Everybody belongs to everybody else

No, BNW fans, there is no “right to reproduce” because that requires another person’s consent (and marriage license*).

Things a rapist would say.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/723323/Sexual-partner-fertility-disability-World-Health-Organisation-IVF

Your rights end where another’s begin. The entitlement is sickening.

Otherwise various tumblr fandoms, say Hiddleston’s would be entitled to rape him or at least steal his sperm. No.

And the men celebrating this (hoping to get hookers on taxpayer money**) don’t want to pay child support?

R-types, my God.

*Technically a marriage license was the old way to license reproduction. Obtaining a good match was difficult, courtship was logical!

**Relief is within your grasp….

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gods_of_the_Copybook_Headings

Subtext: if you are celibate or damn, not a slut, there’s something wrong with you.

Stop the shaming for things that are prosocial.

What a “player”

Rapist jailed after beating woman and keeping her as a ‘sex slave’

During cross-examination, vile Patton even asked his defence barrister: ‘How can it have been rape if there was no violence?’

Where the hell would someone get such a totally wrong idea?

This is why coercion and threats don’t count as consent. Legally.
It is much the same as a written contract.

Leeds Crown Court heard that Patton was ‘obsessed’ with his victim and he threatened to hurt her family and damage their property if she did not agree to meet him.

He should be swinging from a rope like the Rotherham lot. How can white supremacists claim to be superior while they’re soft on people like this? You want to let this one run around near your sisters, mothers, grandmothers, daughters – because an owner of a penis can do no wrong? You think you’d get low crime that way? Like majority white Europe never hanged people?

No Patriarchy in history went nicely on abusive little men, let alone easy.
They knew they only get worse, a rotten apple mustn’t be allowed to spoil the barrel.
His victim is ruined for life. As an r-type, you’d expect him to be proud of this.

Sexual entitlement, this is where it leads.

Today, at the same court, Patton was sentenced to 13 years in prison.

For seven charges? I hate this country. Why bother? Why not 13 days? 13 minutes?

Patton, who in the past had told the woman she was ‘nothing but a dog’,

Clean the gene pool, please. Men, this is your gender role.

slapped her repeatedly and even brandished a knife before telling her he was going use her as a sex slave.

Where did he get that idea?

Did anyone ask? ….

“No violence” guys, and if you think he’s nicer to other men, you’d be naive.
Psychopaths are worse with men than they are with women.

But women need to “give men a chance”, right? Fuck our right to safety, let’s coddle some snowflakes.
When men give creepy guys on the bus a chance, we might listen.

Patton has previous convictions for criminal damage, theft and battery.

And just 13 years?

And doing anything to an unconsenting person is violence. Because of the consent part. So I’m guessing low IQ with omnipotent fantasies of Genghis Khan?

(He probably thinks Khan wasn’t a rapist either).

The battery occurred in 2014 when he pinned his own mother to the floor by the neck and then punched her once in the face.

Alpha.

A generation with no father to slap them for getting out of line? Guessing.
What’s the bet he blames his mother for his deadbeat father? Would this be delta or omega, in the silly hierarchy?

But we can’t bring back drafting why? If they’re violent thugs anyway?

After being locked in the house the first night, his victim banged on the windows and screamed to attract attention, but Patton ran over and grabbed her by the mouth and nose, put his arm around her neck and told her to shut up.

“No violence” guys.

He choked her but no violence, obviously.

Having put his arm around her neck, Patton threw her on the floor then picked her up and threw her on the sofa, smothering her and causing her to struggle to breathe. When she told him that she did not want him, Patton replied: ‘Wrong answer.’

“No violence”.

Sometimes the feminists have a point. The right to refuse anything is a basic human right of liberty. I bet he didn’t want to marry her, either, so a traditional excuse of “but it’s creepy love!” wouldn’t wash.

I doubt her father would give permission to let a man abuse his daughter, in marriage or out.

