Addressing name calling between sexes. How do we keep relationships kinky but not toxic?

[AKM]

On 9/20/2021 at 12:39 AM, Darkpig said:

Ah legal ground. The bane of so many so many would be college students who for some reason or another are expected to cite every idea that ever came out of the mouth of every simpleton in history. I get the whole checking your sources part and that would save on so much fear mongering. On that note should give credit where credit is do not because it is illegal not to but it is the right thing to do. But I'll transition to my next point.

 

You do bring up some good points so while I can't say I agree with everything I do see where you are coming from especially with that last part about independence. I have heard of this idea for a possible alternative, I think it was interdependence. Unfortunately since humans thrive in competition it always boomerangs back to independence. Of course this means people are constantly bickering with each other meaning hurt feelings at best and lost limbs at worst. Women are no exception to this rule. I have met some terrible fucking people and some of them are women. Then there are many who are wonderful people. Unfortunately legal issues are not a one way street and many more influential people do get away with horrible things with little more than a slap to the wrist. Maybe we need to find a way for people to sit down with their lawyers and talk this shit out before this turns into a full blown legal issue. Same with lovers. If either party violates their part of the customized contract legal repercussions follow. Maybe it is time for both men and women to move on to move on to the 21st century. Anyway fish on a bicycle I think I'll make it my new bumper sticker to piss off another Chris- anyway. Relationships shouldn't be rushed so to quote the local hippie "Take your time bruh." Or maybe it was a surfer. Whatever.

 

Bicycle bicycle bicycle?
I want to ride my bicycle bicycle bicycle?

 

College students?  Heh.  Take a look at the recent statistics.  Something approaching 60% of college students are female.  The right thing to do won't do you any good if the state ruins your life when they find out - because it's illegal.  Case in point: Had a female I know well get "taken" by her long time boyfriend, then told a friend.  Said friend convinced her she got raped, and to get the college involved.  He got very lucky.  Instead of getting arrested, he had to put on his 'pathetic wimp' hat and ask her every time they had sex after that for quite a while.  Ruined the mood, I'm sure.  It's not fear mongering if the "authorities" can ruin your life for you.  There are perfectly valid reasons to be fearful.

Competition.  They've been so busy telling men and women to compete against each other in so many other aspects of life for so long, then it's been brought into the relationship between men and women romantically/sexually - and then they wonder why men and women can't get along romantically/sexually afterwards.  Oops.

As for the influential types getting away with things that the masses don't, money helps in many things.  Grease the right palms, and you'll do just fine, no matter how badly you treat others.  Many people think the U.S. is not corrupt.  I'm quite sure that the U.S. is just much better about hiding it than many other places.

Ah, here we go with inviting even more law into the bedroom.  Hate to say it, but with regards to the most common of legal documents - pre-nups - the vast majority of lawyers/judges use them as toilet paper.  They'll get thrown out just as soon as you need them on some trumped up excuse.  In the mean time, if you're going to throw a legally binding document at someone before you disrobe and throw your naughty bits at them... good luck!

'Interdependence" and "co-dependence" seem to be a little murky.  I think one could easily be misconstrued as the other.

 

Here's your bike:

Edited September 22, 2021 by AKM

[MalibuBattleBarbie]

Hi. New to the forum, nice to meet'cha.  

 

The next time you meet an attractive person, just know this. No matter who they are, no matter what gender they are, no matter how much money they make or what degrees they hold.... you should keep in mind that someone, at some time, got tired of putting up with their shit.  ?

[Darkpig]

I've been liking the posts so far but I feel as if the recent posts are missing any concrete answers. Here is what I gathered so far:

• Romance with the opposite sex has become a competitive ordeal
• Something something legal problems. Yes I'm terrible at this shit.
• Given how "gender roles" have changed over the years romance is in uncharted territory.

From that it sounds like there is a dose of skepticism in these posts which isn't necessarily a bad thing and can be beneficial when interacting with strangers but with people closer to you not so much. Even with that I feel as if I'm missing something. Accepting differences perhaps? Lets see men are typically bigger and stronger than women and women are a bit more attractive than men overall. Then again I've heard women often fare well against men in high school wrestling but then again they do go by the weight class system so Is it a safe bet to say that men are generally stronger?

