Why are you guys so upset by the sexual liberation of women?

>>39437863
Because it's turned them into walking cock sleeves being a worn out stinky twatted whore with 5 kids with no fathers is acceptable and encouraged by both sexes.
While being a single male waiting for a wholesome wife is a disgusting prospect usually entailing childish remarks about their virginity again by both sexes.

>>39437863
>creepy and very insecure dudes who were traumatized or socialized poorly early on and can't function in normal relationships as adults

>actual psychos who want to control and manipulate women because they hate them

Why are men expected to accept these women once they've stopped slutting around and now want a "good guy" to settle down with?

>>39437924
The thing is, some women buy into the sexual liberation thing, others don't. There have always been sluts and always will be. The only difference between today and decades past is that it's socially acceptable to be a slut. Chad understands how great this is. He can spend a few years fucking shameless whores who think they're cool for being used as an object in a train and then he can go find a girl who has no interest in that lifestyle.

A woman who is an unapologetic slut and doesn't care who knows it is a blessing. She's a sex toy and everyone knows it but her and she's free for anyone to use.

>>39437863

I don't really care. Women can be as promiscuous as they want. Just don't shit on me for enjoying porn.

>>39438012
None of that makes it any less disgusting.

>>39437924
>Because it's turned them into walking cock sleeves being a worn out stinky twatted whore with 5 kids with no fathers is acceptable and encouraged by both sexes.

This is more a problem of people being uneducated and stupid than sexual liberation. People who engage in safe sex and use birth control easily avoid these issues. Also the only people who encourage that kind of behavior are either criminals or people who don't know better.

>being a single male waiting for a wholesome wife is a disgusting prospect usually entailing childish remarks about their virginity again by both sexes

Then why wait? Or if it means that much to you, why not just ignore the childish remarks and live your life unaffected.

>>39438067
Because i want a family not a walking cock sleeve who smells worse then a sewer.

>>39437994
>Why are men expected to accept these women once they've stopped slutting around and now want a "good guy" to settle down with?

They aren't. The only people who expect this are bitter cat ladies whom everybody laughs at or pities behind their backs.

File: 1503682005461.jpg (67KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 850x400px

>he doesn't realize that the jews are using sexual liberation as a means of promoting degeneracy in the west to bring down our society

>>39438296
>da joos

the go to scapegoat when someone has no argument

>>39438296
>This quote from an illiterate medieval conqueor proves my point.
muh ancient wisdom amirite?

>>39438102
But I've had the internet shit on me before for it. Other guys too. /pol/ did it. So did reddit.
I've been shit on by entire online communities and banned from places because I said I don't want to end up with a slut, anon.

>>39438382
>the internet
>/pol/
>reddit
>online communities

you're not supposed to take the judgement of these places seriously. they are full of fucked up people

>>39437863

Truthfully I'm all for supporting it. But then I'm also for the sexual liberation of men and allowing prostitutes and sex robots to be a thing. But then they scream about it.

>>39437863
women are hypergamous.
80% of the men dont even register a blip on women's radar. they are seen as merely just "walking flesh bags". in a free for all system, women are of course gonna go for the top 20% and ignore the rest when they are young. when they finally lose the attraction, they will start looking at the 2nd, and even 3rd choice men for comfort and stability knowing that:
a. the top 20% wont commit
b. years of dry spell for the lower rung guys will make them so thirsty that they will be dumb enough to sacrifice everything they have saved up just to have a woman
in a society where women's sexuality is liberated, harem scenarios will pop up left and right. it's simple math really, how many 6 ft tall men are in the gene pool? how many of those 6 ft tall men have a career? how many of those 6ft tall career men is available. and when you start narrowing it down, it becomes the reality that only a handful of top men fit women's bill. while you can say "well, not every one of y'all girls are gonna get that guy", but look where the trend is headed for women:
a. more and more women are graduating from college, there are more women now with a college degree than men
b. more and more women now are holding those degrees to get high paying jobs and have a high income. they dont even need to look to man for money, of course they are gonna look to men for physical attraction as the prime factor
c. they have no reason to settle for even stable joe, if anything women would rather become lesbians than to settle for a man they do not respect and have no attraction for

cont.

