1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_labor?wprov=sfla1
2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement?wprov=sfla1
3. If you perform emotional labour to get something like at work and you didn't get that. Would you feel entitled to that end reward? Or is it only women who perform emotional labour? Women are saying we should perform emotional labour for them free of charge. If we don't get anything in return then that's slavery. Are you happy being a slave?
Did anyone promise me a reward at work? Did my boss say "Put on this smile and there's an extra reward in it for you?" I'm only entitled if a formal promise was made to me. Without someone to collect from, I have no entitlement.
And what women are saying we should perform emotional labor for them? This is like you saying someone said "Good looking criminals are entitled to sex." I need you to show me actual people, because I don't know that anyone is actually saying this.
4. There's numerous threads here showing the hypocrisy of entitlement between the sexes which you seem to ignore because of a masochistic agenda.
What threads? And it's key to remember what "entitlement" is. What threads are showing people saying that women are entitled to something just for being women, but men are not, just for being men?
5. Women seem to be duly compensated for their emotional labour. Men not so much. Hell women can financially profit of emotional labour. Where does that come in for the men?
6. Wouldn't you say women have currently an ingratitude complex based on entitlement due to a narcissistic complex?
Now this is not the same thing. Again, just because you get something doesn't mean you were entitled to it. Women get a lot of breaks in society. But that's not the same as an entitlement. They're not "owed" their breaks, society just decided to give them those breaks. Are you asking if women would say "I'm entitled to the benefits of society's 'It's all the Patriarchy's fault' biases?" I don't know that they would, we're not talking about hypothetical people. But any woman who would has problems.
1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unspoken_rule?wprov=sfla1
4. Whose to say those agreements don't exist between the interactions of men and women?
They don't exist because an assumption, no matter how "tacit," is still just an implication. Not definite. Who's to say those agreements don't exist? Who's to say they do? Without someone actually "saying it," there is no agreement.
2. If you mention you have to do x,y or z to get something then you go into the realm of earning something. If you attempt to earn something and you don't get it then that's slavery and if you're forced to keep on doing it without a reward then that's coercion and blackmail.
"Forced?" By who? This is advice. No one's "forcing" you to do anything. Again, they're suggesting it because they don't know that you've followed the advice already. And if they still suggest it after your revealing you've tried the advice already, this is because they personally believe it's worth another try. You don't need to take suggestions of advice as a personal attack on your character.
1. Its a shame when good etc men go lonely. Were just not supposed to bitch about it hey? That's masochism on your part.
5. Are you suggesting we just shut up and suffer in silence and not vent?
I'll direct you to where I said
"No one's saying you don't have the right to be mad about working hard but failing." But understand, the tragedy here isn't that you were "robbed." Nothing was ever promised to you or guaranteed to you, not ever. The tragedy here is simply that you're suffering, and ideally it would be nice if you didn't have to suffer. It's sad when people suffer.
Definition of Unwritten contract in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
4. Oral contract. Do x,y or z to get something. Motte and Bailey defence. "Well I never promised that". Not original or smart on yours or their behalf.
"The main problem with oral contracts is proving its existence or the terms. As one wag observed: 'An oral contract is as good as the paper it's written on.' " If a promise exists that was made to you, who made it? The people giving you advice? That's a bullshit argument and you know it. Pussy is not theirs to promise. It's advice, not a contract. Any action taken by you is presuming the existence of a contract. No action from the "holder" as you coin them is being taken here. If I say you might get laid if you improve yourself, we have no contract, oral or otherwise.
But you're taking it as a contract because you feel "forced" into doing something. And you feel "forced" because God help anyone that would insult your integrity by suggesting anything to you. That's not a normal way of thinking.
