Yes, Muslims and their burqa ways are barbaric and backwards,

And keeping kosher developed as a way to be healthy when you lived in a bronze age desert civilization. It made perfect sense.

It doesn't mean you John Doe from Idaho should not be allowed to eat shellfish.

>>39229510
what does sex have to do with women? everyone knows muslim boys are for pleasure

>>39229510
mudslimes developed their traditions to keep women in line. typical liberal moron

File: 1503219141627.jpg (101KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1440x1080px

>>39229510
You're not wrong.

Yoga pants are comically oversexualized. They're vaccuum-sealed cling film that clings onto every contour on your body.

They're distracting, inappropriate for any kind of professional setting and I imagine they make anyone over the age of 35 uncomfortable.

It's gross and stupid and such a deliberate representation of females' desire to flaunt themselves around in public it's hilarious. The only reason people don't object to it because they're red-blooded and want to get their dick wet.

I have zero issue with women wearing yoga pants. My problem with them comes when women wear them and act offended when men oggle at them.

>>39229510

It's a tug of war to be sure. Patriarchal societies like traditional Islamic ones tend to be ones where women's sexuality is kept contained and considered unclean, dangerous and/or taboo; in the extremes resulting in things like full-body covering, an inability to leave the house without escort, and no self-determination. Men in these societies have everything catered to their sexual desires; the men are freed from their powerful sex drives by having as few temptations as possible, and the society is structured such that they can get women under their complete control easily, relieving anxiety about finding and keeping a mate. At, of course, almost total cost to the freedom/happiness of the female half; they get little, and only where men don't really care to limit it.

There's not much in the way of matriarchal human societies to look back on, but assuming the West is moving in that direction at all, we can see that as women become more free, they flaunt their sexuality more. This could just be an expression of power; simply enjoying the freedom to do it; or it could be more cynical in knowing that sex is power and it can be wielded. Or both honestly. We can look at bonobo societies for an idea of what a completely matriarchal society would look like, as they are our closest cousins; bonobos are matriarchal, have no sexual taboos and fuck all the time. I don't know about anyone else, and it's just anecdotal, but 100% of the avowed "polyamorous" and other multi-partner, free-love type people I've met in my life have been women, and I really think that only women are actually interested in this lifestyle; men, no matter how alpha, are too insecure to just throw away the safety that dedicated relationships offer. The most you'll do is have a main girl and then a secret side girl; you still want that matrimonial setup at center.

As for how things "should" be I don't know. This has been Anon's armchair evopsych rant, thanks for reading.

>>39229720
t. anon who's never had to try to concentrate at a white collar job with yoga pant whores

>>39229734
>thanks for reading.
thanks for writing. write more if you please, i'll tip you another (You)

>>39229734
I think theres always a happy medium.

We don't need to go full Islamic and make women wear trashbags, but at the same time acting like bonobos and removing all sexual taboos would cause a lot of problems as well, including rampant STD transmission and unknown parentage of children.

>>39229740
I have. I'm just not a thirsty beta with no willpower.

>>39229794
>willpower
OK that's good for you, really. But most people don't have very much of it, and we need to save as much of it as we can for our jobs.

>>39229734

On the other hand, there are plenty of women who crave the security of a relationship as well as men who love being single and fucking everything that moves.

I think it's better if people have the freedom to choose how they want to live their lives.

>>39229810
just because you're a weak little man doesn't mean you can speak for everyone else.

>>39229826
>I think it's better if people have the freedom to choose how they want to live their lives.

Couldn't agree more. And the fact is, dressing like a whore infringes on the rights of those who want to confirm to conservative sexual norms.

>>39229810

Are you really so understimulated that you can't appreciate the sight of a nice body and go about your day without being so overwhelmed that you can't concentrate on anything else?

It sounds like you need a more demanding job. Or just jack off more.

>>39229510
>Woman has her period, woman is sent to the woods so bears don't come
>Tradition persisted to this day, must mean it is still working
See the problem here?

>Why do women even wear yoga pants
To show off their ass while pretending to have any shreds of modesty left?

>One of the strictest religious area, can't control themselves unless women walk around wearing trashbags with eye holes
Ayy mister sandy man, how does one remain so pious in face of temptations, oh total lack of self control and wrapping women in trashbags? that's cool idea i suppose, kind of gives bad image of you doesn't it?

>>39229854

About as much as eating meat infinges on the rights of vegans. The world is overpopulated with faggots who spend too much time worrying about what other people are doing.

