Schopenhauer is right about women, among other things.
Anyone here disagree? If so, why? Would be interesting to hear some /lit/ femanons input too.
fucking schoppy
>women are essentially children! they're incapable of maturity
3 or 4 essays later
>genius is a childlike understanding of the world!
nice one
wow what a creative bait thread we've never had one line this befo--zzzz
hes never been privy to a woman's internal consciousness how can he possibly speak on it
>>7479589
>hurrdurr judgement can be reserved only for those of whom we are ourselves conscious: namely our own selves
well gee there go the ethical, judicial, and aesthetic spheres
clearly you've never been privy to the outside world. this would explain why you fail to speak clearly about it.
>>7479599
>implying implications to make a position seem more radical than it is
10/10 sophistry, gorgias would be proud
>>7479599
destroyed
>>7479576
He was right about it at the time, but the time's are a-changin'.
>>7479608
>implying I implied implications to radicalize my position wherein I radicalize the original post
11/10 sophistry, would charge you corrupting the youth of athens and denying the gods
>>7479576
Women are soft, shapely, smell nice, have youthful dancing eyes.
Men are hard, strong, smell bad, have longing in their eyes.
What is a man? What is a woman? It is those things you most desire and find betwixt another's bosom.
#genderfluidity2016just kidding, fags are cancer and women are useless sluts
>>7479588
pure sophistry on the part of Wollstencraft
>>7479576
femanon here
>Schopenhauer is right about women, among other things.
>Anyone here disagree? If so, why?
He believed in animal magnetism was an equivalent natural force to electricity, and I also have to disagree that Goethe's novel deserves to be in the top four. I think he only made it a top four list because he liked the number tbqh.
>>7479695
Faust is perfect, though.
>>7479695
>her argument is ad hominem
classic
>>7479599
>ethical, judicial, and aesthetic spheres
all worthless spheres
except when qualified by "I believe", "I feel", "I appreciate" etc what you really think there is something objective in ethics or aesthetics?
i dont know why youre so sensitive, a philosopher speaking on a work of art and why its beautiful is much different than a philosopher speaking about another gender as some inferior "other"
he cannot possibly fathom the innerworkings of a female, and yet that doesnt keep him from droning on about it. the funny thing is that schopenhauer was more image obsessed than any woman
>>7479704
>he cannot possibly fathom the innerworkings of a female, and yet that doesnt keep him from droning on about it. the funny thing is that schopenhauer was more image obsessed than any woman
why he couldnt ""fathom"" """the innerworkings"""?its not so complicated you know
>>7479695
Listen here little baby. You're gonna get a lot of hurtful and degrading comments, but that ain't what I'm about. Let me just say, you are perfect the way you are. You hear me sugar? PERFECT. Don't ever change. You deserve anything and everything you want. Stay safe for me, baby girl.
>mfw thinking of you hurting
>>7479719
Hahaha
Is this real?
>>7479710
Because he was born with a penis?
There are two possibilities:
1. Women genuinely experience the world differently, they are different beings from men
2. Women are the same as men barring some superficial differences
In either case schopenhauers writings are pointless, either because he cannot write about women or because he has created the division between the genders
>>7479710
a lot of things aren't complicated but are very difficult to grasp unless you have a natural feel for them
>>7479735
Ok. For this thread I scanned his essay on women, I didn't read every intricate detail so I could be wrong, but I don't think he's describing what it's like to be a woman. I think he is describing his experiences with them, and his observations, and is putting forward notions based on his subjective views.
That being said many women are irrational. It's just a fact. Even women admit this.
>>7479576
I can't kill the dreams of human beings
https://youtu.be/dRa75_Hlr28
>>7479746
>Making a statement about women that is accurate but applies equally to men.
>>7479577
having child-like qualities and being essentially a child aren't the same.
True story: doing my arts degree, in every essay I submit, I include at least a couple of pro-feminist sentences, which I have recently been making so glibly idiotic that I thought no educated person could ever believe that I was being serious, but I have been invariably praised for it.
>>7479588
I hate referential humor.
I'm a transwoman, so this thread is very interesting to me. I appreciate the honesty of social bias that I'm seeing on display here, and even if I disagree with most of what you guys are writing, it is educational. I'm always interested in how society perceives gender.
There are too many posts to reply to each of you, but I'd like to publicly note that most of you, even the so-called progressives, are still operating within rigid and obsolete definitions of "male" and "female". I know you're probably unaware of this, but a great many minds of exceptional caliber and ability have spent the past several decades trying to breakdown this framework, to some success. But regardless of this board's collective ignorance of gender instability, your reliance upon archaic and discredited social constructs is severely limiting the logic of your arguments. Any reputable women studies or sociology professor will tell you that there is little to no biological basis to these labels, which are invariably drawn from a well of unconscious prejudice and fear.
To the open-minded but confused young men I know who browse this board and are posting ITT: I encourage you to enroll in a sociology or women's studies class at your local college or university. Your education isn't really complete without an academic introduction to oppression, and unfortunately, your ignorance has measurable social consequences. Whether or not you yourself are interested in how you oppress others with your prejudicial thinking is irrelevant, because your ignorance doesn't just hurt you, it hurts everyone. You have a social and moral obligation to educate yourself.
>>7482262
>I'm a transwoman
The fuck you are you disgusting shill fake.
>>7482262
I was unaware that people have disproved the existence XX and XY chromosomes doesn't exist anymore and their correspondence to the words 'male' or 'female'. I have no problem with you pretending you are a girl, but you aren't one.
>>7482344
It was debunked a long time ago. Get with the times, grandpa.
http://anti-imperialism.com/2014/02/24/on-the-social-construction-of-sex-part-1/
>>7482262
come on lol
>>7482262
ayy
>>7482262
I agree to be honest.
>>7482262
>I'm a dude who likes to play dress-up
ok
>>7482262
>I'm a transwoman
schtopped reading there.
>>7482262
>rigid and obsolete definitions
>archaic and discredited
>social constructs
Says_who_motherfucker.jpg
>>7482262
bait of the most calculated caliber
>>7482262
>I'm a transwoman
Stopped reading there
I love the trans memes, but I just can't take men who like to dress up like women and demand to be taken seriously, well, seriously
>>7482538
And the thing is, nobody cares. They're just happy for the excuse to sperg out
>>7482544
Before enlightenment, chop wood, fetch water
After enlightenment, chop wood, fetch water
>>7482544
we on 4chan love to make caricature posts to react to
>>7482262
Congratulations on fooling nobody.
