so this is an ad running on tv i just saw a few minutes ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rZOMY2sOnE
>gay couple
>star wars fans
Pretty realistic 2bh
>>63176130
Do all men bald this badly? I feel bad for them.
Come on.
>>63176222
/thread
saw it while watching Travel channel almost a month ago, we've had multiple threads about it here
>>63176263
its
That kid has the face of someone who knows his neg-hole is about to be pozzed
>>63176222
this is for real for real life for real life real for real life
is this the real life
>>63176130
Jesus Fucking Christ
>gay dads
>mexican kid
USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA
it doesn't even say they're gay.
Both SJWs and /pol/tards are stereotyping by assuming "oh that guy with glasses looks gay".
One of them could be the Uncle or a friend, just because they recite the line of a movie to entertain a kid doesn't mean they're literally both his dad.
>>63176222
savage
I didn't even know they were a gay couple. I thought it was one of those situation where the guy had his friend over for like sports and they ended up watching the kid
If you've seen the full commercial, you fuckers would know the dad is at his ex-wife's house with the stepfather.
>>63176387
the company said they were gay
>>63176451
the company doesn't get to decide.
Lore is always defined by the original work, external media and the creator's disclosures don't count for shit.
>>63176344
how the hell is the kid not going to be brown or yellow or black?
you realize gays cant reproduce right? and white people dont need to put their kids up for adoption
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r7YMplBdgE
I hope Mike and Jay use this commercial in their next Star Wars Plinkett Review when they mock the branding/merchandising again.
>>63176130
>another shit company to the boycott scrap heap
They basically sell cans full of salt anyway
>>63176422
I've noticed more and more /pol/lution in youtube comment sections. They are like a plague
>>63176539
>boycott
kek
people still do this?
>>63176450
The guys in the commercial are an actual gay couple, and that is actually their adopted son.
I don't really care but I wonder who this commercial is for, they're not gonna sell more soup because of it and they're likely to lose customers in the bible belt
>>63176503
Considering there are more white kids in foster care than any other race in America, I wouldn't say it's too far-fetched to believe a white kid could be adopted.
>>63176545
Maybe more people are realizing how cringe inducing this 'progressive' shitshow is
>>63176586
if you go to an orphanage and adopt a white kid you're literally a racist
I don't have a problem with gay people in media,
I have a problem when they are crammed down my throat to sell products.
This shit is too fuckin' blatant
>>63176545
SJWs are the plague. We are the cure.
>>63176545
we are all /pol/ friendo
>>63176565
You don't understand
Nobody cares about soup commercials normally. This is getting people to care about a soup commercial.
>>63176545
I've noticed more reddit in this board, perhaps you should go back there in your safe space away from problematic opinions.
>>63176565
we'd have to see if sales projections from gays were lacking and they were willing to trade more profitable demographics.
>>63176658
>problematic
>>63176647
I mean it's definitely a boost in the short term I just wonder what the dropoff will be from some people saying "I'M GETTIN PROGRESSO"
>>63176674
Yeah I guess they thought it was safe, I'm not in their marketing department so what do I know
>gay people can't realize when corporations are exploiting them
gays should be able to fuck whoever they want, but does it bug anyone else that star wars could put their name on a wet shit and still sell it?
>>63176647
if you or anyone else really believe the ONLY purpose of commercials is to sell the product they're for you've got another thing coming
>>63176791
I was in CVS and saw Star Wars branding on makeup.
Makeup.
>>63176791
>gays should be able to fuck whoever they want
They should be rounded up and put into camps so HIV can be eradicated
>>63176528
Im more dissapointed to see Janelle Monet t.b.h
>>63176791
>>63176629
that means it's time for you to start having a problem with them, even though it's unpleasant to think about
>>63176836
naw, again my problem is not gay people.
it's that some suits thought gay people are fashionable, and see this as an opportunity to sell fucking soup
I'm not gonna hate a homo for being in a fucking soup commercial for money tho, that dude has a gay family to feed.
>>63176629
>crammed down my throat
So if you see a man and a woman doing the same, is it being "crammed down your throat?" How do you express a gay couple without doing what you've accused them of doing?
