A nice, big, hot cup of tea.
only about making tea
purely about the tea
I decided to make a SFW version.
Which part of the ‘ceremony’ does that re-enact?
Is that how their babies were made? Making tea?
only about making tea
purely about the tea
I decided to make a SFW version.
Which part of the ‘ceremony’ does that re-enact?
Is that how their babies were made? Making tea?
Male or female.
The instability (emotional) is the BIG one.
Much like a psychopath, they cannot hold down a (healthy) relationship. Bonds between a couple must be stable.
However, like a codependent, they feel they’re nothing without someone, ANYONE.
Stop and start. Stop and start. Lots of small connections, one night stands.
The typical one night stand (m/f) has a far higher chance of being borderline.
Lashing out at anyone rejecting them, however trivial.
Yep, the angry phone number guys. The occasional woman who gets angry if a random man doesn’t want to fuck her. The entitlement.
Borderlines DO NOT DO rejection. It’s a main trigger.
They have no self to fall back on. Obsessed with self-improvement, no identity though. Constantly trying new things that never seem to work out (think Madonna’s looks). Lots of “bad luck” with the opposite sex. Tendency to idolize others, have idols, especially online. They gain a sense of self via this Other. The stans who can delude themselves into stalking, harassing or raping their idol, dangerous people. A courtship disorder is possible or simple limerence at a distance. Feeling a sense of ownership, viewing other humans as objects or property.
Vengeful, rage tantrums, can attempt to justify abuse with some imagined or minor slight.
“You provoked me” or “you made me hurt you” or “why can’t you behave”?
That would be the classic “bunny boiler” or “disturbed young man” type.
It’s common to hear, “I own you” …. they actually think this.
Both are big on gaslighting so can be confused with a narcissist, which actually isn’t (usually) as bad.
It’s the men who ask to an abused woman “what did you do to make him hit you”?
Classic BPD, sick bastards. They never man up, nothing is ever their personal fault, even the actions of their own body don’t feel like they belong to them. When they picture themselves as the man (issues with empathy for the opposite sex), they assume the man was never at fault, even if he threatened murder.
They will FIND an excuse to hurt.
“I’m the real victim here”, as the other party is bleeding and traumatized in the corner.
They can seem glib like the psychopath or narcissist and can be at times grandiose with narc features. However, it’s an act, usually in response to attention. It’s fake. Their come-down is when this reality hits them again, which can look bipolar. They claim to be depressed when they don’t want to do something, a lot of small compulsive lies.
A rollercoaster of emotional bullshit. Like psychopaths, they deny their own condition but ALSO spread outright lies about it (we’re nice really, we’re the real victim, we suffer, pity us, you can fix us etc).
The logical reply is “wait, if you don’t have it, how do you know so much about it?”
This makes them angry. You wouldn’t like them when they’re angry (they can intimidate by threatening this “loss” of temper, which is a deliberate choice to abuse). Adults don’t lose their temper, toddlers do, because toddlers are still developing the brain areas to control it.
Anger isn’t really an emotion, it’s an impulse. They have issues, emotion is quite healthy but being angry all the time is bad for your body. The Bobo dolls study and others show feeding anger makes it stronger and more frequent. “Let it all out” applies to tears, not physical abuse. Angry people get an endorphin rush, abusers enjoy abusing.
Like the psychopath, they study a lot online of how normal people think. They can quote forum posts to act normal or pass for intelligent, to lure in victims. It’s vapid trivia masquerading as knowledge.
A dichotomous view of life that is too shallow to withstand scrutiny.
e.g. all men are rapists/assholes v. all women are whores/crazy.
The common denominator there….
See, they find it helpful to define themselves in terms of what they’re not.
They deny their Shadow Self and project it, it’s stereotypical they claim they’re incapable of that Evil Terrible Terrible Thing. But the Enemy is FULL of it, to bursting! It’s so obvious!
Race they belong to generally but self-loathing can present if encouraged.
Sexism is far more common because of parental issues.
So it’s the misogynist who says
“I’m not sexist, I just don’t trust or believe or respect women.”
For balance, the misandrist who says
“I’m not sexist, I just don’t like or rely on or hang around men.”
It can present in so many ways but they’re blind to it, having projected it far, far away from what they believe is physically possible.
Anyone who thinks it’s impossible to be sexist personally, ever, at any point, is living in a bubble. Prejudices exist in all humans.
Being suspicious of all women is dodgy, being suspicious of a seductive woman, taking a sudden, keen interest in you, as warned in the Bible, is common sense.
Being distrustful of all men is off, being distrustful of a man who is insincere and keeps pushing boundaries is survival instinct.
Sexists are just lazy. Within a race, there are too many personal similarities to claim a broad genetic danger.
The psychotic thing is obvious.
