>>23310847
That's the female power fantasy. It's their equivalent of harem anime (hypergamy rather than polygyny). The notion is mainstream enough Jordan Peterson talks about it but people still don't really digest it well.

>>23310868
I'd also call it a classic Freudian return of the repressed. Women having to wear the pants in society has made their thirst for alpha cock insatiable. Inverse for animecels.

>>23310847
Nature evolves slower than social laws and customs. For example, humans still have fundamentally violent and aggressive instincts even though murder has been recognized as a grave crime for thousands of years. Same with sexual desires. Women are not lying when they say they want feminism; their brains are literally operating at a higher level than their libido so they desire a sexual situation that goes against their very real morals.
Most people can’t handle this dissonance between their biological urges and their higher rationality, so they go into denial mode. “Actually, my desire for a hypermasculine men to choke me and boss me around is not against feminism at all, women can have whatever kind of sex they want”, etc.

>>23310847
I wonder if it has to do with the process of marrying a man in ancient times before free love and having deal with being a foreigner into the new tribe you are married into. Like woman with the instinct to behave in the fashion depicted in these books were naturally selected to become submissive since probably in those old times the husband would just stone the bitch if she got outta line. know what I'm sayin pimpin.

File: wholesome_100.jpg (333 KB, 844x1356)

333 KB JPG

>>23310868
See, what's odd when you read these novels is that, like you say, there's definitely an aspect of coveting a powerful man. Entertain me, if you will. Hypergamy would definitely incline women to "alpha cock" as you say, but what are the traits of this alpha? Clearly dominance, martial prowess, a rapacious intellect. As Shakespeare said, he can "monarchize, be fear’d, and kill with looks."

But here's something queer I've noticed. In a way that's almost Lovecraftian, you get the sense that it's this innate terror of men that's the draw of the sexuality in these novels: the man is scary, capable of grievously wounding the protagonist. "His hand wrapped around her neck and tautly held it, as if contemplating breaking a precious little bird." This is read as sexy! You're never allowed to forget the latent sociopathy attributed to these dark figures. When you read romance novels from like forty years ago, back in the 80's, the men in them are often brusque and rude, maybe arrogant, but there's not such an open interplay of violence and lust (picrel). Vampires and werewolves in modern fiction speak to the same interplay, even if they're defanged (pardon the pun).

You're definitely right that there's an element of repression, that women want to let go and be with a man who'll make them safe and dominant in their social sphere. When I sit with it I'm puzzled by the necessity of fear to the erotic instinct.

>>23310926
I think this guy >>23310911 has it right, I'd just qualify by saying I don't think masculinity or femininity ever genuinely become outmoded because once they fall out of fashion we're invaded by barbarians. This kind of thing has bothered me for a while so I'm with you OP.

>>23310925
There's definitely something to this, I think. As the weaker party in a marriage, you were reliant upon the good graces of your partner's kin and society at large, otherwise, you're isolated. Being able to surrender to the man, learn his ways, charm him and his kind was basically a necessity. It's really only with the invention of firearms and machinery that the reality of physical superiority was ended. The hardware evolved for picking berries did well enough with ziggurats and agricultural fields, but it becomes weirder by the day.

File: literal societal collapse.gif (486 KB, 1200x995)

486 KB GIF

>>23310949
>>23310911
You know, what I think is funny is we're seeing in some societies literally collapse because of this stuff. If you look at South Korea, the barbarians will find nobody home when they arrive. They're killing themselves slowly, like a man too depressed to get up and make himself three square meals, withering away despite running water and as many luxuries as you can imagine. If you want to have kids, you'd be luckier born in Afghanistan than South Korea.

Would it even be possible to have a feminism that isn't deceptive over this? To say, "we, as women, give men permission to pound us and disrespect us when our libido is activated, and and we will take wage cuts to ensure that there is always a healthy proportion of men earning more compared to women?"

Because as with South Korea, one of the most productive nations in the world is going to die from want of the lust for life.

>>23310987
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/03/south-korea-fertility-rate-misogyny-feminism/673435/

The Atlantic is definitely a normie rag, but this article highlights what I think is the truth.

>>23310987
>They're killing themselves slowly, like a man too depressed to get up and make himself three square meals, withering away despite running water and as many luxuries as you can imagine.
kek literally me

>>23311000
>>23310987
Will read the article when I get home but I've suspected that the guy who wrote Danganronpa was right and that life doesn't actually thrive in abundance but in conflict and scarcity. The Calhoun mouse utopia experiments corroborate this. We're stuck in a closed system and will need a massive war to break us out of the death spiral (this was the ultimate impact of the atom bomb and the end of symmetrical warfare). I'll go take my meds now.

Recommend me romance novels that I can read and use to fuel my hatred of modern women.

>>23310847
You're not allowed to say it but virtually all women romance revolves around a high status bad boy. Not just modern books
>Pride and Prejudice
>Jane Eyre
>Wuthering Heights
>Where The Crawdads Sing
>The Handmaid's Tale
Etc, etc. The sole exception I know of is Little Women.

>>23311739
Little Women IMO is the best romance ever written, and I think it’s because LMA was rather male-brained. Fritz is a decent man who is compatible with Jo, but the romance with him is a secondary goal compared to Jo’s main goal of literary success—like in a male romance where the man is on a quest and gets the woman as a prize in the end

>>23311739
Mr Darcy is prickly and arrogant but I would hardly call him a “bad boy” kek. Unless everyone who posts arrogant and condescending remarks on 4chan is also a bad boy.

>>23310847
>>23310926
>>23310911
Wait until you discover the dommy mommy genre that half this board goons to despite the same half professing their status as le stowic patriarchal Abrahamic conservatives. Or rather, specifically because of it.

Subjugation is just another power fantasy - the fantasy of no longer having to fight, prevail and make decisions. It entices and arouses by presenting a vision of being where you can just give your unconditional love to a sex idol who will unconditionally love you back while shielding you from all ills of the world so you no longer have to worry about anything and just enjoy the bliss of the safe existence.

>>23311060
> life doesn't actually thrive in abundance but in conflict and scarcity
If you live in a shithole with no pensions, no stable sources of income and no safety, then reproducing at insane rate is your only reliable way of being - producing your own labor in the form of offspring and your own stable community in the form of a clan.

If you have all those already then you no longer have any pragmatic purposes for said offspring, and the high demands of actually raising said offspring in a civilized manner turns reproduction into a massive burden rather than a vital investment.

Truly a riddle for the ages that we need Danganronpa to answer for us.

>The Calhoun mouse utopia experiments corroborate this
Jesus fucking Christ...

>>23311930
LMA was always a tomboy. Another thing about women, they cannot resist making the MCs themselves.
>Pride and Prejudice: MC is a low status women born in a family of many women
>Where The Crawdads Sing: MC is a lonely teen who is really good at biology (the authors profession)
etc etc. And of course there's Elizabeth's famous line about first realizing she loves Darcy when she sees his massive estate.
>>23311953
"Bad boy" is used for brevity. A Byronic hero is more accurate but the archetype is still more nuanced. Central to the archetype is someone who flouts social norms, a rebel. But obviously a man who urinates in public is flouting social norms but not of this archetype. He more accurately is fearless, dominating and has a dark personality. If he is merely fearless, he is an idiot like an Indian movie male lead chasing a woman with a dumb grin. If he is fearless and dominating, he isn't dangerous. While the fearless and dominating aspect are constant and repetitive, the dark personality aspect takes a spectrum.

Mr Darcy fits this well, central to it is how he uses his immense wealth to control various aspects of the story. No doubt this got Elizabeth and Jane Austen wet. But he does fall under the "nicer" dark personality where he is just prideful, arrogant and thinks he has control of Elizabeth. Of course it's glossed over but he displays high levels narcissism, which is the least of the dark triad personality factors.

>>23312676
>Pride and Prejudice: MC is a low status women born in a family of many women
>Bennet family
>low status
The absolute state of this board

>>23311060
Even in abundance, women rank men by relative wealth. It's more about dominance than absolute wealth. So it's not like women will suddenly be satisfied once a country's wealth hits a certain level.
>>23312660
1) Dommy mommy fetishists are ~30% of the population, if we go by bdsm surveys about dom/sub. This is actually a pretty diverse distribution. But 99% of women are attracted to the dominating/dark personality. Women are sexually all "like the other girls", like the Buzz Lightyear meme.
2) That dommy mommy archetype occupies just 2 of the 3 criteria for a Byronic hero, and excludes the worst (dark personality).
3) The common excuse of saying it's a fantasy is a ridiculous defense. It is only a fantasy in as much as it doesn't become real. Now fundamentally all women try to make it real (whether they succeed or not). Many empirical studies have shown the impact of dominance, dark personality traits making men more attractive.

But the biggest doublethink comes from women demanding they are as strong as men while fundamentally craving to submit to them. When juxtaposed together, like in Egalia's daughters, it becomes almost satirical. And this is just not a personal embarrassment. If women actually did achieve equality with men, women would be supremely unhappy. Their partner would make as much as them (which is a huge turn off and directly correlates with increased divorce chances), would have to work as hard as them, be no less dominant than them, etc. So fundamentally feminism is like the snake eating it's own tail.

>>23312723
Have you read the book? They were gentry, but not particularly wealthy. Mr Bennet had a big family and his daughters were a large expense. Frequent references were made to penny pinching. A decent chunk of the plot revolves around Elizabeth's class gap. The daughters are obsessed with money.

This almost perfectly reflects Jane Austen's circumstances. She was nobility from her mother's side. But her family struggled with money her whole life.

>>23312737
Holy cope.

> if we go by bdsm surveys
Yeah because men are extremely open about wanting a big tiddy goth gf to step on them outside anonymous imageboards and Discord. Except the dom sexual industry for men is larger than the entire romance publishing by a few orders of magnitude.

>Women are sexually all "like the other girls", like the Buzz Lightyear meme.
Are you actually trying to be called an incel or what? "Women are sexually all the same" is a meme no different from "all men want the same thing". We have the romance literature industry to give grounds to the former, and the entirety of the porn industry to give ground to the latter. So we either admit that all women are sexually identical to each other and all men are sexually identical to each other, or we consider that the "industry" part might have something to do with the similarities of the mass-produced products.

>Now fundamentally all women try to make it real
Fundamentally all men do make their fantasy real by actually hiring dominatrices to whip their asses and force them to drink their piss.
>"Not all men~"
You started it.

>But the biggest doublethink comes from women demanding they are as strong as men while fundamentally craving to submit to them.
Only it's not doublethink. It escapism, simple as. People who are powerless fantasize about having power. People who make decisions fantasize about being free of the burden of decisions. When women are told that they are strong and independent and don[t need any man about 50ish times a day, it naturally serves to fuel their need for the fantasy of the opposite, same as it does for men.

>>23312749
Anon the Bennets are not low status by any measure. Wickham is low status, Bennets are not.

>>23312766
>People who are powerless fantasize about having power. People who make decisions fantasize about being free of the burden of decisions. When women are told that they are strong and independent and don[t need any man about 50ish times a day, it naturally serves to fuel their need for the fantasy of the opposite
that's a nice theory but it's not what i see. women are TOLD they SHOULD BE strong, they're not actually strong, they're largely powerless in real life terms and only playing dress-up with the trappings of power, so what you actually have there is the powerless fantasizing about being more powerless. the guy who wants anime girls to stomp on his balls is not a ceo either, he's a loser. across the board people want power taken away from them, even if they already don't have any. these are all children looking for a parent

>>23312821
>women are TOLD they SHOULD BE strong, they're not actually strong, they're largely powerless in real life terms and only playing dress-up with the trappings of power
Very much true.

Same with men though. It's a human condition thing.

>the guy who wants anime girls to stomp on his balls is not a ceo either, he's a loser.
What about the CEO who can actually afford an underage Japanese girl doing that to him IRL?

>across the board people want power taken away from them, even if they already don't have any. these are all children looking for a parent
Hard agree here. Power is a damaging and unnatural thing to wield.

>>23312823
>What about the CEO who can actually afford an underage Japanese girl doing that to him IRL?
it seems to be largely a fantasy of the powerless to imagine the powerful having shameful secrets of this sort, it's gossip and therefore cope

>>23310868
>It's their equivalent of harem anime (hypergamy rather than polygyny
Interesting. They're also super fond of MMF love triangles to the point that I thought of it as a staple, but in many cases it feels like extreme hypergamy obviates the triangle

>>23312836
Anon the top class dominatrices and escorts in the USA cost upwards of $10000 USD per hour. And there are thousands of them.

Edouard Stern was found dead in a latex suit with a dildo in his asshole. Bloomingdale, Prince Andrew - there are countless documented examples.

You sound like the one turbo simp-coping.
>"Actually, the noble elites who typically have spent their lives in messed up unhuman conditions of perpetually sending themselves into stratosphere by their bootstraps all while under constant unrelenting psychological pressure from their competitors between their lines of coke and affairs that lead to billions of losses in divorce partitions all have perfectly normal and safe sexual preferences unlike us perverted plebs"

File: 1689107436760959.png (136 KB, 500x758)

136 KB PNG

>>23310847

>>23312864
you don't understand my point at all. it's irrelevant whether some rich guy actually does or doesn't do kinky shit in a hotel room, the point is how YOU are using the idea as part of your psychology. gossip doesn't mean "falsehood", it means gossip, ie a traditionally womanly way of coping with powerlessness. the little mental deal you've made is that they get to be your masters, and you fully accept it, and in return you're allowed to write impotent little fanfictions about their freakish sexuality. "fanfictions??? but what about the time that steve moneyberg jr was factually gangbanged by hiv+ trannies in 1988???" yes, i know, you have a whole collection of such trinkets and that you're allowed to have them is part of the deal. they gave them to you, so you would gossip.

