stop to think that you are coming here to weave an unobtainable tapestry? I mean, as artificial as all of these social changes seem, in a way they are very natural, like a crowd of birds instinctively changing direction, and no society will ever come close to the /pol/ ideal. This place is just now realizing it was used to further Israel's agenda by helping elect /theirgoy/. So, I guess it can have an effect, just not the kind you think

it's pretty easy to be a right-wing but puppet nowadays, but difficult to stand up for humanistic ideals

*butt puppet

File: dsafgfd.jpg (30KB, 400x309px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 400x309px

>>132205717
>in a way they are very natural
That is because the aim of each and every one of them has been to reduce human behavior and relations to their most animalistic, lowest common denominator. Traditionalism is the No-Broken-Windows Policy of the soul.

>no society will ever come close to the /pol/ ideal
Every society on Earth that has made it past mud huts has done so as a matter of necessity, or did you mean that they'll never come close ever again?

File: ace3.jpg (57KB, 450x342px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 450x342px

>>132206007
I'm saying you're looking at the end-result and romanticizing the process. But, Obama was right, we didn't build this. We get to sit in relative comfort, the result of years of human agony, and say who is bad and why. What made us arbiters of western society? I don't want to hand the country over to third-worlders, but we stand a better chance if we take people as they are. Women are fucked up, people are gay, shit happens. We had order and monogamy, and it devolved into this. What is to say it won't just happen again? I don't think far-left or right is the answer. This is bigger than coke or pepsi.

I think, even now, we are being manipulated, both sides

>>132205717
>unobtainable

I knew someone just like you. Even if it was unobtainable, I'll die fighting for it. I don't care who I've got to throw hands with, faggot.

You're settling for the direction of the birds instead of trying, even if in vain, to steer it in a better direction is because you lack the conviction. You're fucking weak. I don't care if I've got to punch God himself in the mouth if that's what has to go down. Letting the world win, letting thy will be done, letting anything you disagree with go down without giving your 110% is just pathetic.

File: granny.jpg (56KB, 654x710px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 654x710px

>>132206575
you see, I don't think you will fight for it. I think you'll pour all of your gas into your words, but at the end of the day you will heal like most in the west. In the meantime, you'll turn yourself inside out fighting someone else's war until you look back and realize you missed life

I don't know you, and certainly hope not to provoke, but odds are you were once more docile and understanding. It is only people like this who can be bent so far

>>132206851
>heal like most

don't look down on me like I am as weak as you. I'd rather turn us all to ash than give in. You know why? Because when you fight, even in vain, you're not missing anything. To live to less than what you're capable of isn't living at all. And even if I was "missing life" what the fuck do I care? I don't give a shit about happiness. Not my own and not yours. I care about fixing things that need fixing or die trying. Life is a meme anyways. Nothing really matters, unless you say it does. So don't act condescending and ooze that ostensibly pity. I don't need your fucking sympathy just like I don't need your approval or respect. Get up and fight for your ideals or get crushed under the warpath of men who will. I don't care either way. But fuck you, and fuck your roll over and die attitude.

>>132189761
Because sex is for making babies. For a man to be able to impregnate many women means he has been selected by nature. A woman can only get pregnant once for a goven length of time. So getting fucked by more than one man is pointless and only serves to increase her risk of contracting a disease and putting the offspring's health at risk. Hoes are just bad mothers and that is the most unattractive thing a woman can be.

>>132207788
The answer to all sex questions in the modern age is this golden rule we have long since forgotten:

S
E
X

I
S

F
O
R

M
A
K
I
N
G

B
A
B
I
E
S

File: edgy.jpg (82KB, 731x608px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 731x608px

>>132207554
>rollover attitude
I bet you've accepted many warrantless inquiries by authority figures in your life. Where was your zeal then? You are soft. Your words betray you. Dangerous men don't speak with such fire because they have little and less to prove, most especially to faggots like myself

your "warpath" is of no concern to them

>>132207995
>implying that it is not to go against the grain of modernity to align oneself with nature
>implying sucking dicks is brave

>>132189761

Because women attribute worth to a man who has a large pool of fuckbuddies to draw from whereas a man does not attribute the same.

>>132189761
>ask question
>BUT DON'T GIVE ME THE ANSWER !

but anon that's literally it, man fuck and dump, woman fuck and 'fall in love' (provided that the one she's cheating with have money, prestige or whatever she wants) even though she said that she loves you an hour ago before you left for work

So that's it, you stick a key in a wet lock, put it out, wipe it and it's good as new. Woman let someone different in and lock's fucked.

>>132207995
The difference between you and I is that I concede those warrantless inquiries as a tactical retreat. It's a give and take so that one day I can step over them. You're completely different. You accept another mans will to power because you can't fathom alienating yourself from the world around you. It's much easier for me. I should already be dead. The only girl I ever loved died a long time ago, and I would have already pulled the trigger on myself had her dying wish not been for me to keep living. That stupid, selfish request I chose to honor. But I'm a man living on borrowed time. I've already got one foot in the grave as it were. I figured at least I could make use of the time and live for a cause. And what a time we live in for a man like that. The illness of modern society coupled with the knowledge that I'll never get to have that happy future with her makes it easy to let myself calcify in disdain. And I did. I'm not being edgy here, I genuinely have become consumed by hatred. I hate so much inside my heart is black and I'm sure if there is a hell, my general hate alone, never mind the pride of my personal philosophy, will send me there.

Keep sucking your dicks faggot, while you have the chance. This whole world is going to come crashing down sooner than you think. Not necessarily by my hand, but by the millions of people just like me you think will "heal". Don't think that everyone is as nice and good on the inside as you are. Some men recognize that negativity gets things done.