This is the better Star Wars ad. True /tv/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78lnkMgee5k
>>63176810
im seeing of a lot of star wars incorporation into every brand now. i get why, but holy shit disney just fuck my franchise up
>>63176875
In a manner that's not
>the whole purpose of this commercial is to showcase these peoples sexual orientation
The same way you incorporate any identity minority, racial or sexual - you incorporate them without mention and with strong characterization
ie; not in a fucking soup commercial with a tangential relationship to star wars
>>63176875
because they make up a staggering minority of the population.
>>63176875
>So if you see a man and a woman doing the same
Wow it's almost like heterosexual couples are the norm and married fags spoonfeeding their beaner kek baby are a statistical anomaly
>>63176894
>this is new
>>63176875
straight couples are able to contribute positively to a community and beget children
this is how (our) society functions, it's normal and cannot be over-represented
to answer your question, you don't
>>63176870
you're missing the point but gays are soulless/immoral anyway i wouldn't worry about them
>>63176958
what point am i missing exactly?
>>63176658
>You should go to one safe space so I can have my safe space
Come on nigger
>implying everyone is this thread won't see star wars
You're the real problem to be honest mi familia.
>>63176222
>>63176972
the point that this sort of representation is exactly what they want, and if you have a problem with it you'd better start having a problem with the whole group/movement or else you're gonna have something besides ads crammed down your throat
>>63176989
I was hyped when it was announced but I've just found myself caring less and less. I think them wiping the EU out just made me stop caring about Star Wars.
Or maybe my depression has gotten worse, either way I'll wait for the rip.
>>63176958
I truly pity you. I hope you'll find something that helps unfreeze your heart.
>>63177050
and i hope they get around to curing aids before your time runs out my friend :)
>>63177017
I don't have a problem with gay people, I have a problem with the shoehorning of an archetype as the whole focus of an ad designed to sell soup.
Not everyone thinks the way you do.
And who is the "they" crackpots like you rave about anyway?
>>63176885
>>63176130
This shit is so gay. Were Star Wars adverts always this faggy? Was a fag too for liking Star Wars but never realised it?
>>63177092
>liking litlle girl's toes is faggy
Helloooooooo reddit
>>63177084
they in this case would be homosexuals, a notably shallow and crassly materialistic group, and their lackeys because this commercial is a great example of the sanitized and utterly misleading way that they want/choose to show themselves to the world
>>63176130
wait a minute.. so youre telling me... THAT STAR WARS IS FOR FAGS AND CHILDREN!?!?!?!
>>63176958
artificial wombs.
i'm sorry but women wont be able to compete. gay male relationships are just better as women are incapable of behaving like human beings for any prolonged period of time.
>>63177179
Ah yes, the big gay boogeyman.
Naw, I'm pretty sure it was some guy at Disney/Campbell's who knew the ad would stir activity online among "offended"/"supportive" commentators ultimately causing more attention/views/successful brand advertising.
You're a simple one, aren't you?
Cambell's soup is fucking dogshit anyway baka.
star wars is dead
>>63177218Yes.
>>63177272
4u
captcha: meembut fnow
>>63177241
gay males are literally (literally) incapable of monogamy or commitment and usually treat the asian children they buy like accessories or pets
even if your retarded and impossible dystopian scenario happened the children raised by men would be so fucked in the head that the technology which made them possible would be immediately lost to time
>>63176130
I'm pissed that it's shitty star wars merchandise.
You're literally gayer than those two dads if you have a problem with the a gay couple on a soup commercial.
>>63176130
Cute
>>63177251
you think campbells needs controversy to sell the same fucking tomato soup americans have been buying consistently for over a hundred years
it's not that it isn't a factor, but it's really not hard to understand how it's not the only one. and don't think it doesn't boil down to greed anyway
>>63177241
a lot of gay men act like women or exaggerated interpretations of women anyway though.
Homosexuality is associated with unusually high estrogen levels while in the womb.
Homosexuals are also more promiscuous, on average they have twice the number of sexual partners compared to heterosexual men and women.
I don't mean this is a hateful way, homosexuals should be allowed to have kids but it's stupid how people put them on a pedestal like they must logically be good parents by virtue of being gay.
>>63177319
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/relationship-data-2014/
gay men have more stable relationships actually, because its a relationship between 2 men, 2 rational minds.
women initiate 80% of divorces because of petty bullshit, their inherent hypergamy and desire to upgrade.
single mothers are shit at raising children. this is also a statistically backed fact.