>>23312926
>"it seems to be the fantasy"
>"well it is irrelevant if they do it or not"
>"my point doesn't actually touch whether it's real or not"
Your original point was that only the powerless can have the disempowerment fantasy:
>">the guy who wants anime girls to stomp on his balls is not a ceo either, he's a loser."
I claimed otherwise, you dismissed my claim as built on fantasies, and now you're running damage control with how it doesn't matter if it's real or not. It's your idea of "trinkets" that is irrelevant to the source and nature of human needs in sexual gratification, regardless of whether it's true or not. And it's not, btw.

>the little mental deal you've made is that they get to be your masters, and you fully accept it, and in return you're allowed to write impotent little fanfictions about their freakish sexuality
Anon, plebs gossip about each other even more than they do about the powerful. Powerful just congregate the gossip of everyone their influence touches, while Judy from HR only congregates the gossip of her office. You would know this if you were not a shut-in neet who is busy dissecting the intricacies of human society and sex from the ivory tower of his mom's basement.

The elites retain the status of the elites through executive control over economy and the government, not through "little mental deals". When another Ngo Dinh Diem or Yanukovich loses control over those, no amount of "little mental deals" ever help them retain power.

>>23312660
>If you have all those already then you no longer have any pragmatic purposes for said offspring, and the high demands of actually raising said offspring in a civilized manner turns reproduction into a massive burden rather than a vital investment.
I don't really understand what you're arguing against in my post, I agree with everything you're saying. Were the Calhoun experiments not rigorous enough for you or do you just not think polygynous mice behavior is transferable to humanity. Surely harems aren't the natural state for society... oh wait...
>>23312926
In a word, ressentiment. Eyes Wide Shut illustrated that really well.
>My wife had sexual fantasies with Chad so I'm going to go uncover Pizza Gate all by myself. Hedonistic pleasure is evil actually (it is but that's beside the point).

>>23313002
>Were the Calhoun experiments not rigorous enough for you
1. They were not. He set out to make a specific point about the human society using mice, and conducted out a series of experiments until they gave him the results that he desired, which is the opposite of scientific method. He had massive cultural influence, but no behaviorists (or zoologists for that matter) ever took him seriously.
2. Calhoun did not make any of the conclusions I mentioned - he specifically blamed "overpopulation" and "deviancy" for the "behavioral sink".

>Surely harems aren't the natural state for society
There is no such thing as "the natural state" of human society - human society is adaptable, more so than any animal society due to the adaptability of human intelligence, which is what gave humans their evolutionary advantage. Other species have a very narrow range of conditions in which they thrive, declining outside that range, while humans can thrive in widely various conditions. Human behavior is by nature adaptable - this is why humans can uphold strict monogamy when it's advantageous and just as easily adopt harems when they are more advantageous.

>>23313033
I can tell you're intelligent but that's basically the response I expected.
>Calhoun did not make any of the conclusions I mentioned - he specifically blamed "overpopulation" and "deviancy" for the "behavioral sink".
It doesn't matter, the pattern can still emerge whether or not Calhoun was a hack with an agenda or even followed the scientific method.
>There is no such thing as "the natural state" of human society
I understand where you're coming from (Rousseau) but I don't see why if you don't need more social strictures to uphold a certain mating configuration like monogamy, why that wouldn't be further from a theoretical "natural state."
>humans can uphold strict monogamy when it's advantageous and just as easily adopt harems when they are more advantageous.
How are harems currently more advantageous do you think? Surely it's not good for long term success if it's selecting for single motherhood and abortions. Maybe you could argue it requires just as many strictures as monogamy (and is therefor equally "natural"/"unnatural") but they seem to fall on everyone but the top 5% of men.

>>23313084
>It doesn't matter, the pattern can still emerge
Of course. That's the thing with bogus scientific experiments - they all find their pattern, but every time that pattern is introduced by the experiment itself and not the nature it claims to describe. The need for rigor in scientific experimentation comes not from the difficulty of finding A pattern, but from the difficulty of not drowning the sought out pattern with the signal of patterns we introduce ourselves - with our tools, our models, our samples, our statistical estimations, etc. Seeing cracks on the lens for the stars.

>I understand where you're coming from (Rousseau)
It's not even Rousseau - it's modern anthropology, which currently fails to discover any form of a "primordial natural state" for human society - we do and always have adapted to various social configurations in different conditions.

> if you don't need more social strictures to uphold a certain mating configuration
You specifically need social structures to uphold strong adherence to any certain mating configuration - specifically because none of them are inherently advantageous to humans, so even whenever one becomes the norm there are numerous individuals for whom the other options are more advantageous/preferable.

>How are harems currently more advantageous do you think?
They are more advantageous to people who can afford them financially while desiring more than one sexual partner, duh.

>Surely it's not good for long term success if it's selecting for single motherhood and abortions
Correct, but individuals preferring harems are not aiming for long-term success - they aim for personal gratification.

>Maybe you could argue it requires just as many strictures as monogamy
It does, actually.

>but they seem to fall on everyone but the top 5% of men
That's bullshit data tho. The real data is abundance of successive polygamy (with only one partner at a time for each participant) which is mostly failed attempts at monogamy because people have discarded the shackles of arranged relationship to make their own choices, but suddenly discovered that making their own choices is actually really hard. And then a minority of successful monogamies, followed by a barely-detectable sliver of actual continuous harems.

>>23313132
>every time that pattern is introduced by the experiment itself and not the nature it claims to describe
I agree. It just so happens that prosperous western economies seem to be attempting to create the exact same artificial conditions as universe 25, and that's why the results might not be surprising.
>It's not even Rousseau - it's modern anthropology
Have you read Dawn of Everything? I bought a copy but haven't cracked it yet.
>You specifically need social structures to uphold strong adherence to any certain mating configuration
I meant to say "strictures." I don't think structures are unnatural but strictures prevent people from doing what comes "naturally" e.g. chasing passions.
>Correct, but individuals preferring harems are not aiming for long-term success - they aim for personal gratification.
That's how I'm defining natural, as in lower. We have different epistemological priors. Not really worth bridging here. I can already tell you're bright we just see the world differently.
>That's bullshit data tho. The real data is abundance of successive polygamy (with only one partner at a time for each participant)
It depends on how you slice the data. Most top men probably only report having a main hoe and side bitches but that top man is the main hoe for most of his side hoes. That's what I'm referring to as "harems," it's an analogy. Going for a walk ttyl.

>>23310847
because biological sex is a mofo and no leaning on a tiny percentage of malformed, disordered individuals to force top-down definition changes can affect the truths of biology.

>>23312967
>Your original point was that only the powerless can have the disempowerment fantasy:
no, you've made up the "only." the point is that the disempowerment fantasy is clearly not primarily a response to "having power" when all around you the powerless engage in fantasies of powerlessness. powerlessness is clearly aspirational as such.

>Anon, plebs gossip about each other even more than they do about the powerful.
yes, obviously, and it's still cope. that's why i compared you to a woman: the housewife gossips about her neighbor's dirty secrets the same way you gossip about prince andrew's sex crimes or whatever, in both cases the point is that no action will be undertaken but inaction can be made bearable through gossip. you don't get to do anything, but you get to "know," or, putting it the other way, you "know" so that you won't have to do anything.

>The elites retain the status of the elites through executive control over economy and the government, not through "little mental deals"
there is no such thing as "economy and government," these are abstractions for the accumulated individual actions of a mass of individuals, who operate according to their psychologies, ie the "little mental deals" they make every second of every day. every second of every day you conspire against yourself to yield more power to anybody who will take it, and that's what gives rise to the powerful, not the other way around. the elites are elevated by the great collective striving of the masses to be more powerless, for reasons of psychology.

>>23313194
> prosperous western economies seem to be attempting to create the exact same artificial conditions as universe 25
Well that's the thing - no, they are not. You are conflating a complex thing with a simple thing because that supports your preconceived notions. We can begin by questioning the capacity of a big jar of mice to accurately reflect human society and it's qualities, rather than specific mice biology, the qualities of the jar in question, and the ways it interacts with the jar.

I sure hope you don't see this statement as a defense of those economies and their policies and use this impression to justify labelling me as one of your preconceived notions of NPCs that don't have their own intelligence or opinions.

That would be a really dumb thing to do.

>Have you read Dawn of Everything? I bought a copy but haven't cracked it yet.
No, I don't like scipop in general.

>strictures prevent people from doing what comes "naturally" e.g. chasing passions
I agree. You also have to keep in mind that people themselves are exceptionally good at preventing themselves personally from chasing passions.

>That's how I'm defining natural, as in lower.
There is nothing inherently "lower" or "upper" or "more natural" about human individuals pursuing personal gratification, or stable growth of society, or social stability. Those are moral value judgements, not epistemological facts. Priors have nothing to do with it, you just weren't taught the importance of withholding those to for establishing of facts.

>That's what I'm referring to as "harems"\
Well, they are not. They are successive polygamies, which are typically failed, half-assed attempts at a monogamy - no "hoe" wants to share her top man with other "hoes" she doesn't know, and no top man actively wants to share his "hoes" with other randos, but both sides are bitching out before the decisions, actions and consequences of establishing a monogamy, or even a proper harem - those come with responsibility and attachments and other nasty shit that everyone already has a mouthful.

Consider how many of those harems actually happen to cohabitate, or even be actively aware of other partners. Consider how most of the participants of those "harems" tend to react when confronted with reality of being in a "harem". Should be a no-brainer if harems are natural.

Is there a sub-genre of lesbian romance novels? There must be. It makes me wonder if those books engage in the "male gaze"?

>>23312766
>men are extremely open about wanting a big tiddy goth gf
Yeah, pretty open. Your claims are absolutely bizzare and in itself nonsensical. The sale of female oriented romance books is worth billions a year. Dom prostitutes are a very niche market. And they are completely apples to oranges.

On any similar scale, women vastly want to be dominated. For example, romance books written my men vs women. Men have written across the spectrum with varied females (Romeo and Juliet, Helen of Troy, Phantom of the Opera, etc). Female romance writers 99% write with the same high status bad boy.

>all men want the same thing
But it's just an empirically observable fact that men don't. Pornography? There is a vast diverse genre of male centered pornography, including women submissive, women not, role play, etc etc. Again, any area you choose. BDSM communities? 99% of women are submissive. Romance novels? Likewise. Prostitution? How many submissive male strippers are there?

>it's the industries fault
Are you blaming Jane Austen for being part of a mass production culture? Or Emily Bronte? Because the number of Mr Darcys or Heathcliffs in female written romance is too much to count.

>all men want to be dominated
What? Most prostitution involves a submissive woman

>it's escapism
>women fantasize about being powerless because they're told they're strong
Hahaha what? Was Jane Austen told she was a strong woman? Are you really saying this massive, almost absolutely desire for submission is externally caused? It simply is part of the fundamental psychological makeup of women. Women's virtue and strength ends when it becomes inconvenient to them. You think the brave, strong feminists of Ukraine didn't instantly leave when they should have fought? Or Iran? Are you saying it's a complete and utter coincidence women fantasize and are submissive?

>>23312766
And it's really funny how you clearly fantasie about the same thing while insisting *other* women are different. I mean there is a very, very small minority of tomboys who recognize, and to some extent are even disgusted, by their gender. Many become TIFs or non binary.

>>23313309
There isn't fundamentally because women aren't really lesbians. Don't get me wrong, they do have fleeting attractions to other women, and will frequently vent about how men are the worst. But they crave the fundamental dominance and security of a man, which women provide 0% off. This is why 20-30% of young women claim they're bi and lesbian, but just 1% actually marry a woman.

>>23313259
>You are conflating a complex thing with a simple thing because that supports your preconceived notions.
And you're denying any categorical similarities because that aligns with your preconceived notions.
>That would be a really dumb thing to do.
I went out my way to make it clear I wasn't doing that.
>You also have to keep in mind that people themselves are exceptionally good at preventing themselves personally from chasing passions.
Well scarcity and social strictures certainly help, otherwise a subset of the population forgets why they should.
>Those are moral value judgements, not epistemological facts.
Facts exist independently of value judgements but aren't inseparable from them. We can act like there's nothing higher about civilization preserving behaviors, but then people who act that way will die out in a few generations. Values are subject to Darwinian pressures. When they survive 10~ generations they become facts, when they survive 1000~ generations they become religious dogma.
>no "hoe" wants to share her top man with other "hoes" she doesn't know
And yet they cannot help themselves because people aren't rational.
>no top man actively wants to share his "hoes" with other randos
They don't. It's asymmetric monogamy i.e. harem.
>Consider how most of the participants of those "harems" tend to react when confronted with reality of being in a "harem".
When the government makes it okay they'll fall in line. As an aside, Reddit etc.

>>23313408
Do lesbians even look at other women and think >Damn, ooga booga, big tits!

>>23313395
>>23313400
that poster being a woman would make everything make sense.

Women just contradict themselves constantly and they don't understand it and they can't help it and that's why women should not be in charge of anything in a nutshell
It's not their fault maybe and I'm not trying to be mean to women but it's just the truth

>>23312660
>>The Calhoun mouse utopia experiments corroborate this
was good until this. It's a hoax.

>>23313477
You do understand that was a quote right.

>>23313434
She definitely is. One thing I've noticed about women is they frequently use DARVO to defend their actions
>Defend that women are not attracted to high status bad boys
>Attack opponent as incel, virgin, etc (shaming people for their sexuality is bad but this is OK?)
>Reverse victim and offender - its now society's fault for telling women they are strong, making them fantasize about being dominated. Women are the victim of a society that cruelly thinks they are strong.

