Best Gore › Forums › Societally Relevant › Gender Studies › Step by step guide for women to rape males (satire) › Reply To: Step by step guide for women to rape males (satire)
Men also have to fulfill women’s needs, it’s a back and forth thing. That is, as the provider he has to bring food into the house and so on, it’s not like he has to buy her 100 purses (only women at the extreme end of the spectrum demand it), but he has to keep her fed and sheltered. All women have the desire for the provider in them, to a greater or lesser extent, some take it to extremes so that they become gold diggers. Men also have to protect women (women naturally seek for the protection of men), that’s why men go to war, to defend their women and children from the enemy, or to get resources for them (I recognize there are wars to conquer other women too).
“The above completely ignores economics and financial necessity. The reason why stay at home mothers are no longer a viable choice and why both men and women need to be equal is because the cost of living has risen massively over the years and it takes two people working full time nowadays just to pay the rent and/or pay off the mortgage. A lot of women would love to not have to work(and a lot of men too as well)but unless they win the lottery or something it is not possible for most people to be able to survive like that.”
There is an agenda behind it, heydolf posted a link to a video that hints on it on the video of the woman who pushed the child from the stairs, here is a document that explains it too:
Next topic, right, women don’t have to fuck men they don’t like, but if that’s the case, they shouldn’t cock tease men they don’t like and make them waste their time and even money on them. It’s like a scam, if you pay for something and don’t receive it, you have the right to complain, if you work for someone, wasting your time, and don’t get paid, you have the right to complain.
OK, I understand the demand and supply side of things, of how an average guy will hardly get a super girl and so on, but while we are on the market value of women and men, let’s talk about your dehumanizing thing.
Yes, I am dehumanizing or devaluing these women, whatever you wanna call it. Women who are more promiscuous tend to have more unstable marriages (there are stats for it). For me, and as far as I can see it is also the case for most men (with the exception of cucks and imbeciles)to devalue these women, as a woman’s value is linked to her modesty. Men don’t look for whores for getting married, and even nowadays you can hear that most men still have such a mentality (as I can see with friends of mine or by listening to strangers talking),so, I argue to say that this is the case as you can imagine how men can not always be sure the child is theirs, and that with more promiscuous women you have a greater chance of becoming a cuck. And don’t come saying that actions of people don’t devalue them, so are you gonna tell me that we shouldn’t dehumanize child molesters or the likes of Ted Bundy (I am still struggling a bit to use the word dehumanize, it sounds like newspeak used by SJWs, but anyway). Anyway, women do the same, they devalue men who don’t have attitude, show cowardice, don’t have much status and so on. Parameters vary from person to person, naturally, and the level of importance placed on each fator too, but you can see that some factors appear to a greater or lesser extent in a great number of people of the same sex, that is, they are recognized by a great part of the population as being positive.
I recognize what you said about the psychological health, nevertheless I don’t think the damage is usually worse than AIDS (perhaps in case of extreme torture it is), and even then this sort of damage may be difficult to gauge. Anyway That’s why I didn’t say gonorrhea, as it’s easier to treat than AIDS, so I think AIDS is worse than gonorrhea.
“The reason why much of your argument falls at the first hurdle then is because it is an emotional argument for the most part but dressed up as a logical one. In other words, you are trying to intellectualise the innate desire for sexual satisfaction in order to justify the means by which it can be gotten so as to lessen the chances of those desires going unfulfilled and you have done this by arguing and then concluding that women should spread for you based upon social political factors etc.”
And since you say that my views are an attempt to rationalize my self desire for sexual satisfaction, what’s your self interest as to not recognizing different levels of rape and not “dehumanizing” women because they want to cock tease? Do you think that your woman (if you are married) can go around cock teasing whoever she wants? Don’t you care about her sexual past as to access her level of promiscuity and psychological characteristics, that is, I would be put off to marry a serial killer, but wouldn’t you care to marry a serial killer as her actions are part of the past, the same with a whore? Do you ignore that nature made women to be nurturers, as it’s obvious for the fact that they give birth and have tits to feed them, arms turned outwards so that they can carry children, more fat in their bodies and so on? So, are you a cuck trying to disguise your love for cuckoldry with arguments ignoring evidence based on biology and history?