>>63177388
No one is using a soup commercial as a political platform for identity politics, there are much better uses for money politically.
Yes it boils down to greed. They want to put fucking money and attention into a new shitty, digital JJ Abrams Star Wars flick that's going to suck and you're doing exactly what they want by insisting "da homo-sekkshulls" are forcing their way into soup commercials.
You are the 80 year old woman that shares racist emails, congratulations.
>>63177416
>Homosexuals are also more promiscuous
because men are more promiscious. less bullshit is required between 2 people that know exactly what they want. women treat their vaginas like a fucking currency.
>>63177449
>You are the 80 year old woman that shares racist emails
She sounds like a bro
>>63177442
this has nothing to do with divorces or single mothers, which are both big problems (women are not)
the data on 'stable relationships' is explained by the fact that they don't care enough to get divorced and just fuck around
>>63177492
that's a stereotype.
Heterosexual men have on average only a few percent more sexual partners than heterosexual women.
Homosexual men have double the partners of heterosexual men and women.
This isn't explained by "women just don't let guys have sex!" because if this was true it would be reflected in women having far fewer sexual partners.
>>63176130
Yeah I thought it was weird that 2 men abducted a kid and forced him to eat Campbell's soup on camera
>>63177541
>This isn't explained by "women just don't let guys have sex!"
except it is, women have sex for different reasons than men do.
>>63177611
buddy i guarantee you that your personal issues with women would not be any better if you'd been raised by two fags instead of whatever broken home made you this way
>>63176222
>>63177536
not to mention that if you're gay you have no pressures to get married.
So if you get hitched you must really want it.
However with women you can be pressured because your family expects it of you (especially past a certain age) or because of pregnancy (something gay men definitely don't have to worry about).
>>63177536
>single mothers, which are both big problems (women are not)
are single mothers not women? single mothers make less than single fathers while being subject to all the problems female brains tend to have in general leads to poorly raised children.
>>63177611
>women have sex for different reasons than men do.
Because they're more emotional and emphasize romance in a relationship?
Or are you implying it's because they're manipulative?
Either way does not matter, they literally have a comparable number of sexual partners on average, so this hypothesis doesn't hold water.
>>63177631
60% divorce rate
women initiate 80% of divorces.
these are both factual statements. facts made me this way.
The best part is, they totally rape that little boy.
>>63177677
i can tell you like this topic a lot and you're just throwing the book at me and ignoring my points so i'll just point out that reading whatever blogs you're reading is doing literally nothing positive for you, even if what you're saying is true
>>63177705
again, you're assuming a single factor instead of environmental variables and societal influences.
Women are pressured to get married, even if not explicitly.
Your argument is similar to the wage gap claim that women "earn 0.70c for every $1 a man makes doing the same job!", that argument ignores that the figure is based around all men and women from every occupation and in fact they are not doing the same job.
It's well and good to trust in facts, but you need to think about those facts for them to be worth anything.
>>63177678
>Because they're more emotional and emphasize romance in a relationship?
bullshit
Because they're more emotional and emphasize romance in a relationship?
women cheat more than men do. women have no idea what tjhey want in a relationship because to them every relationship is a compromise. in there minds they're simply settling, they don't stop riding the cock carousel even if there dating teh supposed guy of their dreams.
>>63177678
Actually, men are definitely more romantic gender
>>63177794
of course you would assume that i would buy into the wage gap bullshit. women are genetically wired to upgrade.
>>63177843
forgot the link
http://www.yourtango.com/201172881/women-more-likely-cheat-men-heres-why
>mra derails perfectly good gay bashing thread
>>63177794
>but you need to think about those facts for them to be worth anything.
and the fact is men and women generally have different brain structures that make them behave differently and achieve things differently.
>>63177843
sorry but you're incorrect.
The statistics about cheating rates are pretty unreliable.
I've seen a bunch of studies that pegs men as cheating 10% more than women.
Then there are articles that women cheat more but are "better liars"
also women do prefer emotional investment, Twilight and Fifty Shades of Gray is like porn for them.
>>63177870
I didn't assume anything about your point of view, I was just illustrating that singling out a single statistic and drawing a single cause without considering the influencing factors is what leads to a lot of misconceptions.