>>23313549
Yeah looking back it was obvious. Every discussion is life or death for women so it's hard to have nuanced conversations with them even if they're smart.
>Essentialism
Slavery!
>Feminism
Slavery!
>Monogamy
Slavery!
>Polygyny
Slavery!
They are Machiavellian to the core, gotta respect it. OP is probably a woman too, if they aren't the same person. Explains the pearl-clutching but refusal to deal in absolutes or primary causes.

File: 1713645129404626.jpg (197 KB, 1272x1280)

197 KB JPG

i just like fucking girls. imma be honest, imma be real.

File: 3d26fdb810fd06159fb92b14e(...).jpg (54 KB, 400x533)

54 KB JPG

what we are facing is the latent bitterness deeply entrenched over centuries of subjugation. for pretty much the first time in history the masculinity has willingly conceded power over to women and its bubbling out all the hate and vitriol they cant really help it. its like a bpd gf right.
they're addicted to fear and funny emotions they get cause it gives you dopamine same as when u look at porn u think is disgusting and keep coming back
i have faith in an upswing.
what they need to do is learn to channel that negative energy into fighting spirit
cmon girls! be the change! and maybe be a bit nicer about it. i do think its ridicioulous the amount of them that simply choose to withdraw from the dating system cause honestly how is that any different from incels. really.
women need to accept that right now they probably have more power than men the same age as them. Cause they get enhanced social function which is what matters more in modern era. They still don't see it. I mean women are graduating more, earning more, easier for them to date right etc. idk kinda feels like a women world. well it just means there's more onus on them to do something about it. i mean you cant just withdraw. fix the system! and I'll do my best on my side. bros i just wanna get along with my cuties in a righteous reclamation of the world from evil. is that so much to ask for

>>23313741
Voice of reason.

>>23310847
It's sexually stimulating but only enjoyable as a fantasy, in the same way that men masturbate to NTR, mommy-dom, farts, and traps but wouldn't actually enjoy these things in real life. The difference between men and women is men will watch straight up pornography but women need to obfuscate it as a YA trilogy.

>>23310987
Regarding birthrates, women are expected to have a full-time job and do the vast majority of domestic labor and childcare, whereas men get home from work and want to sit on their ass and be waited upon like a prince. Women saw the shit deal their mothers had and don't want to play that game. It isn't "feminism", it's common sense. Besides which, having kids causes way too much physical damage to women and it's getting worse every year. At this point you're best off developing those artificial wombs and gestating fetuses in a vat because women are sharing information on what pregnancy, birth, and post-birth really entail. You'd never see a man sign up for something that would cost him his teeth, bone density, give him permanent high blood pressure, and severe scarring across his genitals and internal organs. But that's what you're asking of women.

Besides what men might think, women are well capable of reason. There is no benefit to have kids, so many are choosing not to. That is to say, 3/4 of women still want kids. The actual decline in birthrate is more attributed to women having fewer children rather than an increase in the number of women completely opting out. If you wanted to prevent this, you should have invested in better maternal healthcare, but you didn't. Women get slaughtered like pigs on the birthing table and it's no wonder they aren't signing up for a second tour of Afghanistan. And, again, the proportion of completely childfree women is small but growing, and the women who do have kids are far more often one-and-done because they realize what a mistake it was.

If you listened to women they would tell you the reason, but you don't want to hear it, so we'll proceed towards extinction. Shikataganai. Luckily for you there will always be illiterate brown retards to shit out spawn, so in the future we can all live on Planet of the Apes. "why do women--" if you wanted to know, you could browse their posts. But you are disguising a vent as a question, disingenuous and beating around the bush. That's because you're an emasculated faggot. If you want a gf to give you children, try scrubbing the toilet and washing the dishes.

>>23313765
it's not that they need to "obfuscate" it - a lot of it is very shameless smut - it's that what a thing "means" on a social/personal level is always more important to women than the thing itself. it can't just be footage of a big penis going into a small vagina, like porn for men, the act has to be surrounded with the correct kind of context.

>>23313741
>women need to accept that right now they probably have more power than men the same age as them.
This is cope for your own failures. Women are having their human rights stripped away and face widespread job discrimination, yet are still winning against men. What does that say about men? The conclusion terrifies you, so you resort to retardation like, "they're more privileged!" Despite the fact that only in the last few decades could women even own a bank account or attend university. Women aren't turning you down because the government is giving them magical free money and easy success--women are turning you down because you're a whiny loser and their brain flags you as a suckling toddler, which drops their libido into antarctica.

>>23313796
Agreed. Men see sex as one act, women see sex within a greater context. For women the satisfaction is in the sum of the entire situation.

>>23313794
This is 4chan, not femaledatingstrategy, nothing about your histrionic raving nonsense bears any semblance of reality. Have sex.

>>23313829
lmao where did i say i was having trouble with women

>>23313796
Yeah I noticed this with real life sex. You can make a woman cum but if it’s not done in sort of “the right way” they get upset. They’re especially upset if you last a long time, I noticed in these female romance novels the guys last maybe a few minutes—they take the former as a sign you don’t actually like them, even if they’re having multiple orgasms.

>>23313794
deranged femoid post. if women saw that motherhood + career was too much and were capable of "reason" they would have picked motherhood, not careers. in fact if they were capable of reason they would never have been conned into "careers" at all: they would have looked at their husbands and noticed what a miserable form of servitude a "career" is, how it drains life out of you and drives you to drink, and they would have never in a million years wanted that for themselves or their daughters. but women do not posses reason: the glossy magazine said THE MODERN WOMAN WANTS A CAREER and they went "duuuuuh... okay." now they're as miserable as men except with less whiskey and more psychiatric drugs, AND they miss out on he unique privilege of motherhood as well. should have used your brain, holes

>>23313829
>Women are having their human rights stripped away and face widespread job discrimination
Women are VASTLY prioritized by job hiring. Especially with female dominated HR. Add in DEI quotas and a female centered education system and you have jobs hiring women even over more experienced men.

>>23313794
>>23313829
In a healthy society I'd probably be pared off with someone like you and we could enjoy each other's mediocrity into old age. I'm sorry endocrine disruptors in the environment and me being a faggot is preventing this. I hope you find love.

>>23313794
It’s almost not even worth breaking this down bit by bit but you’re retarded.
>Women are expected to be mothers and career women
The people who expect women to be mothers generally want a stay at home wife, at least until the kids are old enough not to choke on legos, but the male wage is fucked right now. Plus, women naturally like to tidy up and organize shit anyway.
>Besides which, having kids causes way too much physical damage to women and it's getting worse every year.
Your body is literally designed to bear and have children. It’s getting worse cause you wait until you’re 35 to have your first.
>If you wanted to prevent this, you should have invested in better maternal healthcare, but you didn't. Women get slaughtered like pigs on the birthing table
Many countries did that. Birth rate did not increase and neither did number of deaths in childbirth. It’s not 1650, your chances of dying as a healthy woman of childbearing age are exceptionally slim.

>>23313852
>they would have picked motherhood, not careers.
t. scrote who has never changed a diaper in his life. My job shuts off at 5 pm. A kid doesn't shut off, they keep crapping themselves and whining for breast milk all night. Plus my job gives me money and a kid costs money. If being a mom is so great, why don't you go out and become a single father? Go ahead. Adopt some crackhead's kid.

Didn't read the rest because you're dumb as shit. When the discussion turns to kids, women consider the realities of daily life and the time and energy involved in labor, whereas men think of white picket fences, kodak moments, and other cozy fantasies. And when the kid arrives and the male sees reality, the male leaves with his tail between his legs and runs away, leaving the woman to clean up his men and shoulder his responsibility. Men are delusional to the point of ruining the lives of everyone around them whereas women are the ones rolling up their sleeves and accomplishing daily life fully aware of what it entails. Fuck off faggot.

File: images (4).jpg (4 KB, 128x128)

4 KB JPG

ONE BAAAAABBY TO ANOTHER SAYS IM LUCKY TO HAVE MET YOU
I DOOOOOONNT CARE WHAT YOU THINK UNLESS IT IS ABOUT ME
IT IIIIIIIIIS NOW MY DUTY TO COMPLETELY DRAIN YOU!!!!!!!!!

>>23313866
The solution is, and always has been, for men to just take the reins again. Not by force. We just have to go back to doing all the work and women will just say "Thanks" and go back to their bake sales. This is the real insight of the thread if you're paying attention. Femanon is saying this just in a femanon way.

>>23313869
>My job shuts off at 5 pm. A kid doesn't shut off
>Plus my job gives me money and a kid costs money
right, in other words you have no capacity to see beyond your own immediate comfort and extremely short-term concerns, that's why it was so easy to fool you with a glossy magazine. "children are STINKY, you want a paycheck instead to buy this sweet pair of SHOES." - that's all it took. of course that completely fucked you because a job is just servitude, it's just being used briefly for somebody else's purposes and then discarded, whereas a child is a life-long emotional connection and support. the shoes you bought made you happy for five minutes, children would have made you happy until the day you died - but the glossy magazine only had an ad for shoes. now you're bitter and lonely and screwed.

>>23313960
You're completely correct but if you read between the lines she really just wants men to do more housework and potentially all the housework in exchange for her body being a vessel for his progeny. It's not that complicated.

File: feyre_and_rhysand_by_rami(...).jpg (104 KB, 755x1058)

104 KB JPG

>>23310911
If you look at most of history, other more patriarchal cultures and other species of animals, the norm is that the male more or less has to force the female to have sex with him and it's basically expected that females (even if they are actually interested) would feign disinterest in order to test the male's willingness to pursue her. In many species, like mallards, the female will always flee the male and the only way for them to copulate is through rape. This makes perfect evolutionary sense, as it selects for the strongest, most aggressive males who will produce the strongest, most aggressive offspring. This programming is deeply embedded into the human psyche, to the point that statistically, over 60% of women and 40% of men have had rape fantasies.

Even female sexual fantasies that don't involve rape effectively involve being treated like a passive object. In other aspects of life, of course, women would like to be treated as equals and have their consent respected, but getting what they want on a moral level will always leave them deeply unfulfilled on a sexual level. Hence the impulse to create what is essentially rape porn disguised as literature, in which the archetypal feminist woman ends up humiliated at the hands of a powerful man.

If you look closely even supposedly feminist literature like the Handmaid's Tale or Women Talking is really just a better concealed expression of this phenomenon. Rape in women's literature is always eroticised, no matter how hard it tries to convince you otherwise. There is a deep, primal need that this material is fulfilling that modern women are deeply embarrassed of but can't help gravitating toward. Man made the modern world, but man wasn't made for the modern world.

>>23311607
I still haven't gotten any recommendations.

File: 02Insidethelist-Grace-Com(...).jpg (742 KB, 3000x1687)

742 KB JPG

>>23314034
Picrel and anything by the same author should do the trick. Insufferable.

>>23313794
>women are expected to have a full time job and raise kids
Thing is, one of the parents has to raise the kids. BUT women visercally hate men who make less than them. The divorce rate is doubled if husband makes less than the wife, and most women wouldn't date a man who makes less. So somehow the husband has to make mid to high six figures, take care of the kids, be there to do the housework etc. And everyone knows high paying jobs are notoriously full of free time and low stress.

This is what I mean when I say feminism is self eating. The instant women are equal to men, they become vastly unhappy.

>>23313794
>>23314104
Funny thing I noticed too. Why these immensely rich male love interests never to seem to actually, yknow, work? They all seem incredibly free

>>23314132
Work is a mystical, unknowable concept to women. That's how they were snafu'd into getting careers they thought it would be wonderful just performing magic tricks and fucking bitches all day and generating money through alchemy.

>>23313794
This is such a normie take. You literally seem like a bot because of how many times i have listened to this exact line of speech. How did you find your way into here? Go hang yourself

>>23314004
>statistically, over 60% of women and 40% of men have had rape fantasies.
[citation needed]

>>23314064
Why are hockey players such a common trope in modern romance novels?

>>23313694
We know. You don't like girls. You only like them as sex objects

>>23314541
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19085605/

>This study evaluated the rape fantasies of female undergraduates (N = 355) using a fantasy checklist that reflected the legal definition of rape and a sexual fantasy log that included systematic prompts and self-ratings. Results indicated that 62% of women have had a rape fantasy, which is somewhat higher than previous estimates. For women who have had rape fantasies, the median frequency of these fantasies was about 4 times per year, with 14% of participants reporting that they had rape fantasies at least once a week.

>>23312660
It amazes me how people still confidently pull shit out of their asses and present it as an undeniable fact despite offering no direct proofs.

>>23313256
>the point is that the disempowerment fantasy is clearly not primarily a response to "having power"
This. The only people who actually think this are resentful anarchists. They will ignore any and all arguments to the contrary for whatever reason. Ironically, a very essentialist view of the world

>>23310911
>For example, humans still have fundamentally violent and aggressive instincts even though murder has been recognized as a grave crime for thousands of years.
How does murder being illegal contradict humans having violent impulses? what the fuck are you even talking about? Biological determinists are retarded

my gf asks me to rape her during sex and she was never molested

>>23310847
OP has touched on something that I’ve thought a lot about, and I’ve not encountered any book that really talks about it. There’s a massive incongruity between feminist attitudes and female behavior. Most women are still subservient to the whims of men in their newfound liberation, and most men are still lustful and manipulative of women. Every guy today notices this contradiction hence why there’s universal mockery of feminism with the younger generations in developed countries. A feminist girl making OnlyFans videos for men is the biggest laughingstock there is.