>>39229510
Real world problems such as "men who can't control their dick"?
Being weak willed isn't a problem that's caused by women

>>39229752

well okay

I'm not sure I have anything more interesting to say about it though.

>>39229778
>unknown parentage of children.

This theoretically isn't a problem, you just have to change the support system for mothers. It'd actually look a lot like social security/welfare I think, just with less demand that mothers work while they're mothering.

Mothers always know which child is their child, barring bizarre hospital mixups, but obviously the same is not true of men. However, that only matters if as a man you want to allocate your resources to your children and not anyone else's. If it entered into the common consciousness that, effectively, no children are yours/all children are yours, you might have clouds of men who have only passing personal involvement with any children and just get taxed to support them. Women would raise children on their own recognizance and men would only interact with them when they started entering the adult world. Meanwhile, men would feel free to have sex with as many women as they could/wanted to while focusing on their work.

I think the long-term viability of this is questionable though. Why work so hard if you don't need to impress women for more than a couple months at a time? Wouldn't you resent giving money to women/kids that you have no investment in, especially if you're a man who gets laid rarely/not at all?

And clearly this is not what most men really want. The prospects of this level of brutal competition for women's affections should be terrifying to 90%+ of men, if we're realistic about our appeal to women. Are you a bad enough dude to be the heaviest cock in the no-slut-shaming cockstorm? Probably not, right?

But it could work. Don't know.

>>39229826

We all have skin in this game though, because social happiness can't be had on your own, and we all need it. The other path is misery and suicide.

>>39229901
A childish hypothesis.

>>39230030

Pretty sure monogamy is more for the sake of the kids. Fathers play an important role in a child's development.

>>39230088

Clearly not childish enough to refute with an argument.

>>39230030
There are a couple problems with this.

1. Most guys do not want to support a child that is not theirs. Especially since the 80/20 rule is in effect. Contrarily, while there are a lot of deadbeats out there for sure, most guys do want to be able to raise their own kids.

2. We've seen time and time again that children develop best when they have a strong male role model in their lives. The amount of burnout stories you hear about kids raised by single moms is staggering.

3. The aforementioned 80/20 rule, you can't have the majority of society providing for the children of the few that get to mate.

4. It would cause overall massive social upheaval.

Honestly those were just the first two points that came to mind, but I just think there are a bunch of reasons removing taboos about sex would cause massive problems in society.

Sex is a very, very powerful thing. Every culture has developed their own ways to handle it in response to this. That's the reason you don't see any societies with some bonobo free love no ramifications cultural view of sex, its just not realistic, it would never happen. You'd never create a society where everyone is just fucking everyone and everyone is happy about it.

>>39230109
>>39230335

Well, I'm also imagining that mothers wouldn't parent alone because they wouldn't be encouraged to maintain nuclear families sans Dad like they are now; instead they'd live in commune-like setups with many mothers per household. One mom can keep an eye on lots of kids, and you could have grandma/aunt characters residing at these places as well, distributing the burden across even more people. Pretty easy to define these along extended familial lines, and as more straightforward transactional/bloodline relationships they might be more resilient than modern marriages. Theoretically you could even have men reside on the outskirts of these facilities and provide fathering as needed; maybe not much early on, but as kids grow older and want to experience more of the adult world they would find men more interesting and seek them out.

Heck, this might be a good idea without any effort to upend the current social order. Single mom alliance homes seem like a great idea at least. I'm convinced that most of the problem with single moms is just burnout, so getting them in environments which alleviate that would solve many issues.

>>39230526
I'm convinced you're just a retarded cuck at this point.

>>39230526
So your master plan is that the 80% of men who aren't getting laid are going to keep slaving away for Mr. Shekelstein to keep the economy going.... just 'cuz?

>>39229510
While I agree that women should cover up more, it's not to the degree of wearing a black bag all over her body in 45 degree weather.

File: 1502333621538.gif (108KB, 500x407px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 500x407px

>>39229510
Yoga pants are the closest I've been to seeing a real life girl's ass. I'm not complaining, why are you?

>>39230727
Agreed, before we had the pendulum too far the other way, but it has swung to the other extreme

>>39230787
Because it's incredibly powerful and arousing (this is why women do it btw). That makes it difficult to do normal stuff like concentrate on your work at the office, but also makes it hard to just go out on a date with your girlfriend and relax

>>39229510
White sharia now!
thanks