>>63177922
Yes?
This is undeniably true, but the "women initiate more divorces" statistic is not based off of differences in brain structure at all, it's based on the raw data of how many people divorce.
As I said there are likely several influences, you are correct that brain structure is undeniably one of them but you would be naive to think there aren't others.
>>63177889
>yourtango
what a reliable scientific source.
http://www.yourtango.com/2015283517/how-you-react-to-being-single-according-your-zodiac-sign
http://www.yourtango.com/2014232371/stop-calling-your-vagina-these-names-and-just-own-your-sexuality
>>63177976
>also women do prefer emotional investment, Twilight and Fifty Shades of Gray is like porn for them.
so apperently women only find billanaires and superhuman men acceptable. good to know.
>what leads to a lot of misconceptions.
women have higher standards, women have more social saftey nets, women have no reason not to divorce their way to the top currently in society. women divorce around 25-30 which is right before they hit the wall, they want to get the most out of their sexual value before they have their status reduced.
>"women initiate more divorces" statistic is not based off of differences in brain structure at all
women initiate more divorces because of disatisfaction and boredom, a disatisifaction which stems from how they select mates, which is determined by brain structure. men are more willing to stay with a partner because they are less hard wired to constantly look for a better deal.
>>63178152
>so apperently women only find billanaires and superhuman men acceptable. good to know.
no they find them as an ideal, not as acceptable.
What you just said would be like a woman saying "wow guys only think huge tits swimsuit models are acceptable".
It's obviously not true, it's just self-gratification, drooling over an ideal.
>women have higher standards, women have more social saftey nets, women have no reason not to divorce their way to the top currently in society. women divorce around 25-30 which is right before they hit the wall, they want to get the most out of their sexual value before they have their status reduced.
again you're assuming a lot here.
you could just as easily say that women are pressured into marriage, realize they're not happy after a few years of trying, the romance is gone and they want out.
>women initiate more divorces because of disatisfaction and boredom, a disatisifaction which stems from how they select mates, which is determined by brain structure. men are more willing to stay with a partner because they are less hard wired to constantly look for a better deal.
again, you seem to be making a lot of assumptions.
Where have you specifically drawn the idea that it's the result of dissatisfaction or boredom?
You're talking about people like a biologist, but you're not actually providing evidence to the claims.
I personally know of several men who have left their wives, one because he "upgraded" to a younger woman in his workplace and one because he had a midlife crisis and decided he wanted to live in a trendy apartment alone.
Completely anecdotal I know, but this whole argument you seem keen on making appears to be classically molded to dehumanize all women.
I just think if you're going to make those kinds of assertions you need some kind of confirming evidence.
>>63178294
>no they find them as an ideal, not as acceptable. What you just said would be like a woman saying "wow guys only think huge tits swimsuit models are acceptable". It's obviously not true, it's just self-gratification, drooling over an ideal.
mans idea of an ideal women is above average looks, womens idea of an ideal man is a super human or a billionaire that litterally worships the ground they walk on.
you really aren't making your argument look good here. women find the top 10% of guys attractive and men find 50% of women attractive.
>again you're assuming a lot here.
you could just as easily say that women are pressured into marriage, realize they're not happy after a few years of trying, the romance is gone and they want out.
pressured by what? so now its men's fault for making up a womens mind for her? are women ever going to be expected to do anything by themselves?
>Completely anecdotal I know, but this whole argument you seem keen on making appears to be classically molded to dehumanize all women.
since when is not making women out to be anything other than perfect dehumanizing them. i said generally women get sexually bored and generally tend to want to upgrade. what relation does that have to my opinion of their status as humans? women aren't worth dealing with, that doesnt mean i want to hurt them, or rape them, or take their rights away.
>>63178294
>I just think if you're going to make those kinds of assertions you need some kind of confirming evidence.
http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ?page=2
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2015/08/27/why-women-are-more-likely-to-initiate-divorce/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/unexcited-there-may-be-a-pill-for-that.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
>>63178472
>mans idea of an ideal women is above average looks
no.
I said ideal.
As in barely attainable or unobtainable.
This can be a celebrity with an incredible body or a docile anime girl, whatever he fantasizes.
You're literally equating what guys would be satisfied with with what women idealize.
>ou really aren't making your argument look good here. women find the top 10% of guys attractive and men find 50% of women attractive.
again, where are you getting these?