>>39439159
and that's what you are seeing now today. when stable joe realizes "well, no matter how hard i try i cant even get a plain jane to depend on me because plain jane is now doing much better than i do, why the fuck should i work hard? there are no incentives for me to be productive". what do they then do? check out of society. and when a lot of men have nothing better to do and are not motivated to be creative, they become destructive.
that's the thing, the male mind is split between protector/destroyer. if a man isnt looking at himself as builder and protector of society, then he will inevitably look at himself as the destroyer of society. our ancestors know this full well and that's why for the sake of building a stable society and improving productivity, marriage was established between a man and a woman. women's sexuality was regulated and sluts were shamed. they tried to give men the incentive to work hard so he can have a family, a wife, and a kid. all those incentives went out of the window when women's sexuality was liberated.
it's a trade-off. and thanks to technology today with automation and computers, physical labor is no longer dependent on men. so things are still hanging together by a thin thread. but watch what happens if tomorrow we got nuked or an EMP goes off, watch how fast shits will revert back to the "right ways". watch what happens when those forgotten men no longer have access to video games and porn as a distraction. i'll give you a hint:
violence

>>39438012
lolno

Yes, sluts existed in the past, but it was only trashy girls with serious mental issues. Now you have innocent qts who are mentally healthy and everything who are total sluts as well,

That is because its socially acceptable. The shame prevented mentally adjusted girls from being sluts in the past. There are more sluts now than in the past

>>39437924
fpbp
>>39438012
Listen, lolbertarian faggot, the fact that sluts run around unchecked and Chads clean up on them means that it is virtually impossible for men or women to trust one another. That is, a virgin woman could not possibly trust a random guy in a relationship, because, as many have pointed out, he's probably just aiming to fuck her and leave. Similarly, men can't be bothered to take women at their word when 95% of them are not virgins at marriage, so we give up looking.

You don't HAVE to be a degenerate, but with degeneracy unchecked, your only real alternative is to withdraw completely.

>>39438352
>illiterate
no

And he kicked way more ass than your nu male ass ever could.

File: IMG_6900.jpg (119KB, 800x623px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 800x623px

>>39437863
>>39437924
See, I don't even mind. In fact, I'd prefer it this way (aside from the STDs). The only thing that sucks is how much I suck at convincing them to sit on my wiener instead of other guys'.

Actually, scratch that. It wouldn't matter because the shittiest part about society right now is that prostitution is illegal.

In fact, maybe if guys could just pay for sex legally, women would start bringing more to the table, which could satisfy you guys that are pissed about it.

>>39438067
>This is more a problem of people being uneducated and stupid than sexual liberation. People who engage in safe sex and use birth control easily avoid these issues. Also the only people who encourage that kind of behavior are either criminals or people who don't know better.
There are STILL people who believe this.
Extramarital sex will ALWAYS destroy societies by destroying women's minds.

>>39438343
>>39438352
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin#Biological_function
Eat shit, leftist cunts. Oxytocin regulates in-group preference and pair bonding. Guess what happens to women's oxytocin receptors after repeated sexual encounters? They get fucked up, meaning she not only destroys herself as an individual, but becomes a threat to society.

>>39437863
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHaVmFKnK7w
That's why

>>39439159
>80% of the men dont even register a blip on women's radar

This is utterly false. You wanna know how I know? Because I guarantee you this is biased based on the fact that you only know that men are interested in about 90% of women to some extent.

Women are pretty much the exact same way. You don't exactly go hitting on every woman you see, do you? Neither do women.

I know, "normie REEEEEEEEEEEEE" incoming, but I've talked to girls/women, and they're as dirty if not more dirty than men, and are interested in just the same amount of men that we are women.

>>39437863
>liberation
all they do is roam around fucking any nigger and chad they can find, nothing liberating about it at all. Then they wonder where all the "real men" have gone because no one is willing to take that cum dumpster. I know this thread is b8 but whatever.

>>39439297
Liberals are pro-slut but anti-prostitution.

Tell me why I should be pro-slut in this case?

>>39439312
>I know, "normie REEEEEEEEEEEEE" incoming, but I've talked to girls/women, and they're as dirty if not more dirty than men, and are interested in just the same amount of men that we are women.
They are interested in attractive men, not the 80% uggos.

Yes, women are giant sluts, but not for ugly guys like us

File: 1504136493572.jpg (262KB, 960x1051px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 960x1051px

>>39439310
>They get fucked up, meaning she not only destroys herself as an individual
So what? Some dumb cunt wants to ruin her personal life then let her.

>becomes a threat to society
>implying societal collapse is coming because sluts exist

I have nothing against legit sluts, if that's your thing then go out and get fucked as often as possible and enjoy your life. Its just when they turn a certain age and try to flip the switch and be normal, get a regular guy and act like the past is that past that makes me angry. If you're a slut, be a slut for life. Don't switch it up at 27 and act like you have morals all of the sudden because you crave a long term relationship/husband now and want a baby.

>>39439369
>us
You got a turd in your pocket or what?

