~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
Ayahuasca__
[–]Southerndude62 165 points166 points167 points 5 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link
When people go to Banks for a loan, their financial history is very relevant for a loan. But when it comes to women, their sexual history isn't relevant for a lifelong commitment. Feminist logic.
Fuck feminism.
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 30 points31 points32 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Woke guy 😎
[–]Cold_Difficulty_5298 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Here take my silver bro
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link
Works also for mens logically
[–]ravix_ridamaki 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yet the picture above promotes that bullshit for women and we don't, ever seen a man with holding that caption?
[–]IM_Pakshi 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm pretty sure...if a guy had sex with ton of girls you can easily spot him as a dick head , and most of the guys won't even get a atleast 2 gf ... only guys with money get pusssies
[–]Southerndude62 -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link
A key that opens all locks ( like men with multiple women) is called a master key. A lock that opens to all keys (like a s*ut) is called a defective lock. So no, logically doesn't work on men.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link
Women aren't a object, they are human, don't objectify them. When you find a human comparison tell me. Also this don't work with gay mens. There's a difference between anti feminism and pure misogynie. You're the latter.
[–]Southerndude62 -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link
The Bankers analogy works for people, you dumb woman. Objects don't show up for a bank loan, humans do. You are a dumb misandrist and nobody cares what you think. You are dumb: but no surprise: youre a feminist.
[–]Zamblotter 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wow, I just checked this sub out from a justUnsubbed post and no surprise it is a woman hating echo chamber. Its ashame your so called key won't be fitting any locks :(
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link
Hope that no women date your sexist ass, they're much better with guys that respect them.
[–]Southerndude62 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link
I hope you stock up cat food, as you're going to be spending a lot of time with your cats but no men. Respect isn't given for free, dumb woman, it's earned. Women can't have it for free.
[–]DepressedNerd07 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link
Oh so men can?
[–]Southerndude62 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link
You think men have respect for free? LOL. Men are blamed for all evil. You stupid feminist have only misandry as your agenda.
[–]DepressedNerd07 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link
Men aren't blamed for all evil. They are blamed for the evil they have committed. All wars, started by men. All major decisions that negatively impact people, men make them.
I dont go up to one of my guy friends and blame him for WW2 because Hitler was a guy, but you cant say that women cant get respect for free just because she has had multiple sexual partners, yet men dont get any respect in general. Because that is ignorant.
And misandry is not on our "Agenda" it's really the opposite. And Mysogyny is embedded into your way of thinking, I can already tell.
Fuck off and get a life loser.
[–]IM_Pakshi1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
men are blamed for Most of the evil*
He made a good point....you won't see a guy holding a caption like this cuase: Women is lika a magnet while men are like iron nails ...even how strong we are we'll still go for a girl even how evil she is....
[–]DepressedNerd071 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
But what does that have to do with what I said?
Men are blamed for most evil because they have committed most evil. If the roles were reversed and women were always leading then they would be blamed for that evil.
It's not a biased point of view, it's the truth.
Oh no you got it wrong babe , I was just correcting you about evil thing .....you said all the evil , so I just said most of the evil
Ohhhhhh, yeah that's what I originally meant, thanks.
You must be an obsessed feminist to come to r/antifeminism
No, I just saw this cross posted on r/BlatantMisogyny
You guys will be downvoted here.....so just stay away
I try, my conscience doesn't always allow me too.
Anyways no offense tho , there are only like 25k members ....so it's a like minded people just farming karmas and telling their points ....so how much you react ..is not gonna help
Yeah, I'm aware of that. Its like screaming into a void.
Or trying to tell anyone on r/MGTOW that women aren't heartless monsters.
We are not against sweet womens of the earth, we are against the karen feminist and sexist girls of Hypocrisy.....some dude take it seriously thinking every women is bad ... that's alll
I may disagree with your ideology, but I respect it I guess
Ya whatever .....this is the internet babe ...get bullied or get better
By "Better" I'm guessing you mean no longer a feminist.
In that case, I'd rather be bullied.
Ugggh....I didn't mean it as a anti feminism way ....I just said its the internet the majority gets to pick...and ya ryt now you are in a subreddit where you are a minority and in the world this subreddit is a minority so ya I quoted "get bullied or get better" ...you are a cavegirl feminist ,try understand what others meant
It's hard to understand what others mean when they dont seem to make it very clear.
You cant just write a few words and automatically expect me to know exactly what you meant.
Then don't reply fucking things, just ask them if you didn't know
I was going off what I thought it meant.
Why should it be my job to ask what it meant when you dont make it very clear to begin with.
[–]IM_Pakshi0 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
At this point you are being a karen...at first I had a respect for you now it's all gone. And fucking don't act smart if you didn't understand what he said ... fucking ask
Oh, so not knowing what you meant because you clearly dont even try to bring your point across, makes me a Karen.
Because...that makes sence?
I'm done with you assholes. Go bitch about women wanting rights.
And dont even bother responding, your blocked.
Hahahaha 😈😂😂men are bad yeahh ...men should die...men are depressed
[–]MandrakeThePancake 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I highly doubt you would say the same about men, you inbred cockroach.
[–]kookie_doe 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Because women aren't banks you dumb fuck
[–]throwmeawayname -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Please specifically lay out this metaphor of loan vs sexual history. Financial history is important for a loan. It's used to factor risk and liability to fulfilling the agreement between lender and borrower. With a relationship, there isn't that sort of arrangement other than boundaries and (assumedly) being monogamous. Sexual history isn't intrinsic or inherently indicative of someone's worth as a person, nor how they behave in a relationship unless it's a trail of infidelity. You can have multiple partners without ever have been unfaithful. ...Are you worried you won't be able to fulfill a woman who's had more sexual experience than you? Is that the root of this? Or somehow you view someone as used up or not as pure because they're able to enjoy sex more openly than you can with your 1600s stance on the female body?
In OPs image, its equating women to literal possessions. Which again, doesn't make sense unless you're proud of seeing women as such. And unless you're of the incel teenage mindset that more partners = loose - if there isn't an STD issue, then someone else's sexual history has no real effect on you other than rattling your own insecurities. You may as well thrown out the "lock that opens to any key is a shitty lock" jab that really has no bearing either.
[–]Sleepymelmo 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Actually based
[–]Southerndude62 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Sexual history is important to identify if a woman is a s*UT and hypergamous and in future may leave a man as she is "unhappy" with her sex life. Your useless barrage of words answered short and sweet.
[–]CompleteFacepalm 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sex isn't the only thing in a relationship.
[–]road_laya 92 points93 points94 points 5 years ago (111 children) | Copy Link
I have a nice friend, Bob, that might be interested in you, miss.
He's 59, unemployed, homeless, a midget and he is coming home to marry you in 15 minutes. But don't worry! His value isn't based on his wealth, looks or age!
[+]KristianGdG -57 points-56 points-55 points 5 years ago (109 children) | Copy Link
No one mentioned wealth, looks or age though. And no, those things shouldn't be used to evaluate a person either. Sure, their value to you as a partner might be less, but the overall respect they receive should be the same. The same applies to a girl's number of sexual partners. Would you say Bob would've had more or less value if you included the amount of sexual partners he's had?
The shoe analogy doesn't work either. Shoes depreciate in value because they get worn out, but vaginas are pretty much the same whether 5 or 50 dicks have been inside of them.
[–]road_laya 31 points32 points33 points 5 years ago (107 children) | Copy Link
Being a man is not the same as being a woman, especially not in terms of relationships. Men and women have different biology, preferences, psychology, economics, timespan for children, and different roles in a traditional marriage. So why would you expect men to be attracted to the same things as women would be attracted to? They were born this way, you know.
[+]KristianGdG -31 points-30 points-29 points 5 years ago (106 children) | Copy Link
No one ever told you to be attracted to anyone either. The keyword is "respect". You don't have to be friends with or in a relationship with promiscuous girls if you don't want to, just stop insulting and demeaning someone for liking orgasms with other people.
[–]kratbegone 16 points17 points18 points 5 years ago (105 children) | Copy Link
Women lose bonding when fucking that many guys. That is why divorce is initiated 85% by women. So guys have a right to know histories since the higher the count, the less likely she will stay committed and the higher chance of divorce rape. So as long as guys only date high count women everything is fine. But a man would be a fool to marry the same woman. Don't like it, reality sucks. Luckily for you there are plenty of dumb men who will not learn this until too late. Respect is earned, not just given. And our options are just as important as yours.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability
[+]KristianGdG -22 points-21 points-20 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
So promiscuous women tend to be less loyal in relationships. So what? Like I said, she might be less valuable to you as a partner, but her value as a person hasn't changed one bit.
And no, guys don't have a right to know histories, and the fact that a lower chance of commitment leads to higher rates of divorce rape is DEFINITELY a problem on the guy's part.
And yes, respect is earned, but there's a base level of respect you should have for a person you know nothing about. That amount can in- or decrease as you get to know the person, but the amount of sex said person has had should not be a factor.
[–]Shan_Miller 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I don't see how this is a problem for men.
In case you haven't noticed, the marriage contract almost solely benefits the woman in the relationship. It puts us at risk for loss of our finances, homes, cars, and puts a burden of responsibility for children that aren't ours in many states.
Don't worry, I'm sure half the men here will still have sex with you. We just won't respect you or have a long-term relationship with you because of your track record. The other half of us will be too worried you are disease ridden, and just like rotten meat, we won't touch you.
And don't worry if you don't tell us, your friends do. People care about people getting hurt, and bouncing from man to man does that. It hurts people. Even if you don't like to admit you've hurt people in the process.
Same goes for men. Feminists like to talk about how men are allowed to rack up numbers and just get fist bumps from their friends, but man-whores are seen as just as lowly to most of us. It isn't hard to get laid these days. Caving in to random women just shows you are weak-willed.
Sure reality can suck if you make bad choices.
Its still reality.
[–]KristianGdG 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Oh that's what you meant by divorce rape, I was thinking of something much worse. And I'm a guy, but even if I were a woman, I wouldn't want any member of this sub within a mile of where I am.
And no, same doesn't go for men, you can pretend, but it won't change the fact that our culture is at the very least tolerant of promiscuous men, but generally looks down on women who do the same.
But yeah, can't really argue against women being favoured in divorce courts as I have never seen evidence for the opposite, but I still believe it is a result of toxic masculinity, which feminists have tried to fight since forever.
Also didn't see you argue against women still having value despite being promiscuous, so I'm just gonna go ahead and assume we agree on that now.
[–]Shan_Miller -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Think you got me confused with someone else.
[+]daysinnroom203 -11 points-10 points-9 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You’re in the wrong place if you’re trying to apply logic to this way of thinking. These people are way to emotional, and are making emotional responses.
[+]rogeliana -10 points-9 points-8 points 5 years ago (99 children) | Copy Link
That is why divorce is initiated 85% by women.
No, it's more because these men are making the women miserable, and the women are more willing to take a financial hit than stay with their husbands. The husbands must be pretty bad.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/the-divorce-gap/480333/
Look, I'm quite religious and am in favor of chastity in both women and men before marriage. (Emphasis: BOTH men and women. Not just women.) But I think that study you link to (which looks like it has its own biases) is not showing the complete picture.
My theory is that women are working more, are becoming more socially aware that they don't have to put up with a man who makes them miserable.
When I was very young, the idea of "divorce" was shameful (especially in my church) so people would just suffer unhappily rather than divorce. The stigma has lessened over the years and that's another reason why divorce is on the rise. Now, when a marriage is miserable, more people are willing to end it, where before, they wouldn't.
I also suspect that the prevalence of porn in recent years has made more porn addicts, especially men (who seem more susceptible to porn), and women don't want to put up with that. (I know I wouldn't.) https://verilymag.com/2017/07/causes-of-divorce-effects-of-watching-pornography
[–]p-tittyy2 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link
Since when have women taken “financial hits” from divorce? More accurately, it’s akin to winning the lottery.
[–]rogeliana 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/men-v-women-who-does-better-in-a-divorce
[–]p-tittyy2 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link
I bet you thought you proved something with that heavily researched, statistically accurate article from legalzoom.com didn’t you?
[–]rogeliana 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link
There are plenty of other articles available, but you'll certainly dismiss them all, preferring the narrative that all divorced women are living high, and are gold-digging harpies. By all means, keep drinking that manosphere Kool-Aid.