I don't know about you, but I see a lot more fit women with obese guys than obese women with fit guys.
Oh wait then you're going to say "that's because they just want their money!", because women somehow both have higher physical standards but are also far more flexible with standards right?
>ressured by what? so now its men's fault for making up a womens mind for her? are women ever going to be expected to do anything by themselves?
I literally told you that women are expected to get married.
And no I didn't say men did it, in fact it's other women that pressure them more than anyone.
And it's not often explicit, it's a subtle pressure that could very well account for part of the discrepancy in the divorce statistic, including differences in brain structure and your conventional gold diggers.
>since when is not making women out to be anything other than perfect dehumanizing them
I didn't mean that.
I meaned that you are specifically referring to women as animals like you're doing a nature documentary, it's a clever strategy to dehumanize them and break them down into core instincts you've assigned to them.
>that doesnt mean i want to hurt them, or rape them, or take their rights away.
I...really did not say that at all.
Finally; my point is merely that you're assigning a single perceived reason for a statistic and disregarding all possible influences which is not scientific or fair.
I
which one do you think takes it in the ass better?
>>63178554
http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ?page=2
this doesn't specify anything to do with divorce...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2015/08/27/why-women-are-more-likely-to-initiate-divorce/
>Though he stressed that most women surveyed were happy with their marriages, many of those who weren’t cited controlling husbands and a loss of independence as causes of discontent.
it does not say they're bored at all.
>She noted, however, “It is not ‘excellent’ because I wish that he was more romantic. He’s very practical.”
supports the emotionally minded woman thing I mentioned earlier.
A lot of women go into marriage expecting romance and get disillusioned by the reality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/unexcited-there-may-be-a-pill-for-that.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
>It is women much more than men who have H.S.D.D., who don’t feel heat for their steady partners. Evolutionary psychologists argue that this comes down to innate biology, that men are just made with stronger sex drives — so men will settle for the woman who’s always near.
so men settle for women just for sex and then women find themselves in a loveless marriage?
>One theory holds that it’s a challenge for both sexes to maintain passion over the long-term because it’s threatening to desire the same person from whom we seek security and true understanding. It leaves us feeling too vulnerable.
okay so now monogamy is just weird?
>One general principle about women’s desire has been widely embraced since at least as far back as Victorian times and prevails still: that female eros is, innately, much less promiscuous — much more dependent on commitment and trust, much more sparked by closeness, much better suited to constancy — than male sexuality.
Also reading this article, it's just about female and male sexual drives, not divorce rates at all...
>>63178623
>You're literally equating what guys would be satisfied with with what women idealize.
no shit sherlock, and what guys want is usually a hell of a lot more reasonable than what women want.
>again, where are you getting these?
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/
http://www.wfu.edu/news/release/2009.06.25.a.php
http://csoppsocialbases.wikispaces.com/file/view/market+force+mate+selection.pdf
you can even look at 4chan. any women of any kind gets hundreds of responses just for revealing herself as a woman.
>And no I didn't say men did it, in fact it's other women that pressure them more than anyone.
and? are they not individuals capable of deciding against poorly thought out desicions?
>I meaned that you are specifically referring to women as animals like you're doing a nature documentary
as i do to men. human beings ARE animals directed by the same things every other animal is.
>my point is merely that you're assigning a single perceived reason for a statistic and disregarding all possible influences which is not scientific or fair.
its not scientific to look at broader trends and make extrapolations from them?
lolk
>>63176545
I don't think you realize the actual size of /pol/
>>63178792
>this doesn't specify anything to do with divorce...
>You're talking about people like a biologist, but you're not actually providing evidence to the claims.
don't ask for evidence if you don't want to hear it.
>A lot of women go into marriage expecting romance
define romance. because a lot of women confuse the word romance with mind reading when most men prefer to settle disagreements with rational solutions while women prefer to hold grudges and perform constant shit tests. romance is blanket term women use to refer to whatever it is that displeases them about their husbands. just like the word "creep".
>so men settle for women just for sex and then women find themselves in a loveless marriage?
men settle for a partner with which they can also have sex.
>okay so now monogamy is just weird?
its not just weird its detrimental. men who are single live longer and are generally happier.