Anyway, you couldn't be more wrong. Women aren't interested in uninteresting available guys. So be interesting and unavailable.

>>39439312
it was pretty obvious to me how women do not have a realistic standard of what an average man looks like waaaay back on reddit when someone asked women to post pictures of what they think an average dude look like. all the pictures came pouring in and even the "least average" man looked like a fit gym bro who's on the leaner side.
women look at the top men and think that average men are getting the same action when it's completely untrue. some firmly believe that an average joe can have 2 new partners every month. i am friends with many chads and average joe, the "2 a month" statistic were only confirmed by chads (obviously they gave a higher count than 2), while average joe is lucky get something once in a while.
im not arguing that women dont have a diverse taste in men. some women like black guys, some women like asian guys. but they only like the top 20% of those guys.

>>39437863

Because it's lead to the dumbest, shallowest, cruelest human beings getting too much power and resources?

It's not just about sex, it's how women exploit sex for control over men.

>>39439469

Women hate boring guys like myself. Stability, mini vans, holding down a job, having kids and taking care of them all make young girls pussy dry. I guess I understand the lack of excitement, but a guy like me can never be "interesting".

I guess in womens eyes it pays to be a piece of shit...

>>39439391
I would be fine with shooting roasties. I am saying that the action itself is irrational from an individual perspective, and needs to be put down because of the damage such idiots can inflict. Women become more accepting of out-group members and less able to form stable relationships with each sexual partner. And that kind of dysfunction certainly destabilizes a society.
But hey, at least you got your weed, right? Fuck off. I hate you lolbergs more than anything else. That smug self-righteousness while the world burns around you, and you wag your finger at the ones trying to put out the fire.
At least our ancaps have no illusions of the situation.

>>39439522
I mean, believe what you want, but I was fat and this hot high school chick was into me. Granted, after I was an orbiter. What I did was break orbit and become unavailable. I let her know that I didn't want anything to do with her, and suddenly she wanted to suck my cock.

Granted, I'm not fat now, and I'm not half bad looking, but it wasn't a matter of attractiveness.

Maybe it's because I'm not looking to get laid, I'm looking for a relationship.

>>39439468
I tried to explain this to >>39438505
They have a point about the internet being full of fucked up people, but they underestimate the pressure men face to validate women.
Feminism has made it so men are socially expected to be with sluts after they've had their fun. That's not right, man.

>>39437863
Because I was used up and abused as a "practice bf" by sluts and whores throughout my teens. I gave up my virginity to a filthy roastie who went on to fuck my best friend behind my back. Fuck this sexual liberation bullshit

>>39439586
i can respect your look on seeking relationship above seeking sex. but im sure you do realize that for a lot of men, it's pointless to be friends with women. they already have their guy friends who they can talk all kinds of things from pussy grabbing to nietzsche.
and i think it's great that folks like you seek relationship and place importance on relationship because that's ultimately what's gonna hold people together, not sex. but in today's culture, im pretty confident that there are less number of women worthy of having a healthy relationship with than in the past. it's a race to the bottom, for both genders, and it's the direct result of women having their sexuality liberated. if the left can blame the right for trickled down economics being bullshit, then the right can blame the left for sexual liberation being the trickled down sexonomic that doesn't work at all. not only it didnt make everyone happier, it made only a handful of people happy and many more people miserable and feeling unfulfilled.

File: IMG_6861.jpg (86KB, 916x920px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 916x920px

>>39439330
That's because they're retarded. I'm indifferent to sluts.

I just want prostitution to be legalized so the services they provide to society could be of value to me.

>>39439748
>it's pointless to be friends with women
There's your problem. You don't view women as being human, firstly.

>they already have their guy friends who they can talk all kinds of things from pussy grabbing to nietzsche.
AND I'M ONE OF THEM. Although I'm Christian, so it's a little less graphic than that, but not by much.

>and i think it's great that folks like you seek relationship and place importance on relationship because that's ultimately what's gonna hold people together, not sex. but in today's culture, im pretty confident that there are less number of women worthy of having a healthy relationship with than in the past.
Yeah, and I don't waste my time on them. They can fuck off, and when they're 30, they'll be an example to younger women of what not to do.

>it's a race to the bottom, for both genders, and it's the direct result of women having their sexuality liberated
No, it's a result of EVERYONE being able to be open about being disgusting and it being fine.

>>39439159
> they dont even need to look to man for money

Yea but they still do. No woman wants a guy who makes less money than them, a bitch making $200k / year now demands a guy making $500k / year. They just keep upping the standards to fit in with their lizard brain narrative. Men give up, women whine. Cycle repeats.

