Oh my goodness, Erik, what on earth have you done now? You tried to reason with a modern day Neanderthaler! The Slithering Penius sounds a little too old to still be living in his parents' basement (they have probably died), but other than that he perfectly fits the mold. I doubt he has ever actually been on a date. Which is sad, since he seems to crave sex with a woman so much, but thankfully socks aren't all that expensive. And that way of "spilling" semen will at least serve Darwinism evolution which seems to be his only goal in live.
It kind of needs to be done because these kinds of opinions are frighteningly common today. Too many of these men get to propagate this nonsense without pushback. I guess because most reasonable people shake their heads and go "That is too stupid to take serious."
Unfortunately this drivel does get taken serious by too many guys and so we fight it.
Also ironically with someone so obsessed with evolution and elevating it as some kind of moral judge, I guess evolution has spoken: "His genes are not desirable" and so he should accept his lot in life. It is just what evolution wanted. And who are we to object to evolution? (well... according to him anyway)
> There is zero scientific evidence to support the idea that women want to be “owned” or “forced” into relationships.
The evidence for the proponent could be the general female sexual preference for bigger/taller, and more "confident" men with some potential social status equal or greater than them (and the opposite for men.)
Owned and forced into are not necessarily the same type of thing. One can want to be something close to being owned after having made the choice, for both genders, seems comfy. Female pornographic content often have a rich CEO/bad boy type that goes on to do many activities in manners equivalent to being owned, but the fact that it's pornographic means they made the choice first, so both can be true.
Wanting a strong man does not in any way imply desire to be owned.
And please don’t tell me you “learn” what women “want” from pornography. That is fantasy, not reality. Women are not sex toys but people you can actually talk to. We can actually ask them questions such as: “do you want to be owned?”
Every woman would say a loud “No!”
Or you can simply look at human history. Women have fought hard for their freedom. If they wanted to be owned they would not have done that. They is some absurd male fantasy BS to rationalize abusive relationships and stripping women of hard won rights.
> Women have fought hard for their freedom. If they wanted to be owned they would not have done that.
The owned I'm talking about is after having made their choice and it doesn't necessarily have to be a permanent thing with a person. That's why I tried to clarify the "forced" vs "owned".
> And please don’t tell me you “learn” what women “want” from pornography. That is fantasy, not reality.
It is definately a form of wanting. People don't appear to choose it in real life not because it's "just fantasy" but because real people can almost never match up the people in fantasy. Halfway there to those qualities don't produce the same feeling necessarily.
> Wanting a strong man does not in any way imply desire to be owned.
Again women are making free willed choices in relationship but standard preferred choices are big strong man with "confidence" and higher social status (more so than mere male female biological average difference). It's reasonable to argue the setup exists to produce a feelign similar to being owned (without there being any force/coersion).
Even in average pairing, the choice to be in private and in compromising/vulnerable position where just by biological differences of bodies/sexual position, a man can easily overpower her and in the moment functionally holds full control of her or with the posibility of carrying out any amount of violence against her. Yet this is a desirable activity and women on average prefers the difference to be greater than average male female difference. A frequent description of women's frame of love as someone who is obsessed with her uniquely is not very controversial. So put those two together and a functional explanation for wanting to be owned(without inconvenience or restrictions that she does not really prefer, [more like owning a cat than owning a slave few hundred years back]) is not unreasonable.
> Women have fought hard for their freedom. If they wanted to be owned they would not have done that.
Wanting feeling of owning would come after the choice, women lacked the choice before. And there were more than just this aspect in history they were trying to be free from.
> Every woman would say a loud “No!”
That'd depend on how clearly things are explained before asking the question and people can be wrong about themselves. Even if women wanted to be owned literally, I'm sure they wouldn't want to be owned by most men.
Yeah I know fascists who believe in sexual slavery of women and men raping away at will, do of course find normal moral people, human rights etc hilarious.
I am sure there was camp commanders in Auschwitz who had a good laugh too. But I am sorry if you laughing doesn't really win anyone over to your vile cause.
I find people like you funny because the performance is so absurd: prancing around on your moral high horse, trying to claim moral superiority, while being so petty and dishonest. Your performance is all about you. It's not about human rights or some "noble cause".
It's people like you (defenders of the status quo) who are the camp commanders or the witch-hunters, etc. Do you not understand that the camp commanders were the "good guys" in Nazi Germany? Do you not understand that "good" is just being obedient and sycophantic to the existing power structure? No, of course you don't understand that. That's way over your head.
People like you (moralizers) are a huge obstacle to real progress, and to preventing real disasters. If you were on the Titanic, you'd be trying to silence the guy talking about the iceberg. You'd be calling him an evil so-and-so for pointing out that the ship will sink.