>>63176875
Nobody likes gay couples, nobody heterosexual with a bit of brain and self-respect
if anything you don't care or play nice
that said there is no way to "express a gay couple" without being weird, simply because majority (key word here) don't want to see gay things on their internet/tv at all
>>63178843
>>no shit sherlock, and what guys want is usually a hell of a lot more reasonable than what women want.
why?
You're said superheroes and millionaires, but guys fantasize about fiction too, whether it be a magical girl, a cyborg slave or something closer to real life.
You're just trying to create a false inequality, to make it look like you deserve more.
This is exactly what feminists do.
>any women of any kind gets hundreds of responses just for revealing herself as a woman.
That's because there is a gross inequality in how many females post here.
In a normal setting a woman would get far less attention than one who posts here, we have far more men to women and the men that are here are far more likely to be lonely.
This is influenced by the site culture, heck there's even a meme about this very fac "normalfags" or "normies" as the newfags like to say.
>and? are they not individuals capable of deciding against poorly thought out desicions?
Did I ever say that it's not women's fault?
I merely said that the divorce rate discrepancy is resultant of a bunch of factors, not just one you've picked to serve your own position.
>human beings ARE animals directed by the same things every other animal is.
I know we're animals but we still have culture, dehumanization is to strip down common respect for fellow human beings.
This would be fine if you had a scientific basis for what you're saying, but you just post articles you probably read less than me that you googled that you hope vaguely supports your stance.
>its not scientific to look at broader trends and make extrapolations from them?
It's scientific to look at broader trends and think about the causation.
It's not scientific to just assume one base factor.
This is why I brought up the wage gap example, the reason that misconception exists is because people see a gap in average pay and "extrapolate" that it's sexism instead of understanding the factors at play.
>lolk
now you're downplaying your investment.
Seriously guys, it's 2015.
I mean,
Come on.
>"progressive" commercial for the new star wars movie
OH BOY HERE WE GO
ITS A FUCKING 4CHAN GOLDMINE HOLY SHIIIIIIIIIIIT
SEE YOU AT 300 REPLIES BOYS
>>63178939
>don't ask for evidence if you don't want to hear it.
in the real world when someone asks for evidence you're expected to cite a source and why it is relevant.
Googling your stance, copying an article with a vaguely similar headline and hoping it supports what you're saying is not evidence necessarily.
>because a lot of women confuse the word romance with mind reading when most men prefer to settle disagreements with rational solutions while women prefer to hold grudges and perform constant shit tests. romance is blanket term women use to refer to whatever it is that displeases them about their husbands. just like the word "creep".
so now you're making yet another assumption based on your perception of how females behave.
I can't argue this point, I'll be here all night if I open another can of worms, so sure let's say women don't like romance even though it's what's always marketed to them.
>men settle for a partner with which they can also have sex.
Oh, so now it's fair to assume the male satisfaction with a partner providing sex and them settling is in no way related.
See the fallacy here?
When it's a female thing it's fair to draw the connections but not when it's a man.
You're trying to find reasons to confirm your per-established views, not scientific truth.
Be consistent.
>men who are single live longer and are generally happier.
so asexuality is naturally what we should want?
that seems a little paradoxical.
>>63178870
It's the same five, basement dwelling, virginal losers that have nothing better to do with their lives than post on youtube comments all day. It's not like they have jobs to tend to.
>>63179097
my job is to post youtube comments you little bitch.
>>63178983
>but guys fantasize about fiction too
about fiction or fictiotuois girls? because guys tend to fixate on girls in their general vicintity more than girls who look for the "one" and never find him and settle for 30 cats because her expecations are fantasy.
>That's because there is a gross inequality in how many females post here.
they get attention because its anonymous. 4chan is a male space. do the math.
>This would be fine if you had a scientific basis for what you're saying
what specifically am unscientific about.
>This is why I brought up the wage gap example, the reason that misconception exists is because people see a gap in average pay and "extrapolate"
you brought it up in the vain hope i would talk about it. i'm not assuming a base factor, im observing a largely contributing factor, female nature largely contributes to both female and male dissatisifaction. its not the only cause but it is a significant factor and to downplay it is delusional.
http://advindicate.com/articles/3022
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tyler-curry/how-do-gays-crack-the-monogamy-code_b_3478177.html
Is it possible for two gay men to be in a long-term relationship and remain monogamous?