>>7482644
I don't think it's unhealthy. It allows us to express our distaste for what it's based on in a safe environment.
does any other thinker names the female like he does?
>>7482731
I agree in a way but it also makes people... lazy, I guess? Ignorant and self-assured at the same time.
>>7482571
It's barely a caricature if you talk to these people.
>>7482748
This picture is terrible.
>>7482762
can't handle being the butt of jokes for patricians?
>>7482493
READ A BOOK.
http://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-Difference/dp/0393340244
>>7482892
NEVER.
>>7482262
kill yourself, even if baiting
>>7482731
You mean it allows us to feel better about ourselves by attacking our own strawman instead of actually discussing things sincerely?
No, it's p. fucking unhealthy to take anything on this site other than like book and music recommendations seriously
>>7479588
Why is schopenhauer black in this?
>>7479695
>insulting "The Sorrows"
>chooses 4 books he finds to be the most universally good for their respective language
>not owning up to Schoppy's (and any German worth his salt) undying lust for Goethe
Kys, m'lady
>>7483223
>insulting "The Sorrows
It was actually Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship.
>>7482262
>I'm a transwoman
>>7479577
well, most geniuses are also incapable of maturity.
>>7479588
>tfw even in a little cartoon i can't bring myself to read the wall of whiny shit that comes out of a woman's mouth
>>7479589
Having never been privy to Schopenhauer's conciousness, how can you possibly speak on it?
>>7483511
Wollstonecraft is actually pretty based.
First feminist best feminist. She says right out that the reason women are such horseshit is because they are perpetually spoiled bratty retards. She says explicitly that this is "female privilege" (uses that word) and that until it's gone, women will remain spoiled children. Her big comparison is with the rich, women are like children ruined by wealth.
She's responding to Rousseau so she's very optimistic about women being tabulae rasae, but it's still great. And of course ignored by all subsequent feminists, who only focus on aspects of feminism that cast them as the victim so they can whine and bitch about it. Wollstonecraft got in there before the well had been poisoned by that effeminate responsibility-dodging bullshit tendency, and straight-up said "let's fix women."
Beauvoir has plenty of it too, but people just ignore it for her stuff that can be appropriated for victim feminism.
>>7483527
>First feminist best feminist.
Yes, Hipparchia was based to be honest.
>>7483527
sounds pretty based, although as you say very optimistic.
>>7482262
those first three words and my initial reaction is a large hmm
>>7483470
Surprisingly fair
>>7483223
As >>7483248 pointed out, you're a retard who hasn't read Schopenhauer, and only read Goethe because /fa/. Goethe has much more to offer than just yellow trousers, I suggest you kill yourself as all your love will go unrequited.
>>7482132
>LONDON
Sorry, I'm only looking to engage in an epistolary relationship with another lower Alpine dweller.
>>7483527
>First feminist best feminist
Come on, anon, you even know to mention she's responding to Rousseau in a thread about Schopenhauer's views on women. Even if we ignore that Fourier coined the phrase feminism, Rousseau, Schoppy, and Wollstoncraft were all aware of Héloïse.
>>7483541
She reverts to womanhood during pregnancy though; Krates even admonishes her for becoming womanly again, and then gives her a pass on weaving when she says she's knocked up. Héloïse puts up some resistance to those states, while Hipparchia dives into them, begging Krates for marriage. I don't know if you're judging one best for acquiescing in "natural" roles of women, but that seems kind of retarded when responding to Wollstonecraft's ideas of personal responsibility to pick the one that didn't rail as much against the status quo.
>>7482541
this, i can't take seriously anyone who would throw away strength
>>7483817
But anon, I can buy GUNS.
>thread about Schopenhauer
>3 posts in and it becomes a shitstorm about his views on women
>when the dude was pretty much a misanthrope AKA a misandrist and a misogynist in one.
Roasties should be auto-banned from 4chan.
>>7483817
you sound like more of a faggot than the trans
ever notice all these misogynist philosophers always either had a really shitty maternal figure growing up or had problems with women in romantic relationships their whole life? it's as if they're blaming all women and using them as scapegoats instead of fixing the true problem which is themselves
>>7483843
or... they had a deep insight into human nature, as is the case with Schopenhauer.
>>7483843
>ever notice how when someone criticizes a woman it's always secretly because they're failures in the petty social realm which is the only realm i can intuitively conceptualize because i am a woman and anything beyond gossip and social status is beyond me
bake a pie, broad
>>7483843
those who have no problems dealing with women have no reason to analyse their psychology and nature
>>7483858
>No men who really think deeply about women retain a high opinion of them; men. either despise women or they have never thought seriously about them.
Weininger
>>7483843
>throwing this much shade on Schopenhauer's mother
I bet you'd like her novels if you pretended the boy was a vampire. Just sayin
>>7483845
>deep insight into human nature
>based all of his opinions and theories off of his personal experiences
>had 0 understanding of how societies worked or how human brains worked
>>7483855
>>>/angryvirgin/ is that way m8
>>7482138
But doesn't it make you feel clever and smart and in the know and superior to others?
How can you not like it?
>>7482262
>I'm a transwoman
Does that mean you're a dude who likes to dress up in dresses or a dyke who likes dress up in jeans and plaid shirts?
>>7482262
K, serious question.
Should a person who identifies as undefined non-binary be taken more seriously than a person who identifies as otherkin (say, a dragon)?
>>7483885
>asking a mentally retarded person a serious question
>>7483136
Implicit racism. The author assumes, like a racist, that womanising behaviour is mostly for men of colour.
It's very racist - just like that video about a woman walking 10 hours in New York:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A
9/10 of the people in the video are people of colour. The one cracker they include says something like "good evening". Totally racist.
>>7483871
>>based all of his opinions and theories off of his personal experiences
>Schopenhauer
>the man whose major works are all based in Kantian philosophy
Nigga, you're too retarded to make a troll this good. You and the 999 other monkeys are supposed to be working on Shakespeare.
>>7483885
Identifying as non-binary is equivalent to a fashion statement. Identifying as otherkin is being infatuated with your own mental illness. I'm psychotic and sometimes feel I'm a dragon, but don't identify as otherkin because I understand I'm insane, so it's topical you brought up that specific example.
>>7482262
clear bait
>>7484002
>Identifying as non-binary is equivalent to a fashion statement. Identifying as otherkin is being infatuated with your own mental illness.
ideology
>critiquing blunders of male thought and behavior
>philosophical insights
>critiquing blunders of female thought and behavior
>misogyny
>>7484439
How?