But I know that you can't understand any of this. You will keep doing your little thing, with zero self-awareness.
The Orwellian Newspeak is strong in you. I am championing human rights. Freedom for women. It is utterly absurd to equate me with a Nazi camp commander when your ideology is literally fascism and thus by extension most close to Nazism. Just like Nazis you are a virulent anti-feminist. Ironically you are worse because even they did not try to hint at an idea that women would be best off as property.
You advocate the same kind of eugenics as them. To make all of what you advocate possible requires dictatorship. Something I strongly oppose.
That you can delude yourself into thinking those fighting for individual rights and freedom are the fascist while you yourself is the opposite just show how deep you are in your cultish delusion.
And no, it is not about me. That is you projecting your own selfish world view on me. I advocate for the rights of others. You are just advocating your own selfish incel interests. Incapable of seeing the perspective of somebody not like you, or empathizing with people different from yourself.
Existing power structures? You mean democracy where everyone gets to vote and have their voice heard? Yeah some real Orwellian newspeak there. I guess suddenly democracy and freedom is oppression now. "We need a Führer to be truly free. One that can tell all the women who to marry. Oh your husband beat you? Too bad, it doesn't matter because the natural order is the moral guide for all. Your insignificant little feelings don't matter for the greater good of our beloved Aryan race. Bla bla bla"
I am not a moralizer man. That is what you deluded right-wingers don't get, because I am not like you telling people how to live their lives. That is what you are doing. You are trying to tell women how they should live their lives. That is none of your f*cking business.
There is no iceberg. It is something you invented to rationalize your authoritarianism. This is more like the Reichtag fire. You hold up some disaster so you can use it to pass your sweeping "reforms" to kill personal freedom... all in the name of the "greater good."
It is like you are Hitler and Machiavelli all rolled into on. What an achievement.
In Nazi Germany, you'd be a Nazi. In the USSR, you'd be a communist. You have no mind of your own. You'd always be on the side of whatever you perceive as high-status, accepted and powerful. But of course you don't understand that. You actually believe that you came up with your morality. You don't understand that it was indoctrinated into you.
Anyway, no point talking to you. I might as well be talking to a clam or a barnacle. Back on mute, lol.
Oh my goodness, Erik, what on earth have you done now? You tried to reason with a modern day Neanderthaler! The Slithering Penius sounds a little too old to still be living in his parents' basement (they have probably died), but other than that he perfectly fits the mold. I doubt he has ever actually been on a date. Which is sad, since he seems to crave sex with a woman so much, but thankfully socks aren't all that expensive. And that way of "spilling" semen will at least serve Darwinism evolution which seems to be his only goal in live.
It kind of needs to be done because these kinds of opinions are frighteningly common today. Too many of these men get to propagate this nonsense without pushback. I guess because most reasonable people shake their heads and go "That is too stupid to take serious."
Unfortunately this drivel does get taken serious by too many guys and so we fight it.
Also ironically with someone so obsessed with evolution and elevating it as some kind of moral judge, I guess evolution has spoken: "His genes are not desirable" and so he should accept his lot in life. It is just what evolution wanted. And who are we to object to evolution? (well... according to him anyway)
He does have a mind of his own and this article is just common sense.
What most sane people already know.
He’s saying it how he sees it and I think how most ordinary people see it.
It’s the red pillers that are coming out with nonsense and unappealing nonsense at that.
> There is zero scientific evidence to support the idea that women want to be “owned” or “forced” into relationships.
The evidence for the proponent could be the general female sexual preference for bigger/taller, and more "confident" men with some potential social status equal or greater than them (and the opposite for men.)
Owned and forced into are not necessarily the same type of thing. One can want to be something close to being owned after having made the choice, for both genders, seems comfy. Female pornographic content often have a rich CEO/bad boy type that goes on to do many activities in manners equivalent to being owned, but the fact that it's pornographic means they made the choice first, so both can be true.
Wanting a strong man does not in any way imply desire to be owned.
And please don’t tell me you “learn” what women “want” from pornography. That is fantasy, not reality. Women are not sex toys but people you can actually talk to. We can actually ask them questions such as: “do you want to be owned?”
Every woman would say a loud “No!”
Or you can simply look at human history. Women have fought hard for their freedom. If they wanted to be owned they would not have done that. They is some absurd male fantasy BS to rationalize abusive relationships and stripping women of hard won rights.
> Women have fought hard for their freedom. If they wanted to be owned they would not have done that.
The owned I'm talking about is after having made their choice and it doesn't necessarily have to be a permanent thing with a person. That's why I tried to clarify the "forced" vs "owned".
> And please don’t tell me you “learn” what women “want” from pornography. That is fantasy, not reality.