It’s becoming abundantly clear that feminism isn’t even a real ideology as we believe it to be. It’s just a project of social engineering that integrates women into technological society. There’s little substance to actual feminist theory and few women are truly independent, free-spirited, repelled by men, etc. There’s no international feminist movement or anything of the sort. And now that women have become enslaved to the technological system and parade their equality at the cost of fertility rates and marriage, they long for sexuality more than ever. It’s the one domain they know can never really be equal, where the dominance of a male is inherent and satisfying to them

>>23314716
Yes because women have falsely embraced male power like careerism and naively rejected the power they actually have which is over birth and death, like the hysterical childfree femanon does in this thread.

>>23313794
OP here, you're dumb. I'm not disguising a vent as a question, I'm asking a very serious question: why are women's erotic tastes literally diametrically opposed to their professed interests? Why is nobody talking about the fact that women complain about men not doing laundry, but their erotic literature isn't made up of guys doing laundry but instead Machiavellian predators with unreal bank accounts seducing women?

Think about it: imagine a world where all men say big tits are evil, they're the worst, they're the reason society is ill. They're disgusting, they make the workplace hostile, they make relationships fall apart, they poison love. And then, imagine if universally big tits were the favorite porn of men! Wouldn't that make you wonder? Wouldn't that fill you with awe? Wouldn't you question what precisely is going on? And now imagine if this big tit issue was tied to the LARGEST POLITICAL EXPERIMENT IN THE WESTERN WORLD!!! There has never been an attempt to enfranchise all women in the span of three generations into the economy, barring the spectacular implosion of the French Revolution. It's never been done on this scale in the history of the entire world! Toxic masculinity is the spice of women's erotic literature, no sane person can deny it. The very evil which feminism seeks to erase at present is precisely the engine of desire at the heart of women's erotica.

The only apt comparison I can think of is how the men of Islam openly despise women and hide them behind veils because they are ashamed and scared of their own desire.

How are people not struck with wonder about this? How are you so dull to the mystery of it? How can you not look at something like South Korea and find in it the sickness at the heart of modernity? It just blows me away.

>>23314982
Correction, Sociological experiment, not political experiment

>>23314990
It's both and also occultic.

>>23314982
>>23314990
For any other femanons who want to accuse me of being angry because my penis isn't getting sucked, I want to raise one point.

I was struck when reading John Donne the other day when one of his poems started bitching about how evil women are, how perfidious and disloyal they tend to be. This amazed me, because his time, the Renaissance, is an intensely patriarchal and misogynistic time.

Think about this: even when men had all the control, when they were totally powerful over women, they still despised women as objects of desire.

There's this notion in feminist circles that when toxic masculinity is eradicated, when finally the genders are equalized, women and men will love each other harmoniously. But what if this hypothesis just isn't true at bottom? What if the hatred the feminist woman has for men, and the paradoxical desire, is the same thing as John Donne's love/loathing of women?

All men could think about at the height of their power over women was how awful women were to love and how awful men had it to love a creature as lowly as woman. Why wouldn't women fall prey to the same temptation? Because they're sweet and kind and good? How naive. Nobody loves independence in the things that should serve.

>>23314982
>Why aren't women conscripted like men?
>Why aren't women expected to protect themselves and others like men?
>Why aren't women told to man up, get a job and contribute to society like men?
Fundamental source of female social power is virtue perception. They realize this on a very instinctive level. Men are taught women are, in some way, more virtuous than them and need to be protected. If men collectively lost this belief and treated women equally, women would be devastated.

>>23315053
Yeah, male power comes from assuming responsibility and female power comes from skirting it (literally and figuratively). So long as that's the case equality is impossible.

File: 1679882670773870.jpg (167 KB, 1193x1606)

167 KB JPG

>>23310847
More people need to read this.

>>23315032
>>23314982
Is there somewhere else I could contact you to discuss this, OP.

>>23313829
>only in the last few decades could women even own a bank account or attend university.
A few decades ago was the 90s anon

>>23314982
>How can you not look at something like South Korea and find in it the sickness at the heart of modernity?
What's the relation, exactly? How do the sexual desires of women correlate with a total collapse in fertility and marriage? If, like you say, women still desire submission to men then why does our era of hyper-promiscuity and lust produce less relationships than ever before?

>>23315207
>If, like you say, women still desire submission to men then why does our era of hyper-promiscuity and lust produce less relationships than ever before?
Because women are still submitting to men without getting anything in return e.g. longterm relationships and provisions. Blame the sexual revolution. It was an interesting idea but I think we can call it a failed experiment at this point. Easing so-called patriarchal social structures like shame (in reality women do this too) and monogamy (in reality women were traditional matchmakers) also remove the general mystery and allure from sex. People view it as just another biological necessity like eating so why not get the free sex on the internet or in your romance novels. Much less work innit?

>>23315219
>>23315207
Also it's important to note women desire submission to *competent* men, not just or necessarily evil ones. The evil in the romance novels is just an aphrodisiac, same as in some porn for men.

>>23315207

Allow me to answer your question with a question.

A thought experiment: if all men around the world were suddenly converted into women, and you developed IVF to the degree that men were unnecessary for procreation (you could take a woman's DNA, modify it a bit, create a sperm cell, and fertilize another woman's egg) would modern society run any differently?

The honest to god truth is we're pretty much on the verge of the point it wouldn't. Women can operate firearms, they can pilot drones, they can speculate on futures. The virtue of martial prowess, which was distinguished men from women, is fast approaching irrelevance. Indeed, for most women, the only thing martial prowess represents is rape and violence.

The male is totally superfluous in our world as everything but a sex object. Men are forced to play a comically unreal role of domestic protector and provider, despite the fact there's nothing really to protect against or provide for: the most dangerous thing in society are creeps who kill for sport, hardly the Carthaginians at the gates of Rome, and women are probably going to start making more on median than men in the next twenty years judging by education.

So, men are only interesting as sex objects or additional domestic insurance (preferably pleasant company as well!) The fact is man is meant to be neither of these: he is meant to be strong, capable of defending his city and destroying the cities of foemen, hunting wild animals and at the same time weeping at the tales of the gods and ancestors past. There was a time when men could aspire to be whole, serve his tribe, gain his strength, and he would be honorable and powerful. He could pound his woman, and fight to the death for her honor, and he had no need for this sociopathic neoliberal Andrew Tate garbage. Do you think a man who claims Bugattis define masculinity can even enjoy sex? Even the least of men had some primal strength to them, one must hope.

But this primal strength is gone now. It's been withering for a while, but it's truly gone. You see it in the modern confusion over how people in the past could have so many kids. "Well, so many of them died, you had to have many because it was so rough back then."

What a joke! Everything is so rational and autistic. There was a time when it was natural to look at your beloved, see their lips, their eyes, their precious alabaster skin, and think the world is better with more of your beloved in it. How much more precious that you will be commingled with them in these new vessels of life!

But if fertility is another thing to be rationally managed and calculated, then whatever. Feminism proposes that man is at his best when he acts like a woman. Dido threw herself into the sea when Aeneas left her, and Aeneas wasn't one of these egotistical creeps that lurk in modern women's darker haunts. And I trust Virgil more than any modern writer.

>>23315300
I'm very, very grateful to come from a culture where marriage is still greatly valued and most women are expected to find husbands by their early 20s. I don't know how other cultures can handle anything other than this kind of arrangement. It's an absolute death wish, it's suicide. If men and women can't get along then nothing else matters.

>>23313420
>And you're denying any categorical similarities because that aligns with your preconceived notions.
Not really, no. You're not proposing any categorical similarity - you're implying a causal analogy based on the experiment's scientific integrity. I'm denying that, because you might as well build your perception off astrology and claim categorical similarities between your opinions and your zodiacal sign.

>Values are subject to Darwinian pressures
Not really, no. Most of them are as neutral selection-wise as junk DNA, because they are merely opinions, and people have countless bullshit opinions that don't really mean anything. That's why there are countless trash value judgements that exist since antediluvian times.

Sorry, you might find a better way to pick your values than "this one is old so it has to be good or it would go extinct".

>When they survive 10~ generations they become facts, when they survive 1000~ generations they become religious dogma.
I'm somewhat disappointment by how this implies that you think religious dogma is made up from well-aged facts.

>We can act like there's nothing higher about civilization preserving behaviors, but then people who act that way will die out in a few generations.
People who value self-sacrifice "die out". People who value their community "die out". People who value solitude die out. People who hate the opposite sex do as well.

You can't marry Darwinian principles and morality, much smarter people than us tried and failed. You may keep trying but you'll always look ridiculous.

>They don't.
>but that top man is the main hoe for most of his side hoes
>MAIN hoe

>When the government makes it okay they'll fall in line.
Probably, but it was your own point that harems are more natural due to not requiring strictures as many strictures and now you're falling back on those yourself.

>>23313434
>>23313549
>>23313610
Holy fucking cope niggers

>>23315207
I apologize for flying into mysticism and aesthetics, talking of hypothetical pasts. But you must understand, I am talking of a kind of ugliness, and it is best captured in South Korea. Whiny men complaining women won't have sex with them, whiny women who see all men as rapists using the ballot. It's all so ugly. The feminist woman is incapable of imagining a beautiful, virtuous man, because the very essence of feminism is to think all virtue that can be achieved by a man can also be achieved by a woman. A virtuous man, according to feminism, is INTERCHANGEABLE with a virtuous woman. Indeed, a second listening to the solutions of toxic masculinity will tell you: you corrupt heartless men, if you were more like women, you would be better men! But men cannot act like women to become better men! Men can only act like better men to become better men, and the same with women. If we created new roles of masculinity and femininity, ways for men to be powerful and virtuous that weren't contingent on bank accounts or economic scarcity, ways for women to be desired as more than penis pockets or accessories, that would be the way.

In South Korea, they cannot do this. Their population is literally going to crater because the men and women hate each other so much. There are going to be more people over 50 than under 50 in some years in South Korea! The first society to collapse because its people can't stand being men or women anymore! But don't worry, they can tolerate their horrendous 52 hour work weeks.

And it won't collapse because of feminism or right-wingers or any of it. It will collapse because modern life is just too ugly, and the body will know not to reproduce. One act of kindness amidst the loathsome balefulness of it all: spare the next generation the curse of being alive in fruitless modernity.

>>23310847
Women's archetypal desire is Beauty and the Beast. They want a powerful dangerous man to dominate them but who will bend to their domesticating influence. Billionaires, werewolves, princes or politicians, they all fit this underlying desire.

>>23315300
>The male is totally superfluous in our world as everything but a sex object.
So is female.

>The fact is man is meant to be neither of these: he is meant to be strong, capable of defending his city and destroying the cities of foemen, hunting wild animals and at the same time weeping at the tales of the gods and ancestors past. There was a time when men could aspire to be whole, serve his tribe, gain his strength, and he would be honorable and powerful. He could pound his woman, and fight to the death for her honor, and he had no need for this sociopathic neoliberal Andrew Tate garbage.
Man is not inherently meant to be anything at all. Man was forced to be all those things by the world around him. These strong men who were forced to be things did not enjoy being forced so they build a world where there is less forcing being done to them, and you have to make your own decisions to make meaning.

Now you mean nothing and you know it, so you want at least your manhood to mean anything. But that's not a world going confused that's you being weak out of your own volition, and bemoaning that there is no world to force you into being strong.

>There was a time when it was natural to look at your beloved, see their lips, their eyes, their precious alabaster skin, and think the world is better with more of your beloved in it. How much more precious that you will be commingled with them in these new vessels of life!
It was also natural to not give names to those vessels of life for several years, for some strange reason. And even when they lived, it was natural to abuse them, to use them and to discard them. We got tired of that because that's a vicious cycle that fails to accomplish anything at all, so now we take responsibility for our offspring instead of being forced to have offspring by forces or people free of any responsibility for said offspring - and it turns out that making new people, actually caring for them and molding them into good people is actually really damn hard, and entails many hard decisions. And many people don't want to make such decisions, and there's nobody to force them now. Who the fuck are you to judge them for that? Where are your children?

Man you have issues. Work them out instead of raving about them on a literature discussion forum.

>>23314132
For most of human history, the highest status people were some form of landlord who lived off passive income.

>>23315315
>You're not proposing any categorical similarity - you're implying a causal analogy based on the experiment's scientific integrity.
The causal analogy holds based on categorical similarities between mice and other mammals. I'm sure mice communism would have worked if you were running the experiment though. That said I'm happy to hear all your grievances with the broader conclusions.
>you might as well build your perception off astrology and claim categorical similarities between your opinions and your zodiacal sign.
I do that for fun sometimes because I'm more in touch with my feminine side than you are.
>Sorry, you might find a better way to pick your values than "this one is old so it has to be good or it would go extinct".
I don't do that. Darwinism as a value system isn't that old, and probably won't survive very long either.
>I'm somewhat disappointment by how this implies that you think religious dogma is made up from well-aged facts.
They are. The adage is "traditions are solutions to problems we've forgotten."
>People who value self-sacrifice "die out". People who value their community "die out". People who value solitude die out. People who hate the opposite sex do as well.
All individuals die out, this is a matter of your values regenerating into the future. Obviously "child-free" ideology has lost its ability to procreate genetically and can only replicate itself memetically. It's a symptom of a declining culture though so it will make a comeback on the next downswing.
>but that top man is the main hoe for most of his side hoes
>MAIN hoe
By that I meant only hoe.
>Probably, but it was your own point that harems are more natural due to not requiring strictures as many strictures and now you're falling back on those yourself.
I adjusted my definitions to meet you halfway. Harems are more "natural" than monogamy because, on a civilizational scale, they are older than enforced monogamy. Obviously before we had grain silos and were just hunter gatherers everyone was just fucking freely I guess so we could go back to that I just wouldn't expect maternity leave to survive the transition. Or birth control. Or the internet. Not going to tell you what to do though.