>>7480819
Look around you: everything created was by men. It's no secret that men are significantly more intelligent than women. It's foolish to think otherwise. We might not have even "invented" the cave if we left intellectual activities to women. Schopenhauer is right: women are children.
>>7483843
No, he was just right. He knew he was right, because he objectively is, and he is much more intelligent than you.
>>7484597
-45646212/10
>>7484620
>deducting the 42 points for not capitalising a full sentence after a full colon twice
Nice; most people would forget that in an assay.
>>7484630
That's not necessary depending on what grammar school you adhere to. Right? Don't make me look it up.
>>7484630
http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/commas/capitalization-with-colons/
Yeah, fuck off. You don't need to capitalize that sentence.
>>7484639
>>7484644
He only needs to capitalise one. Quiz spoilers below.>Look around you: *everything created was by men. It's no secret that men are significantly more intelligent than women. It's foolish to think otherwise. We might not have even "invented" the cave if we left intellectual activities to women.
He gets deducted 42 because he can't tell the difference. I'll give you a 7.2 for effort.
>>7484718
Not true. Both colons only had one sentence after them. You are full of shit.
Not only that, but you say: "deducting the 42 points for not capitalising a full sentence after a full colon twice" proving you thought both were incorrect. You aren't weaseling your way out of this one, chump (look at that vocative case comma).
>>7484734
No, that sentence needs to be capitalised because the string of sentences after it derive from the first colon. It's the same as answer #2 in the handy pop quiz you cited:
>2. Please visit me at my newly remodeled store: Skylights and large glass windows have been added. You will also find more inventory and friendly sales help.
The second time he uses it, he uses it correctly, though probably by accident.
>>7484741
No; that's inccorect. The sentence that preceded the first colon was "Look around you." I then said everything is created by men. That is the sentence that is directly relevant to the first. The next sentence says that men are more intelligent than women, which has nothing to do with looking around you. You are objectively wrong, now leave me alone.
>>7484756
No, buddy, you're wrong. You can keep being butthurt about it, but it'll never make it past a good copy desk. Your own example proves you wrong. so-wrong-even-numbers-won't-do/100
>I
>makes really stupid shitpost
>vigorously defends its grammar
>>7484763
>I
>Accidently reference to a post
>Delete it
>>7484760
The only thing wrong with that sentence is "everything created was by men" should have been "everything around you was created by men" for flow and pacing purposes. It's still not wrong, though, and neither is my colon use.
>Please visit me at my newly remodeled store: Skylights and large glass windows have been added. You will also find more inventory and friendly sales help.
Look at this. Both sentences stem from the original. My sentence did not. You can't "Look around you and it's no secret men are significantly more intelligent than women." I guess it could be construed in such a manner, but it clear by the context it isn't. One was an objective example and the other was an opinion. Don't tell me my context is wrong. I made the context, and those sentences are not tied together by the first.
>>7484763
I'm wrong? If you think we would have fire and tents with women in charge, you are delusional. Yes, women really are dumber than men, and no amount of liberal cheerleading will make it less so.
>>7484801
and look to your own post:
>Look around you: everything created was by men. It's no secret that men are significantly more intelligent than women. It's foolish to think otherwise.
You're wrong kid: I don't know why you insist on continuing to be wrong, but good luck convincing the grammarians to change the rules so your butthurt abates. I wish you well on your pointless quest against language.
>>7484833
Look around you.
1. Everything was created by men.
2. It's no secret that men are more intelligent than women.
Those don't go together. Think of the rule as a list. If both sentences are directly tied to the first, then yes, you capitalize. If not, you don't. From the full context of that paragraph it is clear that it isn't a list.
Please visit me at my newly remodeled store.
1.Skylights and large glass windows have been added.
2.You will find more inventory and sales help.
That's a list. The list of sentences following a colon follows the same rules as a list following a colon mid-sentence: all of the items/sentences have to be derived from the original statement.
You are wrong, now fuck off.
>>7484880
The entire thing is about how apparent the case stated after the colon is, from looking around oneself. Are you actually so retarded you don't know what you mean is apparent when you try to point something out as obvious? I mean, it's one thing to be wrong; it's another entirely to double down on being wrong rather than correct your error. I hope your trolling, because the alternative is that someone who cares *this* much about their grammar is getting it so wrong for so many posts because they care even more about their ego on an anonymous website. Your whole spiel is related, because otherwise you're arguing you're grammatically correct but incoherent.
>>7483805
>implying I even know what the connection between Goethe and /fa/ is
(But you apparently do so I assume you're a regular shitposter)
>implying I wasn't stoned as fuck when I posted that and mistoke "The Sorrows" for "Wilhelm Meister"
>implying I didn't read WH and WWR in original German
>implying I'd reply to you if you didn't have a sloppy wet hole in-between your legs
>>7485124
>Your whole spiel is related, because otherwise you're arguing you're grammatically correct but incoherent.
I'm right, but you don't like what I'm saying. Great, I don't care.
>The entire thing is about how apparent the case stated after the colon is, from looking around oneself. Are you actually so retarded you don't know what you mean is apparent when you try to point something out as obvious? I mean, it's one thing to be wrong; it's another entirely to double down on being wrong rather than correct your error.
The same thing that makes the second use correct makes the first use correct. There isn't any content in this post. You haven't shown why or how it is wrong. You are just bullshiting, because it quite obviously isn't wrong.
"Look around you and you will see everything is created by men" is one statement. All I did was separate it with a colon. "It's no secret men are more intelligent than women" is another seperate statement, only connected to the first by the flow of the paragraph. It is not a list, and it doesn't get capitalized. I'm not the one doubling down. You are just an idiot.
Look around you and you will see everything is created by men (comma, next statement), and it is obvious men are more intelligent than women. Those are two separate statements. You are the one that's wrong.
>>7483875
>trotting out the virgin accusations
Every jock who is good with women knows they are inferior and treats them as if they were inferior. That's why they are able to pull women. You would know this if you were good with women.
>>7485158
>>implying I even know what the connection between Goethe and /fa/ is
There was a cross European craze of yellow trousers and blue waistcoats as per Werther's suit, not just the suicide craze.
>>implying I'd reply to you if you didn't have a sloppy wet hole in-between your legs
You really haven't read Goethe.