“The world hates women” and “The world hates men”.
Obvious bullshit, there’s moderate but clear evidence on both sides (balance) so neither sweeping statement is true. It’s another excuse. Not to try, to abuse the “enemy” group, to get perceived revenge yada yada.
The world hates (substitute for Self) so I am morally allowed to (do terrible, evil thing).
Like the #KillAllMen or Elliot murder spree fans.
It’s a selfish Crusaderism. If they clashed with that group, say SJW women to anti-SJW women, they’d hate that supposed group they claim to care about, the most of all. Thatcher gets the most hatred of any dead politician because she was a woman. In a sickening display, they got the radio to play “ding dong the witch is dead” on news of her demise. The working class loved her so the Left despise her. Great men and geniuses are envied most by omegas, they plot to literally kill people, other men are just last. It’s like Marx leeching off of Engels, a man who owned means of production. Marx lived off the blood of the worker happily.
These people are dangerous and abusive.
You love the sinner and punish the saint, you are evil. Defending deviants, rapists (of m/f), whatever it is specifically. This is not First World culture. This is childish and bitter. This is anti-justice.
“We’ll show them” they plot.
The world was right to reject them, really. That’s all they showed.
I’m sick of atheist Bible-thumpers.
You fornicate, you’re exactly like them.
No special appeal to male exception.
And beauty is divine, nothing to be ashamed of.
They’re trying to imply there’s something innately wrong with the female form.
Oh, but men are attacked, are you sure?
When are you saying Men’s Health covers should be banned like Page 3?
Sex itself is nothing to be ashamed of (and prude isn’t an insult, it’s a virtue) but fornication is the thing you’re all too cowardly to mention because the real reason – your shame – is down to how you still do it. So you blame women as Lilith the succubus for tempting you.
Jesus said the man is responsible for his own eyes and his own hands and his own manhood. No woman can ruin your manhood, you sin against yourself.
Who’s got hypoagency on sexual matters?
Sex isn’t a sport or a hobby. Babymaking is serious.
What’s next, Muh Darwin? So high-T women are excused and low-T men aren’t?
They hate female sexual pleasure and resent it, even in married, chaste women. Chastity is physical self-control. That’s all. It’s self-control according to your station. You’re encouraged to have sex with your spouse if married. These “men” want to cuck others to deprive husbands the pleasure of their own wives!
For a man to be bad in bed is deliberate. Not listening to basic instructions on small changes is spite, it’s wrath. Studies show ONS women orgasm less. Women are avoiding bad lovers (casually or as husbands) and they are angry about this. They want to feel superior to women by getting their pleasure and sadistically depriving additional pleasure, over masturbation, for depriving her. This includes cruel comparisons to other women.
Christians must talk about this.
There are husbands who do this and wonder why their wife leaves. She held up her end of the conjugal bargain, a husband has a duty to perform too. He has a duty to give her carnal pleasure they agreed not to seek elsewhere.
“to love and to cherish” isn’t limited to cuddles
Immodest men for male chastity? I don’t think so. Then how is no slutting possible when you only remove half the sexual equation? You’re being hypocritical and irrational. Lust is a vice whoever you are but simply wearing a bikini doesn’t mean anything about a person’s behaviour.
Adam was a slut because he walked around completely naked.
Men walk around shirtless all the time in this heatwave and as a woman I know they want to keep cool – the same reason women strip off! Boobs get hot! Thighs heat up! Mini-skirts are ventilation! Women medically have a higher body fat percentage for our size! All things being equal, we must show more skin proportionately or get heat stroke and possibly die!
You don’t see men heating up their hands between their thighs.
It’s stupid to equate nudity with sex.
Porn has brainwashed you. They don’t even want to ban it.
If society is too hypersexualised (it is), you would.
Ah, but hypersexualisation means seeing all nudity as sexual and all attractive people as promiscuous. It changes your perceptions.
Attractive women are least promiscuous, they don’t need to be.
Ironically, the biggest prostitutes do it for ego. That’s right, by their actions, the men who criticize all women as whores are simply projecting. You’re jealous of the hookers who can charge while you prostitute yourselves (read your Bible) for free.
It is a sin against their own body so you have no right to care personally. The things strangers do has nothing to do with you.
It’s defamation to call a stranger a slut when you don’t know if that’s true but hey, they don’t care. They don’t care if it’s true. They know it’s a lie. It’s a lie intended to coddle their feelings.
Witch finder generals. Just as bad as the SJW Nazi hunters who see them in toast. I despise the slutty Republican pretending to be Christian over the hooker he’s visiting and threatening. There is less honour in faking good than being openly bad.
Chastity is an act, not an item of clothing.
Most sluts actually cover up so you have trouble spotting them. Audrey Hepburn, attempted homewrecker. She hated heels.