[–]Shan_Miller1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I see you aren't just posting shit opinion pieces in just one conversation.
Seems a trend where you post baseless shit in every discussion you have.
[–]rogeliana1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Oh my gosh, so butthurt because I spoke ill of porn. You're hilarious.
Nope.
I just detest humans like you who believe myth because it fits the narrative you find convenient so you don't have to question your basis of understanding for reality.
You know, the type of simpleton bitches that claim they want equality then turn around and dog on men for not buying a woman lunch.
Wow, militant and all of that. Really wound tight, you are. You're a barrel of laughs.
Yup, and have my feet firmly planted in reality.
You should try it. You know, after you figure out you've based your whole life around a myth that will vanish forever after you die just like you will.
How much time you going to waste in church just to fade into nothingness, having wasted so much of your life praising a fictional flying sky-wizard.
You keep trying that, and keep going nowhere with it. It's not ruffling my feathers. I just wish you'd come up with something new. "Flying sky-wizard" is so yesterday. Come on. Try "Flying spaghetti monster"? I mean I know it's old, but it would be at least a change. Cuz to be honest, you're getting really stale here with your knee-jerk hyperbole. Let me think, I want to help you out here. Magic Leprechaun in the sky? Sacred Alpaca in the clouds? Come on, you can do better, I know you can!
I could care less if the truth ruffles your feathers or not.
I get you are a compulsive liar with no basis in reality.
You've based your life around myths. Why would you think anyone cares what you say? I get you aren't smart enough to realize that, but no one cares what someone who bases their life on myth has to say about how, 'life really is'.
Oh my gosh! You just keep going and going and going! It's hilarious!
Only one person is having fun right now, and it's not you.
Actually I'm playing a game :)
I'm having a lot of fun at the moment. Sorry you feel like people have to be miserable to see you for the piece of shit you are.
It's only after it's obvious that I'm having a blast that you start claiming to be "playing a game." Not buying it. You're clearly wound too tight for that. Lighten up Francis.
Don't care, want to play a match?
Magic: Arena.
I figure you probably don't play games that require you to be intellectually stimulated tho.
I should have known. A gamer and into porn. LOL!
You've never heard of Magic.
I get it, like I said, you don't do intellectually stimulating things.
Gamer, porn, angry atheist. Fancies himself as an intellectual. The big trifecta of fun. Please, tell me you're a troofer or a furry or something as well. It would just be too perfect.
You don't seem to understand much about the world at all.
Magic is the one game so complex that no supercomputer packed with AI can play. :P
Too many complex possibilities and strategies.
But I get you want to get under my skin because you suck at everything in life and want someone to be miserable like you.
I'm sorry that it sucks to be you, and you need other people to be miserable, to justify your shit behavior and belief in myths.
What a great christian woman you are.
Magic is the one game so complex that no supercomputer packed with AI can play.
Richard Schmid just died. Google him. That's my real world. I need to finish his book. Who has time for Magic. I should be reading his book now, as a matter of fact.
I just ... can't. Gamer, porn user, angry atheist. Intellectually superior because they play a game. No, I just can't.
Lol, I'm not a gamer, or angry, or an athiest. And yes, like 87% (and the self reported % in that which chose to lie) of the males in this country, I do occasionally watch porn.
I'm sorry you suck at life, make rash assumptions, lie frequently, and worship fiction which tells you not to be the way your acting.
Truly am.
Good luck writing with your shit book.
I'll be playing my card game, wondering why you choose to rage against one of the few things that define humans from other animals, a need to play.
Lol, I'm not a gamer, or angry, or an athiest.
Don't believe you.
What "shit book" are you talking about? Richard Schmid's book? You couldn't even Google him?
Don't care. You don't get to define me.
Don't care to. He likely isn't important to me.
You should however read some Hume, Kant, Bacon, Hobbes, and Rosseau.
And maybe stop being such a lemming.
LOL. You say "good luck" writing with my "shit book" and you have no idea what it is. And I'm not writing it, if you cared to comprehend what I actually said before.
I'll add the books of Virgil Elliot, Andrew Loomis, Anthony Ryder, James Gurney. Excellent books, very educational, but quite demanding, though. Since you haven't heard of Schmid I'm going to assume you know little about the others (except for one name perhaps?) but in your ignorance, you're still sooooo sure you're on a superior plane.
But go ahead and play your game! I'm not missing out on anything by being much more interested in the works of Schmid, Loomis, Ryder, or Gurney. Much more enriched, in fact.
Fiction is easy.
Understanding reality is what is difficult, child.
It's embarrassing that you assume these masters write fiction.
Have to ma'am. Fiction and myth are all you know.
That and you scoffed at the four forefathers of western civilization to talk about some shit artists which did little of ACTUAL substance with their life.
tbh I'm glad the dudes dead. apparently all he did was push brushes onto a canvas, covid should have taken him out earlier.
Fun fact.
My first scholarship was for art. I turned down the scholarship because art school is a waste of time. The scholarship was for a contest, which I submitted a still-life of a homeless little girl, done in watercolor. Was about 2 weeks of painting total.
You are basically me when I was 12, right before I got into the sciences heavy.
Maybe you are why the origin of the world 'girl' is that it means CHILD.
You would probably kill to have the amount of talent and intelligence I have :P I'm sure you won't agree, but it doesn't matter. You are a no-one online and don't have to power to erase who I am and what I have done.
I'm one of the lucky few who got both sides of his brain in full force.
but do. Go worship some artists some more to piss your, tell you what I'll rename him, virgin rapist 'god' off.
Great Christian woman you are.
*Slow clap*
Now go on, lock step, give me your hateful rebuttal to continue me making a point out of you and your false moralities and shit dogma.
Edit: I had posted something else, but upon further reflection it seems like this discussion went from snark and fun and games to you going over the bend. Some of the things you wrote just don't seem to be coming from a mentally healthy place. (I'm not talking about your insults towards me, which are the same old same old, but specifically the denigrating comments about art and in particular this recently departed artist.)
I just don't get what prompted you to write that. Seriously. Wow.
I'm done now, I think, since this has become really weird.
Edit2, I'm copying and pasting your whole post for context. Holy cow.
Have to ma'am. Fiction and myth are all you know.That and you scoffed at the four forefathers of western civilization to talk about some shit artists which did little of ACTUAL substance with their life.tbh I'm glad the dudes dead. apparently all he did was push brushes onto a canvas, covid should have taken him out earlier.Fun fact.My first scholarship was for art. I turned down the scholarship because art school is a waste of time. The scholarship was for a contest, which I submitted a still-life of a homeless little girl, done in watercolor. Was about 2 weeks of painting total.You are basically me when I was 12, right before I got into the sciences heavy.Maybe you are why the origin of the world 'girl' is that it means CHILD.You would probably kill to have the amount of talent and intelligence I have :P I'm sure you won't agree, but it doesn't matter. You are a no-one online and don't have to power to erase who I am and what I have done.I'm one of the lucky few who got both sides of his brain in full force.but do. Go worship some artists some more to piss your, tell you what I'll rename him, virgin rapist 'god' off.Great Christian woman you are.*Slow clap*Now go on, lock step, give me your hateful rebuttal to continue me making a point out of you and your false moralities and shit dogma.
Oh was I too obvious there with what I did with you there at the end?
My bad.
Here is a bit of your pre-edit text from my email for sake of context about how ill YOU are mentally, showing your lack of education in art as well.
Watch what I did here.
"Was about 2 weeks of painting total. That's an awfully long time to do a single painting. Especially if you aren't having to wait for the paint to dry, like in oils. Newbies talk about how "long it ..."
Well for what is 'your life', you seem to not know shit.
2 weeks for a painting that won a scholarship is a rather short period of time. Watercolor is also one of the most difficult mediums to master. It was realism, not abstract, and I was working a 40 hour a week job at a bowling alley while attending high school at the time. I was also in numerous school clubs. Debate, academic, and art club to name the most time demanding. I was also an active member of Demolay, and an active member of the Church, which I typically attended twice a week. Once being youth ministry. I also played in a band on the weekends, and was a bright flight student, being a college sophomore before I had exited said high school. I had very little 'free time'.
Oh did I mention I was homeless at the age of 14? I was. At first I bounced from house to house where I could, eventually sleeping in a cemetery. If I was lucky I could get a ride after work to where I slept, otherwise it was about an hours walk to where I could finally pass out for the night.
Well I suppose you could ask yourself why I was painting a homeless girl. Instead of wondering what inspired a high school student to approach such a serious tone with such a difficult medium, you scoffed.
In doing so you showed yourself.
Now pay attention, I hope you learn something here.
"Now go on, lock step, give me your hateful rebuttal to continue me making a point out of you and your false moralities and shit dogma."
\^ I'm guessing this statement I made, CAREFULLY placed at the end, is what made you think to go back and edit it, not thinking I would have a copy of part of your hateful rebuttal in my email.
Probably started typing your initial response before having full read what I had to say. I don't even have the full response and you can see the hateful disdain for what is supposed to be what you consider, 'your life'.
This was indicated to me by how you frequently use the reply button to go line by line through my reply, as well as the quickness of your replies. You weren't thinking. You weren't conversating. You had no time to waste with thoughtfulness.
Attempting to pick it apart before you understood the entirety of the message, line by line. Which I realize you aren't aware, but you did a poor job of, showing your ignorance frequently. Booing over me not buying into your studies, while simultaneously ignoring my studies from the same site... oh how did you put it... 'government study'.
You don't think first. You are what God in your holy book calls a FOOL.
Proverbs 18:13 "Spouting off before listening to the facts is both shameful and foolish."
Check. Mate.
Dance puppet.
Dance.
At this point I cede all further argument having shown you for what you are.
Two-face, biggoted, uninformed, holier-than-thou, believer of myth and fantasy that discards real world information to make her feel better so she can feel that she has 'won' an argument. Unable to reason on your own subjects in which you claim to have based your life, and seeking to judge others foolishly. Going against every rule in your own faith to stomp someone down. Hypocrite.
A coward that feels the need to delete the evidence to hide it. No one tell you we are all allowed to make mistakes? And that LEARNING from them is what improves us at people? You are not allowing yourself that process.
I'm an award winning artist. Chances are, given different circumstances, we probably would have found that we have a lot of common ground.
That said, I call no man master, but you do. Child of 'God'. I have no false idols. You called a mortal man master more than once in just this conversation.
I love Salvidor Dali, but the dude was a nut that played with poop. Did you really even know who this guy you called master was? Or you just proclaim him as a master because the article you posted does?
I turned my back on religious nuts like you because you merely use your church and beliefs as a scape goat. A church you believe people do 'less wrong' against all statistic knowledge, so you yourself feel you can get away with your hypocrisy, idol worshiper.
Fake ass god for fake ass people. Amen.
Now tell me. Lesson learned?
Here is me.
I draw, paint, sculpt, in several mediums. I play guitar, clarinet, saxophone, sing. I engineer, draft on Fusion360, revvit, solidworks. do 3d art in Blender, 3dStudio Max, going back to TrueSpace in the early 2000s. I create digital art in the adobe suite. I have programmed in 22 languages now, which I started age 12. Designed webpages you likely have been at without even knowing. I have gone through DiffyQ in math, comp 220 in English, and am very well read an educated. I shook the President Obama's hand in 2013 when I was awarded excellence in service, having worked on government systems.
I accomplished more by age 30 than you likely will accomplish in your life, and I did it from homeless beginnings. And you think you can drag me down? HAH.
Yet you sat here and pretended like I was a porn addicted gamer who couldn't accomplish anything to make yourself feel better about having lost an argument.
Good job. If I could accomplish half this while watching porn and playing games I would have to be your fictional God.
But really, who cares about me.
You need to allow yourself to be wrong so you can learn and move to better things. I cannot do that for you, and I can do a lot of great things. Only you can allow yourself to learn from your mistakes.
Good luck with life. Genuinely hope you have learned something, perhaps something other than the hatred you've put so clearly on display.
Just saving this for context again.
I can tell you don't "see" what I'm getting at in your current mental state, but damn.