 

Edited September 22, 2021 by Darkpig

[catchyorbit]

11 hours ago, Darkpig said:

I've been liking the posts so far but I feel as if the recent posts are missing any concrete answers.

 

That is because people don't want concrete answers. Such answers are too bitter to accept. Not in a shaming sense but in a sense that the purest truth is too harsh for them. The listed points are kind of in the right direction but they miss the target. That is why there is a sense that something is missing.

 

11 hours ago, Darkpig said:

 

• Romance with the opposite sex has become a competitive ordeal

 

It's not about competition at all. It's about simple cost/benefit analysis. In other words, compare the amount of time, energy and resources you invest into a relationship and what you get out of a relationship. A modern relationship for a man is like having a second job. And it's hard to tell which job is more tiresome and taxing, going to work or being in a relationship. Not a single person has told me so much as one reason why investing time, energy and resources into a relationship is worth it or what are some actual, worthwhile benefits. The feeling of companionship, care, support and other crap is just a feeling, it's not a real, material, tangible thing.

 

11 hours ago, Darkpig said:

• Something something legal problems. Yes I'm terrible at this shit.

 

The laws on divorce, domestic violence, child custody, harassment, sexism, etc. are stacked against men.

Men get to pay the lion's share of income in divorce.

Women can make a false police call on domestic violence without any evidence and the man gets taken away and spends time in detention before any investigation takes place. If a woman gets caught making false allegations, she gets a slap on the wrist, if any punishment at all, "so as not to discourage other women from speaking out".

Women get child custody in most cases, over 8/10 of cases.

If a woman screams sexism, she gets lots of attention and support from everyone around. If a man says anything about sexism, no one cares and often people even try to shut that man up.

 

11 hours ago, Darkpig said:

• Given how "gender roles" have changed over the years romance is in uncharted territory.

 

Not exactly. It's not so much uncharted as it is useless. You don't need romance to have sex anymore. And sex is the main reason why men even bother with relationships. Sex has never been as abundant and available as it is now. Like I said earlier, romance is pointless from the cost/benefit analysis. Why do men need romance? What do they get from a romance?

 

11 hours ago, Darkpig said:

Lets see men are typically bigger and stronger than women

 

That's a scientifically proven fact, not even a theory or a hypothesis. Strength is quantifiable.

 

11 hours ago, Darkpig said:

women are a bit more attractive than men overall

 

Attraction is a purely subjective notion. It is tied to men's strive for fertility, which is why men are more attracted to young women aged 18-25.

 

11 hours ago, Darkpig said:

Then again I've heard women often fare well against men in high school wrestling

 

I have never heard about this even once. But I have heard about the Australian women's national soccer team losing to high-school boys.

 

11 hours ago, Darkpig said:

Is it a safe bet to say that men are generally stronger?

 

It's a fact. If it were otherwise, there wouldn't be male and female segregation in sports, would there?

 

There's something even more interesting. Men and women have separate chess championships and even e-sports competitions. Can you guess why?

 

[Darkpig]

11 hours ago, catchyorbit said:

That is because people don't want concrete answers. Such answers are too bitter to accept. Not in a shaming sense but in a sense that the purest truth is too harsh for them. The listed points are kind of in the right direction but they miss the target. That is why there is a sense that something is missing.

Aye. That would often mean pointing blame on themselves and not anybody else.

11 hours ago, catchyorbit said:

It's not about competition at all. It's about simple cost/benefit analysis. In other words, compare the amount of time, energy and resources you invest into a relationship and what you get out of a relationship. A modern relationship for a man is like having a second job. And it's hard to tell which job is more tiresome and taxing, going to work or being in a relationship. Not a single person has told me so much as one reason why investing time, energy and resources into a relationship is worth it or what are some actual, worthwhile benefits. The feeling of companionship, care, support and other crap is just a feeling, it's not a real, material, tangible thing.

Depends on the woman and you have someone that does half the chores so not a bad deal.