This isn’t a thing where it’s okay when white people do it. I see too many soft men talking tough about tan-toned women but when it’s a white person and especially a male there’s an almost privileged number of excuses made.

But there’s no such thing as male privilege (read end, I now believe). Any woman who doesn’t want to be raped is a feminist (well, shit, I guess we all are, how terrible of us not to be whores from porn).

No, there are no excuses for any aspect of this. It is evil.

EVIL.

Evil when any sex, race, sexuality does it.

Pure, Satanic evil.

Patton grabbed her hands and made her hit herself in the face. She was petrified, crying her eyes out, and he picked up a knife from the mantelpiece.

 

“No violence”

She was screaming for him to calm down. He was telling her she should slit her throat, but she managed to calm him down and he forced her to kiss him and tell him she loved him.

“No violence”

The next morning, he told her that if she performed oral sex on him that it would calm him down before ejaculating inside her wearing no protection.

Rape, would count even in a relationship. Clear elements of force (ordering, changes).

It’s like the callous men assume this can never happen to them either.
Plenty of male rape victims in the world. Rapists use the same tactics on them.

Let me guess, after the (attempted) coercion, she put up last minute resistance?

That force has a legal name, rape.

Check the legal codes. I did.

When the victim went for a shower, Patton came in and raped her again.

I wonder if Roosh V’s forum will welcome him with open arms for having a “concubine”. Check the web history, I’m certain you’ll find it, but the police haven’t reached the level of common sense where they look for incitement to rape and “rape isn’t real” (because women aren’t human) propaganda. I said this would happen years ago, you plant the entitlement and lie about the laws then eventually some psycho will act on it.

But the propagandists are also legally culpable. This isn’t a “game”…

‘Given his young age, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and not say that he is dangerous.’

He should be swinging. I’m sure he’ll convert to Islam while he’s in there. He’ll fit right in.

Update: I can only find the false dichotomy of rape and violence (rape is inherently violent as the ultimate sexual, violent crime) in PUA materials.

This was literally the top of the search results. Don’t get mad at me.

e.g. http://www.rooshv.com/how-to-stop-rape

“What I’ve gathered from the words of these future Pulitzer Prize winners is that women are not getting raped by violent offenders while taking a jog in the park or walking through a dark street—they are getting raped by men they already know,”

I can’t find this false distinction anywhere else? Can anyone else show an earlier origin?

Seriously. Genuine request. Where did this toxic narrative come from?

“I also read that men must be taught not to rape,”

but what of the places that teach them to rape?

“which means that they are all born with the capability to rape and have zero instinct to know that taking a woman with violence is improper.”

Define violence. You don’t have to pin someone down if you coerced them but both are violent acts in consent law, whether it’s sexual or cheating granny out of her title deeds. Any force of consent is not consent.
In that very wording there is already violence “taking”, rape means to “take”.

The basic premise of that mess was: It isn’t my male duty to control my body, it is the world’s responsibility to tread on eggshells around it for me.

SJW logic.

That’s why everybody thought wow, what a pajama boy. Handle your own feelings, including lust. That’s in the sodding Bible. The men who claim to know how sexual relations should play out better than Jesus

pic unrelated

and that strangely put all the social power on one side (a dying society, because the sexes can’t cooperate) is a sign of how our times are done for.
And if rape were legal, it would mostly be men raping other men. It would involve murder. You can’t have a rape culture without a high risk of homicide. The world would be a gay bar toilet at 2am. Somehow I don’t think this is what they envisioned, being very echo chamber. The highest sex drive men… are gay. The streets would be like prison for the average man, kidnappings and false imprisonments would be the norm.

There was no logic to call it a “thought experiment”, it was a stupid metaphor (private space*, sexual safe space, yes!) about how a woman’s No is never real because neither is rape. If you don’t believe in certain things, what’s the point calling yourself a society?

This guy (top) lived out Roosh’s rape “experiment”, on “private” (read: false imprisonment) property. Nobody else seems to have made this connection.