File: IMG_8988.jpg (40 KB, 447x599)

40 KB JPG

>>23315342
>Indeed, a second listening to the solutions of toxic masculinity will tell you: you corrupt heartless men, if you were more like women, you would be better men! But men cannot act like women to become better men! Men can only act like better men to become better men, and the same with women. If we created new roles of masculinity and femininity, ways for men to be powerful and virtuous that weren't contingent on bank accounts or economic scarcity, ways for women to be desired as more than penis pockets or accessories, that would be the way.
You have a powerful writing style, and an eloquent way of expressing the current state of things. Your posts won’t be forgotten, I’ve saved them for posterity.

>>23315353
I find something genuinely sad in your post. I know you've insulted me, and that I should respond in turn, but I just can't.

The part about children being vessels isn't an original thought. It's actually five hundred years old, I stole it from Shakespeare I must confess. I'm certain too that Shakespeare borrowed it from someone before him:

Then let not winter’s ragged hand deface
In thee thy summer ere thou be distilled.
Make sweet some vial; treasure thou some place
With beauty’s treasure ere it be self-killed.
That use is not forbidden usury
Which happies those that pay the willing loan;
That’s for thyself to breed another thee,
Or ten times happier, be it ten for one.
Ten times thyself were happier than thou art
If ten of thine ten times refigured thee;
Then what could death do if thou shouldst depart,
Leaving thee living in posterity?
Be not self-willed, for thou art much too fair
To be death’s conquest and make worms thine heir.

This is his Sonnet 6, where he's imploring a friend (possibly a lover, I don't judge) to have ten children because they are too precious to leave nothing of themselves but bones when they pass. Maybe someday you'll meet someone who thinks ten more of you in the world would be a blessing.

>>23310847
>modern sexual politics
you're missing the forest for the trees.
Ever heard the phrase "do what I say not what I do"?
People are rarely honest, watch their actions not their words.
Also that saying is funnier in my language: Do what the priest says not what the priest does

>>23314064
I read that at the repeated urging of my ex and god is it awful

>>23312737
I had a an actual psychopath boyfriend for a bit once, he was close to the Byronic hero ideal

this is what androphilic trans women want too

Wanna hear an interesting question? Why are women so fascinated by true crime? Why do so many of them know more about Dahmer-tier sickos than your average edgelord anon does? Why are they like a kid setting ants on fire with a magnifying glass - delighted by death and suffering in a way that's both boorish, abhorrent and childish? Did you know that 80% of morticians are female? That 1 in 4 women 30 yo or younger have engaged in self-harm? Thar 75% of true crime podcast listeners are women? Are we supposed to just ignore it? To pretend that the topics of death, suffering and cruelty aren't particularly interesting to a growing subset of narcissitic and mentally unwell people who for some mysterious reason happen to be overwhelmingly female and gravitate towards "caring" for our dead? People who can't see mortality beyond the veil of pop-culture edgy shock-horror shlock and decided that they might as well use it as a personal thermometer for human dignity. Men like this have been largely recognized as deranged, so why are people just ignoring their female equivalent?

>>23315577
Women are into true crime shows I think partly out of hybristophilia and part of out of like, wanting to know how they might fuck up and get killed. It's collective female troubleshooting. That said I do think a lot of women are sick and watch gore videos and stuff for fascination if not pleasure. What really blackpilled me on them was accidentally clicking a pimple popping video and like dozens of women lamenting it wasn't longer. Even outwardly normal women are fascinated with the grotesque. That's what's unnerving about them. Men tend to wear their deviance on their sleeve or in their physiognomy.

File: Japan.webm (2.59 MB, 720x1280)

2.59 MB WEBM

>>23313869
Well, I'm afraid that's life; if women refuse to birth children, then civilization stagnates and collapses. Being scared of responsibility and hardship is at the crux of psychological immaturity. Your failure to be human will doom us all; it will literally destroy us.

tl;dr have sex femcel

>>23315184
This is a fed

>>23315482
>Maybe someday you'll meet someone who thinks ten more of you in the world would be a blessing.
Here's the thing though - raising ten more of anyone is an extremely hard undertaking unless you severely neglect them, and why would you neglect a blessing?

>>23315358
>The causal analogy holds based on categorical similarities between mice and other mammals.
So you saying that Universe 25 experiment would give the same results with wolves too. Elephants also. They are all mammals, after all. And cows oh wait shit cows already live like that and have no trouble breeding. Pigs too. Um, horses?

Wait, actual literal lab mice already live in conditions of even higher population density than Calhoun's experiments - when they are bred for use in experiments like Calhouns. Only those mouse farms are ran by qualified people, so they don't face the same issue.

>Darwinism as a value system isn't that old
Formal and proper scientific one - no, it's pastiche that you are presenting here is older than dirt tho. Like trying to find higher and lower values when the whole point of Darwinism is that adaptability trumps every specific advantage.

> It's a symptom of a declining culture though
That's really all you want to say here. Just bitching about the world around you people having wrong morals.

>MAIN hoe
>By that I meant only hoe.
A curious way to say that.

>Harems are more "natural" than monogamy because, on a civilizational scale, they are older than enforced monogamy.
As you pointed out yourself - promiscuity predates both of those. And we don't really have any conclusive evidence if monogamy or harems came about earlier.

>I just wouldn't expect maternity leave to survive the transition
Promiscuity WAS the original maternity leave - as lack of known fathers forced mothers to band together and raise their children in communal fashion, so that they could do it more efficiently while getting other work done.

File: 6c00621be9f987dadfcda45a0(...).jpg (192 KB, 1301x866)

192 KB JPG

>That's the female power fantasy
>Hypergamy would definitely incline women to "alpha cock"
>virtually all women romance revolves around a high status bad boy. Not just modern books
>99% of women are attracted to the dominating/dark personality
I just did the actually smart thing and asked my wife about the prevalence of "dark triad powerful wealthy rapist" thing.

She looked at me like I am idiot, rolled her eyes and said
>"Boy bands and twinks"

/lit.bros what's our response?

Don't take this stuff very seriously. The thing about these books is that women allow their imaginations to run really wild in them, without these stories necessarily being 100% representative of their real life mate choices. They're the female equivalent of a nerd writing harem fiction while being in a vanilla relationship with a chubby girl with glasses. These female writers usually marry nice white guys with stable careers and affable, easy-going personalities. There's this meme actually on TikTok where girls say they would actually be grossed out if men in real life talked to them the way male characters in books do. The male love interests in these books are very idealized versions of the sort of man women desire in their imaginations. In real life women go for the men that are available around them, who are obviously nothing like that.

>booktok
kys

>>23316182
Tell her what about the 99% of women being submissive and craving male dominance

>>23316182
that's just a developmental phase. pubescent girls find grown men too scary so they gravitate towards unthreatening androgynous boys. watch a documentary about any of those figures from the beatles to bieber and you'll see the crowds are 99% screeching 10-14yo girls with their panties soaked through. most of them grow out of it, although you do get some arrested development cases, same as how you get adult women that are still obsessed with horses, another pubescent sexual fixation. also
>I just did the actually smart thing and asked my wife
>She looked at me like I am idiot, rolled her eyes
nobody's fooled by the larp, hole

>>23316182
>So I just talked to my very very smart wife, who is far superior to me, being a woman and not a stupid smelly won't fix the garage door eats the last peach leaves the toilet seat up man, and she laughed for a solid seventeen minutes at my obvious lazy smelly inferiority to her clever pragmatic hard-working self and then wiped the tears from her still-rolling eyes and very intelligently said [some dumb shit]
Gee I wonder which gender is behind this post

>>23313794
People arguing with this woman are retarded but I do think it's putting the blame in the wrong place. Everyone knows that investing in maternal and child is the way to fix declining birthrate. The real issue is that nobody in power cares. Most of the first world workers are superfluous lackeys or servants of the people with real control. Meanwhile foreign workers just ask for the right to eat for slave labor. This is being done on purpose to reinstitute slavery on a global scale by starving out the growth free people.

>>23316339
>>23316421
>>23316446
Why are you making me think that my wife is smarter than /lit/? I didn't marry her for smarts, you are fucking ruining our relationship with your retarded coping.

>>23316182
>Boy bands
>who sing lyrics like "run baby run, run for your life. I'll tear out your heart and you'll always be mine."
Yup proved us wrong

>>23316182
Leaving the bait aside all adult women I knew who liked boy bands had arrested development and they always projected a ton of delusions into the artists. There's a reason why these korean guys hide their gfs the same way neckbeard-worshipped female idols do with their bfs.

>>23316587
>>23316421
>arrested development
Did you just imply that only SOME women have arrested development?

>>23316512
please stop with the cringe larp, can't you just own your opinions like a ma... oh wait

Like okay, you think booktok sucks (how did you hear about booktok in the first place anyway?). It's lowbrow, low IQ, SJW trash, whatever, but women really watch that stuff, they really express their ideas on there. You can study women watching booktok without liking booktok itself. You don't have to like something to be able to learn from it. Fucking retard imbecile.

>>23313794
>Women saw the shit deal their mothers had and don't want to play that game
Stopped reading right here. This argument is so beyond stupid and goes so against recorded history I can't even tell if you're a woman or trolling. The fact of the matter is the 19th amendment wasn't voted on because women kept voting against it and a lot did not want feminism because they knew what a stupid idea it would be to not be able to raise children properly

>>23316690
weird post, are you menstruating atm?

>>23316167
>So you saying that Universe 25 experiment would give the same results with wolves too. Elephants also.
I'd at least read the papers on that yeah.
>And cows oh wait shit cows already live like that and have no trouble breeding. Pigs too. Um, horses?
Cows and pigs are slaughtered. They live in horrific conditions but it's not as though their populations are left unchecked like in Universe 25.
>Wait, actual literal lab mice already live in conditions of even higher population density than Calhoun's experiments
Are all of those studying unchecked population growth? I assume the mice are given something to do besides push the food lever. Also, Calhoun wasn't the only one carrying out these experiments.
>Formal and proper scientific one - no, it's pastiche that you are presenting here is older than dirt tho.
The survival of values across millennia is difficult to observe directly and involves soft sciences like hermeneutics so you wouldn't troost it anyway.
>Like trying to find higher and lower values when the whole point of Darwinism is that adaptability trumps every specific advantage.
Being high or low is downstream from adaptability that was my entire point.
>Just bitching about the world around you people having wrong morals.
I have the wrong morals too I just recognize ones that are inclined towards longevity.
>As you pointed out yourself - promiscuity predates both of those.
Predates civilization, yes.
>Promiscuity WAS the original maternity leave - as lack of known fathers forced mothers to band together and raise their children in communal fashion, so that they could do it more efficiently while getting other work done.
I'm no fan of the nuclear family. What we have now simply isn't a return to tribal life nor even extended families it's just rampant atomization. Tribalization as you describe would be a vast, marked improvement over this, but, as far as I know, it only works in bands of ~36 people. It would be wonderful if we could return to that. It is absolutely nothing like Universe 25.
>>23316455
>People arguing with this woman are retarded
Correct on every count.

File: Screenshot_20240423_12363(...).jpg (395 KB, 720x726)

395 KB JPG

>>23315636
>>23313794
>>23313829
>>23313829
>>23313794
OMG such a blow to the patriarchy!!!! Yasssss girrrl get that bag sis twerk and get ran through and work that data entry corporate wageslave job YAAAAASSSS

How come women will write some of the most objectifying, degrading and at times hateful smut in the world yet blame guys for them writing it? I'm just fucking chilling here what the fuck did I do to make you write a guy taking a shit in your protagonist's sink and making out with her right after cause he said sorry?

>>23315053
>Men are taught women are, in some way, more virtuous than them and need to be protected
>more virtuous
I don't know if virtue is the correct way to put it, even if that's how it's presented. At root men are taught that women are more valuable, while at the same time they are acknowledged as less capable. This is true from a biological standpoint. Men are responsible for making civilization work, but if 90% of all men died overnight, mankind would bounce back in relatively short order. If 90% of women died it would be a much more difficult, violent and chaotic.

>>23315207
Hormonal birth control. It completely fucks up a woman's perceptions. Their sexual habits are completely different. They date different people than they normally would. And rather than getting knocked up in their teens and having multiple children, they simply don.t' I'm firmly convinced that after cohabitating or dating someone for several years without producing children their is a visceral reaction that occurs where the body basically comes to the conclusion that the other person is not a good mate and this kills attraction and the relationship.

>>23315342
>In South Korea, they cannot do this. Their population is literally going to crater because the men and women hate each other so much
Also keep in mind that South Korea relatively recently introduced near universal routine infant circumcision. In 1945 the circ rate there was less than 1%. Now it's like 75%+. I'd venture to guess that this genital mutilation greatly exacerbates the hatred between the sexes.

>>23316872
Yeah it's a mystery to me how Japan got off so easy during post-war reconstruction compared to Korea as far as introduction of ancient Jewish blood rites. Maybe it's because their genitals are all blurred so no one knows if they're cut or not.

>>23310847
Women are very schizophrenic, on one hand they’re proud and independent and on the other hand they want a man to order them around, this is not found in men who are sex in which the metaphor “what you see is what you get” was invented for. Women are just really inauthentic creatures.

>>23316838
>mankind would bounce back in relatively short order. If 90% of women died it would be a much more difficult, violent and chaotic.
I think you got that backwards, chief.

>>23316897
Nah he's got it right. We'd revert to patriarchy overnight if most men died out. It would restore the natural value of each sex. Wars are adaptive because they kill off the excess male population which in turn generates a baby boom because women remember why men even exist in the first place.