11 hours ago, catchyorbit said:

The laws on divorce, domestic violence, child custody, harassment, sexism, etc. are stacked against men.

I have heard that is the case. For starters the marriage system is horribly outdated. The only ones really in favor of it are cults anyway so let them use their broken system while you and your lover find something else.

11 hours ago, catchyorbit said:

That's a scientifically proven fact, not even a theory or a hypothesis. Strength is quantifiable.

Then I'll go with that until someone proves otherwise.

11 hours ago, catchyorbit said:

Attraction is a purely subjective notion. It is tied to men's strive for fertility, which is why men are more attracted to young women aged 18-25.

Depends on how bad your eyes get as you get older.

11 hours ago, catchyorbit said:

There's something even more interesting. Men and women have separate chess championships and even e-sports competitions. Can you guess why?

Tribal thinking. Men and women would rather do sports with someone more alike to them.

[Evaloves4]

On 9/22/2021 at 6:08 AM, Darkpig said:

 Even with that I feel as if I'm missing something. Accepting differences perhaps? Lets see men are typically bigger and stronger than women and women are a bit more attractive than men overall. Then again I've heard women often fare well against men in high school wrestling but then again they do go by the weight class system so Is it a safe bet to say that men are generally stronger?

 

 

 

> Women who can compete with men in sports are very rare. My wife, for instance is extremely beautiful and attractive and unlike me she can fight with many men because she is very good in martial arts, but she can't beat our husband and she can never lift the same weight as he does when we exercise in our home gym. She is stronger than me but weaker than him. So, naturally women are physically weaker then men and those who are stronger, are rare exceptions. That's why the disk and hammer throw weight is lighter for women then for men. They cannot compete together.

 

> I see fair competition in intellectual games between women and men. There is no reason why we would be less smarter than men. Take the history for example and you will see many women who accomplished marvelous results in science, politics, education and so on and so on.

Edited September 23, 2021 by EvalovesEP

[stingray1995]

[Evaloves4]

[KoolHndLuke]

Mindfuck, lol. 

 

 

 

Read Marcus Aurelius, “Of each particular thing, ask: What is it in itself? What is its nature?”.

Edited September 24, 2021 by KoolHndLuke

[AKM]

Found this one, and it is so accurate it's scary.  More appropriate to the now closed 'Toxic Masculinity' thread, but anyway, a quote:

"Saw a great tweet from a female that said:

I can't imagine how defeated I would feel if I were an innocent six year old girl seeing 'The Future Is Male' printed all over shirts and notebooks and hearing 'Toxic Femininity and Women are the problem!' in the mainstream all the time... I'd probably give up then and there.  That's what boys and young men face on a daily basis.  It's toxic and damaging to young men."

[Darkpig]

23 hours ago, AKM said:

Found this one, and it is so accurate it's scary.  More appropriate to the now closed 'Toxic Masculinity' thread, but anyway, a quote:

"Saw a great tweet from a female that said:

I can't imagine how defeated I would feel if I were an innocent six year old girl seeing 'The Future Is Male' printed all over shirts and notebooks and hearing 'Toxic Femininity and Women are the problem!' in the mainstream all the time... I'd probably give up then and there.  That's what boys and young men face on a daily basis.  It's toxic and damaging to young men."

First of all Twitter is shit right now probably because of some orange fat idiot. Anyway the fact that this "female" is giving up so easily in a what if scenario is "her" personal opinion. It is a what if scenario because men are the status quo and dare I say the ultimate "cancel culture" because that is what they are, silent monoliths who only care about money and getting a hand job. Also you are not part of their club because you are not some white hetero billion dollar corporate CEO man.

 

I mean you seem to be fine so where does the problem lie?

 

Maybe it is some branch of feminism I overlooked but first I think we should separate the categories into corporate feminism and political feminism. Corporate feminism can go suck a dick. Yes I'm talking about you ass soap commercial. But political feminism is a bit more complicated because people. One controversial topic I know of is allowing women to do whatever they want with their bodies which you would think is simple but no people are going to make it complicated.