>implying I wasn't stoned as fuck when I posted that and mistoke "The Sorrows" for "Wilhelm Meister"
you're twelve, right?
>implying I didn't read WH and WWR in original German
yeah, when girls say that's sausage when you say this, you know they don't mean your dick, right, opferspasst?
>>7485214
Right... so you want to be grammatically correct, but have no coherence or development of your ideas. K then. Weird choice.
>I don't care.
lol, bro, it's a bit late for that to be believable.
>>7485262
No, I do care. You say I have no coherence, and that's your opinion. I could give a shit what you think. My grammar is correct, though, whether you like it or not. Your opinions are irrelevant when it comes to proper grammar.
>>7485279
>I could give a shit what you think. My grammar is correct
>I could
>>7485296
Yes, I could. I choose not to.
>>7482262
Even though this is bait I'd like to pose a serious question.
If there is no difference between men and women and the definitions of "man" and "woman" have no meaning then how can you be a transwomen? If "women" means nothing then how can you be one?
>>7482262
amazing bait, by using the words "oppression" and "educate yourself" you fooled us into thinking your an easily targetable SJW
>>7485307
could a tranny or faggot-enabler answer this question?
>>7485307
Basically no real trans person thinks this. They think man and woman are categories in need of better definition. Even SJW's usually just think man and woman are points on a spectrum, not that they don't exist.
>>7485371
yea except men have penises and women have vaginas so i dont get how a grey area exists unless you have both -.-'
>>7485379
You don't even know what intersex? That's just being pleb.
>>7485379
There are a lot of dimorphic traits. It's kind of arbitrary to pick one set or another as the sole determining factor of sex when they're only mostly, not always correlated.
>>7485385
these things are anomalies, both biological and statistical. there is no need to talk about spectrums and making millions of various sex or gender labels. there are men, women, and anomalies.
>>7485396
That's a perfectly fine taxonomy. Under that system, trans people are anomalies.
>>7483511
>tfw you got me there :/
>>7485279
No, bro, I'm saying by arguing so fucking hard that those sentences don't have any coherence just so you can say you don't need a capital letter, you're the one claiming there's no coherence between those points. If they're related sentences which point out the easily observable, you need to capitalise; if you don't want them to form a coherent point from easily observable phenomenon, then don't capitalise. You want to say they're unrelated, cool. You're arguing that you wrote unrelated random shit with all the correct punctuation. Honestly, you're so triggered at this point, I'm beginning to suspect your grade school teacher raped you.
>>7485399
Not biologically. Biologically they are men who like to dress up as women or vice versa.
The point of disconnect that SJWs don't understand is that the mass majority of people use pronouns to refer to an individual's sex. Nobody gives a shit that you put on a wig and mutilated your dick, they give a shit about your chromosomes. SJWs are obsessed with appearances. It's narcissism.
>>7485417
Yes biologically
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism
>>7485417
>they give a shit about your chromosomes
I've never given any shits about people's chromosomes.
>>7485420
Nothing in that wiki contradicts what I've said. The categorical classification of sex is not determined by brain chemistry, it's determined by chromosomes.
When a schizophrenic goes to the doctor and says that he is not John Doe but actually Napoleon Bonaparte and would like to cut off the bottom of his legs so he's shorter, the doctor doesn't humour his request and hand him a chainsaw, he attempts to mitigate the negative effects of his mental illness. If a tranny wants to dress up as the opposite sex that's fine and dandy; the problrm is not clothes it's a denial of his biological reality. Taking a scalpel to him and bombarding him with hormones so he can join the rest of the post-ops with an outrageous suicide rate is clinically irresponsible.
>>7485429
Assuming you're not a virgin or gay, you do give a shit when you stick your dick in them.
>>7485417
>people see mutilated dicks
society in general is obsessed with appearance
>>7483855
>bake a pie, broad
Is that you Lil' Yimmy?
>>7485451
poor example
>>7485410
>>7484630
You are the one that started the grammar discussion. You are objectively wrong in your accusation.
>If they're related sentences which point out the easily observable, you need to capitalise; if you don't want them to form a coherent point from easily observable phenomenon, then don't capitalise.
You have no clue what you are talking about. All paragraphs should have structure; that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You're wrong, and I can sit here and keep drilling that home all day long. You aren't going to start shit with me, be wrong, and still walk away with your dignity. Fuck you.
I like how you waited 20 minutes after I proved you wrong to post your retort. No, I didn't leave. I'm still right here, buddy.
Once again, capitalizing a sentence after a colon has nothing to do with coherence. It has to do with a list of sentences directly stemming from a statement.
"Look around you: everything was created by men" is proper grammar. Following it with "It's no secret men are more intelligent than women" has zero bearing.
>>7485453
No. If someone had a completely female body I wouldn't care if what chromosomes they had.
>>7485457
You mean equivocating whatever traits are convenient to justify your mental disorder and somehow convince yourself that sex is determined by your presenece or lack of a Y chromosome?
>>7485459control the weather with your fist
>>7485463
ya but if they have a Y chromosome they are male, you cant change your basic genetic makeup
>>7485457
I never moved the goalposts and I never said anything about penises or vaginas, I'm talking strictly about chromosomes you fucking spastic because I'm not the same anon you were arguing with upthread. More than one people in a discussion on an anonymous imageboard, imagine that!
Why not just admit that it's all about male sexual insecurity and stop pretending to be scientists?
>>7485473
I'm not turned on by women because of how what genes they have, I'm turned on by them because of how they look.
>>7485463
They wouldn't have a completely female body if they didn't have female chromosomes. Stop using the term "female" incorrectly.
>>7485473
that is standard 'ordered' gender, but we are talking about disorders, are we not?
>>7485483
thats your objection, it doesnt justify or prove anything about genetics
>>7485484
I meant hypothetically. If it was impossible to tell that someone wasn't female without a fucking DNA sample I wouldn't care if they were male.
>>7485488
mental disorders yes, which have impacts on socialization not physical nature
>>7485484
the term 'female' is being used correctly. there are multiple uses of the term. for example, a female connector isn't so called because of it's chromosomes. female/male is only defined through difference.
>>7485489
thats your objection, it doesnt justify or prove anything about the watergate scandal
>>7485502
more likely a gender disorder.
>>7485506
obviously nixon was assisnated by LBJ, working in conjuction with the Jews and Marx. go back to 7th grade noob.
>>7485483
They wouldn't be women if they didn't have female chromosomes. Stop trying to redefine "female".