Oh was I too obvious there with what I did with you there at the end?My bad.Here is a bit of your pre-edit text from my email for sake of context about how ill YOU are mentally, showing your lack of education in art as well.Watch what I did here."Was about 2 weeks of painting total. That's an awfully long time to do a single painting. Especially if you aren't having to wait for the paint to dry, like in oils. Newbies talk about how "long it ..."Well for what is 'your life', you seem to not know shit.2 weeks for a painting that won a scholarship is a rather short period of time. Watercolor is also one of the most difficult mediums to master. It was realism, not abstract, and I was working a 40 hour a week job at a bowling alley while attending high school at the time. I was also in numerous school clubs. Debate, academic, and art club to name the most time demanding. I was also an active member of Demolay, and an active member of the Church, which I typically attended twice a week. Once being youth ministry. I also played in a band on the weekends, and was a bright flight student, being a college sophomore before I had exited said high school. I had very little 'free time'.Oh did I mention I was homeless at the age of 14? I was. At first I bounced from house to house where I could, eventually sleeping in a cemetery. If I was lucky I could get a ride after work to where I slept, otherwise it was about an hours walk to where I could finally pass out for the night.Well I suppose you could ask yourself why I was painting a homeless girl. Instead of wondering what inspired a high school student to approach such a serious tone with such a difficult medium, you scoffed.In doing so you showed yourself.Now pay attention, I hope you learn something here."Now go on, lock step, give me your hateful rebuttal to continue me making a point out of you and your false moralities and shit dogma."\^ I'm guessing this statement I made, CAREFULLY placed at the end, is what made you think to go back and edit it, not thinking I would have a copy of part of your hateful rebuttal in my email.Probably started typing your initial response before having full read what I had to say. I don't even have the full response and you can see the hateful disdain for what is supposed to be what you consider, 'your life'.This was indicated to me by how you frequently use the reply button to go line by line through my reply, as well as the quickness of your replies. You weren't thinking. You weren't conversating. You had no time to waste with thoughtfulness.Attempting to pick it apart before you understood the entirety of the message, line by line. Which I realize you aren't aware, but you did a poor job of, showing your ignorance frequently. Booing over me not buying into your studies, while simultaneously ignoring my studies from the same site... oh how did you put it... 'government study'.You don't think first. You are what God in your holy book calls a FOOL.Proverbs 18:13 "Spouting off before listening to the facts is both shameful and foolish."Check. Mate.Dance puppet.Dance.At this point I cede all further argument having shown you for what you are.Two-face, biggoted, uninformed, holier-than-thou, believer of myth and fantasy that discards real world information to make her feel better so she can feel that she has 'won' an argument. Unable to reason on your own subjects in which you claim to have based your life, and seeking to judge others foolishly. Going against every rule in your own faith to stomp someone down. Hypocrite.A coward that feels the need to delete the evidence to hide it. No one tell you we are all allowed to make mistakes? And that LEARNING from them is what improves us at people? You are not allowing yourself that process.I'm an award winning artist. Chances are, given different circumstances, we probably would have found that we have a lot of common ground.That said, I call no man master, but you do. Child of 'God'. I have no false idols. You called a mortal man master more than once in just this conversation.I love Salvidor Dali, but the dude was a nut that played with poop. Did you really even know who this guy you called master was? Or you just proclaim him as a master because the article you posted does?I turned my back on religious nuts like you because you merely use your church and beliefs as a scape goat. A church you believe people do 'less wrong' against all statistic knowledge, so you yourself feel you can get away with your hypocrisy, idol worshiper.Fake ass god for fake ass people. Amen.Now tell me. Lesson learned?Here is me.I draw, paint, sculpt, in several mediums. I play guitar, clarinet, saxophone, sing. I engineer, draft on Fusion360, revvit, solidworks. do 3d art in Blender, 3dStudio Max, going back to TrueSpace in the early 2000s. I create digital art in the adobe suite. I have programmed in 22 languages now, which I started age 12. Designed webpages you likely have been at without even knowing. I have gone through DiffyQ in math, comp 220 in English, and am very well read an educated. I shook the President Obama's hand in 2013 when I was awarded excellence in service, having worked on government systems.I accomplished more by age 30 than you likely will accomplish in your life, and I did it from homeless beginnings. And you think you can drag me down? HAH.Yet you sat here and pretended like I was a porn addicted gamer who couldn't accomplish anything to make yourself feel better about having lost an argument.Good job. If I could accomplish half this while watching porn and playing games I would have to be your fictional God.But really, who cares about me.You need to allow yourself to be wrong so you can learn and move to better things. I cannot do that for you, and I can do a lot of great things. Only you can allow yourself to learn from your mistakes.Good luck with life. Genuinely hope you have learned something, perhaps something other than the hatred you've put so clearly on display.
It looks better with formatting.
The formatting isn't the issue here, my dude.
[–]p-tittyy21 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You just put words in my mouth. I never said that all divorced women are “living high,” but the narrative that divorced men make out better than woman, is patently false, and frankly laughable. Having your children ripped from you, and then weaponized against you by a bitter woman, losing your house and half your assets, and lifelong alimony are not anomalies.
These things happen, sure. And it's tragic when they happen. But they are not the norm.
[–]Shan_Miller 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link
Oh look a sourceless and poorly reasoned article from a woman (I'm sure you think 'theatlantic' is a great source of research) who doesn't want to have to take personal responsibility for her failures.
That anecdotal evidence surely bypasses observed trends in society.
Women have held sex over men's head for generations. I saw it with my parents, I see it in current generations. The fact men use porn as an escape from women who turn sex into a utility to get their way all the time should indicate to you that women are just as much of a problem in this situation.
Women don't like that sex can't be used to extort us as well anymore.
Boo Freckin hoo
[–]rogeliana -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link
LOL, you reject The Atantic but you think IFS is free of bias? You reject my source and I reject yours.
The fact men use porn as an escape
LOL, you think that's what's going on here? Do ten-year-old boys who start watching porn doing so to "escape" women? LOL. Porn is a HUGE problem, the elephant in the room, and some people don't want to address it. You think women should put up with a porn-addicted man with erectile dysfunction? Why are younger men suffering erectile dysfunction? Since porn is ubiquitous and children are sometimes exposed to it at a younger age, I seriously doubt that porn is a reaction to women refusing to give some men the sex they feel they are so richly entitled to (LOL). The odds are that the porn addiction came before these young men had that much experience with real, live women in the first place.
But if men prefer to "escape" in porn, they are free to do it, that's their business. But they can't simultaneously expect that women will tolerate their addicted, impotent selves.
LOL, is that what you think is going on? I have always objected to porn on moral grounds due to my religious background, but for a long time, I just figured that it was a thing that was common in regular society and didn't think much of it. I expected that the men in my church wouldn't indulge in it, but held no such expectations for other men.
Then I started learning about how it destroys relationships and causes the aforementioned impotence. Now I see that it is a huge problem for society, no matter whether you're conservative and religious or liberal and non-religious or anything in between. I mean I think we all can agree that young men being impotent is not a good thing.
But you go on defending porn, be my guest. Impotence, oh my gosh, lol.
[–]Shan_Miller 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link
When did I say anything about IFS?
I can tell I really touched a nerve. Sorry that you have such bad problems.
Also, religion is for weak people who need people to tell them how to be spiritual. That is you.
Lastly, here is an actual medical expert to tell you that your b.s. about impotence is purely that, a myth.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324068
Let me know when you have something based and intelligent to say.
If it takes you a while I'll probably have moved on. Much like the other men in your life have.
[–]rogeliana 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link
That link is about masturbation, not porn.
The same site says there's a link between porn and impotence:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317117#:~:text=The%20use%20of%20pornography%20might,nerves%20require%20more%20physical%20stimulation.
Someone else linked to IFS (which blames women having more sexual partners on rising divorce rates) and you aren't wanting to debunk that, just the atlantic link I posted.
LOL. Oh, I'm so wounded by your disapproval of my faith.
It's funny that some men want a woman with very little sexual history, (and often that kind of woman comes from a conservative, religious background). These two things often go hand-in-hand. I am glad that most religious families will warn their daughters to stay far, far, FAR away from impotent porn addicts.
You didn't even read the study you posted.
It calls your view subjective, biased, and does not agree with you what-so-ever.
lol
Funny.
Too funny (It also goes on to talk about studies that contradict this unscientific point of view you have)
You just want to delude yourself that there is no problem. But there is. Of course there will be some people who will try to deny it, like I'm sure tobacco companies tried to deny the connection between cigarettes and cancer for a long time. Yet here we are.
https://time.com/magazine/us/4277492/april-11th-2016-vol-187-no-13-u-s/
"Whitlock, the former sex educator, says she has been surprised by how reluctant her erstwhile colleagues are to speak up about porn. She believes that because sex educators were fighting a negative image of sex for so long during the years of abstinence-only education, they’re allergic to anything that questions sexual appetites. She has found that even asking students to reflect on what their watching habits are doing to their mental health is met with pushback."
Women don't want to put up with porn-addicted, impotent men. That's on the men, not the women.
Just following the science ma'am. And that happens to not include articles from digital magazines and from religious extremist groups. Let alone 'sex educators' lol.
The fact that you posted a link to a article which DISPROVES your views, is hilarious. You probably googled it quickly, copy-pasta'd the link, and called it good.
And again, men benefit from not being in a binding social contract with women. The same cannot be said for women, so I suppose it isn't on men at all, is it toots?
LOL. Time Magazine isn't good enough for you?
You're just desperate to deny it.
I've got no skin in this game, as I used to just shrug my shoulders, thinking that porn was "normal" for the "rest of the world." It wasn't my concern because my potential dating pool is mostly limited to church people, so why should I care?
But now after hearing about all the problems men are having with it, I'm like WOW. I understand that this is not comfortable to most men who like to indulge in porn, but it is what it is.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5039517/
Traditional factors that once explained men’s sexual difficulties appear insufficient to account for the sharp rise in erectile dysfunction, delayed ejaculation, decreased sexual satisfaction, and diminished libido during partnered sex in men under 40. This review (1) considers data from multiple domains, e.g., clinical, biological (addiction/urology), psychological (sexual conditioning), sociological; and (2) presents a series of clinical reports, all with the aim of proposing a possible direction for future research of this phenomenon. Alterations to the brain's motivational system are explored as a possible etiology underlying pornography-related sexual dysfunctions.
Clinical reports suggest that terminating Internet pornography use is sometimes sufficient to reverse negative effects, underscoring the need for extensive investigation using methodologies that have subjects remove the variable of Internet pornography use.
No, magazine articles that quote 'sex educators' as experts are not credible. Sorry that you struggle so much with using credible information.
The article you provided here simply links daily masturbation to porn with decreased libido. Which is already well known.
Turns out kid, when you masturbate daily, it makes it harder to get erect.
Something men have known forever. And when they stop it goes back to normal. No permanent damage. Article again confirms there is no long term negative effect.
Anything else bright to say? Or can we call it good and agree that porn benefits men by removing a womans ability to control their sexuality in a relationship?
You are struggling here, I get it. Maybe stop being so focused on your need to control men?
So, Time Magazine, a government medical study, and some medical sites aren't good enough? LOL, you're just in denial.
https://www.everydayhealth.com/erectile-dysfunction/pornography-habit-is-linked-to-erectile-dysfunction-research-suggests/
Or can we call it good and agree that porn benefits men by removing a womans ability to control their sexuality in a relationship?
Or how about these men buy a sex doll? That would sure show those uppity women up, wouldn't it? LOL. Men who think watching porn or having sex with a doll are worthy alternatives are more than welcome to it. Women are much better off without them in their dating pool. Since these men are more likely to be impotent anyway, it's not like women are missing much.
Maybe stop being so focused on your need to control men?
How is pointing out the risk of impotence trying to "control" men? They can do what they want. They just don't get to expect their wives or girlfriends to stay with them when they're addicted to porn.
Every source you've posted agrees with me. The best you've done so far is show there is a link to temporary erectile problems from masturbation to porn. Temporary. This new link uses a self reported survey. You seem to really be struggling. I'm sorry.
How about you go back to NCBI and find a nice peer reviewed article. You know like the one that agreed with me, and that the affect on men is only temporary, and as soon as they stop the dysfunction ceases.