 

I might as well address the counter argument and a point you brought up earlier that women are more likely to have custody over children than men but have you ever stopped to ask why? I saw a couple articles about how old child custody cases defaulted to mothers in the belief that mothers are by far the most qualified before becoming more gender neutral so hopefully that will give you some relief since it is an ever changing process. How often each parent provides for their child is also considered which so far has leaned to mostly the mothers. Spending more time with your children will likely increase the likelihood of being the primary caregiver. These are my sources I read about the child custody topic so feel free to check them out.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/who-is-more-likely-to-get-custody-a-mother-or-a-father-31386

https://www.divorcenet.com/resources/divorce/for-men/divorce-for-men-why-women-get-child-custody-over-80-time

[AKM]

9 hours ago, Darkpig said:

I think we should separate the categories into corporate feminism and political feminism.

This is a very good point.  It's definitely a heavily splintered political movement, for sure.  The funny part about 'corporate' feminism, is that you tend to not see too many high level women.  Most young women [feminists] would tend to yell and scream about this, but the reality is that, at around 30, biology starts tapping women on the shoulder and saying 'Hey, you wanted babies, remember?'.  LOTS of these women are on a rocket ride to the top, only to hop off at around 30 so that they can go bear and raise children before it's too late.  It's almost like the saying 'Feminism works GREAT for young teen and 20's age women, but not so well for 30s onward women.' has a very valid point. 

Of course, we now go right back to Sexual Marketplace Value, and the fact that women peak in their teens and early 20's while men peak in their 30's to 40's (once they've had a chance to gather money). But heaven forbid you wind up a young woman with an "older" man!

Personally, I find it hilariously sad watching young women grab the feminist bait of 'strong, independent woman = job and career and NO man!', only to find out later in life that 'Oops, I made a mistake.'.  It's quite unfortunate that such is the narrative, and that it's taken hold as it has, making everyone (women AND men) miserable.

[catchyorbit]

16 hours ago, Darkpig said:

First of all Twitter is shit right now probably because of some orange fat idiot.

 

Twitter has always been shit. Any large platform is bound to turn into shit because the majority of the human population are morons and beat common sense out of such platforms using their sheer numbers.

 

16 hours ago, Darkpig said:

Anyway the fact that this "female" is giving up so easily in a what if scenario is "her" personal opinion.

 

I didn't like the post because it reeked of what could be called fragile female ego. Giving up on life because of some nonsense written somewhere? Absurd.

 

16 hours ago, Darkpig said:

Maybe it is some branch of feminism I overlooked but first I think we should separate the categories into corporate feminism and political feminism. Corporate feminism can go suck a dick. Yes I'm talking about you ass soap commercial. But political feminism is a bit more complicated because people.

 

There's a better solution. Ignore feminism. It's not an issue. Feminism is just a banner used to rally people. That's all it is. The real power lies in the hands of the people with big money. Feminism is just a poster, a smoke screen behind which they sit and press the political buttons.

 

And I'll repeat again, feminism has done more for men than the patriarchy. Unbelievable. Men have never had this much freedom. The manosphere needs to stop with the feminism-ruined-women bullshit.

 

16 hours ago, Darkpig said:

I might as well address the counter argument and a point you brought up earlier that women are more likely to have custody over children than men but have you ever stopped to ask why?

 

Sure. This one is easy. Because when women joined the workforce and became taxpayers, it turned out that they were far less motivated to procreate and make new slaves for the corporate masters. In order to motivate them to breed, the government created all kinds of laws and priviledges for women. Such as nearly guaranteeing that they will keep the kids after divorce, forcing men to pay alimony and child support, granting all kinds of social and financial benefits for women and so on. Basically, the government said "Don't worry, ladies, you'll keep the kids and we'll shake every coin out of the man. Just keep procreating."

 

At the end of the day, it's about fleecing men and producing new slaves. You probably don't believe it. Then think about this:

 

Why hasn't alimony been abolished yet?

Why is there no child support audit (when the parent with the custody has to present receipts that the money was spent only on the child and not unrelated stuff)?

Why are there still no mandatory DNA tests to determine the real father?

Why is paternity fraud still not criminalised?