How do you expect the Marilyns to cover up? Can’t hide their silhouette, their walk and their feminine energy. Women like looking feminine, nothing shameful in that.
Do we shame men wearing suits?
No, it’s hatred of something pure. Something you aren’t allowed to touch or corrupt.
Everyone believes in degeneracy but it isn’t the nude body, it isn’t healthy sex and it isn’t erotica. They don’t own those sacred things (plenty of Papal art is erotica).
“I don’t think there is necessarily a connection between admiration of the female form and sluts, one can be a beauty model without being promiscuous.”
Judging by appearances is stupid.
Non sequitur after non sequitur after non sequitur.
Don’t “behavioral change” argument me.
Where’s the incentive not to fornicate if you’ll be slandered as one anyway?
These men don’t shame real sluts in their life. They treat them like ladies to get a leg over.
Why didn’t you shame the sluts who wanted to sleep with you?
That’s the real problem. They only object to sluts who aren’t slutty enough.
A virgin and a whore look the same.
It’s odd how men will admit women are sensitive about their appearance then continue to attack us on it.
Yeah, that’s bullying. Even in school, that is not flirting.
A delightful, common sense explanation.
In before autism;
If you DON’T ‘believe’ in sexual harassment – go to a gay bar on a Saturday.
See how long you last.
That is a woman’s life.
Men are lecherous pigs, regardless of sexuality. What does a lecherous woman look like? A man.
Since any reading this and disbelieving are cowards, simply ask every woman you know and care about (assuming any stuck around you) about their experiences. There are always experiences, regardless of ‘age’ and seeming ‘fuckability’. Don’t talk over them excusing it, just ask the question, shut up and listen.
Actually, 9/10 male rudeness is the inability to shut up and listen. There are studies.
OT Rape accusations imply guilt. A totally honest man needn’t fear them.
“When someone shouts across the street at me “show us your cunt”, or even just wolf-whistles, it’s not because they think it’s going to make me feel good.
It’s a reminder that they could overpower and attack you. R-types don’t care for rule of law, Ks are respectful (either ignoring you in public or getting introductions the decent way).
I saw a very right-wing blog post an article about how the author could easily rape any woman he likes.
In quite graphic detail and practically frothing at the prospect. I don’t read that blog anymore.
This was supposed to scare us all straight (and into agreement with him).
Rape isn’t funny to women, it appalls us (ESPECIALLY the conservative ones), it’s worse than murder. Imagine getting castrated, male power stripped and stolen. Rape is worse for women, at the very least for the conception aspect. A man joking about rape is an r-type trying to pass for K (strong). Those are the worst.
When women see a man seriously laugh (not from shock, but enjoyment) at domestic abuse or whatever sexual ‘prank’ is going on, it would be like watching a woman laughing at a man gored on barbed wire in WW1. Our thought is always the same: what if that were me?
This is why women choose compassion in mate selection studies.
Which sex has the blacker humour?
“Can’t you take a joke?”
Is civilization a joke? They make me wonder.
This is why the right wing’s reputation suffers. Manwhores cosplaying Patriarchy. They seem to think it means concubines and slavery, rather than monogamy and industry.
As for the genuine conservatives…
If they can’t fuck it or kill it, they’re probably going to insult it.
It’s not a well-intended or genuine interaction. They’re not even under some misguided impression that such comments will make me want to have sex with them.
Some are truly that stupid.
Thought process as follows:
If I make her hate me, it’ll remind her of my mother/her father.
Presuming all fathers are incompetent (r-selected) as his. Another layer of insult.
Resent women? No! I simply happen to crush and abandon them all by sheer coincidence!
Distrust women? Sure! They made me leave them! Projection’s only real when women do it!
It’s simply an exertion of power. The aim is to get approval or laughter from others, and discomfort or gratitude from me.
That is better known as sadism.
It is caused by degenerate media, especially the supernormal stimuli of HD streaming online porn.
I guarantee you 100% of those males are porn addicts, the female leches too. The testosterone has to go somewhere, they lack the impulse control (hypofrontality) and time preference to do something good with it.
A compliment is something you would feel comfortable giving a man, woman, or child because you believe it would make them feel good. You’re not boosting anyone’s self-esteem by reminding them that, by society’s standards, “you look acceptable enough for me to fuck”.”
There is always the insult that your primary value is whether they’d use you as their whore.
They’re calling you a whore.
That’s what no woman will admit.
You’re soliciting women on the street. As a whore. But at least whores can charge.