File: 469208542786.jpg (140 KB, 1024x1024)

140 KB JPG

>>23310847
Nobody in this thread has mentioned Taylor Swift somehow. She skyrocketed to becoming the biggest celebrity in the world the past few years. She is universally adored by all women. Her appeal stems from her personality of being a proud, intelligent independent woman. She's hard on others and hard on herself, she raises an eyebrow towards everything in society, she embodies this mystique of being a wholly self-determined female who shapes her own life as she wills it. She's too good for others, she's too good for most men, she's a daring soul who is always progressing and learning her way through life.

And yet 90% of her music is just about fucking chad and wanting a perfect boyfriend

>>23316944
That's because this isn't /mu/ you faggot

>>23316950
She's a writer, Bob Dylan won the Nobel Prize in literature, ostensibly it's /lit/ and evidence of the same phenomenon of women in art always focusing on the male gaze

>>23316893
the simple answer is christianity. when christian missionaries first went to japan they drowned them in the ocean. Nagasaki was the most christian city in the country and was obliterated. as a result christianity remains a minority of a minority religion. Korea is significantly more christian, and thus more subject to being jewish golems

>>23316958
>She's a writer
Ghostwriting doesn't count.

>>23310847
Literally every guy already knows this about women. Their hypocrisy is mind-blowing. The only reason people in this thread are acting like they've uncovered some hidden truth is because women carefully escape culpability for all their actions and viciously deny their contradictions to the point of making it taboo to even talk about.

>>23310847
True Detective Season 1 is about this exact topic btw

>>23316958
>Bob Dylan won the Nobel Prize in literature
which is ridiculous. jew lauds jew

>>23316959
That makes complete sense, good insight. What do you think are the depths of the psychological impact of male genital mutilation.

OP here.

Look, I think we’re all getting into the usual stomping grounds of these fertility discussions. Women have it rough with having to wage-slave so they can’t raise more than two kids, they all want chad even though they’re feminists, etc.

My point was specifically about one thing: the demonstrable evidence that toxic masculinity (not mere BDSM play, but specifically privileged men with egotistical and Byronic attitudes towards their partners) is sexually stimulating for a great deal of women, and the fact that feminism cannot strongly account for this without implying there is something sexy about toxic masculinity.

I’ve proposed that you cannot eradicate the fact that women ultimately want power and vitality in their men (in an uncouth Nietzschean way, not a vague sexless way), and that in a post-scarcity world, we must question what this means. I’ve proposed that the lack of fertility in the modern world probably has something to do with this, the over-rationalization of life and the blitheness of the modern male (not women in the workplace or what have you), so I take some blame in discording the discussion.

But let me drive back to the main point. Some aspect of toxicity in men must be good for women’s sexual appetite. Why so much autism about this readily evincible fact? People say “it’s just fantasy” but if I fantasized about throwing women out of airplanes without parachutes in my sexual fantasies, spending actual money to purchase tellings of this, people might rightly think something deeper is going on there.

It’s as if feminists suspect that if they’re honest about desiring toxicity (to a degree) in men, everyone will laugh at them. It’s not an unrealistic fear, but their unwillingness to discuss it with candor is making honest discussions about sexual politics literally impossible. We now have women who are forced to say if men did dishes or listened to feelings, they’d be fuckable. But these men who think doing nice things elicit sexual attention are called Nice Guys! The doing dishes is something sexy men need to learn, the sexually disinteresting won’t become interesting because of their willingness to do labor for women, feminists literally have an insult for these guys.

You’re always going to have this incel/fuckboy dichotomy as long as you tell men that being toxic is categorically bad, no qualifications. The men willing to be toxic won’t care about women, shameless and antisocial, happy to reap without sowing, and the men unwilling to be toxic will be too boring to lay with. Even women hate it, with all the complaints about fuckboys you see all over the internet.

>>23317026
Circumcision is designed to make sex less pleasurable, obviously for the man as roughly 50% of the erogenous tissue is removed, but also for the woman because the way a cut man has sex is different. Rougher and less sensual because his scarred, crippled genitals need more stimulation to get off - and that's what his goal is, to get off, because the actual act of lovemaking isn't as satisfying, but the urge to breed still exists. Then add in that cut dicks are literally smaller and less girthy because the skin was cut off, and the unnatural way men have sex, and women find it much harder to orgasm. The g spot, which is basically just the internal part of the clit, is less stimulated.
All of this causes less bonding chemicals to be released. Men's orgasms - the actual good feelings - are weaker and last seconds, instead of a minute plus. Women have fewer.
As far as the lifelong psychological damage of carving up an infant's most sensitive part, I couldn't even begin to guess.

>>23312660
>high demands of actually raising said offspring in a civilized manner turns reproduction into a massive burden
I always get a kick when childless people my age (early 30's) complain that nobody is having kids because it's too expensive because aside from bare necessities you have daycares, nannies, later on school and tutors and all-sorts of extracurricular activities, then there's birthdays, holidays, etc. And I'm like literally none of that is even remotely necessary to have a child, if your child is born in a first world country it already has a far better worst case scenario in life than all the kids born in places where people normally have like 5 kids by our age. These "demands" are purely self-imposed, they're nothing but anxieties over your kid's upbringing not being seen as "unbecoming" of the status that you think you occupy in life.

>>23314590
Most of the women that read this shit are from the midwest.

>>23312749
Class isn't wealth in that society you retard. Though a certain lifestyle is required, such as not having a job.

>>23317111
When women complain about "toxic masculinity," ten times out of ten they just mean insecure men. Women do find doing the dishes and bringing them flowers to be attractive but only when the kind if men you read about in their porn do it. It doesn't make men sexy it makes sexy men sexier, and those men don't have to do it because they can quite literally get away with murder. It's hypergamy all the way down. Watch hoe_math on youtube.
>>23317157
Ah yeah I knew all that. I agree.

>>23317170
American football is much more prominent than hockey in the Midwest, especially at the high school and college level.

>>23317574
Yes but hockey is more prominent in the midwest than pretty much anywhere else.

>>23317581
Why do women get so horny for hockey players in particular?

>>23317688
no niggers

>>23317695
For now, they keep trying to push them in since Canada is being overrun with brown people and the government is demoralizing all the white guys so now most of the NHL players are American.

>>23317688
They're generally very violent.

File: 64cabcbcce6977001984d40b.jpg (164 KB, 700x1515)

164 KB JPG

>>23317688
they want them to krak their backs

>>23310847
you arent incorrect, but you have to understand that the thing you're describing is fairly unisex
>protagonist is relatable
>they meet someone with an outlandish, interesting and engaging personality
>protagonist finds a reason to sympathize (or otherwise focus on) this outlandish individual
>they are outlandish, so this puts them at odds with a group or society as a whole
>they invest more and more into the outlandish character, likely find more reasons to do so
>there is drama surrounding this
>it blossoms into romance
the details of what each gender finds interesting will differ but the core is the same, everyone wants to meet somebody intriguing
now something that's actually rare? a woman writing about a peculiar outsider, and not just meeting one who is attractive

>>23317721
The fact the woman who started an entire fucking harassment campaign against Alex Wennberg's wife just because they started to feel uncomfortable over retarded women online sexually harassing him is insane. Especially how she tried to make it a race issue.

One of my friends has a funny story about how she was stuck on the freeway listening to a blowjob scene from the audiobook of this during her commute to work.

>>23317734
Unless you're online telling guys you want them to break your neck with their cock and make you lap up their cum you're just a prude pick-me girl in the eyes of women these days.

>>23317722
The thing OP is pointing out is that absolutely no one denies what men are into and there are entire schools of academia dedicated to critiquing it and talking about why it's a problem. Obviously there are equivalents for men, that was pointed out in the second or third reply.

>>23316131
>waah it's hard to care for a lot of children
Yeah, no shit, you do things that are hard because you think it's worthwhile. It's hard to make a lot of money too, unless somebody else has already worked hard on your behalf.

Since it's been discussed in the thread:

I met a Korean woman in her early 30's last week. I could tell she was married but I didn't know who her husband was. When I asked her if the other Korean guy at their booth was her husband she laughed like she was insulted by the idea that she'd ever date a Korean guy, ofc her husband is white. Ironically, the Korean guy was also married to a white girl. That didn't stop her from just taking a moment to tell me how she hates Korean men and how they're ugly. It felt visceral and I'm a fucking random black guy she just met through some mutual friends 2 minutes prior, and she's totally ok with dumping this on me, like sharing her feminist hatred of her own men is a bonding experience?

It was an eye-opening experience to see how trigger-happy she was to go on the attack on Korean men to a stranger. This girl wanted OUT of Korea and was ready to shit on the men and the climate, never wanting to go back. She wasn't explicit, but I got the impression that she did not want to ever have children, even with her American husband.

>>23317887
Koreans are beyond fucked in the head, I feel more uneasy around them than one of you and I'm white as snow. At times it seems like they feel absolutely nothing when it comes to putting people down and just beating them over and over with insults or passive aggressive abuse.

>>23316131
Men beat women who love them, bosses fire workers who slave for them, parents neglect children who need them. Life is cruel, anon. But if you need an answer, someone who neglects ten children would probably neglect one too. It’s true that nowadays you need to send your kid to hyper pre-school and super elementary and brilliant middle school and so on and so forth if you want them to be some soulless lawyer.

I bet a lot of parents feel retarded though these days. They expended so much money on getting their kids into college, only for there to now be too many educated children and not enough apartments. Even STEM fields, supposedly a safe economic bet, are looking a little oversaturated.

Maybe it’s a better bet to have ten kids, raise them close so if any one of them has hard times they can help each other out, you know, have kin who will fight for them, instead of having one or two, placing a mountain of expectation on them, only for them to burn out renting a 3,000 dollar a month apartment in downtown New York. Oh, John got laid off, but Sally needs a roommate anyway, why don’t you stay with her? I’m not saying it’s super plausible or anything, people generally don’t want to live in Medieval sties with eleven people anymore, but it’s hardly an unthinkably monstrous socioeconomic bet.

>>23316893
Japan got away with it by unconditionally surrendering to the US and not being split into two countries by the Soviets, and like the other anon said, the last two remaining hubs of Christianity in Japan were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Before that, Catholicism was growing but got killed off in Japan because of protestants, who left no further impact. Also I think the shinto culture is simply less compatible with monotheism. Despite the numbers, almost every Japanese PM has been a Christian, which is just a weird oddity that no one ever questions. I asked some Japanese friends and they were like "Huh, I never noticed."

Christian missionaries came to Korea during periods of famine and had a huge impact saving lives, so they found a lot of success there.

>>23317128
I'm anti-circumcision, but I don't think circumcision plays as big of a part here on society. Otherwise you'd see the same shit going on in the US, wouldn't you? Korea's only 33% Christian. The US has high circ rates because of 7th Day Adventism as well as now-debunked secular arguments for modern circumcision, not because of judaism. I'd imagine it's the same in Korea.

>>23317937
>Also I think the shinto culture is simply less compatible with monotheism.
Definitely, it's pagan.
>Otherwise you'd see the same shit going on in the US, wouldn't you?
Are we not? Men and women clearly hate each other in the US it's just the signal is drowned out by multicultural noise I think.

>>23317950
>Men and women clearly hate each other in the US
Do we? Even Andrew Tate says he loves women. I don't see how we're behaving any different from uncut Europe from social media giving every crazy person a voice.

>>23317957
>Even Andrew Tate says he loves women.
I mean, he's a pimp. I'm sure he loves women.
>I don't see how we're behaving any different from uncut Europe from social media giving every crazy person a voice.
That's fair but I think it's arguable the most extreme strands of these incel/femcel ideologies are being spun from Anglophone social spheres and spreading outward virally. It's not solely to blame on circumcision that's just one of thousands of variables and might be more of a symptom anyway.

>>23317937
>not because of judaism
it is entirely because of judaism. the initial people pushing the practice in the anglo world during the late 19th century were protestant, but during the end of the19th century, and especially after WW1 there was a huge influx of jews out of mostly eastern europe and into the united states. after 1945 the people pushing the practice in the US were jewish and it became near universal. meanwhile the practice declined substantially in other anglo countries, UK, Austrailia, and Canada. if you are american born in the last 70 years, jews are responsible for your genital mutilation

>>23310847
>>23310868
>>23310911
>>23312660
Sexual perversions are discharges of excess. Too much of responsibility, shame, or especially repression leads to a release in a form of a fetish. The overworked CEO is into dominatrixes because he feels he works too much and is shamed to be controlled by a woman. The strong wymyn feminist is into rape because she (correctly) feels that she has masculinized herself and wants the validation she is still attractive by the great force of rape. The fetish can take shape in a less direct path -- perhaps the feminist becomes a coprophagiac -- as long as shame leads to shame, the link is made.
In the past, great artists would project their desires onto their works; take the overtly sexual Romantics like Byron, de Sade, Blake, or even Baudelaire, but this extended too to Renaissance paintings' overpowering femaleness and even to the watery, self-composed Venus of Willendorf. This is not to say that these works were fetish material, but rather that they were emblems of the same excess that causes fetishes. Something in these great artists came screeching out when they crafted these pieces. Since this impulse comes from the same place that leads to art, art has always been deeply sexual.
Paglia talks of this.
What is disagree with is the idea that these impulses somehow are not "real," or that denying them is not a "lie." Humans are not violent to everyone. Humans are violent towards those they don't like. This has been conserved in the modern legal system same as seatbelt laws. Women continuing to desire rape is a sign that feminism is fake and gay and has done nothing for them. Look at any measure of happiness in feminized countries compared to 100 years ago. It's all shit. Feminism is the idea that women are defective men. Nietzsche wrote of this.

>>23318072
Best post ITT. Was wondering if this was Paglia copypasta before you cited her.