[Darkpig]

On 9/26/2021 at 7:14 AM, AKM said:

This is a very good point.  It's definitely a heavily splintered political movement, for sure.  The funny part about 'corporate' feminism, is that you tend to not see too many high level women.  Most young women [feminists] would tend to yell and scream about this, but the reality is that, at around 30, biology starts tapping women on the shoulder and saying 'Hey, you wanted babies, remember?'.  LOTS of these women are on a rocket ride to the top, only to hop off at around 30 so that they can go bear and raise children before it's too late.  It's almost like the saying 'Feminism works GREAT for young teen and 20's age women, but not so well for 30s onward women.' has a very valid point. 

Of course, we now go right back to Sexual Marketplace Value, and the fact that women peak in their teens and early 20's while men peak in their 30's to 40's (once they've had a chance to gather money). But heaven forbid you wind up a young woman with an "older" man!

Personally, I find it hilariously sad watching young women grab the feminist bait of 'strong, independent woman = job and career and NO man!', only to find out later in life that 'Oops, I made a mistake.'.  It's quite unfortunate that such is the narrative, and that it's taken hold as it has, making everyone (women AND men) miserable.

I was thinking more 'corporate' feminism as in advertising in how it tends to follow trends rather than make them for money of course?. But I think I get what you mean. I am personally for women's rights in the work place but I am not going to push women's success in the workplace as that is the same bullshit men have to deal with everyday. One time there was a dance competition at (insert game store here) and the winner got to work extra hours. Fucking... bull... shit.

 

Is that the pattern for women ages to men? Seems outdated. Whatever. Just between you and me I hope those people looking for rich doctors get drill instructors instead. But that too is a choice. Some people would be happy to be doing push ups for their spouse and isn't that what counts? Should people not reap the consequences of their actions? Speaking of happiness we also need to account for the people who adopt kids and the women who choose to freeze their eggs for later.

[AKM]

16 hours ago, Darkpig said:

I was thinking more 'corporate' feminism as in advertising in how it tends to follow trends rather than make them for money of course?. But I think I get what you mean. I am personally for women's rights in the work place but I am not going to push women's success in the workplace as that is the same bullshit men have to deal with everyday. One time there was a dance competition at (insert game store here) and the winner got to work extra hours. Fucking... bull... shit.

 

Is that the pattern for women ages to men? Seems outdated. Whatever. Just between you and me I hope those people looking for rich doctors get drill instructors instead. But that too is a choice. Some people would be happy to be doing push ups for their spouse and isn't that what counts? Should people not reap the consequences of their actions? Speaking of happiness we also need to account for the people who adopt kids and the women who choose to freeze their eggs for later.

Hm.  As far as I know, profit is the sole purpose of advertising in business.  I'm not really sure what might be gained by pushing a narrative that doesn't have an underlying profit goal.

Sounds like one of the worst competition prizes ever.  Did the participants know of the "prize" beforehand?

If by pattern for women ages to men you mean 'younger women ending up with older men', the answer is 'yes' and that goes for throughout history.  The reason is that young men can not provide economic stability while older women can not bear children.  Thus, older men, with economic means, will snap up the younger women who still have their ability to bear children.  The woman gets economic security while the man gets to pass on his genes.  As for everyone else, they're out of luck.  You have to strike while the iron is hot. 

With regards to seeming outdated, you have to realize that right now, post industrial revolution, we are at probably the most prosperous time in human history.  It may seem outdated, but that's only because we as a species are not currently spending 90% of our time simply trying to survive with the other 10% left for making sure we reproduce so that the species can continue.  Biology WILL make sure that only the best survive and reproduce.

You see, though, happiness IS what counts.  That's what so many people miss.  Are you living in a one bedroom apartment, barely getting by, but happy?  It's fine, because you're happy.  Are you making millions a year, eating the finest foods, drinking the best alcohol, and driving the most fun forms of transportation, etc., and still happy?  Then what's it matter, you're happy.  Happiness isn't about 'who dies with the most stuff wins'.  It's about 'are you happy with whatever you're doing in life?'.  You have to learn to ignore those whose opinions do not benefit you.  Society will tell you that you should go for the Dr. instead of the plumber.  But what if you meet someone who makes you happy who just so happens to be a plumber?  Do you ignore that because society tells you to?