Yes, I would put a sex doll above most women. So would most men. Most men don't want you endlessly nagging them, in fact, studies show most men prefer silence. Imagine that. A vagina that doesn't extort you for pleasure is preferable.
I can tell from your argumentative nature and disbelief in evidence right in front of your face that you are probably a nagger. No way I would be in a relationship with you anyways.
Sorry that probably offends you. I don't care. You have unrealistic views of the world and believe this world was made by a flying sky-wizard. Your opinion means little.
Here is a slew of links that google gives you first thing when you actually look it up. https://www.healthline.com/health/erectile-dysfunction/can-masturbation-cause-erectile-dysfunction
https://edtreatment.info/what-guys-need-to-know-about-masturbation/
Notice the repeated use of the word myth? You might ignore that because you believe in myths by nature, being a religious person that needs to be told myths to make sense of the world.
The best you've done so far is show there is a link to temporary erectile problems from masturbation to porn.
No, it's not masturbation alone. Highlighting the government study:
This review also considers evidence that Internet pornography’s unique properties (limitless novelty, potential for easy escalation to more extreme material, video format, etc.) may be potent enough to condition sexual arousal to aspects of Internet pornography use that do not readily transition to real-life partners, such that sex with desired partners may not register as meeting expectations and arousal declines.
That means that the extreme stuff men see in porn "do not readily transition to real-life partners." Translation: Not every woman wants to be choked, spit on, or endure other extreme acts that are common in porn. And he's no longer satisfied with what she is willing to do in bed, because he sees so, so much more with porn.
Also, he has to want to stop watching porn. For many men, it's an "addiction" which means he won't stop.
So guess what? She divorces his impotent, addicted self. Which he richly deserves.
Yes, I would put a sex doll above most women.
Not surprising. Because a sex doll is just a vagina, and not a real person. So you can replace a person for an entity. Which shows how you view women. Which is exactly why women are better off without men who see sex dolls as a preferable alternative.
So I guess everyone is happy, then? Women are much happier without impotent, porn-addicted men in their lives. And men can happily have sex with dolls and watch porn. Win-win!
Sorry that probably offends you. I don't care.
You're so, so desperate to offend me. But I've learned a long time ago that I need to look up to a person and respect their views in order to be offended by what they say about me.
I get you are sheltered, but most porn doesn't contain that shit. I could care less if you are offended. I simply don't think much of you.
TBH I just find it hilarious that you ignore the hundreds of doctors and studies that contradict your viewpoint, and cling to something that is commonly known as a myth. Then again, you've based your spirituality on myth so it is absolutely no surprise.
Science > your feelings and anecdotal evidence.
Also, studies on happiness show that women are more depressed than ever. Men, not so much. Less than half as likely to suffer depression than women.
Keep in mind this includes men that see the terrors of war, have to clean your sewers, and put up with paying women who use their chlld care payments on make-up and drugs.
So this is also contrary to your earlier point, that this is all 'on men'. Men built a world which celebrated women, women called it the patriarchy, tore it down, and now men are benefitting from it. Now it is a problem. Funny that.
I get you are sheltered, but most porn doesn't contain that shit.
A government study disagrees with you, along with many other links I found. For someone who sets such great stock in science, you're really good at denying it when it suits you.
TBH I just find it hilarious that you ignore the hundreds of doctors and studies that contradict your viewpoint, and cling to something that is commonly known as a myth.
You try to ignore the parts of these studies which talk about the "variety" (and sometimes extremity) found in porn and how this contributes. I mean, you ignored it in that previous link I posted and continued to claim that all these links "agreed" with you. But they don't.
Correction, most of the links you posted disagreed with you. At length.
You are just too retarded or lazy to read your own studies all the way through.
You are just to retarded or lazy to read your own studies all the way through.
No, that government study was pretty damning and specific. It's not the only source.
You keep on trying so hard to offend me and it's obvious you are frustrated by your failure to do so. You need to calm down. You're now resorting to words like "retarded" (what are you, 12?) and misspelling. Relax.
For the record, people crave variety in sex. It is natural and human. Having boring sex with a woman that doesn't understand that is more toxic to a relationship than porn is.
I get that you don't understand this, and why it is indeed damaging... to your viewpoint.
I'm not trying to offend you at all, you are just offended easily, which is why you feel that way.
As Eleanor Roosevelt said, "Being offended is a choice".
Also, NCBI isn't 'government studies'. lol. Funny you think it is the 'government' *sic*.
LOL no, I am referencing what you said before:
You know exactly what you're trying to do and you broadcast that earlier. Now you're trying to gaslight me and pretend that this isn't your intent. I'm not buying it. And, as I told you before, I need to respect someone in order to be offended by them, lol.
Having boring sex with a woman that doesn't understand that is more toxic to a relationship than porn is.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/mar/11/young-men-porn-induced-erectile-dysfunction
Lone viewers of pornography become accustomed to being fully in control of their sexual experience – which again, says Faulkner, “isn’t replicated in the real world”. Being faced with a real, complicated human being, with needs and insecurities, could be deeply off-putting.
Furthermore, I don't buy your claim that porn doesn't contain some extreme stuff.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55333403
https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-51391981
There's a continuing problem with sex trafficking victims and underage girls being in porn that is regularly available online.
https://nbc-2.com/news/2021/01/12/heres-how-your-porn-habit-could-be-helping-human-sex-traffickers/
Gave up completely huh? BBC and 'theguardian'.
LOL
Trash sources for trash people.
I like how your NBC article is source-less as well, A angry woman making baseless claims about an organization that is constantly under scrutiny at the threat of prison time.
I'm aware of two people in porn who made the mistake of releasing film of an underage girl, both did prison time. One of which was even given a fake ID by the underage girl, and still did prison time.
So tell me, who is this girl, and how did pornhub get away with it?
Baseless claim from an incompetent journalist who is angry about porn. I'm unconvinced.
Here, enjoy another 'government study' *sic*
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4498826/
Which claims the reverse of what you are saying is true. This one actually uses hard data and controls.
Notice the PhD next to the names in my study?
AND THE LACK of that in yours?
LOL, you're desperate to not believe this. BBC isn't good enough, NBC isn't good enough, Time magazine, medical sites, and government studies aren't good enough. Pathetic.
Too bad.
So sad.
But do, continue to believe newcasters and flying sky-wizards.
I'll continue to believe science and peer review from PhD's and scientists, not from news sources or flying sky-wizards.
I'm not desperate to change any of that. Someone here seems desperate to change other peoples opinions. TBH, I am just fine at laughing my ass off at you for yours.
Please do, continue to be a moron. Morons are among the most entertaining thing on the planet.
NCBI isn't a government site, and, my NCBI study was authored by PhD's, yours was authored by idiots.
It's on a government domain. .gov.
My goodness, you're becoming unhinged. Now you are shifting goalposts and insisting that only PhDs can be right? LOL.
Where's your proof that my cite (on a government site) is written by "idiots"? Scientific proof, please, since you're so bent on that. And please provide proof that no person with a PhD is capable of being an "idiot," since you've decided that only the opinions of PhDs "count" now.
Wow, desperation time. Wow.
Oh my gosh, so hilarious, trying twice in just a few sentences to ruffle my feathers my mentioning "sky-wizards." You're trying too hard, my dear. Remember? I have to respect someone first in order to be offended.
Wow, you're really invested in porn not being crap, even though so many sources show that it is. I guess you really love it. Which is fine. You do you, boo.
NCBI doesn't do studies, it allows studies to be posted... By people who are not government agencies.
I get this is confusing for you. Like the rest of reality is.
And yes, PhD's doing scientific studies are definitely good sources. People with no background in science doing studies are not.
I get this is also hard for you to understand. Even though you go to the doctor to get medical help and not random people at your local community college posting bullshit studies on NCBI for props from their feminist buddies.
Sorry that you are so fucked up in the head :(
Wow, you are so butthurt. By the news that porn is commonly thought to be toxic? (And it is, it is.) LOL.
And yes, PhD's doing scientific studies are definitely good sources.
Where's the proof? That non-PhD is worthless and that PhD is always worth something? You offer no proof.
The study I cite is written primarily by medical doctors (one who incidentally also has a PhD), but you want to leave the impression that they "have no background in science"? Doctors cannot write studies about conditions such as addiction, mental health, and erectile dysfunction? Only PhDs can? You are so full of it.
This woman has a PhD but most of the world is not taking her seriously. This guy also has a PhD (I checked) but same old, same old.
I wonder what goalpost you'll shift next.
No need to shift any goalposts.
My NCBI study was done by PhD's. Yours was not.
In debate, and I get you are new to this, credibility of sources is everything.
You can find evidence for anything on the internet. But the Alex Jones isn't exactly a good reference, is he? Flat Earthers tend not to be credible.
Also, that womans PhD is highly criticized, but she does raise some valid points. Yeadon understands very well the concept of flora exposure, and isn't as much an anti-vaxxer as much as he is a very well informed scientist who is arguing the opposing viewpoint to the commonly accepted one, as well as critiquing the industry for rushing the vaccine trials. Valid points from people who spent a great deal of time researching.
I can only imagine you are pointing to anti-vaxxers because you aren't finding much material online that supports your opinion, and a whole fuck-ton that does indeed support mine.
A simple google search turns up evidence in my favor by the boatloads. You are purposefully ignoring it and clinging to a few very biased news reports and a single study done by idiots.
You are a very sad person and I have nothing but pity for you, truly.
How about you just let this go, and try to have yourself a nice week, rather than subjecting yourself to more scrutiny from someone who has dropped several studies on your lap you probably didn't even read. (because as you have proven, you are lazy, biased, and believe in myths).
NCBI has criteria that need to be fulfilled in order for a document to be published there. The articles need to be peer-reviewed, etc. You are disingenuous when you try to paint the article I pointed to as being written by "idiots." LOL, but it passed muster with the NCBI and the journal where it was originally published:
Behavioral Sciences is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal of psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, behavioral biology and behavioral genetics published monthly online by MDPI.
You're pathetic. I'm done with you. I never respected your opinion before, because you were so obviously full of it, but you're really pulling out all the stops.
Articles written by medical doctors in peer-reviewed medical journals are not "credible"? And you pull a pretext out of your behind that because these doctors don't have PhDs (except one does) that they are "idiots"? You never offer any "proof" that anything less than a PhD shouldn't be believed. Because there is no proof. If anything less than a PhD wasn't credible, no non-PhD would be allowed to publish in peer-reviewed medical journals. Yet here we are.
Intellectually dishonest and lazy is what you are. Article after article I post, you pooh-pooh them all. Which is fine, you know why? Because I never thought you had any credibility anyway, and you're repeatedly confirming this.
I was done with you a while ago.
Here is a checklist.
Does she believe in flying sky-wizards? Yes, big check.
Does she believe in a myth about porn causing impotency? Yes, big check, regardless of being shown several sources that show otherwise. Even on her own 'peer reviewed' site.
Does she continuously project her own issues, I.E, desperate to change opinions? Yes, big check. She wants to change my opinion, I think she is just funny trash.
Did she call this a government study several times? Yes, big check.
Was this just a .gov website? Big check.
Will she also ignore this link, on that same 'peer reviewed' site about how peer review is worthless? Yes, she probably will
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1533518/
Is she trash? Yes, big check. She calls people intellectually dishonest while being severely intellectually dishonest herself. That is what is called projection issues.
Did she just admit to her own confirmation bias? Big yup there too. Which also confirms she was the one desperate to change opinions. Hers is apparently perfection to her.
Congratulations on being why men would prefer porn. Who the fuck would ever put up with your incessant degradation while you continually believe in myth despite overwhelming evidence.
As I said earlier, move on, try to enjoy your week. Take heart in knowing your flying sky wizard will absolve you of all your bad doing so you can continue being a horrible person with 'good intentions'. I will take heart knowing you are a trashcan of bad ideas.
You continually try to call a peer-reviewed medical study written by medical doctors (but oh no! They don't have PhDs! Except one does) as nothing, and written by "idiots" because it doesn't agree with your agenda. You have zero credibility. You won't back down from the "But it's not written by PhDs" trope. You're done.
Will she also ignore this link, on that same 'peer reviewed' site about how peer review is worthless?
That means your article is "worthless" too. Except, oh wait, it's written by PhDs...so that magically makes it legit. Thinks no other reasonable person. How bizarre you are.