>>7485256
I never post but your shit is making me really autistic
>There was a cross European craze of yellow trousers and blue waistcoats as per Werther's suit, not just the suicide craze.
That's a "Sorrows" to European Historical Fashion reference, How do I know if /fa/ posts shit like this?
>You really haven't read Goethe.
Had to go through my library for this.
>you're twelve, right?
>>implying I post on this faggot site sober >>implying I'm sober now
>>>implying you're not fucking trolling me
>>7485516
>Stop trying to redefine "female".
I'm not.
>>7485516
i don't think you're following his argument
>>7485503
We aren't talking about the term female as it relates to connectors, we're talking about the term female as it relates to human sex, of which you are currently trying to redefine to whatever you want.
>>7485526
a female has ovaries and can have babbies, unless they were removed or shes sterile, sorry but if youve had a nutsack at any point in your life you can have babbies nad you arent a real grill
>>7485525
His argument isn't coherent. He keeps trying to use "female" and "women" as something categorically not "female" and "women".
He keeps saying he would be attracted to a female even if she didn't have female chromosomes. This is utterly nonsensical.
>>7485531
Why did you link to my post? We are in agreement.
>>7485526
>We aren't talking about the term female as it relates to connectors
no shit. i was using it as an example of how male/female is used by us to refer to role and difference. you'll notice that females are different across all species but they are referred to as such because of the human imposition of our own gender on other species. there is a loose definition (so no possible 'redefinition') of female that we can get a sense of based on difference, but no fixed definition that has only to do with chromosomes, in all situations. you're trying to dominate the conversation by having us talk about your one specific definition of female as you interpret it, rather than the scientific community at large or even human society at large. of course you're going to win that argument, as would anyone if they confined discussion to their idiosyncratic way of defining things.
>>7485535
You're begging the question by demanding he use language in the same way as you.
>>7485535
no, you're just not understanding it. he said he's not attracted to chromosomes themselves, because no one actually sees chromosomes
>>7485549
>If it was impossible to tell that someone wasn't female without a fucking DNA sample
But it's not impossible.
>>7485560
Dear diary, tifu by assuming that someone on a literature board would have an imagination.
>>7485555
what a shitty use of quads, the only females that actually do this are fat ugly dykes, or str8 up insatiable cunts
>>7485567
i have no idea how that relates to anything i just said
females that actually do what?
>>7485568
are SJWs
>>7485573
what relevance is that?
>>7485555
Now you're making this into a semantic argument. Of course males/females of other species are different from human males/females and there is no Platonic "ideal" of a male or a female. They are useful categorical descriptions we use to differentiate between two individuals based on their reproduction designation. The point is that special snowflakes would like to co-opt these categories and use them to mean something entirely different just on the basis of their unfortunate metal illness.
>I'm actually a fox lol!!
>Yeah but you're not, you're a human
>No I'm a fox you shitlord stop oppressing me lol!!
>Ok
>>7485580
Special snowflakes want to use made up pronouns and invented genders. That's why they're called special snowflakes.
>>7485584
>so uneducated he thinks that any non binary gender model is a recent invention
>>7485565
>tifu
Oh reddit.
>>7485590
There's a difference between that and tumblr xie xer bullshit.
>>7485594
>triggered
>>7485565
>muh hypothetical
But what if unicorns were real bro? Just imagine it!
>>7485580
the point is that it's not really co-opting and they don't mean something 'entirely different' if they're still being used in terms of difference/role. they are still useful categorical descriptions in this way
i mean yes the discussion around gender is #problematic even in these circles and you will often find disagreements e.g. transtrenders vs truscum, but that can be said of any group of people because no group is truly monolithic. but they have more meaningful discussions around their own concept of gender because the science vs feelings idea that people get stuck on is just a screaming match of people trying to dominate internet discussions because they're not doing anything else with their time and they don't have that power elsewhere
Nobody has been more right about women than Patrice O'Neal
Say what you want about his comedy, but his radio speeches are spot on
>>7485371
Okay so on the spectrum what is the "man" on one end and what is the "women" on another?
Most SJWs wouldn't blink an eye if a women said they are 100% female and look like a dude or visa versa.
The statement usually goes "If you say you are a gender then you are it no matter how you look or what you do".
>>7485612
link me to an example.
>>7485600
>the point is that it's not really co-opting and they don't mean something 'entirely different' if they're still being used in terms of difference/role
And the point I'm trying to make is that nobody really gives a shit about the "gender role" aspect except the SJWs, and they're fucking obsessed with it. Are you a dude and you enjoy dressing up like a chick? More power to you. Just don't expect anyone to humour you by referring to you as a female, because you're categorically not. They are trying to make "gender roles" into literally anything but what it actually is (woman with vajayjay hole gets boinked by man with dingding). Hence the obsession with appearances (clothes, wigs, makeup, genital mutilation, etc.).
>>7485612
I love Patrice, and even though I was more a fan of his radio appearances than his standup I've really come to appreciate him much more recently. That nigga was truly ahead of his time and it's a shame he's gone.
>>7485629
>nobody really gives a shit about the "gender role" aspect except the SJWs
>nobody
Yeah, sure.
>>7485629
everyone says he was ahead of his time. can someone please post a link to his comedy or idea that was ahead of his time?
>>7485461
>so much butthurt and still so wrong
bro, as entertaining as it is to watch some sperger lose his shit when reality contradicts him, it's not going to make that sentence not need a capital.
>waited 20 minutes
kek, so much butthurt
seriously, i'd love to see what level you bring the autism to when someone corrects you with your name attached.
>>7485460
Why is his example poor?
>>7485660
It's not. Anytime you see a zero-content response like that it's some triggered liberal shitposting. If it really was a poor example they would explain why, but they're not interested in that, they just want to shitpost and make people draw out the discussion like pulling teeth.
>>7485629
>nobody really gives a shit about the "gender role" aspect except the SJWs
but that's not true considering that those gender roles are used by the scientific community to define the sex of other species, or of anything else not even animal. male/female is defined by roles, e.g. reproductive roles, which are then extended into the social realm. so really they are 'categorically' female if they define themselves by the role they take, and differentiate themselves from the male
also the obsession with appearances is a human trait, not an sjw one, like i previously said. also like i said before no group is monolithic so there's no use talking in these simplified ways unless you want an extremely simple and unconvincing discussion
>>7485519
Yeah, you are autistic.