It is definately a form of wanting. People don't appear to choose it in real life not because it's "just fantasy" but because real people can almost never match up the people in fantasy. Halfway there to those qualities don't produce the same feeling necessarily.
> Wanting a strong man does not in any way imply desire to be owned.
Again women are making free willed choices in relationship but standard preferred choices are big strong man with "confidence" and higher social status (more so than mere male female biological average difference). It's reasonable to argue the setup exists to produce a feelign similar to being owned (without there being any force/coersion).
Even in average pairing, the choice to be in private and in compromising/vulnerable position where just by biological differences of bodies/sexual position, a man can easily overpower her and in the moment functionally holds full control of her or with the posibility of carrying out any amount of violence against her. Yet this is a desirable activity and women on average prefers the difference to be greater than average male female difference. A frequent description of women's frame of love as someone who is obsessed with her uniquely is not very controversial. So put those two together and a functional explanation for wanting to be owned(without inconvenience or restrictions that she does not really prefer, [more like owning a cat than owning a slave few hundred years back]) is not unreasonable.
> Women have fought hard for their freedom. If they wanted to be owned they would not have done that.
Wanting feeling of owning would come after the choice, women lacked the choice before. And there were more than just this aspect in history they were trying to be free from.
> Every woman would say a loud “No!”
That'd depend on how clearly things are explained before asking the question and people can be wrong about themselves. Even if women wanted to be owned literally, I'm sure they wouldn't want to be owned by most men.
lol, thanks for the laughs
Yeah I know fascists who believe in sexual slavery of women and men raping away at will, do of course find normal moral people, human rights etc hilarious.
I am sure there was camp commanders in Auschwitz who had a good laugh too. But I am sorry if you laughing doesn't really win anyone over to your vile cause.
I find people like you funny because the performance is so absurd: prancing around on your moral high horse, trying to claim moral superiority, while being so petty and dishonest. Your performance is all about you. It's not about human rights or some "noble cause".
It's people like you (defenders of the status quo) who are the camp commanders or the witch-hunters, etc. Do you not understand that the camp commanders were the "good guys" in Nazi Germany? Do you not understand that "good" is just being obedient and sycophantic to the existing power structure? No, of course you don't understand that. That's way over your head.
People like you (moralizers) are a huge obstacle to real progress, and to preventing real disasters. If you were on the Titanic, you'd be trying to silence the guy talking about the iceberg. You'd be calling him an evil so-and-so for pointing out that the ship will sink.
But I know that you can't understand any of this. You will keep doing your little thing, with zero self-awareness.
The Orwellian Newspeak is strong in you. I am championing human rights. Freedom for women. It is utterly absurd to equate me with a Nazi camp commander when your ideology is literally fascism and thus by extension most close to Nazism. Just like Nazis you are a virulent anti-feminist. Ironically you are worse because even they did not try to hint at an idea that women would be best off as property.
You advocate the same kind of eugenics as them. To make all of what you advocate possible requires dictatorship. Something I strongly oppose.
That you can delude yourself into thinking those fighting for individual rights and freedom are the fascist while you yourself is the opposite just show how deep you are in your cultish delusion.
And no, it is not about me. That is you projecting your own selfish world view on me. I advocate for the rights of others. You are just advocating your own selfish incel interests. Incapable of seeing the perspective of somebody not like you, or empathizing with people different from yourself.
Existing power structures? You mean democracy where everyone gets to vote and have their voice heard? Yeah some real Orwellian newspeak there. I guess suddenly democracy and freedom is oppression now. "We need a Führer to be truly free. One that can tell all the women who to marry. Oh your husband beat you? Too bad, it doesn't matter because the natural order is the moral guide for all. Your insignificant little feelings don't matter for the greater good of our beloved Aryan race. Bla bla bla"
I am not a moralizer man. That is what you deluded right-wingers don't get, because I am not like you telling people how to live their lives. That is what you are doing. You are trying to tell women how they should live their lives. That is none of your f*cking business.
There is no iceberg. It is something you invented to rationalize your authoritarianism. This is more like the Reichtag fire. You hold up some disaster so you can use it to pass your sweeping "reforms" to kill personal freedom... all in the name of the "greater good."
It is like you are Hitler and Machiavelli all rolled into on. What an achievement.
In Nazi Germany, you'd be a Nazi. In the USSR, you'd be a communist. You have no mind of your own. You'd always be on the side of whatever you perceive as high-status, accepted and powerful. But of course you don't understand that. You actually believe that you came up with your morality. You don't understand that it was indoctrinated into you.
Anyway, no point talking to you. I might as well be talking to a clam or a barnacle. Back on mute, lol.