*Which is ironically calling on ideas of a marital bed and conjugal rights to endorse fornication and rape.

Forget the lobster king

Reference

https://theconversation.com/psychologist-jordan-peterson-says-lobsters-help-to-explain-why-human-hierarchies-exist-do-they-90489

For example, one of the most relevant brain structures for dominant social behaviour is the amygdala, located in the temporal lobe of primates including humans. Arthropods don’t have an amygdala (lobsters don’t even have a brain, just an aglomerate of nerve endings called ganglia).

Peterson’s followers are amygdala triggered by their failures as men.
He tells them to do nothing about this. This keeps them dependent on him. Mindless.
I might post studies to this effect….

They’re like SJWs, like the male equivalent of black power activists, desperately clinging to delusions of grandeur. Most men weren’t great, most of their ancestors were shit-covered serfs. They’re trying to take credit for what other races, culture and genetic families have done. This won’t work. The material doesn’t reside in them. They have nothing to call on.
Reality is triggering them.
The delusion is all they have. Currently.

You can’t blame the world, or your parents, or women for your personal faults forever. They’re waking up and their brain will mature, it’s a question of whether they go easy or not.

If all women reject them (and men socially, but they ignore this canary), maybe the women are right? Maybe they’re unfit? Won’t change? (Crazy people never learn). With the common pajama boy bitchiness, they need to turn gay or die alone.

I’m kind in the grand scheme of things.

This is what you need. Really listen.

Technically, if you want to be tin foil, anhedonia is protecting you from more sin. It’s your brain telling you the input is wrong, morally.

There are status replacements e.g bullying, that also ought to be discouraged. This used to happen with good father figures.

Most men cannot have status, like most women cannot be great beauties. You must accept this as a sex or waste your life.
You don’t see us shooting up schools, we get over it. Men need to drop the entitlement to have any hope of living, accept yourself as flawed humans, otherwise they’ll suffer in avarice always wanting what they can’t have.

Tantalus springs to mind. Sisyphus was useful at some point.

The Deadly Sins are aptly named.

Then again

He was punished for chronic deceitfulness by being compelled to roll an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, repeating this action forever.

Cheats never prosper is true.

King Sisyphus promoted navigation and commerce

but was avaricious and deceitful. 

Ah, the twins!

Most famously, Tantalus offered up his son, Pelops, as a sacrifice. He cut Pelops up, boiled him, and served him up in a banquet for the gods. The gods became aware of the gruesome nature of the menu, so they did not touch the offering

The first Boomer.

Pagans have their limits, despite having no sexual virtues.

There is no such thing as a chaste pagan.

Tantalus was also the founder of the cursed House of Atreus in which variations on these atrocities continued. Misfortunes also occurred as a result of these acts, making the house the subject of many Greek tragedies.

Karma.
You can screw who you want but don’t steal things, harm your kin or kill your kids.

Lessons for bad Boomers.

Slutty men made the modern world

False reasoning, correct conclusions.

[shitposty]

All that shit on hypergamy (science definition, not internet) is missing one thing: modern evidence.
That isn’t what alpha means in evolutionary terms.
Stop trusting everything you read on families and women by middle-aged bachelor men. You didn’t even mention player burnout.

http://www.socialmatter.net/2018/03/27/sexual-dynamics-average-partner-numbers-are-gender-identical/

Read from “But this is where the adding up constraint comes in. Like the asymmetry between sperm and eggs, the adding up constraint is not a principle of ethics, but a principle of biology (and, in this case, mathematics).” and it’s pretty much solid.

Prior to that it’s bait.

“In other words, a lot of the thinking about “game” came from men who had an inherently ambivalent attitude towards modern sexual mores. ”

Degenerates.

While bemoaning the decline of modern women into widespread sluttiness, these men were contributing themselves quite considerably to exactly the same phenomenon they complained about.

I don’t mean this as a matter of ethical judgment, that they were ethically equivalent.”

They are literally.

They’re massive hypocrites.