Aside from all the downsides like long term unfulfilmemt, it's just disgusting. The concept of having sex with someone I haven't dated for a least some years just makes me want to puke. And to know she's done that stuff with others, forget it. Being with one of these girls sounds like literal hell

File: IMG_6902.jpg (57KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 700x525px

>>39439330
>>39439760
Perhaps they'd make enough money to pay for their dumbass kids so they didn't have to leech of taxpayer money.

They'd probably spend most of it on shoes, but if that's the case then we should just let them starve.

>>39437863
I don't even care, it's just something I don't have access to

>>39439818
nice try there, not seeing a point to befriend with someone does not automatically make me think less of them. i dont have a burning urge to befriend with someone who lives in France, doesn't mean i think they are subhuman. also why should a man go out of his way to be friends with a woman? why dont they go out of their way to be friends with men? this is a two way street. so according to your logic, what about women who think just the same about not having guys as friends? does that mean they dont see men as human? slow down there white knight.
this isnt a chicken and egg problem where we cant figure out what caused what. you and i both know if women don't spread their legs, men dont get sex. and women are the gatekeeper of sex.

>>39439941
>also why should a man go out of his way to be friends with a woman?
Because that gives you an in. Do that hundreds of times over and you'll eventually find a proper mate.

Also, why would you deny yourself friendship with someone because of their gender? Makes no sense.

You just don't get it mang.

>>39437863
>years and years of culture have take us to a point where acting like monkeys is socially acceptable
I don't really care if there are whores, they have always been there, but encouraging a life of fucking without restrictions and then "settle up" with an idiot who doesn't care his woman is a semen bag is disgusting

>>39440002
you are acting like not going out of one's way of making women friends means complete dismissal of women and absolutely no interaction. but tell me, besides getting girls that a woman friend can do for you that a guy friend cannot do? in fact, the same can be said about having guy friends as your wingman.
obviously people like you who seek relationship wouldnt understand how sexual tension can sometimes destroy friendships. men and women know this and therefore many people chose to not have much friends of the opposite sex, or if they do, it will have to be on the premise that it's platonic. look how many complicated problems sprung out of friends with benefit?

>>39440002
also many men are looking at the Return On Investment of trying your said method and have decided that it's just not worth the trouble. people have other various interests and aspirations to pursue as opposed what you have prescribed which is manipulative at worst, and normie at best. here's your long awaited REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

File: 16123471_1207829829324235_1666239898287341568_n.jpg (181KB, 1080x1122px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1080x1122px

My country is so cucked we allow our women to dress like this every weekend.

On the bright side it gives me plenty of fap material so at least theres that

>>39437863

She wants Brad but Brad said no you whore.


Women are just fucking awful stupid evil ugly fat gaining fucking nimrod dicksucking monkey fucking shitbags that eat dicks and watch son porn.

>>39439219
>>39439159
This guy gets it aside from 20/80 being a meme

>>39440002
>Because that gives you an in. Do that hundreds of times over and you'll eventually find a proper mate.

But I've seen that strategy being called out as wrong in the last 5 years, and said it's the tactics of the "nice guy." Trying to be friends with a girl in the hopes you can one day become her boyfriend/lover is what you're not supposed to do. You are supposed to make your intentions clear form the start, instead of lying to them.

So if I'm attracted to a woman, I'm not supposed to try and be her friend in the hopes we can take things further down the line. Men should only be friends with women they aren't attracted to, and who they share common interests.

>>39437980
Maybe, but there's legitimate arguments for being tradcon.

>>39437980
>double projection
Awesome job, sport.

>>39440772
Except that isn't true at all. I've seen girls date their friends all the time

>>39439312
I think women themselves report that they are repulsed by most men. And studies on Tinder, etc indicate that there is a sort of 20/80 dynamic.

>>39440896
>Except
Exceptions always exist. Or in this case, minority.
>>39440902
Tinder doesn't count bro! Those women don't want love.

>>39440902
>are repulsed by most men

I wonder how it came to this. Sure they are naturally more attracted to alphas but the thousands of years where average women partnered with average men should have created some realistic expectations.
Is it just the mainstream media always featuring handsome guys that has skewed their perspective or did caveman women only fuck chad for millinea and its still in their dna.

>>39440896
Of course, it's always the women's option to get with a friend if she chooses. The problem is I've seen that tactic called out by women as creepy/manipulative and the behavior of the "nice guy."