Congratulations on being why men would prefer porn.
LOL, you really don't get it. Is this supposed to be something that would upset me? It doesn't, because men who really prefer porn and sex dolls should stick with them and leave women alone. Any woman such men get involved with will likely end up divorcing him in the long run anyway, so this just saves everyone some grief. I do feel terrible for the sex trafficking victims who end up involved in porn, though.
This whole conversation started because I was giving one of several reasons why women initiate divorce. Porn is one big reason. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/divorce-rates-double-when-people-start-watching-porn (LOL, I know you'll pooh-pooh this article from a science magazine, because that's how you are, but here it is anyway.)
So if you love porn and don't want to be subjected to divorce, just don't ever marry and stick with your porn. Any future woman in your life will thank you.
Does she continuously project her own issues, I.E, desperate to change opinions? Yes, big check. She wants to change my opinion. I could care less about hers.
Did she call a .gov a government study several times? Yes, big check.
Was this just a .gov website? Big check. Studies are independently done, under poor scrutiny as outlined by the same website.
LOL.
Did you stutter?
It's funny, I'm thinking about the marriages I see in my church. Divorce is very uncommon. The wives adore their husbands and dote on them. But then again, the husbands are decent people who have earned this devotion. They aren't porn-addled either.
I think the common denominator is they are "decent people." I don't think someone has to be religious in order to attain this sort of marital harmony, but they do have to be a decent person.
I'm told my stuttering is a sign of intelligence.
" non-Christians divorce at a rate of 38 percent, Born-again Christians 33 percent, atheists 30 percent and Catholics at 28 percent, according to a recent survey of 3,792 participants. "
The only religious group that divorces less than atheists is Catholics.
You catholic?
So I guess the underlying fact here is religious people feel like their shit doesn't stink, all the while it smells worse.
But what do I know.
I grew up in youth ministry. Was a youth minister. Dated a Buddhist for 13 years, eventually practicing Buddhism Sokogokai. And then went on a long term spiritual quest to understand the origin of religions.
Like for instance, the religious story of Jesus returning on a white horse for an epic apocalypse battle is shared with Enki of Sumerian lore, and Khalki of Hindu Vedas texts.
Almost the exact same story. Written thousands of years before Jesus even existed.
You probably assume a lot about me.
I can assure you most of those assumptions are wrong.
I clearly said that one doesn't have to be religious to have marital harmony (remember where I just wrote that?). I also said that the common denominator is being a decent person. Did you even digest that little nugget?
My takeaway from this is: Men who are decent people have a higher chance of having devoted, doting, loyal, adoring wives. Clearly, many men in my church are like that and aren't blathering on about the virtues of porn because the women are so unbearable to deal with, lol.
I grew up in youth ministry. Was a youth minister. Dated a Buddhist for 13 years, eventually practicing Buddhism Sokogokai. And then went on a long term spiritual quest to understand the origin of religions. Like for instance, the religious story of Jesus returning on a white horse for an epic apocalypse battle is shared with Enki of Sumerian lore, and Khalki of Hindu Vedas texts.
I never thought about your background and wasn't curious. Why you felt the need to type all of that out, I have no idea. I never made any assumptions about you personally, other than you are here bitching about women, lol.
The fallacy you are operating on here assumes porn makes someone 'not a decent person'.
We all have hormones, by your reasoning, we are all not decent people. But I get that is the sentiment of your brainwashing in church as well, we are all sinners after all.
Sorry, I'm not bitching about women at all. I get you are easily confused so I should probably be forthright about that. I just have no need to contract myself to them in any way. Nor do I give in easily to a woman who obviously is also having hormone issues, telling me that hormones make people bad people. I get you probably won't connect the dots here either. Its okay. I just refuse to spell things out for people of low intelligence.
And sure, you said you don't need to be religious to have harmony. And were also talking about how divorce doesn't happen as much in your church.
Which i just showed you is more bullshit.
You are drenched in bullshit. :D
Good luck with that.
Please quote the post where I said all consumers of porn are not decent people. They can be bad people, but people are complicated and nuanced. However, porn-addled brains tend to trigger divorce (along with other issues) and studies bear this out. (Which you will promptly ignore and wave away, obviously, because reasons!)
Sorry, I'm not bitching about women at all.
LOL. Sure buddy, sure...
And sure, you said you don't need to be religious to have harmony. And were also talking about how divorce doesn't happen as much in your church. Which i just showed you is more bullshit.
What? Where did you show that human decency is bad for marriages? And where did you prove that my church doesn't have a low percentage of divorce?
Are you claiming that bad people have happier marriages? Why is such a comment (about how being a decent person will more likely cause your marriage to be happy) so triggering to you? Is that so controversial?
There are some bad people in my church and every other church. But there are some common denominators in my church which I believe cause the marriages to be happier and last longer. Being raised to be more thoughtful, loyal, loving, attentive, selfless, in anyone, would be conducive to a higher percentage of happy marriages. I would think that is obvious. Well, except for you. To you, this is an insult and controversial? LOL.
Statistics show what you just said is bullshit.
Your church is full of people with less functional marriages than even atheist's.
Sorry you are such a detestable human :(
All you can do at this point is twist words to make yourself fell like you've succeeded in a 'GOT YA'. Pretending to yourself that the idiotic shit you spew is, " triggering to you ", so you feel better about yourself.
Schadenfreude from a supposed Christian. Tisk tisk.
Meanwhile, you are still a idiot that believes in a flying skywizard and other such myths without proof.
Feel free to say more idiotic shit. No one cares. Your opinion is worthless.
Go ahead and tell me the name of MY church and show me the statistics of MY specific church and prove to me that my church is "full of people" with less functional marriages. Tell me which church I belong to and then give me the stats.
You don't know my church, but you just know you can prove this? You can read minds, is that it?
And no, I'm not going to tell you the name of my church. It's small and regional and there's no way I'm giving that info away here. And no, I don't care if you don't believe me (you don't believe doctors in medical journals—you only demand PhDs who share your delusions). You won't believe me, but you cannot prove I'm wrong.
And yet you're crowing like you just did. More delusion.
And you still think you can rustle my jimmies by bringing up the flying skywizard? Don't you have any more colorful hyperbole than that? Come on, be creative for crying out loud. It won't make any difference to me, but at least you could attempt to be amusing with some creativity.
But no. Damn, you take your smut soooo seriously, lol.
Just a guess, but you attend the church of idiotic cunts.
I guess you don't know what sample size is required for my earlier statistics to accurately reflect your church as well.
I'm sorry you are such an idiot.
If, for the sake of argument, my church (let's say for the sake of argument there are 10,000 members) has a 95% (for example) success rate of happy marriages, then who gives a crap what your statistics say? You have proven nothing about my specific church of 10,000 people, who are happily having good marriages.
But you're still going to huff and puff and insist you know. I'm sure that all the happy couples in my church will crumble and dissolve now that they realize that you've "proven" their success isn't real, lol.
That doesn't exist in the real world.
Margin of deviancy that large is statistically impossible given my sample set.
But I guess you don't do math. Just two-faced knee-jerk reactionary bullshit.
I'm not claiming 95% (but it's pretty high) but you cannot know anything about a church you haven't heard of. That most people haven't heard of. I'm not attempting to convince you (Mr They Must Have a PhD or they're idiots) because you'll continue to stamp your feet and deny, deny, deny, no matter what.
All I know is that there are scarce few divorces in my church and people are mostly happy. Wives and contented and devoted and so are husbands.
Sorry that their happiness aggravates you so, and you want to insist it's impossible. Don't care, don't care, don't care what you think. They're going to continue being happy regardless of what you think you know.
No, I just reject your notion of knowing everyone in a 10,000 person church, and/or, the idea that you can make a hypothetical and then double back on it.
Everything you say is bullshit.
And it is sad you don't even realize it.
You are a compulsive liar, and too stupid to realize it.
Sad.
No, I just reject your notion of knowing everyone in a 10,000 person church
My parents, my family, my friends, have all been members of this church for all of our lives. My family and friends moved around a bit to different congregations, many different ones. Unless there's some weird phenomenon where just coincidentally wherever we go, everyone stops divorcing immediately and then starts up frantically divorcing as soon as we leave, I think my estimate of "rare" divorce is accurate.
But I don't care what you think. Stay mad. Stay bitter. I mean, you're so good at it, why stop now?
They'll still be happily living their lives as you continue to stew and stew, lol.
Cool.
That is how cults work. Even the ones that sacrifice people.
Glad you are happy in your cult. Most cultists are. If it makes you happier thinking for some reason it upsets me you are happy, feel free. I don't care. People aren't magically unhappy because they dislike you and your opinion. I understand you've been brainwashed into thinking otherwise. Good luck with that.
People aren't magically unhappy because they dislike you and your opinion.
But you are. You are getting increasingly agitated. Upping the ante. Now all of a sudden I belong to a "cult"! LOL! Keep trying, but try to be more creative next time, will you?
Increasing disgust isn't increasing agitation.
I get its hard to read tone online.
You should get that I view you much like a confused dog that licks its own asshole while running around in circles.
Oh no! You view me in a negative light? Oh no! Whatever will I do? lol.
"Disgust"? Of course, unhappy, as I've been saying. So you admit it.
I get you have difficulty believing not everyones happiness has to do with women.
I know. Hard concept.
I can be happy while thinking your a POS.
CRAZY HUH?
LOL wow, projecting. Look, I've been telling you to stick with your porn and sex dolls. Please. Women around the world will be grateful.
I can be happy while thinking your a POS. CRAZY HUH?
"You're." I just can't let that one go.
You should look up 'correcting spelling in arguments'.
You'll find some interesting articles which will call you a moron for doing it.
Gamer, angry atheist, porn fan. Fancies himself an intellectual. Uses "your" instead of "you're." It's too much. It's too much. It keeps on getting better and better.
:P
Nice try wench. Still enjoying myself while you are confused by the idea that someone can be happy while seeing you for the POS you are.
[–]kratbegone 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link
Lol blame the guy, right. What a tool. Most religious types are simps I have noticed. Women are trained through social media that the grass is alwasy greener, and almost no woman divorces unless she has another guy lined up that she was cheating with. We are money and security to them, they do not have nor know the loyalty that men feel.
[–]rogeliana 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Lol blame the guy, right.
In the narrative you favor, it's always blaming the woman, LOL.
Of course there are going to be times when the woman is to blame, and other times when that man is to blame. But just because she initiates the divorce, it doesn't mean it's her fault. If he's cheating or abusing her, he may not want her to leave, but her leaving isn't unreasonable, is it?
However, if women have more to lose financially in a divorce, and I see no proof that these women have another sugar daddy lined up (because if they did, they wouldn't be as financially strapped, would they?), then they really must want to leave. Which makes me wonder why (and point to the above-mentioned abuse or cheating as the reason).
[–]kratbegone 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
almost every story is the guy finding she had a man the whole time after the divorce. and women have more ot lose financially? Maybe in a few case when they rarely make more money, but otherwise that is hilarious.
[–]rogeliana 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Almost every story I hear (from friends, friends of friends) is that they divorce, he quits his good-paying job to avoid paying childcare or otherwise doesn't pay child support, and she struggles to make ends meet.
Clearly, there are also anecdotal stories that show the opposite—that she was cheating all the time and takes him to the cleaners. Or, the court is grossly unfair and demands he give some outrageously high amount of his earnings for child support and/or alimony. I don't doubt that's a real thing. But the single mom with a deadbeat dad who doesn't support his kids at all is also a very common story. I personally know of several women who lived this and no, they weren't lying.
The articles I've seen (and there are many) point out that in many cases, the reason she makes less after a divorce is that she was primary caregiver of the children during the marriage and took a lower-paying job (or a job with fewer demands/advancement opportunities) in order to be more available for the kids. Husband is the higher earner (because he doesn't have to take time off to care for the kids). When she's by herself, she is still earning less, often while still taking more time for childcare, often devoting more time with the kids than him. He still has his higher-earning job, he's not responsible for the kids as much (often) and, if all other things being equal, he's simply making more money.
Sometimes child support is sufficient to help her make ends meet, sometimes it's not.