Moral authority = 0.

That’s why even SJWs call them losers, they see that.

What sort of red pill is it when naturalistic fallacy of an extreme, unreal (Calhoun) primitive situation takes over and you can P=NP that slutting is bad, but only for half of society? Like you can only ruin half a society?

No, adults are responsible for antisocial behaviours and promiscuity is topping the list of self-destructive options. Men don’t get a “I made a mistake!” line. Years of something is not a mistake.

Look at this paragraph before where I said to read for a prime example of why not to pollute your brain with it.

“women will tend to have a mixed attitude to a man’s sexual past.”

They don’t know many women, do they?
I know plenty of men who’d dispute that too. Then why are the sluts always getting rejected (by almost all women they “approach”) and “flaked on” (polite ones who thought they’d take a hint).

No, they don’t. They care a whole lot but “men are scared women will laugh at them, women are scared men will kill them”. They won’t tell you unless it’s under lab conditions, with a lie detector. Where are the studies that male promiscuity is sexually selected or socially preferred, respected between other men?
They don’t exist, they’re making it up. Male promiscuity is a woefully under-studied trait. I’d love to see those studies. The loyal reject the disloyal of their own sex in women, this should also hold true for men since humans are a social species and rely on loyalty to survive. Adultery was shameful in both sexes as you breached your vow to the tribe and society. Can you trust someone who’d cheat on a spouse, in business?
False paternity is exceedingly rare and that’s another thing they lie about (and implies low to no sexual selection of manwhores). I’m sure they rank high in the aborted figures, though. Study those too!

Studies tend to survey teenagers, with immature brains. In long term mating (breeding, evolutionary) studies with adults, women prefer conscientious mates (the exact opposite). They reject Dark Triad (the psychopathy and narcissism mostly). Of what data already exists.

https://www.livescience.com/17003-conscientious-men-dancers.html

We can even see it in the way they move. That’s evolved.

We need more studies on male traits and their attraction or repulsion mechanisms. Oh, but it might hurt someone’s snowflake feelings so don’t hold your breath.

“Sleeping with a lot of women contemporaneously is an abandonment risk, but it is also a sign of higher mate quality,

desperation is not quality, evidence?
and social popularity is not sluttiness, a Sexual Revolution lie

having been pre-selected by lots of other women.

internet made yet another thing up again, citation?

Hence the female romantic ideal is the “reformed bad boy”. Ask them yourself. They’ll tell you.”

No, we don’t? Hollywood isn’t real. It’s a minority of either sex that sleep around at college. That is totally dead wrong. Only a coddled American could think this narrow view of some sections of privileged campuses applies to an entire sex through all cultures and times.
Citation? Not anecdotes you made up. Citations. I keep asking but there are never any good studies on these supposed “well-known facts”. And as we know from criminal studies, there is no such thing as reformation. Does like attract like? Yes. Bad women attract bad men by each’s insecurities but they are not the bulk of the population.

A study would refute this sexual propaganda but good luck getting a study like that published.

Men allowed the Sexual Revolution, take your lumps.

Back to article.

Because the adding up constraint, when reduced to its simplest and crudest form, presents a societal tradeoff that I suspect many in the manosphere would find rather discomforting. Namely:

A society that lets you sleep with lots of women will inevitably be one where the women you are sleeping with have themselves slept with lots of men.

That’s it. There’s no way around it.

Actions have consequences, really?

You make a bed and lie in it, really?

Entitlement is toxic, really?

Indeed, it shares a fair amount of the same wishful thinking of women sleeping around with lots of bad boys in their 20s, and then waiting until their 30s to wonder where all the good men have gone. The manosphere loves to laugh at this female delusion, and they’re right to do so.

When do the men of their age group want to marry them?
Did ya ask them that? No, of course not….

But how many of them apply the same iron logic to the similarly ridiculous situation of a man bedding dozens of women, while also complaining about the difficulty of finding a virgin to marry?

What is it with Americans and age 30 it’s like you’re obsessed.