>That's a "Sorrows" to European Historical Fashion reference, How do I know if /fa/ posts shit like this?
>I didn't get the joke
>now it's been explained, I'd like you to explain why I still don't get the joke
I think you might be too retarded to read anything with allusions, Billy.
>>You really haven't read Goethe.
>Had to go through my library for this.
>I didn't get this joke either
>let me try to gain epeen with instagram tho
Please don't read Goethe. His sick sense of humour will spoil your precious innocence and there's not enough of that in the world any more. I'm not explaining this joke to you until I get your mom's signed permission to tell you about deviant sex practices.
>>you're twelve, right?
>>>implying I post on this faggot site sober >>implying I'm sober now
>>>>implying you're not fucking trolling me
You can't quote, while all the other substance abusing anons manage to quote correctly and get the titles of the works they mean to discuss right. You're twelve because you think being high is an excuse for being shit. You're just shit, Billy, you're just shit.
>>7485660
because thinking you are someone else who lived and died is not comparable to thinking you are yourself, but are confused about the gender. also he literally says guy one is schizophrenic, and suggests the only way to 'get shorter' is to literally remove the bottom of his legs. iirc, napoleon had legs.
it's some guy trying to make a point by posting as many extreme things as he can in a post but it just comes off as an incomprehensible pastiche of other people's arguments if you don't already agree with him that tranny = mentally ill. then you can nod your head and say 'amen' whenever he takes a breath
>>7485680
>making shit up
>>7483527
Holy crap man, it sounds like the only reason you're raving about her is that she insulted women, which I suppose satisfies you.
Now, do you have any fucking idea how it feels to be a prostituted woman, battered wife, rape victim, incest victim, woman in poverty, getting aggressively slut-shamed, your whole intellect denied, and so on and so forth? I strongly urge you to read some Dworkin to get a grasp for the material and mental condition of those women who couldn't be any less "spoiled brats."
I've really read absolutely nothing by Wollstonecraft, but purely from what you say, it almost sounds like she's the spoiled brat who fails to look past the upper- and at worst middle-class women in society; those who never had to suffer from any of the mentioned things.
(But I take it that that's just your misrepresentation of her, or my misinterpretation of your representation of her, and so I'll certainly read her myself eventually...)
>>7485656
>The most common use of the colon is to inform the reader that what follows the colon proves, explains, defines, describes, or lists elements of what preceded it. In modern American English usage, a complete sentence precedes a colon, while a list, description, explanation, or definition follows it. The elements which follow the colon may or may not be a complete sentence: since the colon is preceded by a sentence, it is a complete sentence whether what follows the colon is another sentence or not. While it is acceptable to capitalize the first letter after the colon in American English, British English does not.
It's acceptable to uppercase a sentence after a colon, but it isn't required.
>colon used before list
>Williams was so hungry he ate everything in the house: chips, cold pizza, pretzels and dip, hot dogs, peanut butter and candy.
>colon used before a description
>Jane is so desperate that she'll date anyone, even Tom: he's uglier than a squashed toad on the highway, and that's on his good days.
>colon before definition
>For years while I was reading Shakespeare's Othello and criticism on it, I had to constantly look up the word "egregious" since the villain uses that word: outstandingly bad or shocking.
>colon before explanation
>I had a rough weekend: I had chest pain and spent all Saturday and Sunday in the emergency room.
>Dinner: chips and juice. What a well-rounded diet I have.
This is a similar structure to my sentence. Just because the next sentence is related doesn't mean you capitalize after a colon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_(punctuation)#Usage
Kill yourself. You are objectively wrong and no insult is ever going to make it less so.
>>7485709
I like how you changed from the source that says that it's necessary to wikipedia. It convinces me you're a true scholar.
>>7483527
>She's responding to Rousseau so she's very optimistic about women being tabulae rasae
>Rousseau
>tabula rasa myth
Is there a trash can big enough to fit all that shit in?
>>7485705
I like you dworkinposter.
>>7485694
But his point is that adjusting a mentally ill person's body to his delusions is not ethically sound remains.
Doctors don't indulge apotemnophiliacs either, for example.
>>7485735
it does remain, but it was a poor example
>>7485705
>, getting aggressively slut-shamed
top lel
>>7485683
We generally agree except for this:
>is defined by roles, e.g. reproductive roles, which are then extended into the social realm. so really they are 'categorically' female if they define themselves by the role they take, and differentiate themselves from the male
First part is correct, second part is wrong. Yes it is extended into the social realm but the basis is still the biologically designated reproductive role. If a mentally fucked up male penguin takes on the social role of a female we still don't classify that as a female penguin so as not to hurt its delicate feefees. It's just a very confused male. For some reason we are only willing to make exceptions for mentally ill and confused humans, and in order to do this it means they have to force compliance on everyone else
SJWs and mentally ill people focus obsessively on the social role aspect when that's only one part of it. Go ahead and play with Barbies and wear pink and bake muffins in an apron, literally no one reasonable is trying to stop you or would want to stop you. But you're not a female.
>>7485737
I agree to be honest
>>7482262
>>7482262
>>7482262
>>7482262
>>7482262
I'm amazed at the number of people calling this bait. Are they all individual /pol/tards or other tards? Is it 1-2 shitposters pushing it really hard?
I thought the post was very, very good, and strongly agree with it. And that as a cis white hetero middle-class able-bodied male. Did I miss any privilege markers? Basically the only problem I have is not fitting into the masculine gender role and being overall frustrated over the amount of aggression and dominance in the societies I live in, and being otherwise hyper-sensitive, which all together leads to extreme suicidality. This is a pretty big problem to me personally, but that's aside the point; I'm not under the delusion that just because life is bad for me, it must mean some groups of people can't be oppressed. That just logically doesn't follow, you know. To the contrary, the things that fuck me up are societal problems which are addressed under radical feminism.
And to boot, I even understand some of the arguments of so-called TERFs and agree with some aspects. This transwoman though, seems to have it all exactly right. (Some people misinterpret transgenderism in a way that merely reinforces gender stereotypes; this transwoman explicitly mentions the lack of clearly defined female/male boundaries, so +++ to you.)
Have to go sleeping now so can't argue further, but everyone here is in serious need to get down to read some fucking Dworkin, for several different reasons as we've seen in the thread.
Hell, the recent repetitive recommendations of Dworkin feel perfectly justified after seeing this thread. There have been two very, very big thought mistakes here which would have been cured by reading only Woman Hating, though I can recommend reading much more by her.