[–]kratbegone1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
My issue with child support is most of the time the mem get less than50% child access, which is why it unfairly benefits women. If not 50 50 there is no child support and the man doesn't see the kids as often aS he wants, which is what I hear about all the time. Women almost always get the benefit here. One hope is with women now in some cases making more than their husband's, they are getting a taste of alimony and not liking it all of the sudden. Maybe seeing the other side will finally wake them up a but.
Here is a classic watch what you wish for:
https://www.brides.com/story/what-is-manimony-and-how-does-it-affect-women
Yes, I've heard stories where the court has a crazy bias towards mothers, and sometimes it can be like pulling teeth to pry custody away from an abusive mother, just because "she's the mother." I don't know all the details of this poor child's story, but clearly, her son should have NEVER been in her custody: https://abc7.com/anthony-avalos-child-abuse-torture-lancaster-case/10600503/
But I've also heard antecdotal stories from divorce lawyers (some lawyers who are sympathetic towards fathers) that unfortunately a lot of dads like the "freedom" of not having the kids all the time, and don't fight too hard to get 50/50 custody. (We only need to look at subs like AITA to see the there are plenty of lazy fathers who by default prefer the moms to do most of the childcare. Of course, there are also plenty of horrible moms mentioned in AITA, so there you are.)
But this is by no means universal and these same divorce lawyers also point out that no one gender is really "worse" in general when it comes to divorce. There are bad moms and bad dads, and the percentages are more or less evenly split. Feminists will have us believe that most dads are lazy, indifferent fathers, and manosphere types will have us believe that most moms are greedy gold diggers soaking up that sweet child support money and living high. Neither is true, IMO.
my only point is the courts favor mom every time. the only exception are when it is obvious abuse by the mom. it is inherent bias. We could go back and forth on anecdotes all day but that is all that matter and why so many men miss their kids every day.
I think we can all agree that the courts favor the mother.
Some of the reason for that (not that I think this bias is justifiable) is because mothers historically spend more time raising the kids anyway. This study shows the differences: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/03/14/chapter-4-how-mothers-and-fathers-spend-their-time/ But fathers are spending more time than they used to, so the courts should look more closely at each situation. There's no reason why fathers who have already been spending a lot of time with their kids shouldn't continue to do so after a divorce.
[–]Cold_Difficulty_5298 11 points12 points13 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
OK karen
[–]CompleteFacepalm -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well that's just a huge generalisation based on the women. You literally know nothing about her other than that she has had sex more tha once.
Just stop being an asshole and thinking that every women who isn't a loyal servant to all men is a slut who cares about stupid shit like that.
[–]Wingflier 62 points63 points64 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's an interesting way to advertise that you're a hoe
[–]1iioiioii1 31 points32 points33 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So don't put your feet into women with long sexual histories.
[–]osiris_89 54 points55 points56 points 5 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Your value as a human, no. But regarding your value as a partner, it's in the eye of the beholder. Learn to accept that actions have consequences.
[–]pontiflexrex -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Should men be virgins to up their value as well?
[–]Sergey32321 25 points26 points27 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
He is not talking virgin, there is difference between being passed around like an ash tray and normal people
[–]LandscapeClear1630 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Not to mention, men and women value things differently in a relationship.
[–]daysinnroom203 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You mean you have a different way of thinking. Please don’t speak for all men. You don’t.
[–]LandscapeClear1630 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Hm.. no dude.
I meant literally what I wrote: " men and women value things differently in a relationship".
[–]Early_Cup6480 12 points13 points14 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
no, because women generally place a higher value on promiscuous men as their promiscuity is a sign that they have been pre-approved by the womens peers. men simply don't think that way.
[–]back_againx13 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm a female, and this does not match my experience at all - to the extent that I'm surprised that this is "a thing." I'm trying to go back through my memory, and I'm fairly certain that I've never had an acquaintance that holds the opinion that promiscuous men are preferable. If the topic comes up, guys who are known players are spoken negatively about. An example is a scenario where, say, two friends are having a drink somewhere, one of them says a certain guy is hot, her friend says something like "ya, but he's a player," and the first woman says something like "Oh/ew, fuck that/gross/etc." We warn each other about shit like that all the time. This is not to say that no women are attracted to promiscuous men, because I'm sure plenty are, but that goes against everything I've lived through.
I'm saying this because it speaks to a bigger issue - guys being shamed for being less sexually experienced. Whereas I've heard a million comments about who's a player and who to avoid, I've never heard a woman complain because a guy was a virgin in my company. I've heard plenty of women say that a guy didn't know what the hell he was doing, but that isn't specific to virgins. I hope that helps a bit. Shaming guys for not having had sex is ridiculous and hypocritical.
[–]LTBR1955 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
NO cz women don't prefer that do they ? That's on them :))
That's like asking should women become good financial providers to attract men as well ? NO cz men don't ask for that do they ?
[–]PM_ME_DNA 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
There are plenty of women who don’t want fuckboys and want a virgin man for marriage.
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 10 points11 points12 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Your plenty doesn't apply to the western world
[–]back_againx13 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I'm a woman, and I cannot count the number of times I've heard other women warn me or warn each other about players. It happens all the time. It's so common that I'm surprised this belief is a thing.
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You are not there are 72 genders
[–]LandscapeClear1630 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Unless she's extremely religious, I'd never heard a woman list "virginity" as one of her wished traits in a partner.
[–]Lonystal 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
you know damn well that a hoe's response to this is going to be "here we go again with men treating women like objects"
100% sure
[–]SomethingRand00m998 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
So? Fuck 'em. Let 'em get mad.
Men really really need stop giving a shit about women getting mad. Let 'em protest. Let 'em riot. Let 'em bitch and complain like they always will.
Just don't cave to them. Tell them to fuck off and offer them no help. If you see a homeless woman, don't give her money. Donate that to a pro-male charity. Men need to stop heling other men and only men.
[–]Lonystal 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't necessarily agree. I mean yes you're right, we need to stop giving a fuck about these fucking feminists. But they keep ruining my favourite shows and movies man. With all that woke bullshit they've ruined almost everything I loved.
Also not giving money to a homeless woman..that's kinda bad because a homeless woman won't give a shit about all the feminism. She would just want to eat.
[–]FukinDEAD 29 points30 points31 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
If women can judge men over stupid shit how high status their job is compared to their own, men can judge women for their sexual history.
[–]WeirdSign7297 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
yes especially if he has to marry her and your finances are connected
[+]KristianGdG -14 points-13 points-12 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
This isn't about what you can do, it's what you should do. Sure, you CAN burn down your ex's house, and some people do, but that doesn't mean you should do it. Just because you CAN judge a woman based on how much sex she's had, that doesn't mean you should, just as she shouldn't judge you over how high status your job is compared to her own. And no, the fact that women are doing something shitty doesn't give men an excuse to be shitty in return, just discourage the behaviour FFS, don't replicate it.
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 14 points15 points16 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
If women can and are actually promoting highly sexualized behavior like this, men can do it too.
[–]KristianGdG 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes, I completely agree! Don't know what part of my comment you are disagreeing with though?
[–]kampfy3 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
OP's post history is just agitation based off of zero commonality. If you agree with him, congratulations, you're an idiot. If you disagree with him, you're also an idiot.
The point is to be controversial. That's it.
[–]xndpxs 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
This is bullshit, her value is subjective, I have ALL the right to value a person not only for his/her sexual history but also other variables. For example, there's a woman that doesn't like bald people, so balds will say "my value is not based on my hair" but for that person yes, that directly interferes with other people's choices. This is not a static rule that should be applied in all cases, there are some couples that enjoy open relationships.
Woman here, and I agree with this. We all have our own preferences, and there's nothing wrong with that. I think the woman in the picture is referring to the message that women receive from society, which says that women must guard/value/preserve their virginity, and that those women who don't are defiled/used or damaged goods/sluts, etc.
Truth.
[–]Nago31 23 points24 points25 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
“I aM nOt A pAiR oF sHoEs!”
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
😂😂😂😎
[–]daysinnroom203 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Are women a pair of shoes to you?
[–]Nago31 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No but I’ve used an analogy before
[+]OnyxsWorkshop -12 points-11 points-10 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This but unironically. We can have conversations about this without dehumanizing like a troglodyte would.
[–]Diomil 10 points11 points12 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This applies to men too.
[–]uac_redhound -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
As a man I approve.
[–]KoalaAccomplished395 16 points17 points18 points 5 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link
So guys who have had 50 partners aren't worth anything any more either?
[–]Charmingaxelotl 31 points32 points33 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Value depends on the buyer. You should ask women why they don’t seem to care.
[–]rogeliana 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I've witnessed women rejecting fuckboys for being fuckboys, and I know I certainly will do that, and the men are all shocked Pikachu faced that they might be rejected for their sexual history lol. The audacity and entitlement...
I'm from a sheltered church environment where both women and men don't fuck around. I read sometimes that men who want a "nice" girl should go to a church (like my church) to find a wife. I find that repulsive. Nice church girls are much better off marrying nice church boys who have been raised with the same values as they (the girls) have. Not some entitled fuckboy who has "sowed his wild oats" and now wants a woman who hasn't sowed as many oats as he has. Begone, fuckboy. Stay in your own lane and leave the "nice" girls alone.
I cannot stomach the hypocrisy of men judging women for their "numbers" while the men's own numbers are shamefully high (or they would be if the men had the opportunity). Disgusting.
[–]InfiniteDimensions 10 points11 points12 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yep
[–]Mewster1818 10 points11 points12 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It was a deal breaker for me.
Just because some people might not care, doesn't mean you can try and force someone who does care to be fine with it. I didn't sleep around, and I didn't want a guy with those values either. Likewise I knew guys who didn't want a girl with limited experience.
[–]tw1nm3t30r 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Uhhhhh yes it is. Nobody wants to stick their dick in the endless void.
[+]LandscapeClear1630 -6 points-5 points-4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
lmao
[–]Lord_Asmodeus93 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Once a cheater, always a cheater. You can have a ONS with a cheater, as it does not affect you. You just don't build a family with one.
Which is just one example of how your value is relevant to your sexual history.
Who says they are a cheater?
[–]ppoetry 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Since i decide what your value is, it can be based on anything at all. What she means is "i don't want my value in the mind of the men I'm attacted to to be influenced by my body count".
[–]Early_Cup6480 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
she could also mean "until I find Mr. #91, I want Mr. #90 to think he's Mr. #5, my 'forever person', like I told him he was."
[–]No_Calligrapher2974 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well you chose to do sexual things to have a sexual history so too bad, you could did something more cool and productive, nope you wanted to become a whore.
[–]daysinnroom203 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It’s a good thing women aren’t objects so this is irrelevant
[–]Whisper 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
If her value is based on something other than sex, why is she posting naked pictures?
😎
[–]Novel_Transition_663 5 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
Lotta butthurt women and simps in the comments boiz, I luv it 😛😎🤓
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
😎😎
[–]kampfy3 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The incels are far more entertaining, though. Cheerz bruv
[–]paradeqia -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
That isn't basic economics.
The number of previous owners doesn't necessarily affect the value of a product. A pair of mint OG Jordans will continue to appreciate in value irrespective of the number of owners until demand within the market changes.
The actual value of the product is determined by what people are willing to pay for it, not by any inherent value - you could spend 100 hours making something but if no-one is willing to pay for it then it's worthless. On the flip side Banksy could shit in a cup and earn more than your annual salary by selling it.
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Nobody will want to buy some OG Jordan's that has been a history of more than 50 owners in the past stop dreaming
[–]paradeqia 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Mint OG Jordans are a collectors item ( some more than others obviously). I chose Jordan's because they fit with the shoe analogy and collectors do routinely pay far over retail pricing for a pair. The number if owners also doesn't impact their appreciation.
If you want other examples that aren't based on collectibles, art or antiques - look at housing. If you're buying a house then you're not asking how many people have lived there before. Same for cars (mileage, age and service history trump number of owners), shares, both crypto and fiat currency and all variety of services if we're assuming that one can "own" a person based off your interactions with them.
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
A car who had a history of 50 owners, WILL LOGICALLY, have a high kilometric number.
[–]paradeqia -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Even for this hypothetical car it's not the # of owners that depreciates the asset it's the mileage. A car that drives 10,000 km a year for 10 years is worth the same irrespective of whether it has had 5 or 50 owners.