Why would the good girls choose a burned-out STD-riddled husk of a man? You tell me. Using their peak years and being some loser’s last resort. Why.

I’ve said it for years, no, none of you. You cannot Have it All. It’s a myth to sell you things when you’re desperate. You are either a short term investment and attract other sluts or you’re a long term investment. They are mutually exclusive in trait, you can’t feign a different character. You can’t have your virgin cake and fuck it.

One group will be attracted for the same reason another is repulsed. e.g.

You know, the true sign of a desirable man is one who wants to prevent women from exercising the choice to reject him.

And this woman: “He was upset i wasnt a virgin because he met me at church. I was just like ‘dude, you dont deserve a virgin'”

Fucking LOL. Maybe he had a moodboard.

Double standards kill marriages. Stay in your lane, don’t expect better than your league. The manosphere tells you with a certain number of tricks (for a reasonable fee) you can play in every league. This has never been true in human history, look up assortative mating. They don’t tell you most evolution (the good stuff) and twist what little filters in.

They howl if you tell them things that make them feelbad e.g. women care about looks? Men hit the Wall around the same range as women, on average? Divorced men lose value compared to ones who didn’t fail to keep a marriage? Women don’t really like beards? Fat in a man is worse than a woman, since women need fat for pregnancy?

The manosphere has allowed the embittered divorced guys who stick around to ruin the young ones…. exactly what the SJWs do with women.

In most of those boxes, the couple should get divorced (ideally, never married). Bad people aren’t good enough for marriage and shouldn’t be allowed. They shouldn’t be selected, that’s a good system.

You can’t lecture women from a position of zero moral authority.

We’ll just laugh at you.

“There’s a set of men who don’t sleep around, by choice, and also want like minded partners. [k]

There’s a set of men who do sleep around, and don’t care if their partner does/doesn’t/may actively prefer girls who have. [r]

There’s a set of men who sleep around, but then will reject girls if they’ve behaved in a manner similar to them. [r]

There’s also a set of men who don’t sleep around, but not by choice, and who then shame people who do sleep around (despite the fact that, were they able to, they’d do the same). [r]

The latter two groups falls into the hypocrite category.”

Nailed it. But only the first has moral authority to do any lecturing.

“But it helps to be the Ottoman Sultan.” Yes, let’s model ourselves on men so attractive they had to trap women as slaves and rape them on pain of death.

“But it helps to be Cinderella.” Not the same. Never real, for one. And the K-selection of European royalty is earned, contrary to modern beliefs. [exception Harry]

They all think they’re the exception. Broflakes.

“For society as a whole, it simply cannot add up.” Maths frightens them.

“For traditionalists, the choice is clear. They would prefer both men and women to marry as virgins, and stay faithful to each other.” Pair bonding is real. It’s a feature of an undamaged brain. You prove to me male sluts don’t have equally damaged pair bonding to females ones (the positive claim, burden of proof) and I’ll eat my hat.

“But the world in which each woman sleeps with only one man is also the world in which each man sleeps with only one woman.” Not a bad thing if you love that person, it’s only torture to an r-type.

Okay, fuck goats, like the harem-lovers of the world.

“Out of all the pretty lies to abandon, the most important are the ones you yourself most want to believe are true.”

No remorse, no marriage potential. They’re so easy to spot.

I wonder if you studied the strident members of the Pussy Parade for ED…

http://drlwilson.com/Articles/SEXUAL%20PROBLEMS.htm

I think we could guess the result. Impotence, from psychiatric or physiological causes.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/more-sexual-partners-unhappy-marriage_n_5698440

According to researchers, the 23 percent of participants who only had sex with their spouse prior to getting hitched reported higher quality marriages versus those who had other past sexual partners as well.

Fuck around and your marriage, if you even get a spouse, will suck.

Puts all the bitter divorced dudes into perspective, dunnit?

Now study male satisfaction specifically. Until then, you cannot make positive claims about it. Don’t men deserve this information before they make plans on false assumptions?