The short answer? Of course it is. But for the frustrated but hopeful "monogay," it often seems nearly impossible to find a homo couple who have surpassed the five-year mark without opening up their relationship in one way or another. Naturally, each couple is different, complete with a brow-furrowing set of rules that they have constructed over the years. Whether its "playing" as a couple only or allowing for out-of-town flings or no-kissing-allowed or sexual-position-specific extracurricular hookups, one thing is for certain: Monogamy it is not.
Assuming that most of these gay couples started out with at least the attempt of keeping it in their pants outside the relationship, why does monogamy appear to be so difficult for gay couples to maintain?
>literally incapable of forming stable monogamous families
>XDDD LOOK AT THIS POSH GAY COUPLE WITH A SON LOL, IT'S REAL LIFE, THIS HAPPENS!!
>>63179139
>MSM
Mainstream media? What
>>63179170
"Men who have sex with men," standard term
The year is 2015
The Gamergate "movement" gained so much notoriety in the mainstream press that 4chan was flooded with newfag redditumblr faggots who cannot comprehend let alone handle the banter
Threads shitting on fags now actually garner 100+ triggered replies from bonafide, true to life redditors and tumblr faggots.
The bait is strong and the fish are dumber than ever. Every troll thread reaches it's reply limit as even the newfag redditors start to look like oldfags compared to the new breed.
No Fun Allowed has finally become a reality.
The year is 2015.
>>63179125
>about fiction or fictiotuois girls?
both I guess.
>because guys tend to fixate on girls in their general vicintity more than girls who look for the "one" and never find him and settle for 30 cats because her expecations are fantasy.
so guys are sluts?
>they get attention because its anonymous. 4chan is a male space. do the math.
pretty much what I said but alright.
>what specifically am unscientific about.
it's unscientific to connect the dots.
Ever heard the saying "correlation is not causation".
To you, you've latched onto a few particular factors you deem as the real cause and have disregarded any other possible influences, because those influences don't support the image you want to portray.
It's the same as when feminists ignore that men are more career focused than women when discussing the wage gap, because women being any lesser doesn't help them portray what they want.
It's the same as how politicians ignore that literally all kids play video games now when some kid shoots up his school, because they have a specific image they want to portray.
Science is not about simple correlation, that'd be too easy.
It's about actually figuring out the cause of statistics and trends.
Everything prior to that is hypothesis.
>you brought it up in the vain hope i would talk about it.
I really did not.
It was just the first example that sprung to mind of people ignoring all undesirable factors when faces with a singular statistic.
>i'm not assuming a base factor, im observing a largely contributing factor,
okay and why are you weighting this factor larger than the others?
>its not the only cause but it is a significant factor and to downplay it is delusional.
it's nice that you acknowledge that but really, why is it the significant one?
Unless you can prove your weighting to be scientifically grounded, you're still making an assumption to support your personal bias.
>>63179062
>so sure let's say women don't like romance even though it's what's always marketed to them.
i didnt say they dont like i said its a nebulous nonsense word they apply to anything and everything and end up realizing its not what they made it up to be. its like the word "organic" it can mean anything and it sells.
>Oh, so now it's fair to assume the male satisfaction with a partner providing sex and them settling is in no way related.
re read what i said. men want themselves with a vagina, women want "romance" which can mean anything they want it to.
>so asexuality is naturally what we should want?
its what men should be aware of. im not saying men should abandon women, im saying they should be aware of how little they're actually getting out of relationships with them.
>>63179168
I'm in a long-term, monogamous gay relationship, and the idea of casual sex or open relationships has always disgusted me, personally. But what bearing does that have on raising children? You realize there are straight couples who aren't monogamous, yes? It's an ancient practice to have extra-maritals, and 'swinging' specifically had a huge boom a few decades ago. I'm sure the statistics for gays show a higher level of promiscuity, but you really shouldn't let that inform your view of individuals.
>>63179239
>so guys are sluts?
i said fixate. men are more likely to develop oneitis regarding women they know personally.
>It's about actually figuring out the cause of statistics and trends.
and you have yet to disprove my hypothesis that it is womens laughably high expecations caused by how they select mates driving divorce rates and dissatisfaction. the more first world a country gets the more the divorce rates go up as women support themselves they keep raising the bar well past the kind of guy they could resonalbly hope to get. while most men today on the other hand are desperate to find any girl that even gives them the time of day.