They refuse to accept they’re being rude but they wouldn’t say it if children were present. They desperately want attention but project this onto the provocateur (and looking good isn’t an excuse for anything, is it?) although differing tastes apply, so you can’t even hide your attractiveness since they’ll always be someone Into That. [cough pervert cough]
In conclusion, blame porn. Speaking to people like that (a whore) might not even be acceptable in a purely sexual, private interaction. If they’re smart, they’d leave immediately. It’s demeaning, dehumanizing and morally bankrupt, like the source.
Provocateur is a word I use deliberately… it’s never applied to men, is it?
There’s no such thing as Adam Teasing and Taharrush ‘games’ go after… which sex?
Misandrist women avoid men but misogynistic men seek out women.
Hello, the bulk of MGTOW.
They seek women out to punish them  for what is perceived (projection) as the other’s wrongdoing. It’s never them, never examine the self!!!
Sexual predators, sexual sadism.
I guess womb envy comes into it somewhere but mention that after they play the feminist ‘Penis Envy’ record for the millionth time and suddenly the concept might be shaky? [SJWs lie, r-types lie, logic is a lie to them, thinking is K]
1 Who are you? You can’t lose the chub and get a good job, get out of anyone’s face. At least join a church or Greeenpeace or something. A useful Crusade.
I know, I know.
“Yes, but –
What about men?”
…What about the men?
Where are the men when this happens? 
Women exist, women are the fair sex. Women will be sexually harassed as long as we live. Men need to police other men, we certainly can’t.
Think too of the racial and class angles.
Is this acceptable as a way to treat people in the first world?
Sign of an r-type male: when you defend a woman from attack (and attack it is), you get accused of White Knighting. Yes, but White Knights are a good thing (Ks) and protect other Ks from monsters…
They never speak to men that way, knowing the odds of an altercation. Cowards to boot. Sexual competition makes the rabbit flee. At times, they’ll use the term incorrectly (in defense of another r) as a compliment of her sexual quality (lie) to get her into bed. It uses triangulation, the common manipulation tactic. Are those men crazy? Probably male borderline, it’s under-diagnosed. It would explain their romantic or intimacy issues that can be masked socially to some extent. R-types fear intimacy because it leads to responsibility and commitment, turn-offs. R/K does neatly align with attachment conditions (anxious-avoidant, secure)…. with the Mother (Freud wins).
Another sign “why are women so easily offended?” 
Only the ones around you.
Yes, it’s definitely us…
all three billion of us, currently. And they say women can’t do maths?
Prelude to gaslighting, All women are crazy bullshit. Pathologizing a problem makes it go away!
See also the classic “why won’t women-” do whatever Lord Fauntleroy wants?
Narcissistic entitlement brewing up to rage. Histrionic, effete rage.
The latest meme making an irritating entrance into popular thought.
TLDR; read bolded.
It’s intended to insult clubbing culture (fine, ban clubs, otherwise, STFU about them).
Like most memes appealing to history, it’s misled at best, misleading at worst.
Rewind to the earliest times with video.
Ladies have fun too. Anything less is an overhanging lie from the Sexual Revolution.
“Yes but women used to be demure and coy, they didn’t dress and act like sluts.”
It is ironic the modern man has such a lax definition, as if looking at a man ‘the wrong way’ is slutty.
Women have always ‘made eyes’ at men, because we have eyes. When we use them, we’re accused of making eyes because studies show men are acutely sensitive to social overtures from women.
Maybe, just maybe, the nature of people doesn’t change much over time, and not everything is about you and how hard done-by you are? The term for that is a victim complex.
Look up the Evelyn Nesbit scandal, it was their OJ.
They even had versions of the Kardashians, pin-up girls before pin-ups, which really date back to the 18th century and painted adverts. If you believe any advert, it’s a de-facto IQ test and you lost.
Maybe read some social history before acting like you understand all women?
Especially those in other time periods.
^If that were true, you’d be a billionaire selling us bullshit. Advertising people understand people.
Funnily enough, women tend to be up on social history, so I find a meme that relies on our collective ignorance of it rather entertaining. The average woman knows as much social history trivia as a man knows military.
In perfect truth, such males want to castigate degeneracy without drawing attention to their own.
Let alone limiting it. R-types playing K.
This is intellectually dishonest, an argument based on bad rhetoric, bad faith, historical ignorance and makes for a coward. If you’re irritated that, in a world where sex is freer than ever, you still cannot get laid, perhaps the problem is not the people you fail to impress?
Maybe the problem is that you keep bitching like a gay guy.
Don’t look at a pretty woman and think the modern version of ‘ANKLE?!!!!‘ only to wonder why you’re labelled a creep and become a social leper. Offended people on this stuff are dull from birth.
Look and think ‘that’s nice’ and move on with your day because this superficial shit is not, by definition, important.
The women least likely to wear a miniskirt are prostitutes, because the goods are not given away for free.
Everything you know is wrong.