“I would be very surprised if having multiple sexual partners before marriage, independent of any other factor, has a direct causal influence.” It’s hard to get these real studies published and impossible to find male studies. You cannot comment on something that hasn’t been properly studied.

It wouldn’t be surprising at all, it would be a biological change of some sort.

“McNulty also points out that though the authors are respected researchers, the study was not reported by an academic journal nor was it peer-reviewed.” Good luck getting it published.

Sexuality is discrimination

Common sense but yeah.

50 points to Doctor Otto Obvious.

Discernment is a gift of perception, the biggest contributor of intelligence. To not notice something is to be dumb, dense and stupid. There’s a false perception there’s nothing there e.g. race. It’s conformist, you’re not supposed to see, Asch’s lines. PC is a status signal, how much can you afford to pretend the danger isn’t there? It’s a cultural game of chicken.

It’s an inverted prudence, what is prudent socially is politically correct but what is prudent for the individual and its success and survival is denial of PC. As celebrities go down one after another for betraying the ingroup, the societal priorities will shift. Even the Boomer concept of playboy in James Bond is no longer respected, he’s a thug in a suit. History is grinding it down to throw it away.

Do not feel sorry for these outdated people, they wanted a false reality. They are pretending to be and stay ignorant in the internet era. They won’t look around them. They had a lot of thanatos, they wanted danger. Don’t be stupid, don’t help them, do not be a martyr. If they had absolute power, they’d shoot you in the head against a wall for denying the Party Line. You owe them nothing, wherever they live. Be totally passive, the way they’ve been. When they have any problem, do nothing, be useless.

They wished for this world.

Let them have it.

They’re starting to go after celebrities now for not dating minorities.

BNW, this is worse. Peer pressure rape, yay, how liberating.

This is all the entitled do, rape. To forcibly take.

To take away your choice to say no, I don’t want this.
To take your money or property for their use (criminal conversion).
To take your body and autonomy.

Invasions are a rape, including the sexual but by no means limited.

Who has the most rights? Who has the most legal power? Not the natives? That’s called oppression.

Celebrities, you know nothing

YOU ARE THE ELITE.

YOU ARE THE RICH.

WE DON’T WANNA EAT YOU.

PAY TAXES.

GET HOLLYWOOD TO PAY ITS TAXES.

STOP GETTING YOUR BULLSHIT MADE IN SWEAT SHOPS.

STOP USING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT LABOUR FOR YOUR BRATS OR YOUR FOOD.

STOP WITH THE PRIVATE JETS.

then we’ll see if you still feel the compulsion to virtue signal.

Credit: Stop being a pleb

I’ve been waiting to roll this one out again.

Esteem without erudition is a bad thing.

Technically, esteem is old. However, it relates to respect in society, in the family model, it’s fully social and honour, personal honour based on virtue and the elimination of vice (so no visiting brothels or carousing). If you were a gentle-person, you were HELD “in esteem”. You don’t get to choose it for yourself. It’s like letting lottery players pick the winner. They can try to change the definition but in adults, that’s what esteem still means.

It is not popularity or friendliness. It is moral authority and intellectual adeptness. A genius is esteemed for their brilliance, a priest is esteemed for their sage purity.

Kids are meant to have esteem in their development. Sure, you might be growing new hair in strange places but this is normal.

Matured adults? You’re meant to have a stable identity, yet we still see teenage habits, patterns and thought processes. It’s disgusting.

They’re backwards, hardly immature exactly but regressing.

As in, they’ll become more emotionally unstable with time, as the duties of adulthood overwhelm them and they falsely view these as a burden, while suffering for the childhood potential they refuse to admit is over.

e.g. those intolerable Baby Boomers weren’t as insufferable 20 years ago, and 20 years before that would probably have seemed okay.

It’s called spoiled rotten for a reason, entitlement is a cancer that sinks in early.