>>23318072
>Sexual perversions are discharges of excess. Too much of responsibility, shame, or especially repression leads to a release in a form of a fetish
>The strong wymyn feminist is into rape because she (correctly) feels that she has masculinized herself and wants the validation she is still attractive by the great force of rape
except women, near universally, have a rape* fetish. this isn't due to excess, it is simply their nature as women. your militant feminist would have a significantly less vanilla fetish than rape

*rape of course meaning sexually dominated by an attractive, powerful, virile man

>>23318211
I knew a woman that had a rape/sleeping sex fetish despite being raped herself it's weird.

File: 370306498_261484246822177(...).jpg (855 KB, 3219x2109)

855 KB JPG

>>23317111
Build a sex dungeon and see for yourself how women react to it

>>23318230
she had the strongest orgasm of her entire life during that experience, I'd almost guarantee

>>23318072
I'm OP, and what I'm saying here may be totally inconsistent with everything I've written thus far, but as Emerson said, "consistency is the hobgobling of small minds."

Don't you think it's odd that so many of these novels, despite being a clear discharge of excess feminine energy, aren't simple stories of being so irresistible that men rape you? I've thought about this a bit, and I think these romance novels are actually conversion stories of the Judeo-Christian sort. The woman is a martyr whose faith in the man she loves vacillates. She is mistreated, and yet she comes to love the one who mistreats her, and the psychological tension for these protagonists is always "am I fooling myself in loving a monster, or is there something deeper?" And often, the truth is the men in these novels do start off as Byronic and unsentimental, but through the suffering of the woman, and the challenges she throws at him, he rediscovers his true nature before the tragic turned him loveless and self-loathing.

If the fantasy were as simple as an excess of femininity, than it would be solved by a reciprocal excess of masculinity. And I think for some women, the kind who prowl around looking for casual daddy doms, we find this Bataille-like fetishization. But if the bulk of women became over masculine, and just needed to be feminized against their will, why wouldn't women's erotica just consist of getting manhandled by men and then stop the story there? No, there must be something else that is being repressed.

As >>23318211 implies, this narrative of sexual martyrdom is insanely ubiquitous, and if it is unbridled feminine desire, then you have to marvel at how queerly saintly it is in an age of rational atheistic materialism. The mystery of the modern erotic story is a woman's dignity is robbed of her through erotic violence, and then returned with interest through the power of love. Not unlike a martyr who is crucified upside down, and yet becomes the Keeper of the Keys. I'm not sure Bataille or Paglia are gentle enough in their apprehension to behold the mystifying river of love which runs through these novels. They always get cagey and squirrely, like Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, whenever tenderness and adoration rear their heads.

The dark romantic man is cruel and uncaring... but somehow, through her charms, he finds himself gentled and brought back into the light. She converts him. Perhaps modern man is not worth suffering for, either because he lacks fire or lacks warmth, and perhaps modern woman cannot be whole without suffering for him.

Wanting to be raped by men is naughty, yes, and confessing to that as a feminist is goofy, sure. But confessing that you love a man who may just be using you, prevailing over his own lovelessness, proving that you were right to love him, this is anathema to the entire feminist ethos. To love men more than they deserve to be loved, this, I suspect, is the dark core at the heart of the erotic novel.

>>23318496
Without going into detail I'll just say I legitimately doubt that.

>>23318496
Reddit is full of blackpills on that subject. Way too many stories and confessions from women about how their rape was the most erotic and sexually satisfying moment of their life, and how their boyfriends can't compete with the memory. What the fuck is wrong with women?

>>23318508
I don't know but I haven't had a good fuck since gradeschool either and I on top.

>>23318508
>What the fuck is wrong with women
it's simply their nature. they don't want responsibility. they want to be led and doted on and when they come up with a funny, cutesy idea you need to laugh in delight and ruffle their hair. they're designed to birth and raise and play with young children. this is what they find most fulfilling.
Don't take seriously what the gods made for fun.
Modern society is a bad joke.

>>23318508
Anon, a good portion of those posts are cuck cookers in disguise, not actual victims. Not saying it doesn't happen, but please don't take Reddit stats and posts seriously.

>>23317919
>Maybe it’s a better bet to have ten kids, raise them close
Anon, people send kinds to hyper pre-school and super elementary and brilliant middle school and so on and so forth specifically because it's easier than raising them close. It outsources a large part of parenting decisions.

>so if any one of them has hard times they can help each other out
Clans are efficient at that specifically because clan hierarchy replaces intimacy. An old-school extended family that half this board never saw outside their own fantasies is really a microcosm of a modern nation-state, same dehumanization, oppression and atomization, but also everyone has the same set hereditary diseases.

If you don't raise your ten vessels of blessing like a Mexican nigger, you will discover that most of them still wanna leave even if they care about you and you have good relationships - because they need their own identity and self-actualization. Many will fail and burn out because humans make mistakes when they try new things. Many will be unfair to you and your parenting, because while they immediately know every thing you did wrong to them it takes decades to actually see the things you did right.

All of it entirely avoidable if you beat the living shit out of them and your wife implanting a nice healthy fear of you above their fear of God (living in the boonies really helps with that, nobody to interfere with your traditional parenting), but that has kinda nothing to do with nurturing vessels of blessings - it's just breaking human beings to turn them into your personal agricultural equipment like our ancestors did for millennia. They did it to survive though. You suggest doing the same thing for the feels?

>but it’s hardly an unthinkably monstrous socioeconomic bet
Socioeconomics are the least of it.

>>23317157
It has nothing to do with cost, as you mentioned most of these 'costs' are either trivial or unnecessary, and they know it themselves. What's keeping them back from raising children is lack of the maturity requisite to take up the responsibility of birthing and raising a child. Why? Because it would impede their ability to senselessly indulge themselves. It's a conscious decision to remain naive/weak.

All the climate hysteria bullshit about "don't have children" while people in foreign countries pop out 5 each is exactly the same. None of these people have even a remotely sophisticated, 'scientifically' informed understanding of this or that 'impending climate emergency', it's just a culturally relevant issue they use to camouflage their desire for more carnal indulgences. Whether it be sex, food, drugs, alcohol, plain old sloth, combination of the above, etc.

Here's an example of what you're talking about. My parents bought in early around the 2000s to what would eventually become a very decent suburb. Due to layoffs over the years, our family was strapped for cash. I would end up not celebrating many of my childhood birthdays the 'traditional' way, in all the opulence we're usually conditioned into.
Did that destroy my ego? Absolutely not. If anything, it only planted the seeds of fiscal responsibility in me. I saw how my parents could go from being in well compensated positions to fearing as to whether they could pay for the mortgage, all in a matter of months. I understand now how superficial birthday celebrations generally tend to be, and how most families significantly overspend on trivial insignificant little toys. There was no 'trauma' from missing out on these things. Sure, it hardened me a bit, and I grew somewhat cynical as a result, but it's not something that utterly crumbled my psyche.

Again, all just excuses from immature subhumans who can barely get their own lives together, let alone bring one into the world.

>>23313794
Blah blah blah. Enjoy your senior years when there aren't any productive taxpayers around to pay into the social security ponzi scheme that you expect to benefit from.

"There is no benefit from having kids" You can kick the can down the road all you want. Just remember that one day, you will eventually reach the end of the road.

>>23313869
>If being a mom is so great, why don't you go out and become a single father?
What kind of an idiotic argument is this, as to imply that being single is requisite to having and raising a child. Are you stupid?

>>23313866
>Your body is literally designed to bear and have children. It’s getting worse cause you wait until you’re 35 to have your first.
It's really funny to me how this dumb bitch really wants to pretend that it's remotely dangerous to birth a child in, say, the United States, medically speaking. Yes, if you wait to have a geriatric pregnancy, you are not just putting yourself at an increased risk of injury, but your unborn child. How fucking dumb do you have to be to use that as some kind of gotcha? "Well having a child at 40 is more dangerous than 19" You don't say, dumbass? Even then, consider that part of the reason women are waiting so long is BECAUSE of the very sophistication of the medical system. If something goes wrong today, the probability of survival for you and your child is orders of magnitude higher than, as you said, 1650, so they don't feel any existential pressure to get it through earlier to reduce the probability of medical complications.

It's all so tiresome.

>>23316455
>Everyone knows that investing in maternal and child is the way to fix declining birthrate.
No, it isn't. Look at Scandinavia, the supposed social democracy utopian welfare states. Despite constantly pandering to women and making it as comfortable as humanly possible to start a family, the birth rate is still in the toilet.

It has nothing to do with 'healthcare investment', and everything to do with social/political attitudes and legislation.

>>23310987
I thought about the wage cut thing for a while, it will not work. Women want men to outcompete them, it's not about the man just earning more, he has to achieve that by himself, otherwise it won't trigger the same biological pathways in a woman. Yes, the current situation is very hard for men but women just voluntarily getting a paycut won't fix it.

>>23315353
>Who the fuck are you to judge them for that?
Someone who isn't so stupidly myopic as to ignore the certain future that awaits the nation whose wealth you directly benefit from, and clearly take for granted.

It's funny that you tell other people to "work out" their perceived "issues", all the while defending manchildren who you admit are too immature to take up necessary responsibilities unless there's someone standing behind, prodding them, as if they're lazy adolescents.

>>23317919
Hah, if only rent in NYC was that cheap.

>>23319431
>Despite constantly pandering to women and making it as comfortable as humanly possible to start a family, the birth rate is still in the toilet.
Actually no, the developed countries without good social support - such as Japan, South Korea, Spain, Italy, Austria and Croatia are in the actual toilet. Norway, Sweden and Iceland have some of the highest birth rates in the developed world - almost double that of SK for example. Still below the replacement rate though.

>>23313829
I wasn't aware that Goldman Sachs reserving a little under half of their analyst seats for "diversity" candidates, which includes women, qualifies as anti-female job discrimination.

A few decades ago was the 1990s.

>>23313846
>lmao where did i say i was having trouble with women
You didn't, she just subconsciously remembered that her womb is what women derive their predominant value from.
Isn't it funny how it always comes back to the same thing?

>>23315512
>Also that saying is funnier in my language: Do what the priest says not what the priest does
Spanish?

>>23317909
>I feel more uneasy around them than one of you
gee thanks kek

>>23319468
>the nation whose wealth you directly benefit from
This nigga be simpin' for massa.

Nations benefit from their people. People don't benefit from nations. If le global economy dies without a perpetual exponential growth of the labor force then why the fuck do we need that economy again? You stan P&G and Boeing or something?

>>23319527
People benefit from other people who collectively form nations, so you benefit from nations in the abstract, no? Especially when you look at something like the social security ponzi scheme, or how state leaders organize this or that welfare scheme, from which particular demographics may or may not benefit.

>then why the fuck do we need that economy again?
I'm not saying the current 'world order' is sustainable or something to really strive towards, if anything it's incredibly sick.

With that being said, that doesn't change the fact that nations, for one, have legislative differences between them, from which one may or may not benefit. Canadians for instance are benefiting less and less, both from the changing laws of the """nation""", and the people therein. The Canadian economy is extremely sick and predicated on virtually nothing beyond housing, "services", and the paltry resource extraction that's conducted and constantly hamstrung. However, people still benefit from it from all the constant deficit spending conducted in order to pay for upkeep on social welfare programs, same as the US does. The US military budget pales in comparison to welfare.

>You stan P&G and Boeing or something?
Not necessarily, but it's undeniable that Canada for ex again, used to have plenty of very respectable engineering firms, especially in the aerospace/defence sector. These no longer exist, and unsurprisingly and rightfully so, the US brain-drained Canada.

Nations benefit from their people, and the people benefit from the nation. It's a two way street, and the relationship doesn't need to be positive both ways.

>>23319388
>What's keeping them back from raising children is lack of the maturity requisite to take up the responsibility of birthing and raising a child
The people who usually have the most kids aren't exactly what I'd call mature by the time they have their first kid, they usually grow into being parents.

>Because it would impede their ability to senselessly indulge themselves
This is more reasonable. One of the "costs" people talk about when having kids is that it becomes much harder and obviously more expensive to go on vacations. So maybe don't go on vacations for a while? We live in a time where for the first time ever people don't consider having kids a necessity. Nobody says "oh I should stop eating because if I spend my money on groceries I can't afford a vacation", no you take care of necessities first and if you have money left over for a vacation good.

>>23319591
Fair enough critique. What I meant by 'maturity' in this context was the willingness to sacrifice one's own fleeting, usually superficial indulgence in order to raise another, and **sincerely** look to derive fulfillness from that.

Not to say that travelling is always "superficial", that's idiotic. Though I'd say there's a bit of a difference between visiting every tourist trap in Paris compared to riding that one main train line through all of Russia, and ending up in Manchuria. What an adventure that would be.
I tend to conceive of these significant foreign travels as being excellent opportunities for some kind of character growth. One of my friends is currently backpacking through Europe, starting in Ireland, I think that's great, and it's relatively cheap. Certainly more "value" to that expedition compared to hitting up every nightclub in London, getting pissed, and stumbling back to your hotel room, forgetting everything.

Even then, I think that people generally tend to take their own 'backyards' for granted. Living in Canada, there's so much to explore as is.

For example, consider this. As an elementary school kid, my family used to take flights every summer over to Eastern Europe, stay with family for 3-4 months, the whole deal. Keep in mind, living expenses in Eastern Europe, let alone when you're staying with family, are fuck all. Obviously that's not everyone's situation, but my point is that eventually our financial situation become so dire that we haven't been able to comfortably afford tickets back since I was around 9. The vacation wasn't expensive, literally just getting there was the filter. It's been almost a decade, and I still haven't been back. Does that suck, both because I can't see my extended family, nor explore an 'exotic' locale? Certainly. However at least with regards to the latter point, I've been able to make up quite a bit of the loss just driving around my province to local lakes with the family and friends, skiing in the winter, just playing basketball at the local school, so on and so forth.