"Should people not reap the consequences of their actions?"  Not according to society, currently, for sure.  But that's another whole (rant) thread, pretty much.

Not sure where adoption and egg freezing come into the whole 'happiness' equation.  Personally, I'll say this: Yes, it's not the kids' fault they were born into less than ideal conditions, but it's also not my responsibility to raise them because... they aren't my children.  As for egg freezing, that's just poor planning, plain and simple.  You don't do that sort of thing if you think ahead, ignore the rhetoric, and get married at 20, having the kids out of the house by 40, and then have half your life left to enjoy together - assuming you want kids in the first place, of course.

[Darkpig]

5 hours ago, AKM said:

Hm.  As far as I know, profit is the sole purpose of advertising in business.  I'm not really sure what might be gained by pushing a narrative that doesn't have an underlying profit goal.

Think of it like this. Would you rather financially support Hitler or say your local firefighters?(This is conscience speaking. Firefighters are cool so support them. Also Hitler is a doo doo head)

5 hours ago, AKM said:

Sounds like one of the worst competition prizes ever.  Did the participants know of the "prize" beforehand?

Actually I don't know. I know are people who need the money but that doesn't make it any less dumb.

5 hours ago, AKM said:

Not sure where adoption and egg freezing come into the whole 'happiness' equation.  Personally, I'll say this: Yes, it's not the kids' fault they were born into less than ideal conditions, but it's also not my responsibility to raise them because... they aren't my children.  As for egg freezing, that's just poor planning, plain and simple.  You don't do that sort of thing if you think ahead, ignore the rhetoric, and get married at 20, having the kids out of the house by 40, and then have half your life left to enjoy together - assuming you want kids in the first place, of course.

Adopting a kid is something many people want and as silly as it sounds many people do want kids for the sake of having kids. And the fact remains there are many people who cannot bear a child not always because they waited too long to have sex but because of physical limitations as well. I suppose egg freezing doesn't really count as an alternative for the people who can't make babies as the uterus needs some functionality for eggs to be produced. Still it is an option for those that aren't ready. Although I guess you could argue that it makes making babies much less urgent and you would be right but I don't see how taking these choices away would help society either. Many women and men choose to go their whole life without children so it shouldn't be surprising that people would rather wait 10 so years to have children.

On 9/26/2021 at 1:52 PM, catchyorbit said:

Sure. This one is easy. Because when women joined the workforce and became taxpayers, it turned out that they were far less motivated to procreate and make new slaves for the corporate masters. In order to motivate them to breed, the government created all kinds of laws and priviledges for women. Such as nearly guaranteeing that they will keep the kids after divorce, forcing men to pay alimony and child support, granting all kinds of social and financial benefits for women and so on. Basically, the government said "Don't worry, ladies, you'll keep the kids and we'll shake every coin out of the man. Just keep procreating."

 

At the end of the day, it's about fleecing men and producing new slaves. You probably don't believe it. Then think about this:

 

Why hasn't alimony been abolished yet?

Why is there no child support audit (when the parent with the custody has to present receipts that the money was spent only on the child and not unrelated stuff)?

Why are there still no mandatory DNA tests to determine the real father?

Why is paternity fraud still not criminalised?

It sounds it could be a lack of government foresight as much as it could be corporate greed. But it is an interesting theory that I may have have to check back on when I have the time. I think spirituality(totally not religion because religion is a bad word that will get me smited by the moderators or something?) might also play a role in this.

[AKM]

18 hours ago, Darkpig said:

I guess you could argue that it makes making babies much less urgent and you would be right but I don't see how taking these choices away would help society either.

From a medical standpoint, it's pretty black and white.  Two things.

#1: The chances of successfully un-freezing an egg aren't great to begin with.