>>7485741
in one sense they are female, in another they are not
>>7485741
>literally no one reasonable is trying to stop you
Cause when someone stops you from something it mattets so much whether they're 'reasonable'.
>>7485738
Yeah, having your whole family and friends fiercely hating you and thinking you deserve violence is not exactly a fun life.
We're talking about old-style slut shaming here, where virtually *all* of society participated in it. Consider the following: it's a huge improvement from a couple decades ago that today, publicly calling a woman a slut and a whore is not considered normal, just because you know she had extramarital sex.
>>7485727
Also, are you implying wikipedia is lying? Do you think someone jumped on and edited it just so I can prove your obviously inccorect statement incorrect? Go to bed, kid.
>>7485690
Not the guy you're replying to, but you're the one with the autistic tendencies...
>>7485590
uneducated in the art of sjw liberal arts shill bullshit, perhaps
>>7485775
Nope. There are and have been several cultures with non binary views on gender. This is not a controversial or contested claim.
>>7485778
yea, and one of them is a large group of fat, ugly dykes that use the website tumblr to complain about how they have iphones and live in a first world country
>>7485756
if a girl has a large number of sexual partners, i will call her a whore or slut to her face with no remorse if she attempts to speak to me. its disgusting and nothing justifies it. i know a girl who had sex with 10 different ppl by her 18th birthday and she tried to repair some kind of 'relationship' we had and i told her that no self respecting male would ever want to marry her ruined trash ass and shes better off killin herself, i still feel good about saying that to this day
>>7485756
I don't necessarily think a woman deserves violence for being a slut but you should be disciplined for sure. If you don't like being called a slut then stop having extramarital affairs. Ideally no one wants to marry a woman who has been intimate with other people.
Slut shaming served a purpose in pre-modern society. Modern women think they can have their cake and eat it too (fuck around and then get married after they're used up). That's quickly coming to an end.
>>7485817
>Ideally no one wants to marry a woman who has been intimate with other people.
"Everyone is exactly like me deep down, they just pretend not to be for some reason."
>>7485753
Who is trying to stop you from dressing up like the opposite sex? Be real now.
>>7485752
No. Biologically it is a male who has taken on the social affectations of a female.
>>7485824
>he wants to marry a used up hole
>>7485867
>>he wants to marry
>>7485835
you're just repeating what i said back to me
>>7485817
men only hate women who have been intimate with others because they think their sexual experience will expose the male's inadequacy. literally no other reason
>>7485883
no, quite different, men hate women who have been with others because its disgusting, shows a low level of moral aptitutde, detracts from a relationship, and represents untrustworthiness and disloyalty. but keep justify being filthy, slut, no one wants you :)
>>7485748
Dude, don't side with the autist who won't admit he's wrong when even the grammar site he posted agreed he was wrong.
>second quote
Oh, it's still the same sperger. I guess I could lie to you and say you're right, but it'd hardly be convincing at this point, not least because grammar would go on without me even if I lied to about you being right for the rest of my life.
You're not humiliating anyone but yourself, you realise? It's like hours you've been insisting your wrong grammar is right, as though enough sperging will make your source say differently, you're either a girl trying to troll Dworkin-anon far too subtly with penis envy, or you're a guy who knows he's beta and still regularly falls for PUA scams.
>>7485892
the inadequate male has spoken
>>7485883
I don't think it's that simple. There are other issues of social cachet which all stem from other inadequacies of self-esteem and a subconscious (or conscious) treatment of the woman as an object or conquest. But I also think that these are the kind of men who feel that they only have one great act of intimacy in them. They feel like they can only risk themselves and let their guard down enough to let someone in just one time, which is why they only want one partner for life from the outset. If that falls apart then they feel as if they won't ever have enough trust in them to try all over again with another woman. So if they run into one who has been intimate in the past, lost it, and is still able to try for real intimacy with someone else they feel like she didn't value true intimacy to begin with, because there is no way you could ever bounce back like that if you really cared about it like they do.
Which is all bullshit and insecurity, of course. But I think that plays a part.
>>7485905
>second quote
Who are you talking to?
>>7485875
No I didn't. You've been trying to redefine "female" this entire thread and you're still doing it.
>>7485919
i haven't been trying to redefine it at all. you obviously haven't paid any attention to what i've said, including where i've said "it's not actually a redefinition"
in sum: you're a moron and you should kill yourself
>>7485883
Nope. Men dislike sluts because slutting around destroys the bonding mechanism in females and makes it less likely to be a lasting, stable relationship. There have been studies of this.
You can make shit up about "men being insecure" but it's the equivalent of accusing anonymous strangers of having a small dick. If you presented any man ever with 1 attractive virgin girl and 1 attractive girl who has sucked the dick of ten other guys, they will pick the virgin every single time.
I'm assuming your a woman, in which case I'll tell you this: the men who don't outright tell you you're a whore to your face don't do so because they want to get into your pants, because, being a slut, that's all you're good for. You're not good for a long term relationship. Literally any man who is good with women knows this.
>>7485905
>Dude, don't side with the autist who won't admit he's wrong when even the grammar site he posted agreed he was wrong.
That site didn't say I was wrong. You misunderstand. It said the same exact thing as wikipedia.
>>7484880
>It's like hours you've been insisting your wrong grammar is right, as though enough sperging will make your source say differently, you're either a girl trying to troll Dworkin-anon far too subtly with penis envy, or you're a guy who knows he's beta and still regularly falls for PUA scams.
Would you like some cheese with that wine? I may be debating grammar for hours, but unfortunately for you, it takes two to have a debate.
It isn't difficult: I'm right, you're wrong. Go away, because I'm not. I'm going to be reading for the next 6 hours and I'm periodically going to check this thread. This isn't my opinion and wikipedia wasn't vague.
>>7485772
I think that guy was just pointing out the anon with the Goethe books picture didn't get the jokes. To be a bit autistic about it, not getting jokes and being overly literal in your interpretation of jokes are signs of autism.
Which 4chan definition are you using for the guy without the picture?
>>7485944
>If you presented any man ever with 1 attractive virgin girl and 1 attractive girl who has sucked the dick of ten other guys, they will pick the virgin every single time.
not that anon but if this were real life most would pick the one they had better chemistry with.
you have been in this echo chamber for too long you are starting to become detached with reality.