[–]shadilvers 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Very mature of OP to copy paste soyjacks under people they disagree with instead of trying to understand their viewpoint. Women are not objects and this analogy doesn't work. I subbed thinking I'd get posts about people putting down "feminism" not outright misogyny. If you soyjack me you prove me right and that you're no better than those FDS pieces of shit.
[–]SomethingRand00m998 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Except Feminist have massive social power and men have none.
[–]yourmomgetsthebullet 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Thats just straight up not true like anywhere https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-government/
[–]Rainbow_Flying_LLAMA -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Since when do men not have power?
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
⠀⠀⠘⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠑⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡔⠁⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠢⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠴⠊⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⡀⠤⠄⠒⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣀⠄⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡠⠔⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠢⠤⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠑⢄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠃⠀⢠⠂⠀⠀⠘⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢤⡀⢂⠀⢨⠀⢀⡠⠈⢣⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢀⡖⠒⠶⠤⠭⢽⣟⣗⠲⠖⠺⣖⣴⣆⡤⠤⠤⠼⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡈⠃⠀⠀⠀⠘⣺⡟⢻⠻⡆⠀⡏⠀⡸⣿⢿⢞⠄⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢣⡀⠤⡀⡀⡔⠉⣏⡿⠛⠓⠊⠁⠀⢎⠛⡗⡗⢳⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢱⠀⠨⡇⠃⠀⢻⠁⡔⢡⠒⢀⠀⠀⡅⢹⣿⢨⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠠⢼⠀⠀⡎⡜⠒⢀⠭⡖⡤⢭⣱⢸⢙⠆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡸⠀⠀⠸⢁⡀⠿⠈⠂⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⡍⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⢢⣫⢀⠘⣿⣿⡿⠏⣼⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣠⠊⠀⣀⠎⠁⠀⠀⠀⠙⠳⢴⡦⡴⢶⣞⣁⣀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠐⠒⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⢀⠤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀
[–]pigsevulis 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yikes
[–]zoeyx13 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
So you would pay more for someone who's never fixed a car to fix your car than for someone with 20 years experience?
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]yourmomgetsthebullet -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
« I put the soyjack on your opinion and the chadjack on my opinion, i win the argument »
All of you are fuckin virgins
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Your opinion is very important for me, I'm literally crying right now 😢😢😢😭
Dude you’re so fuckin hilarious im sure all the girls love it
[–]who_said_it_was_mE -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
So are we supposed to judge people based off their sexual history?
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You don't have to hate people who judge woman on their past. You have a brain, use it. (liberal).
[–]who_said_it_was_mE 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I don’t on hate people who make decisions based on consistent and empirical evidence, I hate liberals. I’m looking for a comparative and qualifying threshold between people who make generalized and dividing statements about a certain sex. I get that feminists are bad, but what’s the point if y’all are gonna be just as bad in a similar way? You have a brain, I’m trying to understand why you use it the way you do. (Progressive Libertarian)
[+]steelbyter -15 points-14 points-13 points 5 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
Ummm, women arent exactly 'owned' sooooo.
I mean this sorta shit is what drives people against anti feminists. Sure, a woman who has slept with 60 other dudes can probably have a higher chance of carrying diseases and if she has broken up with 30 other people there is probably something wrong with her but that does not mean she is worthless.
[–]Wingflier 19 points20 points21 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
There's really no denying that a woman's value to men or their ability to pairbond dramatically decreases the more partners they've had.
Perhaps her value as a person doesn't change based on her body count, but her sexual market value absolutely does.
[–]steelbyter 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
True, however that should not be called owning or buying lol
[–]Wingflier 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I agree, I don't think I would have used that particular analogy myself.
[–]goingfullham 11 points12 points13 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
I do understand were the morality comes from logically. But people also have to understand that value depends on the people willing to spend it. If we are talking about monetary value than I bet that her sexual history definitely does play a role. If it's a private matter or if it SHOULD play a role is something people are willing to debate but there is not doubt it does matter.
And some people give it more value than others.
And if you consider competitive nature or men, I think there are loads of men who prefer to be the first.
[+]steelbyter -7 points-6 points-5 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Yes that is the case but these men need not be celebrated for their idiotic actions
[–]goingfullham 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
There was no council of men who got together and decided the value of woman. That's literally how the natural order of value is decided by default. There are no MEN who are responsible for this. When supply goes up then demand goes naturally down. Thus "easy" woman are in less demand aka lower value.
Being a virgin is rare and it's hard to achieve thus the supply is really low and naturally the demand will be higher, thus the VALUE goes up.
It's literally the same as 1 + 1 = 2 but with supply economics.
It could have been the same for men if woman valued sexual history but they don't. They value different things.
[–]daysinnroom203 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Just because you value “ different” things doesn’t mean “men” do. Logistically, it doesn’t even make sense to Prefer someone who has no experience and does not know what they are doing. We tell those people to reapply when they have more experience. They ONLY reason it matters to a man is his fear of being inadequate and being compared unfavorably. If You are comfy in your own performance, you have no worries, and may in fact, enjoying learning something new.
[–]goingfullham 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think it has to do more about biological need to reproduce rather than receiving positive stimuli from sexual acts. Because if you just wanted sex it would make sense to choose the most experienced partner. But that's not what's happening when men are choosing partners but there are exceptions of course.
Fear of being inadequate does not make any sense.
[–]steelbyter -4 points-3 points-2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Dude I never said ALL MEN in fact i used this same arguement on r/feminism. All I'm saying is that men who feel that they own a woman need not be celebrated. Chill
[–]sneakpeekbot 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Feminism using the top posts of the year!
#1: Word. | 80 comments #2: It's called consent. | 116 comments #3: Heterosexual marriage 💍 | 767 comments
I'm a bot, beep boop | Downvote to remove | Contact me | Info | Opt-out
[–]goingfullham -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
All I'm saying is that men who feel that they own a woman need not be celebrated
Yes but that's obvious. I hope everybody agree to this. But it's not what we are discussing here. We are not discussing ownership as if women were shoes, we are discussing how many different people came inside her pussy. The value drops because rarity drops, not because men are assholes. I doubt you would want a used PCR test. Some men are more picky than others and it has nothing to do with them being assholes.
[–]steelbyter 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Well I'm sorry but men who feel that a woman needs to be a virgin to have him is being idiotic. Relationships don't work out many times and yes, sometimes a woman who has had like 40 bfs may have a problem but a man who disqualifies a woman solely based off her history is not doing the right thing.
I think that people are free to make their own choices and set their own criteria's on what suits them. Forcing people into a moral alley because YOU think something should be is also wrong.
And I still don't think you understand how value system works in a society.
[–]goingfullham 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Complaining about why men prefer sexual partners with short sexual history is like complaining about why woman like taller men.
[–]steelbyter 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm not complaining I'm just saying it isn't right. That is entirely my opinion and I may be incorrect but that is what I think.
[–]Sergey32321 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It does not mean she is worthless, of course, its just not worth to build relationship with people like that
[–]DepressedNerd07 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
That couldn't be more wrong.
You went from Anti-Feminist to Anti-Women.
Give me a fucking break.
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I don't care what you are thinking about me 🤔
[–]DepressedNerd07 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
And?
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DepressedNerd07 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Dumbass
[–]pteranodon_YT -5 points-4 points-3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
But yet white ppl are racist because of something that happened 1 million years ago
[–]Generic-Degenerate 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What?
[–]Lyynt -5 points-4 points-3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Congratulations, you admitted you compare women to objects.
[+]Lyynt -6 points-5 points-4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Ah yes. A copy paste...very original. Very enlightening
[+]emma_watson_forever -53 points-52 points-51 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
women are not objects you dumb cunt
[–]Southerndude62 44 points45 points46 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Men are not ATMs for women you dumb can't.
[–]steelbyter 21 points22 points23 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I agree, and yes a woman's worth is not defined by her sexual history but it is affected by her relationship history. If I know that this woman has broken up with 30 other people then there is a high chance something is wrong with her.
Also if she has a long sexual history like 50 60 people then there is a chance she is carrying something.
[–]h1tlerwasanOKpainter 36 points37 points38 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
True, because some objects are irreplaceable
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 13 points14 points15 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
LMAOOOOOOOO 😂😂
[–]lethatsinkin 17 points18 points19 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
You're right, because objects can actually be useful.
[–]NohoTwoPointOh 10 points11 points12 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I have a pair of mountain boots that have never failed me. Can't say the same for a number of other things.
[+]emma_watson_forever -35 points-34 points-33 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
report88% Upvoted Comment as emma_watson_forever
report88% Upvoted
Comment as emma_watson_forever
[–]emma_watson_forever -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
holy shit
i was joking
why take that seriously
isnt my line said by pseudofeminists
[–]FlyPaperButtHole -4 points-3 points-2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I love that this sub just comes out and says “we treat women like objects”. The honesty is fantastic, keep it real fellas.
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]FlyPaperButtHole -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Say again?
....so your whole argument is that u hate women........ that's anti feminists for ya
[–]CableConscious5982 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I have 16 divorces, am I as date able as a never married person
[–]epicppman69 -4 points-3 points-2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I mean I guess if y’all think a woman is comparable to a pair of shoes?
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]epicppman69 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Good talk.
[–]YallSkinnyHorseZack 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
my whole argument after someone puts me as a soy jwojak
[–]freenon -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Women are not commodities. Shoes are. You can't compare your mother, sister, aunts and girlfriend to a pair of shoes.
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]uac_redhound 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I love it, added to clipboard lmao
[–]freenon 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Haha, that's funny. xD Comparing women to a commodity you wear on your feet isn't.
[–]uac_redhound -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Would you date a woman who fucked 50 guys before dating you?
Sexual history does affect your value in dating.
[–]yourmomgetsthebullet 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I mean, if they’re a good person and wont cheat on you, why not lmfao? Whats the worst that can happen? You have a pressumably attractive girlfriend who is extremely experienced
[–]uac_redhound 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
They have a higher chance of having an sti. That's my main problem.
Thats true but if they get tested and they dont have any, is there an issue?
Yeah, if your partner thinks you're a person who would sleep with anyone then your value in their eyes does go down. Yes, I would continue to date a person who has a significant body count, if the person really matters and I see something worthwhile in them.
However to compare women to shoes is downright insulting, I hope you get that.
[+]TitsClitsTaylorSwift -26 points-25 points-24 points 5 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link
Men want women with a low number of partners so they have less experience to recognize how awful said dude is in bed.
I've been with women who have had 3 partners, and 100.
You can't tell the difference if they don't tell you. Vaginas push out babies and go back, they're not changing from dicks. Quit being dumb.
Dunno what you are doing here Simp..
[–]steelbyter -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Why are you getting so angry? You think women are like the devil or something? Fuck is wrong with you. Anti-feminist doesn't mean 'dick'
[+]TitsClitsTaylorSwift -6 points-5 points-4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"Treat women like garbage, or you're a simp."
You must need a lifeguard to keep you from drowning in all that pussy.
[–]PM_ME_DNA 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link
People with more partners has commitment issues and it’s a sign that she sees sex very casually.
[+]TitsClitsTaylorSwift -8 points-7 points-6 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
That's not even remotely true.
[–]steelbyter 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
It kinda is ngl.
[–]TitsClitsTaylorSwift 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Then it would be the same for men, too.
Yes a 'stud' who bangs 'hoes' all day everyday does view sex casually. That being said women sometimes like men like that, idk why but that is how it is. IRL women and men tend to have different standards and so since their values are determined by each other, different factors apply. I myself would think that a man who views relationships as a burden and sex as nothing more than a way of showing off is not a good person to be with but many do.
[–]reflex2010 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Psst... I have a secret... Men and Women are different and naturally hold different values.
[–]TitsClitsTaylorSwift 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Sure, but not in that aspect.
A high number of partners is either ok for everyone or no one. Simple as that.
[–]reflex2010 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You can believe what you want but its not what is experienced in the real world.
[–]TitsClitsTaylorSwift 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
So what values do men have that make it more ok for them to have a high number of partners.
That's like saying it's ok for men to curb stomp babies, but not for women.
That's what you're saying.
[–]reflex2010 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No I am not. Who puts value on curb stomping babies?
Majority of men put more value on looks/care/femininity then women. Majority of women put more value on men's income/drive/strength for security.