 

#2. The age of the uterus is quite important in its own right.  There's ridiculousness going on with regards to far older women having children, but the covered up factor is that, beyond a certain age (effectively 30), the chances of problems for both the mother and child go up considerably.  Not saying it's not possible, or even right or wrong.  Just that, medically, the earlier in life children are conceived, the better.  Yes, medically speaking, this means the 'age of consent/adulthood' is, indeed, just a fabricated number as far as biology is concerned.  Females the world over waste years of their reproductive window simply waiting to reach 'legal' age, whatever it happens to be in their geographic location.
 

On 9/26/2021 at 3:52 PM, catchyorbit said:

The manosphere needs to stop with the feminism-ruined-women bullshit

 

But it did.  Both women for men, and men for women.  It's caused untold harm to the natural order of things that's been the basis of our species for 200,000 years plus.

 

On 9/26/2021 at 3:52 PM, catchyorbit said:

Basically, the government said "Don't worry, ladies, you'll keep the kids and we'll shake every coin out of the man. Just keep procreating."

Which effectively is saying "Don't worry, ladies.  Big Daddy government is Daddy now.  You don't need a man anymore, since Big Daddy government can, and will, provide far more than any man could ever hope to."

As for most of the rest of your post, agreed, wholeheartedly.  And the answer to why things have remained a particular way is most likely: Profits.  Taxes.  Whatever you wish to call them.

[coolfreaky]

13 hours ago, AKM said:

From a medical standpoint, it's pretty black and white.  Two things

 

Pregnant At 53: Older Pregnancy Happened To Me | Parents     &    First Time Moms Over 50 Discuss Motherhood (aarp.org)

 

give them space . they do what they want and it is their life . you need to accept to evolve and adapt .   now it is time for men to submit .

man was driving the world crazy for few thousands of years  . ( even if i do not think that women would do better ) . 

 

and for any political issue : the world is as always governed by rich minority , following the nonsense fashion of the moment . ( sometimes they do good ; democraty , where people ( the majority ) feel they have a kind of decision to make between yes or no but i follow anyway ) .

 

[dharvinia]

So let's imagine we eliminate one of the genders.(would solve a great deal of problems)

 

  we wake up tomorrow and all of one gender has disappeared. ( assuming for the sake of procreation (and argument) two genders)

 

• if it is women then the human species would disappear in say 130 years give or take (unless science could develop an artificial egg and womb)
• if it is men then science could produce a method of fertilizing an egg, but even that would be at best a stopgap

so many we extend the human race for say another 200 to 300 years (more if mother nature cooperates) before genetic diversity is lost and the race is consumed by a virus that no one is immune to.

 

To me, this whole mess is a carefully engineered attempt at population control.

A divided community is very easy to govern, when you play one side against the other.

All the problems are never the fault of the governing body, but always the fault of the "other" side.

 

Like the matrix, we are so caught up in our day to day trials and tribulations to notice what is actually going on around us.

Unfortunately, and I say that because everybody,.....is acting with the best of intentions....but then again,.....what road do we know that is paved with good intentions?

 

 

[Guest]

call her a wet willy to assert dominance

[softSophie]

43 minutes ago, dharvinia said:

So let's imagine we eliminate one of the genders.(would solve a great deal of problems)

 

  we wake up tomorrow and all of one gender has disappeared. ( assuming for the sake of procreation (and argument) two genders)

 

• if it is women then the human species would disappear in say 130 years give or take (unless science could develop an artificial egg and womb)
• if it is men then science could produce a method of fertilizing an egg, but even that would be at best a stopgap

so many we extend the human race for say another 200 to 300 years (more if mother nature cooperates) before genetic diversity is lost and the race is consumed by a virus that no one is immune to.

 

To me, this whole mess is a carefully engineered attempt at population control.

A divided community is very easy to govern, when you play one side against the other.

All the problems are never the fault of the governing body, but always the fault of the "other" side.

 

Like the matrix, we are so caught up in our day to day trials and tribulations to notice what is actually going on around us.

Unfortunately, and I say that because everybody,.....is acting with the best of intentions....but then again,.....what road do we know that is paved with good intentions?

 

 

Wow, you put a lot of thought into this. You seem fascinating.

 

What if not everyone is acting with the best of intentions though?