>>7485944
>Men dislike sluts
you should get the terminology straight if you want to have an actual discussion. i specifically said women who have been intimate with others, which includes having one previous partner. do you think any woman who has had sex with more than one person is a slut? let's clarify
>less likely to be a lasting, stable relationship
maybe because of male insecurity
>You can make shit up about "men being insecure"
i can say the same thing about all this 'destroys bonding mechanism' nonsense has trying to justify why men are so scared of being inadequate around women
> If you presented any man ever with 1 attractive virgin girl and 1 attractive girl who has sucked the dick of ten other guys, they will pick the virgin every single time.
don't bother with this shit. there's no way to confirm this
>I'm assuming your a woman
i have no idea why
>>7485944
>they will pick the virgin every single time.
Spoken like a true virgin. What kind of non-virgin male would want awkward virgin sex?
>>7479576
it's not even worth me responding to this thread but i will respond, just to spite you
>>7485945
You're Kebold levels mad over a joke I made about your mistake. You're not even mad at the guy who rated you minus however many thousand. I can't make you right, I'm not the grand high poomba of grammar. I get the feeling you just need to have the last word to feel your penis is still intact but magically now also visible, so just (You) me and get it over with. It's not going to make you right, but you also might not kill someone over being wrong and the horror of having someone point it out if I let you be wrong and unquestioned. I'd say have a nice life, but you're prolly going to die angry of heart problems, tbqhw/u brah.
>>7485964
>you should get the terminology straight if you want to have an actual discussion. i specifically said women who have been intimate with others, which includes having one previous partner. do you think any woman who has had sex with more than one person is a slut? let's clarify
Yes. If you are a woman and you sleep with anyone who is not your lifelong partner, you are a slut.
>>7485954
>not that anon but if this were real life most would pick the one they had better chemistry with.
I wasn't clear. The two girls in the example are identical except that one has sucked ten cocks and one is a virgin. All things being equal, the virgin will be picked every time.
This obviously is an ideal scenario, so life as a modern male is about finding someone who you have chemistry with and is not a slut, which is very slim in today's age because the majority of Western women like yourself are sluts.
If you think males count sexual experience in females as a "plus" you are 100% delusional and you will no doubt end up living alone surrounded by cats.
>>7485970
Again with the virgin accusations. I have a girlfriend who is a virgin and I've also fucked a lot of women in hs and college. No man wants a used up hole when he could have sex with his inexperienced virgin gf once and then teach her how to be good at sex. It's literally that simple.
This is all nothing new. Anyone who pulls women already knows this. Leave it to the poindexter board of an anime forum to not already know this.
>>7485972
>You're Kebold levels mad over a joke I made about your mistake.
That's why I'm the one going on about penis envy, teachers raping people, etc., right? I'm just so mad.
>You're not even mad at the guy who rated you minus however many thousand.
No, because that's an opinion. That can't possibly be incorrect.
>I can't make you right, I'm not the grand high poomba of grammar.
No, you can't make me right, but thankfully official sources on grammar can. You can go on the wikipedia page, yourself, and see plain as day all of their examples use lower case. This was also true with my earlier source (baring a rule that didn't apply to my paragraph), but you have refused to admit either.
>I get the feeling you just need to have the last word to feel your penis is still intact but magically now also visible
What a crushing blow to my self-esteem, sir. How would you feel if you misplaced your penis on a hunting trip?
>It's not going to make you right, but you also might not kill someone over being wrong and the horror of having someone point it out if I let you be wrong and unquestioned.
It's becoming clear that I mistook you as an intellectual threat. Judging by that sentence, you should still be in grammar school, not trying to correct other people's grammar.
Lowercase letters are perfectly fine after a colon. Lowercase letters are perfectly fine after a colon.
>>7485998
>All things being equal, the virgin will be picked every time.
Nope.
>I've also fucked a lot of women in hs and college
You immoral slut I hope you burn in hell.
>>7485970
Plenty of men covet it in society. You find wealthy men paying top dollar for it all over the world.
It doesn't matter if the guy is a virg. No need to shame over that. Anon shouldn't beat themselves up if they are. It doesn't make you any less of a person. What they need to do is stop this embarrassing hatred. It's poisonous.
All of these guys talk big game but if they found a girl that they had great chemistry with they would drop all of this arrogant bullshit and grab her right away. Because chemistry is the hardest thing to really come across and it's what hits us hardest when we do really find it.
>>7485998
>If you are a woman and you sleep with anyone who is not your lifelong partner, you are a slut.
no use trying to bring up a comparison between a virgin and a woman who has sucked 10 dicks then if even 1 dick would qualify them as a slut. but i suppose your argument doesn't really sound convincing otherwise. one could say it appears inadequate
>>7485998
Your girlfriend is used up as soon as you have sex with her. If you have sex with a woman once and she doesn't become pregnant, you have failed. Neither of you will be taken seriously as romantic partners ever again. You're both used up.
>>7485964
>>7485913
>male insecurity
Strong projection.
Men don't like sluts (for LTRs) because as a woman your value is tied to your sexuality, and as a slut you are used up. Men don't like sluts just like they would rather have a fresh ice cream cone than one that's fallen in the dirt, and they will continue to not like sluts for as long as the human species is here. Better get used to it.
>>7486006
not even chemistry. most guys here would take the first woman to show any interest
>>7485998
>I wasn't clear. The two girls in the example are identical
no two people are identical. they would be two differing personalities. two entirely different people.
this "example" has no basis in reality. it's just some naive shit that you are trying to project onto daily life when life isn't like that at all.
do you even listen to yourself when you are writing this shit out? seriously. do you?
>>7486012
>all this insecurity
>>7486004
Baring=barring*
Sorry, I'm on my mobile.
>>7486012
>LTR with an ice cream cone
another excellent thread with our /pol/ and /r9k/ friends
>>7486012
For some of the anon ITT merely having one previous partner is cause enough to call the woman "used up". And you think that I'm the one projecting when I use the word insecurity. Figures.
>>7486006
>All of these guys talk big game but if they found a girl that they had great chemistry with they would drop all of this arrogant bullshit and grab her right away. Because chemistry is the hardest thing to really come across and it's what hits us hardest
You're objectively wrong. I've pumped and dumped at least two girls I was really into because they weren't virgins. Besides their virginity women are faulty interchangeable and sluts are not marriage material, sorry.
>>7486028
They really are the worst kind of people.
It must be so draining to consciously choose hatred every single day of your life. I feel sorry for them 2bh.
>>7486005
>You immoral slut I hope you burn in hell.
Men can't be sluts.