Peter Pan was a warning, a child snatcher would take you and kill you, sure, but becoming a Lost Boy would ruin your life and deaden any potential you might’ve had.

It’s no coincidence in the original, Peter murders them, rather than “letting” them grow up.

Your feelings lie. Your feelings can be totally and utterly false, wrong, bad. In fact, if there’s a major problem in your life, your emotions probably reflect this. They test nothing, Byron was a wreck.

If only we had been warned about this.

http://biblehub.com/jeremiah/17-9.htm

Feelings are largely reactions to physical and circumstantial states.

Especially if you claim not to believe in “biological determinism” (nature).

Therapy wouldn’t ever be needed if feelings were always logical, right and pure.

Our society wants people to glow with virtue, while demonstrating none. Kinda like staring at a glass of Vitamin C rich OJ and hoping it’ll displace your cold.

We listen to our “feelings” (usually a cover for the baser instincts and impulses) to smother the conscience.

Beneath that, spirit. I won’t hold my breath on that one.

You will pay eventually.

http://biblehub.com/jeremiah/17-10.htm

Stolen esteem (we used to call that hubris) + Shitty economy forcing adults to behave like children + Vice after Vice after Vice =

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/millennials-uk-mental-health-depression-world-ranking-second-worst-study-anxiety-a7572026.html

If you are a shitty person and you feel it, that’s a sign all is right and just with the world. Your perceptions are completely right, you just don’t like them because you’re a brat.

God forbid Lord Fauntleroy be expected to change or do something mildly unpleasant.

Feeling bad isn’t a bad thing – if it was just deserts. That’s called guilt, remorse, shame and all sorts of other words we need to bring back. Feeling bad can’t be a punishment from God, can it, atheists? It’s funny how the Nurture people are also first to reach for the pills, although we’re all completely the same, which doesn’t stop at the neck. (Fact: depressed people aren’t actually serotonin deficient, that was a lie debunked to sell pills and the theory hasn’t died).

Atheists don’t believe they are soul-less. They must be. Psychopaths, if you look it up, like other “low empathy” defined conditions e.g. Aspergers, don’t believe they have no feelings for others. Why? Faulty perception.

If humans aren’t sacred, our life is worth nothing. We are like ants, our suffering (rape, theft, murder) is nothing to balk at. It’s natural. Nature is violent and cruel, it’s good for the environment. There is no secular morality possible, it’s an oxymoron. Only holy things have rights per se, bequeathed as part of their spiritual power e.g. holy water has the right to baptize, no other water will do. Only humans go to heaven, not dogs (they don’t need to). Morality is an objective structure (it doesn’t differ by individual; their sex, race, whatever else) and it is based on an absolute premise: there can be no good without the real existence of evil. We shun and punish evil and pursue and reward good, all societies of longevity do this or devolve into savagery. The modern amorality considers popularity and the groupthink of “consensus reality” to determine an ever-changing and propaganda-useful right (elite) and wrong (everyone under them). The Pleasure Principle belonging to Freud defined the rapist, not a good man. You were expected to grow out of the Id-only stage as a toddler.*

They need to brainwash you because mind control only works if the entire group falls for it.

A bad person feeling bad is a good thing.

A good person feeling bad is complicated. For example, more depressed countries tend to be multicultural areas, nobody dare study this.

If you want a secular example of the rights point – only a native citizen has a (God-given) right to live in a country. Rights to do are based on facts of nature, what you are. Those do not change.

*Hedonism is the sure sign of a weakened mind, always has been the #1 indicator of psychiatric dysfunction as long as pathologies have been recorded. They have no authority to lecture from.

The retardation of the brain regions involved in impulse control is the physical, undeniable reason for this.
https://www.apa.org/helpcenter/willpower-gratification.pdf
“When presented with tempting stimuli, individuals with low self-control showed brain patterns that differed from those with high self-control. The researchers found that the prefrontal cortex (a region that controls executive functions, such as making choices) was more active in subjects with higher self-control. [DS: normal] And the ventral striatum (a region thought to process desires and rewards) showed boosted activity in those with lower self-control.” [DS: retarded, compensatory over-excitation]

Literally retarded growth.