[AKM]

12 hours ago, coolfreaky said:

now it is time for men to submit

And that's the problem.  There's science, reality, and the occasional outlier, that you mentioned.  And then there's statements like the one you made: intentionally designed to tear apart what should be a mutually supportive relationship between the sexes.  Neither can do it all well.  Both can do around half well, relying on the other half to do their part well.  But when the "we don't need them!" crap starts up, you're headed down a dark (and short) road.  But by all means, go right ahead.

[dharvinia]

10 hours ago, softSophie said:

What if not everyone is acting with the best of intentions though?

well Sophie that is the dilemma right.   Everyday we hand over to "whatever" all our personal data, our right to think, our right to a little privacy, all gone, and for what purpose? .

And, we ask that very question, yet we head down that path with glorious abandon.  All the while saying look how much better my life is.

 Yes, what if not everyone is your friend, what if their intentions toward you are strictly dishonourable?

[dharvinia]

2 hours ago, AKM said:

, you're headed down a dark (and short) road.  But by all means, go right ahead.

I think somehow that is what I was trying to say, that we are in fact headed down a very dark and short road......and the bridge ahead has been washed out.

I took the situation to the absurd to point out the we are in this together, and however we sort it out we'd best do it fast, 

  Just remember there are dozens of other countries who have sorted it out albeit to the dismay of several key groups who have taken it upon themselves to dictate

what a "modern" relationship should be.

Edited October 1, 2021 by dharvinia

[Darkpig]

On 9/29/2021 at 4:47 PM, AKM said:

#2. The age of the uterus is quite important in its own right.  There's ridiculousness going on with regards to far older women having children, but the covered up factor is that, beyond a certain age (effectively 30), the chances of problems for both the mother and child go up considerably.  Not saying it's not possible, or even right or wrong.  Just that, medically, the earlier in life children are conceived, the better.  Yes, medically speaking, this means the 'age of consent/adulthood' is, indeed, just a fabricated number as far as biology is concerned.  Females the world over waste years of their reproductive window simply waiting to reach 'legal' age, whatever it happens to be in their geographic location.

I heard the last research on fertilization was done 400 years ago. It is more around 40 nowadays before fertility goes down. But you were right about egg freezing. It is a total scam unless you're going through chemo. So yeah Adam ruined that theory.

On 9/26/2021 at 1:52 PM, catchyorbit said:

 

Twitter has always been shit. Any large platform is bound to turn into shit because the majority of the human population are morons and beat common sense out of such platforms using their sheer numbers.

True.

On 9/26/2021 at 1:52 PM, catchyorbit said:

There's a better solution. Ignore feminism. It's not an issue. Feminism is just a banner used to rally people. That's all it is. The real power lies in the hands of the people with big money. Feminism is just a poster, a smoke screen behind which they sit and press the political buttons.

 

And I'll repeat again, feminism has done more for men than the patriarchy. Unbelievable. Men have never had this much freedom. The manosphere needs to stop with the feminism-ruined-women bullshit.

Then we need to make sure powerful people follow their own rules.

On 9/26/2021 at 1:52 PM, catchyorbit said:

Sure. This one is easy. Because when women joined the workforce and became taxpayers, it turned out that they were far less motivated to procreate and make new slaves for the corporate masters. In order to motivate them to breed, the government created all kinds of laws and priviledges for women. Such as nearly guaranteeing that they will keep the kids after divorce, forcing men to pay alimony and child support, granting all kinds of social and financial benefits for women and so on. Basically, the government said "Don't worry, ladies, you'll keep the kids and we'll shake every coin out of the man. Just keep procreating."

 

At the end of the day, it's about fleecing men and producing new slaves. You probably don't believe it. Then think about this:

 

Why hasn't alimony been abolished yet?

Why is there no child support audit (when the parent with the custody has to present receipts that the money was spent only on the child and not unrelated stuff)?

Why are there still no mandatory DNA tests to determine the real father?

Why is paternity fraud still not criminalised?

I was going to go with humanity is slow as fuck to change but I guess your answer passes. Society does all sorts of weird shit to keep their system running and you know what? Fuck it. Here is a cookie>