There's a lot of joy that's accessible in our immediate environment, just need to 'stop and smell the roses'.

>>23319651
Ultimately my point is that while international travel in and of itself is certainly fun and exciting, it's not a luxury I would ever consider prioritizing over preparation for a large family in the future.

My parents would've had more than two children if it wasn't for particular circumstances that landed them in Canada as immigrants from a nation that no longer exists, and having to barely scrape by and survive for a decade before being remotely comfortable enough to consider having a child. For them, having a child while working overtime on minimum wage, while attending night school would have been entirely irresponsible.
Those are not the circumstances of the average person, certainly not in this country.

>>23319651
I get what you mean but none of the people who I ever met that had kids early ever made a conscious decision to forgo their comfort in order to have kids. They kinda just had kids because that's simply something you're expected to do when you get older. These people are usually from poorer backgrounds, so they never think stuff like "oh no but if I have a kid I won't be able to take my annual exotic vacation anymore!" because they don't take such trips in the first place, they all just go "ah well the missus is pregnant so I guess I won't be able to go out with the boys so often anymore".

There's a reason why fertility rates are highest at both extremes of the income distribution, poor people don't really feel like they're sacrificing much in order to have kids because they never had very high expectations of life to begin with, plus an upbringing that upper class people would consider too poor for their kids to those people might seem like a relatively comfortable childhood compared to what they grew up with sometimes (objectively speaking this is true, middle and upper class people vastly overestimate how much is required for a child to have a happy and healthy upbringing and often end up making their kids more miserable than poorer kids in their efforts to coddle them). Meanwhile rich people have more kids because, of course, they have enough money to have as many kids as they want without sacrificing quality of life.

>>23319583
>It's a two way street, and the relationship doesn't need to be positive both ways.
Well as you outlined yourself - people eventually lose those benefits if they are dependent on infinite exponential growth. So the economies will have to adapt to a stable population rather than an infinite influx of wageslaves - even the shitholes are gradually getting enough of being shitholes. It's not the populace that takes le welfare for granted - as everything that populace uses is eventually produced by the populace, not by the nation. It's the nations, or rather their elites, that take infinite labor surplus for granted, and refuse to accept an economy that lacks this infinite surplus.

And if the current 'world order' cannot handle a transition to a stable population, then it's a world order problem, not "myopic people" problem. For the first time in history, the people are becoming receptive to the idea that the world order exists for us, and we do not exist for the world order. It's kinda telling if you see the idea as dangerous - because it is dangerous, but not for the people.

>>23319675
Your analysis is definitely correct, I was just projecting my middle class sensibilities/experiences onto everyone else lol. That's the economic demographic I'm referring to, those who are certainly not poor or working class, but are so close yet so far away from 'real' luxury, opulence. They try and replicate it with inane purchases of 'designer' clothing that wealthy people consider gaudy and loud, outings to expensive restaurants, cars they can barely afford, so on and so forth. They keep chasing greater highs forever and putting off everything else.

Alternatively, you have the middle class folk who are simply just slovenly fucks who genuinely care for nothing but immediate stimulus. The kind of people who spend non-trivial amounts of their salary on marijuana and alcohol, as well as all of the aforementioned expenditures. For them it's not really a question of constantly chasing a new (perceived) stage of luxury, that they may or may not be able to afford, but just maintaining their adolescent, middle class lifestyle. There's no real ambition to it, just consumption. Sure, maybe they'll think about saving up for this or that vacation, but it's less aggressive. They're more comfortable, and far more consistent in lighting their income on fire by partying, bar hopping, clubbing, etc in the city they already live in.

As you mentioned, working class folk tend not to have developed a taste for all of these various cosmopolitan indulgences. They still have their own money sinks, certainly, but in my experience and clearly yours, not the kind of indulgences that significantly disincline them from ending up with kids.
Also worth noting that they aren't nearly as preoccupied with all the bullshit cop outs that middle class people are, climate crisis, overpopulation, etc. None of these anxieties live in their subconscious serving to further push them away from the mere idea of having a family.

>>23310847
did you read the book you posted? World is patriarchal but the good hot guys are feminists and there's constant girl power push

>>23313445
Women can be crafty in their own ways, but at the same time a big advantage they have over men is that they have access to the right to do things that a man wouldn't because they can expect to be able to refuse to engage in confrontation or not be called out for hypocrisy in ways that would get a man ridicule or dishonor. Women can lie to people's faces and claim they didn't say something opposite to what they did before, and expect men to not call them out on this, so they take advantage of stuff like this.

>>23319689
>or rather their elites, that take infinite labor surplus for granted, and refuse to accept an economy that lacks this infinite surplus.
That's fair enough, and I agree. For example in Canada, there's a concerted effort to squeeze people to the fullest extent possible through housing. Or lack thereof, I should say, to an increasingly extreme extent. Anything to pad the bottom line.

>Stable population
That's sort of what I'm getting at anyways. My problem is that the wageslave gerontocracy needs someone to pay into the ponzi schemes that keep the growing number of elderly alive and kicking for longer. If people are not reproducing at a replacement rate (blame the social engineers in the government apparatus for this anomaly, it is entirely their fault), who will feed the system? Even something as parasitic as what we live under can only marginally exist at bare minimum given a replacement rate of 2.1-2.5.

Never mind that in Europe, for example, North African "immigrants" are, as a demographic bloc, quantifiably an economic net negative, ie a drain, especially so in the Netherlands.
However, in some manner or another, these opportunists will eventually start taking on debt, and that seems to be the short term goal.

Again, I agree that the cosmopolitan class takes their slaves for granted. However remember that a populace can only produce 'for the nation'... if there is an actual populace to begin with, that reproduces itself in a timely manner. When I say the average middle class shitter takes life in Canada for granted, what I mean is that they are the kind who believe in cultural egalitarianism, that all manner of foreigners are simultaneously blank slate Tabula Rasas who will seemlessly integrate (but I thought Anglo colonial culture was heckin White supremacist?), while also contributing culturally to the 'global mosaic', presumably in a manner consistent with 'integration' ie their cultural values are not criminalistic, not that you could judge them that would be supremacist and racially prejudiced.

They think that the individualistic 'western culture' that enables their success through it's philosophical ideas that have generally shaped the nation they live in, will survive even when importing extremely ethno-nepotistic, unproductive foreigners, with backwards beliefs and behaviours.
'Take for granted' means that they're kicking the can down the road, and they believe that someone else will pick up the tab for them.
This is incorrect.

Keep in mind that Canada was perfectly fine up economically until like 3 decades ago when politicians starting shovelling in foreigners by the truck, boat, and plane-load. There was no need to take on all these people, it's just plain greed, and egalitarian thinking. 'All of these demographics are totally interchangeable, what's the difference?' Bullshit. The only motivation is greed, not necessity of some kind.

>if people want something in entertainment they want it in real life
I like shooting people in videogames/war games, doesn't mean i want to fight in a war in real life

>>23319689
>>23319767

I also wanted to mention that people living in shitholes are tired of living in shitholes, that's why they commit immigration fraud to enter Canada. It just so happens that these people are more comfortable wallowing the same shit, pollution, noise, corruption, and general dysfunction that they're pretending to escape, so they bring all these inconsistent behaviours and attitudes with them. It's just parasitism, they want all the western wealth and (relatively speaking) bureaucratic efficiency, without any of the requisite behaviour.
I'm speaking about India in particular here. Look at their neighbour China, which has experienced far greater human losses through military conflict, civilian genocide, famines, floods, repeat government stupidity even following the second world war, yet they still managed to pull themselves together. Not perfect or a nation I'd like to live in, but certainly half decent.
India has a similarly sized population, yet remains an incapable shithole. How long are they going to bitch about the fucking pathetic and entirely milquetoast British colonial administration as a cop out until they take some personal responsibility?
Never.
Did the chinks sit around bitching about Japanese war crimes? No, they got to work.

The idea that the average Dalit fraudster is just the same as every other Canadian citizen is hilariously wrong, and these dumb fuck individualists are in for the surprise of their pathetic lives in the following 3 decades.

If people were actually realizing that the world order exists to benefit the average person as you claim instead of the financial elite, they would come to their senses and understand that ethno-religious demographics are what truly matter, not merely 'class warfare' bullshit, "they want us fighting over RACE instead of CLASS, edit thanks for the reddit gold fellow sodomite limp-wristed faggots". Obviously they don't want to acknowledge the basic impact of demographic realities, in fact they continue to double down on their idiotic western liberal individualism, if not self-flagellation for supposedly being an evil oppressor. 'We, the people' are not realizing jack shit until ethno-nepostism prevents the average middle class midwit finance and engineering graduate from obtaining a job, or a working class tradesman from joining a union, or computer basedentist from passing an interview because saars will exclusively hire their own, regardless of the particular workplace, like the incompetent dogs they are. Sad considering that there used to be a small minority of legitimately good Indians in Canada, concentrated in Ontario, who everyone regarded as highly intelligent, motivated, ambitious, capable. They've been overshadowed by these disgusting subhuman opportunists, but they're not going to complain, seeing as they **ultimately** benefit.
The average person will continue sucking cock as long as they have 3 hots and a cot, netflix, a gaming PC. Avg person is servile.

File: 3144925B-13F5-425D-963C-1(...).png (477 KB, 822x694)

477 KB PNG

>>23318502
>WILD APPLAUSE
You've done it Turing! You've cracked Enigma!

>>23318508
Blackpill: it's an evolutionary survival strategy. Rape with a dry, closed vagina is extremely painful and can result in damage that prevents reproduction. The women who got raped and got off to it survived and reproduced (guaranteed) and the ones who didnt not only died off but never left any progeny.

File: jp.png (140 KB, 1262x634)

140 KB PNG

>>23310868
Jordan Peterson's a retard

>>23320063
Why do women always use animal reacts? Do they feel kinship with critters? They use them the same way virginal men use anime girls.

>>23320544
the prose is inappropriate but still beautiful, why is this shilled here as a joke again?

>>23321084
It's just a joke because it's so popular. Same with stuff like ITAOTS on /mu/ or NGE on /a/, has nothing to do with the intrinsic quality. Definitely read it.

>>23315032
>All men could think about at the height of their power over women was how awful women were to love and how awful men had it to love a creature as lowly as woman.
This is still the case today. Men largely hold disdain for women yet we can't stop loving them and cooming to them (mostly biological reasons, surely). Women now have some power so feel the same contradiction of desire although its probably always been there for them to. Is there any difference in what you're railing against here with fantasy romance slop and say men's public condemnation of sluts while simultaneously wanting to fuck those same sluts? Like the anons above have suggested, porn for men is what /lit/slop is for women. This love/hate dynamic has always existed, idk why it is so troubling to you. I find it beautiful and it adds a lot of spice to life as we try to reconcile our more base desires with our more noble nature. I, personally have succumb over and over to those animal instincts and like to think I have learned lessons along the way. That's what life is about, OP.

>>23313839
>>23313852
>>23313859
>>23313866
>>23314104
>>23314132
>>23314413
>>23314982
>>23316455
>>23316702
>>23316753
>>23319404

Have any of you ever saw the stretch marks that pregnancy leaves? The idea that just because the female body can produce babies makes it flawless is just pseudoscientific, we are full of errors. Women get incontinence, fecal and urinal for giving birth, diabetes, vaginal dystrophy, anal and vaginal prolapse. The fact that you don't know this shows how you just spend way too much on ridicule ideas online, if you were to spend time with older women you would know this, but have never had a connection with anyone. You lack any minimal amount of empathy and sociability.

>>23319388
>countries pop out 5 each is exactly the same
This bad conservative argumentation. Very few countries are having more than 2, not even arabs, and even there is lowering, there is no replacement, everyone is having less kids.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate

This is the reason I hate lit sometimes, alongside neoreactionary and French 60s philosophical ideas.

Take a look at this thread, everyone feels like having the truth but no one mentions a paper, theory, experiment. Yet they feel so right in speaking with such sureness.

Almost every single comment here is wrong, females that are having babies in developing nations are the most high earning educated ones, the idea that feminism has lead to lower birth rates doesn't correlate with the reality that those females that engage in the lifestyle you put on a feminist label are the ones that have the lowest relationship with the problema you believe modernity brings.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2010/06/25/childlessness-up-among-all-women-down-among-women-with-advanced-degrees/

Engage in real risk, poetry is no substitute for life.

>>23323223
your body is going to be progressively obliterated by age anyway. you are still going to become ugly and weak and incontinent without going through a single pregnancy but the woman with children will have their love and support in old age, whereas you will be facing your body's dissolution alone, bitter and scared. congratulations, you've prevented stretch marks but cursed yourself with a lonely death. it's an incredibly bad trade

>>23323223
Trembling spinster hands typed this post

>>23323223
Do you just think every time a woman gives birth she just almost dies every time? Even before the modern day women survived childbirth the majority of the time without major complication, but somehow today, when literally every complication has an answer and can be solved it's somehow absolutely terrible.

>>23323237
>>the idea that feminism has lead to lower birth rates doesn't correlate with the reality
>posts an article showing that the feminist push for contraception, abortion, and socially-acceptable childlessness has lowered birth rates among every demographic except the 1%
This is why i hate 4chan

>>23310847
>why is ficction written by women or are recognized as good by women barely ever transcends their most basal instincts?

>>23323223
To be fair I don't think you yourself should had kids either. But yes, bringing life into the world necessitates some degree of sacrifice.