So basically it works like this. You like her as a potential GF, but she doesn't like you as a potential BF right then, so you're just friends. Then there are two options:

1. He gets tired of seeing her get pumped and dumped by other dudes and crying on his shoulder about "guys being jerks," and he decides to make his move. She calls him a creepy nice guy and his complaints to other people over why he's always friendzoned has everyone piling on him online about how he's an entitled piece of shit, etc.

2. He does nothing, and sticks by her for years as a friend, not getting any relationships for himself while she goes from BF to BF. Then one day she decides he's a good last option and finally allows him to be her BF.

So you are asking guys to do #2, with the hopes of a slim chance that it will turn out the way you describe. Of course that guys has to spend years watching her date other dudes, breaking his heart each time, and there is no guarantee all that time and heartbreak will ever lead to an actual loving relationship. Why would any sane man sign up for that?

>>39441002
the thing is, there is no actual "bar", or you can think of it as a moving goalpost.
if you round up 100 men in a room, that ratio would suggest that perhaps only a small group in those 100 men do women find attractive. if you change the room, women will still mange to filter out most of the men. that's why some would go so far to suggest that even if all men are ripped to shreds like hemsworth, women will still only want to engage with the top 20% of them because they'd invent other metrics to measure one men from another. this is thousands and thousands of years of evolution, that's what the selectors do. they select based on the given choices. the burden of performance is on men.

>>39441002
Our ancestors spent more time as pack hunter-gatherers than as worker bees in a complex civilization. By removing the constraints that helped build civilization women are reverting to their base instincts. Of course we don't know if civilization can be sustained in the long term that way.

>>39440772
It doesn't matter what you try. You could be her friend or you could make your interests known right away. Either way she will have no interest in you.

>>39437863
The reason robots are mad about it is because it hurts their chances of finding a mate. Now a days, it's quite viable for women to just sleep around with Chads, and with anti-slut shaming being a thing, the behavior is being normalized and accepted.

This is a little gross and kinda pathetic, yes, but the real issue is that if you aren't a Chad or high tier normie, you're getting a short end of the stick in women's sexual liberation.

>>39441122
>Of course we don't know if civilization can be sustained in the long term that way.
That's anti-materialist bullshit. Society of today is developed through ideals, industry, science, agriculture, and the like. Our social interactions with one another do not shape our environment but on the contrary our environment shapes the way we interact with one another.

>>39437863
Well, for starters it's part of a long war on Western values. Within the last century, especially the last fifty years or so, the West has undergone a massive social and cultural upheaval that's pretty much unparalleled in history for it's rapidity. The nuclear family unit has been the gold standard of civic organization for millennia, and it's very nearly dead. Traditional gender roles may have shifted around over time, but never before have they been so thoroughly thrown aside. We're right in the middle of the greatest social experiment in history, and nobody knows how it will end.

It's important to note that even prior to the sexual liberation, people were still having pre- and extra-marital sex. A lot of it. They just had to be more circumspect about it, and the more egregious practitioners would be censured socially or even legally. Even amongst normies that are pro-sexual liberation, very few people really think being a massive slut (male or female) is a good thing, but in the post-sexual liberation paradigm there's a lot less discouragement of that behavior.

Sex is important for interpersonal bonding from a biochemical perspective. Having tons of sex with different partners lessens these effects, making it more difficult to eventually form a nuclear family unit.

A lot of the issues with the sexual liberation are only visible through interaction effects with other recent changes. No fault divorce feeds into and off of sex positive culture, online dating and social media have gutted more traditional forms of dating, etc.

>>39441177
Birth rates are already below replacement in the west where women's sexuality has been liberated. This makes leftist redistribution schemes unaffordable as the population ages and the population pyramid becomes inverted. You may think they're unnecesary , but beta males are still needed to mine raw materials, to grow food, to keep our technological society running. If you remove the incentive of a wife and children from those men, why should they continue to be the work horses for everyone else?

Patriarchies work. Men and women fulfill their complimentary roles and keep the system going. Tearing that down so women can have their cake and eat it to, will lead to that civilization dying off and being replaced by another patriarchy.

>>39441177
Yes but for the most part the gears of society can only work as long as the cogs all line up for in and do their part.

The power behind society is men beta men. And the beta is only going to continue to slave away if he is promised (the happy ever after) a living loyal wife. But thanks to the internet light is being shined on what women's true nature is. And now that the unspoken social agreement of controlling women's sexuality is gone. So is (happy ever after) and soon the beta.

Why should he slave all day and fulfill his side of the social contract if the other is no longer forfuilling theirs.

Civilisation has been built on the social contract of one man one woman resources for sex/children

This is no longer true

>>39440693
30/70 in a densely populated, rich area is true, but outside of that it's alot more like the top 90% of women get the top 75% of men.