Signs of an Emotionally Immature Adult

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201611/10-signs-emotionally-immature-adult

Little Prince (or Princess) Syndrome, when it occurs in adulthood, is also known as Peter Pan Syndrome.”
Little Prince (or Princess) Syndrome is related to, but not identical to, Emperor Syndrome, a term is primarily used to describe Chinese boys with no siblings who behave like little tyrants.”

Unfair, Princess Syndrome is more common with the Chinese women at present. You don’t see Chinese men giggling and running round big Chanel stores with their friends on Daddy’s credit card.

“Little Princes and Princesses, as I define them, are grown men or women who act as if they are selfish children, narcissistic teenagers, or irresponsible young adults, and feel entitled to behave as they see fit. Following are 10 traits typical of someone living with Little Prince or Princess Syndrome. (For simplicity’s sake, I use the term Little Prince below, and refer to the role of mothers, not father, but the signs are applicable to all genders.)”

A selection;

He acts like a child, a teenager, or a person who is much younger than he is. He might throw temper tantrums or party all night with people 10 years younger than him.

He acts as if women should serve him. He expects to be taken care of and be pampered on demand. He will happily take but never give.

He cannot maintain a long-term, stable romantic relationship. Former partners end up becoming his enemies or new playmates.

He is commitment-phobic in nearly all areas of life—despite having a needy attachment style. It can take him six months to commit to buying a new sofa.

I have seen that.
My words-
“It’s a sofa, you can dump it.”

They see their possessions as an extension of them.
Possessions include people.

If you don’t make them look good, you’re gone.
The excuse is usually pleasing others, so they also look good to you. B.S.

Btw, Asians invented ghosting. You made less money? You missed a promotion? They forget to send you a dinner party invite. It makes you wonder if they’re capable of the friendship thing with one another too.

He is often passive-aggressive, meaning he has a tendency to engage in an indirect expression of hostility through acts such as subtle insults, sullen behavior, stubbornness, or a deliberate failure to accomplish required tasks.

They are not subtle.
Have you ever met a subtle man?… I rest my case.

He is a narcissist or exhibits a childish selfishness. If something is even mildly inconvenient, he will resist doing it.

Emotional child.

He rarely thinks anything is his fault. He blames everyone around him for everything that goes wrong in his life—even his mother if he can’t find another scapegoat.”

Victim blaming, victim mentality… tendency to complain about victim culture because they think they’re entitled to that pity, not that it’s wrong. Whiny and lots of nagging, like an old woman.

If you find this useful, you might find these too.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/is-america/201601/con-artists-and-their-marks

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-flux/201610/9-classic-traits-manipulative-people

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201609/meet-the-real-narcissists-theyre-not-what-you-think
“For example, he suggests, some narcissists can be of the “communal” variety and actually devote their lives to helping others. They might even agree with such statements as “I’m the most helpful person I know,” or “I will be known for the good deeds I have done.” “Everyone has met grandiosely altruistic martyrs, self-sacrificing to the point where you can’t stand to be in the room with them,” Malkin says.

And there are highly introverted, or “vulnerable,” narcissists. These individuals feel they are more temperamentally sensitive than others. They react poorly to even gentle criticism and need constant reassurance. The way they feel special might actually be negative: They may see themselves as the ugliest person at the party or feel like a misunderstood genius in a world that refuses to recognize their gifts.”

They can’t back up their claims and if you compare them, they’re usually average. Pointing this out triggers narc rage.

They don’t just ‘use’ others, they use others as…. it’s instrumental.

They cannot self-regulate, they use other people as emotional tampons (especially men) and require excess ‘take’ and their giving is inferior, low quality but they over-value it because *they* are dispensing it. Thinking you’re special is in your actions, not a set of words. Tend to idolize others too, broken perceptions.