>okay and why are you weighting this factor larger than the others?
because women own the relationship in its entrirety and still arent satisfied. women and men are largely equal in this society yet women wont setttle for men in their league.
>it's nice that you acknowledge that but really, why is it the significant one?
because its an observable trend that regardless of causation can be seen to be reliably true.
>>63176489
Yes they do anon, it's called "canon".
>>63179438
You of all people should know the implications you fucking faggot. You know for a fact how exceptional your case is. "I'm sure gays have a slightly higher level of promiscuity!!" THEY FUCK EACH OTHER IN REST STOPS AND PARKS. THEY ARE THE SOLE SOURCE OF AFRICA LEVELS OF AIDS IN AMERICA.
Statistically speaking, monogamous fags don't exist. You disgusting fucks shouldn't go anywhere near children by any metric of fitness for adoption.
>>63179438
>>63179452
>the more first world a country gets the more the divorce rates go up as women support themselves they keep raising the bar well past the kind of guy they could resonalbly hope to get
this couldn't at all be effected by third world countries having religious beliefs that disdain divorce, having higher rates of domestic violence, less financial flexibility and less opportunities for women right?
You're doing that thing again, where you just kind of ignore other factors because one factor sounds good to you.
>because women own the relationship in its entrirety and still arent satisfied. women and men are largely equal in this society yet women wont setttle for men in their league.
still no evidence of that though.
You're using conjecture to answer why you're using conjecture.
>>63179471
Are you really going to talk shit to literally one of the few good fags out there?
>>63176130
>The interracial relationship won't be Daisy and Boyega
>It's going to be Boyega and Isaac
Bravo JJ
>>63179471
I think cruising culture is really gross, I agree with you. There are tons of things straight people do that's debauched and gross to me. So why should that bar me, specifically, as an individual, from adopting?
I exist. And while I can't speak for every gay, I think you're underestimating the numbers here. I don't know exactly what the statistics go off of, but there are any number of ways they could be skewed or off-mark.
While I don't belong to this sub-set of sex-fiend gays, the only difference between gay and straight sex-fiends is the specifics of cruising culture, which developed because of a necessary secrecy and prevailing stigma. Debauchery is debauchery. Aids was certainly in its initial stages the result of anal, but it's been propagated beyond it, and you can't blame gays who aren't part of the scene where it flourished, which no, does not put all homosexuals under an umbrella.
I really don't understand this anti-individualistic approach to people. Do you really reduce me to a sex-crazed aids-ridden fag, even though I've been with my boyfriend for years, am monogamous, and probably agree with a great deal of your views?
Do you look at every black person and apply statistics for their entire race to them as a person?
>>63179503
>You're doing that thing again, where you just kind of ignore other factors because one factor sounds good to you.
i said : >"as women support themselves they keep raising the bar"
my argument was, women in third world countires only stay with men because they have no choice, give them a choice and the majority of them divorce on the drop of a hat. litterally the only way to keep women interested in staying in one relationship is to force them because of any of the reasons you mentioned.
>still no evidence of that though.
how about the fact men completely debase themselves physically and mentally for women?
child support? allimony? i know men who make six figures but live in a van because their ex wives take almost everything they make though child support and alimony. men work their fucking asses off to get the attention of women and women repay them with overwhelming indifference. its all wasted effort
>>63179527
>"Luke, I am your fucker"
>Boyega pulls out his BBC, rippled with veins
>Luke slowly drops his robes to reveal his wrinkly round white ass
>Boyega smacks his lips
>>63179452
>that it is womens laughably high expecations caused by how they select mates driving divorce rates and dissatisfaction
High expectations wouldn't drive divorce rates up. Expectations would be applied primarily during the courtship process; before you can have a divorce, you have to have a marriage, and in order to have a marriage, there needs to be a woman (in most states) who accepts a man's proposal to get married. Each instance of that is an instance of a man meeting a woman's expectations as a mate, and it happens a lot, 2 million times a year in the US. A divorce represents an instance where two people were satisfied with each other for some time, then became dissatisfied, so I don't think it's sensible to say that divorces are the result of over-high standards when those standards are obviously being met all the time.