Is a difference in value so hard to understand that you have to make unrealistic comparisons?
[–]steelbyter -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Not just that but nice.
[–]TitsClitsTaylorSwift -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Bet you losers can't even get this comment 10,000 downvotes.
[–]TitsClitsTaylorSwift 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Where the fuck are my 10,000 downvotes?
Give me my fucking downvotes. Punk ass losers can't even do that right.
[–]Karboniss -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
so they have less experience to recognize how awful said dude is in bed
huge fucking projection you got there cuck
[–]TitsClitsTaylorSwift 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I call it how i see it.
[+]Generic-Degenerate -8 points-7 points-6 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I don't agree with you on this, this is quite literally objectifying women
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Sorry, I don't care about what you are thinking 🤔😎
[–]Generic-Degenerate -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Not as much as I you dont care about your mom
HURRY THE FUCK UP. NOW.
Virgins in this comment section mad. Fr y’all badly need to watch something else than ben shapiro rekt feminist compliations and like expand your horizons Heres some https://youtu.be/rc24YtUslCU
https://youtu.be/1pTPuoGjQsI
Please get out of this circle jerk
[–]haaind -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Ok, so I wrote this the last time I saw this image (6 or so months back on a different page)
"To use the same argument but with a different object
imagine a painting, say "Mona Lisa", there's only one of this painting and that number can only go down, there's fake ones out there but its not the painting. the owner of "Mona Lisa" does not care how many has owned her before, if its 1, 10 or 50 as it is currently in his/her possession, even though he/she has it now, doesn't reduce the value of the painting, other people may be willing to put more on the line to get their hand on that painting even though they know that someone else has had it before."
This was however a comment to an even worse comment, who still didn't understand the point that used doesn't mean valueless
[–]leebeebee -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Unfortunately, these dudes think that all women are interchangeable, and that they’re just tools that function as sexual objects, incubators, and housekeepers
[–]haaind -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes, I agree, their take is complete bs. My intention with the comment was rather that no matter how many times a woman has been "used" doesn't devalue her.
Even just saying that a person is "used" is bloody awful.
[–]thenerj47 -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This sub is just awful. Take a hard look at yourselves. Hypocrisy is a bad look.
[–]blergflergflurgen -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
First visit to this sub. So this is where all the virgins hang out, eh?
[–]PutinsBabushka69 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Virgins and incels
[–]uac_redhound -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
It kinda does affect the value of you as a partner.
Let's say if I get a brand new nice car, like idk, a new Porsche cayenne or something, a $100,000 car, and I beat the crap out of it, lets say I put 30,000 miles on it for the first year if ownership, and I sell the car, some other guy will get it and also beat the crap out of the same car, resell it and it keeps going down in value because it has many, many previous owners who racked up a ton of miles on it, the car isn't that valuable and desirable anymore because of how much people had owned it and used it.
Basic economics.
[–]uac_redhound 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Whoever downvoted me, explain how I'm wrong?
[–]mcove97 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
Women aren't objects, and thus it's wrong to measure their value by how objects gets measured. Of course value is very subjective, but it's really just not comparable, or I suppose, more like comparing apples and oranges. Apples are not oranges. Objects are not human beings, and their value should be measured for what they are, not for what they're not?
Like a shoe will get worn out if used by a bunch of different people for long enough, and thus loses its value as it becomes unusable of unwearable. Humans on the other hand don't become unusable or worn out by having lots of sex with different partners, and thus don't lose their value in the same way an object does. Whoever thinks women lose their value due to sex or a long sexual history needs to go to r/badwomansatonomy for a reality check.
However, people still value different things, as values are subjective, and it's perfectly fine to not have sexual promiscuity on your list of values in a woman, but just cause that's not what you value in a woman for instance, doesn't mean they're inherently invaluable as women or human beings, or invaluable to other people. They still have inherent value in just being a human being whetter you yourself value them or not.
There's a ton of people I've never met in my entire life that I don't care about for instance, and they hold no value to me, but that doesn't mean they aren't valuable as human beings or to other people.
[–]uac_redhound 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It's not physical value I'm talking about. Also sex doesn't decrease your value as a human but it decreases your dating value because because they're more likely to have an STI (same goes for a man), it's nasty to have a high body count, and they're less desirable than someone who has a much smaller body count.
[–]mcove97 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Oh okay. Yeah you have a point, a higher body count does mean higher chances for an STI. However, you can get tested for STIs so I don't really see the problem in dating someone who's had a lot of sex with different partners if they have been tested and they're clean of any STIs.
High body counts are just nasty to me.
[–]Soulhunter_290 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Actually her value is a maximum of 160 dollars
Not even a Syrian minimum monthly salary
[–]Soulhunter_290 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
On the dark web i meant
[–]mercinarary -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
https://www.reddit.com/r/AgainstHateSubreddits/comments/n8imu7/rantifeminists_are_antiwomen/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]Southerndude62 165 points166 points167 points
(48 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 30 points31 points32 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Cold_Difficulty_5298 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (39 children) | Copy Link
[–]ravix_ridamaki 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]IM_Pakshi 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Southerndude62 -3 points-2 points-1 points (36 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (35 children) | Copy Link
[–]Southerndude62 -2 points-1 points0 points (34 children) | Copy Link
[–]Zamblotter 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (32 children) | Copy Link
[–]Southerndude62 0 points1 point2 points (31 children) | Copy Link
[–]DepressedNerd07 0 points1 point2 points (30 children) | Copy Link
[–]Southerndude62 -1 points0 points1 point (29 children) | Copy Link
[–]DepressedNerd07 1 point2 points3 points (28 children) | Copy Link
[–]IM_Pakshi1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DepressedNerd071 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]IM_Pakshi1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DepressedNerd071 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]IM_Pakshi1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DepressedNerd071 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]IM_Pakshi1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DepressedNerd071 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]IM_Pakshi1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DepressedNerd071 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]IM_Pakshi1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DepressedNerd071 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]IM_Pakshi1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DepressedNerd071 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]IM_Pakshi1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DepressedNerd071 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]IM_Pakshi1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DepressedNerd071 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]IM_Pakshi0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DepressedNerd071 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]IM_Pakshi1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MandrakeThePancake 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kookie_doe 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]throwmeawayname -3 points-2 points-1 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sleepymelmo 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Southerndude62 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]CompleteFacepalm 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]road_laya 92 points93 points94 points (111 children) | Copy Link
[+]KristianGdG -57 points-56 points-55 points (109 children) | Copy Link
[–]road_laya 31 points32 points33 points (107 children) | Copy Link
[+]KristianGdG -31 points-30 points-29 points (106 children) | Copy Link
[–]kratbegone 16 points17 points18 points (105 children) | Copy Link
[+]KristianGdG -22 points-21 points-20 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller 8 points9 points10 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]KristianGdG 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]daysinnroom203 -11 points-10 points-9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]rogeliana -10 points-9 points-8 points (99 children) | Copy Link
[–]p-tittyy2 7 points8 points9 points (39 children) | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana 0 points1 point2 points (38 children) | Copy Link
[–]p-tittyy2 0 points1 point2 points (37 children) | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana 0 points1 point2 points (36 children) | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]p-tittyy21 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller 3 points4 points5 points (50 children) | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana -3 points-2 points-1 points (49 children) | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller 2 points3 points4 points (48 children) | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana 0 points1 point2 points (47 children) | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Shan_Miller1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]kratbegone 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]kratbegone 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]kratbegone1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]kratbegone1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Cold_Difficulty_5298 11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CompleteFacepalm -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wingflier 62 points63 points64 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]1iioiioii1 31 points32 points33 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]osiris_89 54 points55 points56 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]pontiflexrex -1 points0 points1 point (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sergey32321 25 points26 points27 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]LandscapeClear1630 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]daysinnroom203 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]LandscapeClear1630 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Early_Cup6480 12 points13 points14 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]back_againx13 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LTBR1955 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PM_ME_DNA 3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 10 points11 points12 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]back_againx13 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LandscapeClear1630 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lonystal 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]SomethingRand00m998 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Lonystal 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FukinDEAD 29 points30 points31 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]WeirdSign7297 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]KristianGdG -14 points-13 points-12 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 14 points15 points16 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]KristianGdG 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kampfy3 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]xndpxs 9 points10 points11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]back_againx13 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Nago31 23 points24 points25 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]daysinnroom203 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Nago31 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]OnyxsWorkshop -12 points-11 points-10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Diomil 10 points11 points12 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]uac_redhound -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]KoalaAccomplished395 16 points17 points18 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Charmingaxelotl 31 points32 points33 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]rogeliana 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]InfiniteDimensions 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Mewster1818 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]tw1nm3t30r 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]LandscapeClear1630 -6 points-5 points-4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lord_Asmodeus93 6 points7 points8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]CompleteFacepalm 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ppoetry 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Early_Cup6480 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]No_Calligrapher2974 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]daysinnroom203 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Whisper 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Novel_Transition_663 [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
Lotta butthurt women and simps in the comments boiz, I luv it 😛😎🤓
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kampfy3 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]paradeqia -3 points-2 points-1 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 5 points6 points7 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]paradeqia 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]paradeqia -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]shadilvers 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]SomethingRand00m998 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]yourmomgetsthebullet 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rainbow_Flying_LLAMA -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]pigsevulis 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]zoeyx13 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]yourmomgetsthebullet -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]yourmomgetsthebullet 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]who_said_it_was_mE -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]who_said_it_was_mE 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]steelbyter -15 points-14 points-13 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wingflier 19 points20 points21 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]steelbyter 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Wingflier 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]goingfullham 11 points12 points13 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[+]steelbyter -7 points-6 points-5 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]goingfullham 5 points6 points7 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]daysinnroom203 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]goingfullham 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]steelbyter -4 points-3 points-2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]sneakpeekbot 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]goingfullham -2 points-1 points0 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]steelbyter 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]goingfullham 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]goingfullham 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]steelbyter 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Sergey32321 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DepressedNerd07 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]DepressedNerd07 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DepressedNerd07 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]pteranodon_YT -5 points-4 points-3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Generic-Degenerate 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lyynt -5 points-4 points-3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]Lyynt -6 points-5 points-4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]emma_watson_forever -53 points-52 points-51 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Southerndude62 44 points45 points46 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]steelbyter 21 points22 points23 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]h1tlerwasanOKpainter 36 points37 points38 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]lethatsinkin 17 points18 points19 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]NohoTwoPointOh 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]emma_watson_forever -35 points-34 points-33 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]emma_watson_forever -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FlyPaperButtHole -4 points-3 points-2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]FlyPaperButtHole -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rainbow_Flying_LLAMA -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CableConscious5982 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]epicppman69 -4 points-3 points-2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]epicppman69 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]YallSkinnyHorseZack 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]freenon -3 points-2 points-1 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]uac_redhound 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]freenon 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]uac_redhound -1 points0 points1 point (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]yourmomgetsthebullet 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]uac_redhound 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]yourmomgetsthebullet 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]freenon 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]TitsClitsTaylorSwift -26 points-25 points-24 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]steelbyter -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]TitsClitsTaylorSwift -6 points-5 points-4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PM_ME_DNA 6 points7 points8 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[+]TitsClitsTaylorSwift -8 points-7 points-6 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]steelbyter 5 points6 points7 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]TitsClitsTaylorSwift 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]steelbyter 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]reflex2010 -1 points0 points1 point (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]TitsClitsTaylorSwift 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]reflex2010 -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]TitsClitsTaylorSwift 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]reflex2010 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]steelbyter -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TitsClitsTaylorSwift -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TitsClitsTaylorSwift 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Karboniss -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]TitsClitsTaylorSwift 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Generic-Degenerate -8 points-7 points-6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 9 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Generic-Degenerate -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TitsClitsTaylorSwift 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]yourmomgetsthebullet 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]haaind -3 points-2 points-1 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]leebeebee -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]haaind -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thenerj47 -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]blergflergflurgen -3 points-2 points-1 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]PutinsBabushka69 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]uac_redhound -2 points-1 points0 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]uac_redhound 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]mcove97 -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]uac_redhound 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]mcove97 -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]uac_redhound -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Soulhunter_290 -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayahuasca__[S] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Soulhunter_290 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mercinarary -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link