>>132208681
are you sick?

>>132190269
Wow actually a sensible post by a leaf

>>132209070

The fuck does that mean.

>>132209181
you said you have one foot in the grave, you are either so fed up that you no longer feel an attachment to life, or you are physically unwell

both serve to cleave people from the mass

>>132189869
Fpbp

>>132199559
he's right you know. Women in western countries anyhow.

>>132209310
of course I don't feel attachment. sometimes I'll remark that something is quite beautiful or friend cracks a joke that makes me chuckle, but there is never a moment where I take a step back and feel content or feel that I'm glad to be here. Waking up ever morning isn't just a chore, it's painful.

But I have to keep going. I made a promise. At least that's what I tell myself. In reality, it's just my programming. Existence is a curse men oft feel compelled to keep.

Before you even say it, I don't want to get help. These shitty feelings, this anger and depression, it's what a man in my position ought to feel. I won't give those rightful feelings up just because they bring me unhappiness.

File: moogs.gif (1MB, 280x210px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 280x210px

>>132209842
this isn't an intervention, man

I ask because I am sick. No sympathy required, not cancer (yet) but I'd be surprised to see forty at the rate my systems have gone. Anyway, it made the fight seem stupid. I retained the bits of it that were true i.e. niggers are violent and kikes are manipulative, but I give everyone else a pass, most especially the women. It's really not their fault, they're too stupid. They have amazing qualities that no man could ever possess, but they fall flat on the civics portion

and I see this place for what it is, on the surface it's the polar opposite of most entertainment media, but float around long enough and you realize it's an expanded comments section on ideas that were generated by the same people who produce all of the ideas. There's almost never an original thought. That made me realize that there is a lot to gain politically by driving our young men to violence. It kills any movement that might erupt in the cradle

so I'm not going to give in to fit someone's definition. Embracing this shithole of a society, warts and all, has become an act of defiance. It's the last place they'd expect us to hide; amongst everyone else. There is nothing gained by overtly stating one's opinion ad naseum

>>132189761
1 post by this ID 100+ replies

>>132189761
>Don't give me the lock and key bullshit.

It is not bullshit but factual, must be a woman to say that

>>132211079
slide threads are best threads!

>>132189927

>meaningless buzzwords

>>132210584
(Same anon on phone)

I don't know anything about anyone using /pol/ to push an agenda, and I don't care. I'll just do what I believe regardless of what anyone else thinks. It's why I can't understand you? Your act of defiance is to accept the malfeasance that drove you to the edge in the first place? What does that prove?

Maybe I've got no room to talk. I guess you could easily make the argument that in around about way I'm no different than you. I could have tried to move on, I could have tried to be happy. But that felt like a cop out. Instead I chose to wallow in despair, to cut off my nose to spite my face, because it was better to bleed out than admit I wanted to be happy, that I wanted what the world denied me. But what does it prove really? I guess in the end we're both sick with the same disease.

>>132200697
Men choose their wives, not the reverse

t. roastie

>>132189761
In traditional western society, promiscuous men were also considered disreputable and unvirtuous.
Feminist fantasyes then brought the worse out of men and women.
You pick-up what you sow.

>>132189761
Indulging in self pleasure too much and too frequently is not a good thing by any means. It's harder for your average guy to get laid and he has jump through several hoops to reach said point so it becomes a much better achievment. Your average woman can fuck whenever she wants without effort. Even the man going and fucking whenever he can is not a good thing, but for a woman it is even worse because of my above point

File: kpop-twice-signal-comeback-stage-showcase-2.5.jpg (221KB, 1280x852px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1280x852px

>>132189761

A key that can open many locks is called a master key, but a lock that can be opened by many keys is a shitty lock.

File: Screenshot_45.jpg (18KB, 291x324px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 291x324px

>>132211405
>What does that prove?
I honestly have no idea. Maybe it's absurdism, maybe horseshoe theory, all I know is it feels like that opposite of what powers beyond my control want me to do

probly just snapped, but in a fun way!

>>132190269
The influx of rapefugees must be influencing the remaining truleafs

>>132211887
>>132212032
>being sodomites
Hell is for ever!

>>132197034
Look me im cringy. I'm soo cringy.

>>132212134
>not enjoying a traditional Roman pastime
>not acknowledging bisexual master race
wew, lad

File: feminist.jpg (187KB, 930x1136px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 930x1136px

>>132189761
Aaaaah, so THAT's the final evolution.

>>132212134
does that mean take it in the ass? because that's fucking unnatural and wrong

>>132189761
>Why are promiscuous women labeled used goods but promiscuous men not?
Exactly, men should be held to high standards.

One reason for the apparant double-standard is because women absorb DNA through sperm and gradually become more masculine as they take more loads. Bits and pieces of the genes of all the men she's been with will end up in her offspring so roastie-fuckers get cucked even if the whore miraculously decides to stay faithful.

The other reason is because promiscuous women usually have some dude's jizz in her mouth or pussy. No guy wants to deal with the thought of kissing his girl and getting a salty mouthful of some nigger's spunk.

>>132213045
Women aren't flies anon. You're an idiot.

File: IMG_0038.png (391KB, 2278x968px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 2278x968px

>>132213281
>roastie-fucker detected
You're in denial

File: sloth11.jpg (9KB, 176x169px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 176x169px

>>132189927
Hahaha faggot

Because all women can sleep with as many men as they want if they wish to do so.

Men on the other hand don't have this luxury, so men who are able to pull a lot of women have a skill that is respected.

Human females can only conceive once every 9 months. Human males can impregnate round the clock. Promiscuous females are labeled used goods because they ignore their biological function whereas promiscuous males are performing their biological function which is to have as many offspring as possible.