Ask a man with sisters if he judges their sexual desperation on what they wear.
Imagine if we applied the same judgementalism to men – all short-sleeve shirts are hereby signs of a gigolo. Shorts? Whore! Wear trousers like a proper man!
Only in the 20th century did it suddenly become acceptable (imho, no) for an adult man to wear shorts. It was considered ridiculous and you’d be mocked for it like turning up to a funeral in assless chaps, as was going topless until coal-miners striked because of job demands. This is the God’s honest truth. Look it all up. Shorts are literally the most immodest thing a man can wear, the male mini-skirt. It’s worse than a mini-skirt because things can play peek-a-boo. Short sleeves come in a close second and were taken up by the Italians with the sleeveless ‘wife-beater’ where they both should have been left, men couldn’t show their waistcoat at the beginning of the 20th Century.
Casual or modest, pick ONE.
I heard this meme from Clarey on YT years ago – he immediately began to criticize every modest fashion going, with an emphasis of vitriol for the maxi skirt. …That’s just a skirt. It’s a term for a proper skirt.
This stuck in my mind because I assumed it was a joke and waited for the punchline, the hypocrisy was so overt to a non-American. You have no idea what you want, but you know how much you want it!
He hated totally normal skirt lengths, pictured in the Edwardian videos, because it covered women up and he couldn’t ogle them, no more than five seconds after saying, to paraphrase- Why don’t women dress like ladies anymore?
The problem is male demand.
Male demand for risque fashions. Rappers are the main problem.
You can see how years of this from Kindergarten can make for avoidance of anyone who tries to pull it.
You can’t countersignal if nobody values your opinion to begin with. Look through the photos of the men saying these things and you’ll quickly realize they attract casual women because they are casual men. I haven’t seen a single one that owns a single (ONE) good suit. A good suit, by style standards and formality rules. Not a great suit, not an impressive suit, not an elegant suit, not a gentleman’s suit. A single decent item.
Which brings me to my next point: how do you intend to pay for that?
More fabric, more $$$$$. That is not a typo. A suitable wardrobe is 4-figures, a good one is five. This is based on wear and variety for activities. Being formal is more expensive, rappers lie.
Look at the guys making these claims about ladies. Are they gents?
Any woman looking at these guys will immediately notice the discrepancy, it’s like…
Which fork, Forney?
They have no clue of basic etiquette and try to prattle on like a stage mother.
They are alcoholics who couldn’t tell you the difference between a white wine and red wine goblet if their lives depended on it.
Nobody takes this ‘advice’ seriously. They have nothing to offer but opinion and personal complaint.
The funniest thing my society friends ever heard about women’s fashion was one drab man telling, loudly, anyone who would listen, that spaghetti straps were the sign of a slut.
This story still does the rounds and I’ve heard people quoting it without getting the joke.
Guess the nationality. Go on, guess. I think we all know.
Guess what he was wearing with his bad tan and fake Rolex he kept showing to people who could tell the difference.
These are the guys who refuse to buy a drink to assert interest (formal politeness) or buy a dinner they invited their intended to (the formal rule) but they want a woman with expensive taste?
Are you quite sure?
They slob around in t-shirts and shorts, in general, and wonder why the women draped in £3,000 Dolce don’t give them a second look. Class does come into it. The problem is, they have none.
Therefore, they refuse to see it as an issue…. because it IS the issue.
Women do not qualify to men. Eggs are expensive.
However, not looking like ‘Kevin the teenager’ helps.
Would you show up for a job interview wearing this? Are you using it for a sport? If the answer to both is NO, do NOT wear it out of the house and for the love of Christ get a good suit before you start spouting off on Patriarchy and the dire need of male leadership.
You don’t care how you look? Yes, it shows.
Hate sluttiness? Push to ban all contraception and sexual health clinics. Yes, all.
Hate immodest clothing? Push for Elizabethan clothing laws. Yes, in social history, there are many, many actual, literal laws that restricted things like length for modesty, and most women are aware of these. It would also mean strippers are illegal and you can’t pretend to be rich in clubs without actually being rich.
I don’t expect these guys to grow the balls, ..do you?
Conformity is a feminine virtue, as I mentioned earlier, so don’t blame all women for the actions or obscenity of singular examples, otherwise, all men are like Jack the Ripper; non sequiturs about men would be far more insulting.
Why aren’t women virtuous, they ask, not a virgin themselves.
Because none of the previous words will get through to ‘these’ people.
We mock idiots like you.
Grasping at relevance, huh?
I’m not gonna link since that’d be throwing money at it.
Here’s the comment I made, which sums it up nicely.
Actually women have been the sex voting more rightward in Europe and recent trends in voting have made women swing conservative in general (over men) but Roosh has never let facts intrude on a piece of ‘satire’. Just look at recent elections and referenda, and still he …blames women, a majority of the population with enough numbers to swing it. American women are not typical of the world’s supply and Europeans are sick of reading that particular lie. Essentially, he’s arguing to strip low-commitment, low-loyalty r-types of the right to vote, without naming the r-type (because he is one). We used to do that with property requirements, since r-types are nomadic and property taxes were the only taxes (so you vote for where your money goes or don’t vote). That was not equal, but fair. Also, it wasn’t ‘women’s suffrage’ but universal, women’s suffrage is a feminist myth. Learning history is hard when male power-trip fantasy is so much more alluring than looking at the demographics data of recent elections.
I forgot to mention Millennial women are more conservative than their living predecessors.
And Gen Z are heavily conservative too.
Facts are hard when you’re a degenerate liar.
From here on out it’s an explanation of the r-psychology, with Roosh as Exhibit Gay. [this definition] It’s bitchy to match their level since, if you’re going to attack people randomly, expect them to get defensive.
A little on Europe.
The First World is the only place its values exist in the universe, we developed these with major wars, some civil wars and major historical reformations and enlightenments. We earned this way of life. These people, historical enemies, stepped into our house (without invitations) and took all the goodies paid for with our ancestor’s blood. They expect to get more than they give and skip the country whenever they like, owing us nothing. They’re already on thin ice with their treatment of our too-kind Christian hospitality (from pathological altruism, still finite ). Anyone questions these fundamentals and we come down on them like a ton of bricks. This is OURS, get bent. They totally deserve that rejection for rejecting what makes us, Us, and therefore worthy of their pillaging, because if they want to sample Non-First World living, go ahead. Good riddance. Except those people are narcissists and can’t stand to think of the First World being happy. They’re toxic civilization-breakers. Fifth columnists, saboteurs and snitches.
Like we’re all too dumb to notice the past and present runnings of our native countries. All hundreds of millions of us in civilized Europe. And yes, we need the advice of foreign mystery meat! Because white men in Europe are incompetent, right Roosh?
Everything about Europe was shit until you got here!! For millennia we have struggled! Thank the gods you’ve finally arrived! You’ve been so good for the people of every nation you’ve ‘banged’!
Common sense would argue:
If some people are unworthy of First World rights, simply deport them to where they belong.
Not all countries or its genetic Volk can uphold the glories of First World liberty. OK. Not everyone can be smart enough or capable enough to run things to the highest known standard.
Everyone will be better off! Everyone will be happier! We’ll stop trying to turn a cat into a dog by putting a leash on it and truly embrace cultural diversity! …except the narcissists. Who are only happy when this applies: misery loves company. Basically, never take a narcissist’s advice on the Good Thing To Do. They lack the empathy. Relational narcissism is a thing.
Which country is the Sodom of our times? The one we should take as a negative case study? The one who started this Melting Pot shit? The one obsessed with materialism, gangster culture and money?
America is the paragon of patriarchal virtues! Let’s all listen to those guys!
You don’t get a pat on the head for doing your adult duties.
Seriously, the US must have all its statute up online like the Parliament website.
I’ve seen various congressional and state ruling paperwork, but they never go over it and examine their priors.
I would myself but then I’ll be accused of bias for being both foreign and female.
I have however broken down election data on my own country, various demographic data by race, sex and age. The biggest predictor? AGE. Increasing the voting age or bringing in military service for everyone adult prior to voting (not ageist) would work better. But damn, they might have to stop valiantly defending the West from their keyboard for five minutes and pick up a gun.
Why be masculine when you can make a career out of talking about it?
These people brag about having multiple passports but they aren’t traitors, no!
They complain about terrorism and demand government Do Something. Well traditionally, they’d form an army out of you….
They expect a White Saviour (like Trump)… but hate on white nationalism, in white-spawned countries.
So he contents himself to crawl around waiting for approval by mimicking Vox Day (that won’t work, VD is a respected author).
They could earn some passing respect by actually looking at the damn data.
-they don’t know how. Idiots
-they don’t care. Liars
There’s a distinct 3rd possibility.
They did, didn’t find the answer they wanted, and due to publication bias, left it in the drawer.
If he sets foot on most European soil after that article, he could easily be up on human rights charges.
Satire doesn’t mean what you think it means. Calling FIRE in a theatre is still illegal. Mumbling the adult equivalent of ‘just kidding’ will make the judges angry. The male judges.
Well, he’s questioning the legal structure of foreign governments and suggesting an oppression – because oppression doesn’t exist. On incitement or sedition grounds alone, he could just disappear. That would be 100% his fault. It’s like stepping into a tiger enclosure and expecting not to get eaten. You do not bully the bigger guy, even if he seems tame. Ignorance of the ECJ law or EU law in general won’t be an excuse if the feminists (rightfully, for once) in this case, get you arrested for being a misogynist (stripping women of rights is A-grade proof in court, practically a working definition for the prosecution and he has not met the Burden of Proof for a ‘debate’ aside from hand-waving and emotional appeal, which does quite add to the misogyny thing). It cannot be simultaneously all A Joke and All A Serious Debate, depending which lawn looks safer today. Serious clowns do not exist. The fact it’s about running The West, to which he does not truly belong, means the American Free Speech shit does not apply.
Rights belong to citizens. Citizens are loyal and dutiful and don’t oppress their peers, their legal equals. Oddly he is legally arguing that women have their citizenship rights revoked, the only way to restrict liberties, but in other materials, borders are just an idea (HBD says no). R-types always lie, even if they tell a truth it’s in bad faith to manipulate a 3rd party. It’s easy to spot by who says you’re too dumb to handle the data yourself…
It’s like he doesn’t know who Britain’s favourite person is. Nor how much power the monarchy have in Europe, let alone their common sex.
If they can murder their Muslim-breeding daughter-in-law, they can murder you.
European men don’t spend most of their free time bitching about the opposite sex, including those who live in America. We still remember the sexes need to get along for the race or species to survive. The culture clash is making even the redpill male friends of mine cringe away from these ‘losers’ explaining away their undesirability and start siding with the feminists, ‘in theory’.
He’s also clearly creeping to sex slavery of all women by revoking First World liberties aka AA with sex for ‘incel’ males (incels do not exist).
Is that the Muslim genes or the Jewish ones coming out? A harem system like Asia leads to war and over time fewer women anyway since they’re murdered post-birth. And the guys running a harem are military. And rich. Aka none of the things these bitches could be. They’re also atheists so all appeals to Muh Bible fall flat.
The misogynist-pointers at Biblical verse are actually quoting Judaism or referencing a blend of its pantheon with Eve (that is blasphemy), based on the Jewish character of Lilith.
AKA nothing to do with Christians.
It’s as trite as the MGTOW cry of White men! Abandon your women! Never reproduce!* They want the brown ones anyway! We’ll gladly take them off your hands brother! They’re whores anyway, that’s why rape doesn’t exist!
*That’s how you can tell they’re ideologically aligned with SJWs.
Sex positive? Check.
They really haven’t looked up Iceland, have they?
‘The next year, “Iceland’s parliament passed a law guaranteeing equal rights for women and men.”
This was over something MINOR.
Fathers do not work as many hours as mothers, you can look it up but none of you will breed so thankfully it doesn’t matter to you. Childrearing and housekeeping are not fun, they are laborious or men would be lining up to do it and get paid.
You disrespect the valuable work women do, they strike. Which sex does the survival of the species rely on? Which sex is the primary caregiver? Which hand rocks the cradle? This is DARWIN. Kipling said ‘the female of the species is deadlier than the male’…. why do you think that is, Kemosabe?
If men are in fact superior, hypothetically…(the literal misogynist’s unscientific position to dehumanize women and strip us of agency/liberty, when they/we are merely sexually dimorphic) then logically at least most of what the feminists say must be true, since in nature the stronger dominates the weaker. This would necessitate the weaker to rightfully defend themselves. Choose your own ending, moron.
If you haven’t read the Bible, you may want to mull over why it’s women in the verse ‘Hell hath no fury…’
Consider very carefully if you wish to fuck with a strong majority of the globe, r-type scum.
It’s the Pandora’s Box of civilization. Because if the men all rally together, that obscures other topics like race, religion, age bracket, even partisanship! Convenient for self-aware r-types trying to get in with the Ks for protecting before the fighting starts (a kind of warfare cuckoldry, hiding safely behind the lines and letting the Real Men fight for you like a dusky damsel). And choosing as your opponents the one group that can’t match you in physical strength…. brave. They wouldn’t dare punch another man, but they’re happy to start on women, assuming we’ll never fight back. Yeah, they’re idyllic defenders of The West…. hiding behind other men. Usually white men. Brave and strong and independent little rebels.
The feminists want a ‘Gender War’ – because men are going to lose.
World War G.
Men don’t even play well with one another. An all-male island would be a bloodbath. There’s no historical example of it. Sparta punished bachelors with a special tax. Roosh just wants to hide away until white men have taken white women’s rights away (temporarily) to increase his mating chances, especially if those men (superior competition) die in the process. Typical r-strategy, shout, run and hide. They have literally nothing to lose.
The r-type calls for things and asks you to do them for it.
Sorry, are you all his wife suddenly? He can’t even find one woman to agree to legally bind herself to him and his money, obviously he’s defective. He cannot run a single household and he has no child investments, he has no idea how to run a society (especially one of the outgroup, racially). Ghetto trash has more family values than Roosh V.
Let’s you and him fight – the cowardly r-type strategy of triangulation, to befriend the victor and free up resources (here, women). Let’s you and her fight – a level of scumbag that isn’t human(e). If men win, befriend men and take credit as Idea Guy for rewards (given women like goats). If women win, most men are dead, take excess supply of women – whether they want to be or not (smells like rape o’clock). You can move the rape genes to civilization but you can’t civilize rape genes.
Men, seriously. Anyone calling for a fight who isn’t willing to lead it is trying to kill you.
Western men are too soft to survive. HE KNOWS THIS.
He wants to kill your genes and your culture.
Traitor in our midst.
Eggs = expensive. Sperm = cheap. Foreva….
Finally, in fantasy land of Xenu Warrior Princes.
What happens if men ‘win’ but no woman will reproduce with them?
Unless you’re a happy genetic suicide like Roosh V, who can’t buy a wife with all his shekels, don’t listen to it?
He’s goading you to attack your future. This is all painfully obvious to women thanks to EQ. We know a conniving traitorous bitch when we see one. However, it’s unfair to call someone a traitor per se, when they were never one of us. Look up his background.
Now, if you are a heterosexual man, it’s possible that you simply haven’t particularly noticed that men are complicated and difficult to figure out. There’s a good chance you haven’t noticed, because you haven’t dated them. But that doesn’t mean women are any more complicated than men to decipher… it just means the fact that dating men is complicated doesn’t impact you at all, if you are a heterosexual man.
Here is where the hardcore defenders of the “Why are women so…?” trope will reply with the following defense:
“I never said that men are not (stupid, angry, dishonest, etc). Sure, they might be that way too. But at this moment I’m just asking about the women!”
The problem with that is that, to put it bluntly, asking the wrong question can lead you to the wrong answers. If the reason some people are complicated and difficult to figure out have to do with general human characteristics, then looking at specifically female traits will not lead you to the correct answer. It’s misdirection. It will make it harder for you to actually be able to figure out what’s going on.
The blame game is popular with liars trying to excuse their own personal failings and loser status.
The question is loaded. It’s a false dichotomy that implies men are Not X.
However, while whining and guffawing over NAWALT, on the topic of rape they pipe up with NAMALT.
Nobody is ‘lying’ either. Learn to read the research, not the commentary feed from some butthurt bloke. The lie scales are applied to both sexes (independent variables) in a given study. That is how they are constructed, literally. For comparison’s sake aka the study, it holds.
Why the discrepancy? you wisely ask.
There are fewer female sluts than male, but they put out a lot more per…. ahem, head.
Result? Men gain more ‘experience’, to put it politely.
Now, a little theory…
Remember, this studies frequency of switching. The cause can be traced back via IV to frequency of sex acts too, as the two variables are intertwined (men and women). Otherwise, logically, and sexual congress requiring one male and one female, you would expect even results e.g. men 5, women 5. Men are switching between more women, as you can see from their mean, but they are switching among the same pool of women, necessarily, whereas the total of females is much lower. The average female switches partner less, yes, but what type is the average woman? …
Told you promiscuity, the act, was the problem, and male in face. If you insist on blaming one sex, they’re at the centre of anything sexual, online and off.
If you have data, go ahead and prove me wrong, manwhores.
This is as silly as arguing cuckoldry in the age of DNA testing.
In short, this suggests, pending further results, that men use and use up a lower quality of woman before trading up socially to their final partner. Kinda like a good hand to hold in blackjack. To have and to hold.. They crave the social security like women crave the sexual kind. Hypergamy is a mass neurosis of projection, to anyone who can read.
You don’t see large groups of women on the prowl, versus Pull Nights ( lads on the pull). [SATC is fiction, globally and historically.]
Pool* = sample, arguably the SMP in practice.
Female mean = the total available females in theory, e.g. including the married, the aged, the ill and the celibate.
You see the issue? They’re all lumped together, the data isn’t stratified correctly. Deliberately.
Even a bar chart based on partner count or sexual frequency in a week would be illuminating.
However, the number of count for slutty males must be even higher, because as not-practicing women hold down the slutty average, the number of non-practicing men hold down the manwhore mean too.
Isn’t science fun?
This accurately traces the perils of lumping the sexes in together, obscuring mating patterns which crossover i.e. promiscuity. Further data computation was required to assess this question.
Obviously none of this data includes rape or other sexual crimes.
Accusing all men of being rapists is exactly as stupid as accusing all women of being whores. They’re both over-reactions designed to defame the opposite sex’s reputation from different sides (take/be taken, force/choose). Instead it cleverly plays on an old question Can a whore be raped?
Nobody mentions this. So I have to.