1. So you're defending them calling us liars?
2. How do you know we or I didn't do anything. You'd have to take me at my word just like they would. Hearsay.
3. You ever heard of a wild goose chase which it seems that you're defending on their part for us to do.
4. Keep on doing x,y or z with no guarantee of anything. What's the definition of madness again?
1. So you believe we or I have their thumb up their arse? Just like them?
Again I say, "Once you've followed their advice and it doesn't pan out, and they call you a liar, feel free to feel cheated by them." Have you tried to improve? I wanna assume you have. But even if you have, the people giving you advice don't know that you have. Because you haven't told them. And once you tell them you've already tried it, that you don't have your thumb up your ass, and they say "Nah I don't believe you," then they would be in the wrong. But until then, they're just giving advice, and you seem unduly offended by it.
1. They become nonces like in the Catholic Church.
2. How do you know they're keeping to their celibacy vows aka homosexuality.
3. Still doesn't detract youre arguing from ignorance. The probability that people have died from sexlessness in one way or another is the same as what you're arguing.
4. You do need sex to survive. Maslow hierarchical needs. It wouldn't have been included if it wasn't a need. It maybe further up the scale but still a need or it maybe at the bottom which it currently is.
6. What doesn't kill you at the top in the first instance will do so later on. Just goes unreported conveniently. For men that is.
So your answer to these virgins is "How do you know they're really virgins? Maybe they're lying." Fine. Maybe everyone's lying. No one has any proof of anything. So where does Maslow, or anyone, get his proof that you'll die as a direct result of no sex? What makes Maslow the authority? Seems like Maslow is the only one who's saying "If you don't have sex you'll die." Not much of an authority.
4. 2 degrees of causation of death is the same as 1 degree. Murder cases are built on such things.
3. Beer does make a lot of people drunk. Too much of it can kill. Your point is mute.
And no, murder cases are built on who's/what's culpable. Based on who had what responsibility. If a child dies in the care of its mother, the mother is culpable because she has a legal responsibility to take care of that child. If I die because no GF, who's responsible? Does the girl I like owe me sex? No, she has no responsibility to me. Should the person who gave me advice go to jail for "killing" me? No, because they have no responsibility to me. Same as how beer brewers don't have a responsibility to every alcoholic. There is an onus on the drinker to drink responsibly. And there is an onus on the incel to try his best not to crumble under the weight of his own misery.
2. Some strongman have survived without food and shelter. "Man shall not live by bread alone". So you're point is mute here
Again, not for long. You can't starve even the strongest man forever. We have medical proof that human beings need food to survive. Not some "psychologist's" subjective opinion on what makes people happy. That's another thing you're not grasping. Maslow was a psychologist. His knowledge was limited to afflictions of the mind. Not anything physiological. There's nothing "psychological" about starving to death. That's the physical failure of your body, as a direct result of not having food. You can't cope your way out of starvation, but the pseudoscience of psychology is all about finding copes. They're not even the same sport.
2. The government stopped hooker subsidies because they couldn't afford it. Not because it was unimportant. They stop certain health care as well when they can't afford it. Bad analogy.
Yeah, the "certain health care" they stopped was also unimportant. You see, they have the money for it, it's just something else has to go. They can only afford to pay for what's important. That's what "priorities" are. If it's not being paid for, it obviously isn't important, otherwise the other thing would've gotten skipped over instead.
1. You contradict yourself here. If a penis is small enough that you can't have sex but not micropenis then that's infertility and a disability. Society just brushes it off because WOMEN ARE THE GREATEST PURVEYORS AND DEFENDERS OF TOXIC MASCULINITY! Therefore men don't get the help they need.
That's not what infertility is. A small penis is a small penis. Infertility is whether or not your germ can swim. Or whether or not you can achieve an erection. Both legitimate medical disorders, both addressed by our medical system.
1. This just shows you have a perverse sense of masochism.
2. Motte and Bailey style defence.
3. Why didn't they add that disclaimer at the beginning.
4. Why are we being coerced via shaming into following their bs.
You want a "disclaimer?" Again, do you not live in the real world? You don't seriously want everyone with advice to preface with "HEY WHOA THIS MIGHT NOT WORK NO PROMISES" do you? Because you're not gonna get that. It's one of those things we're not entitled to. And Xpel Incels will tell you the same if this is the argument you're bringing to him.
1. 2 examples out of how many.
2. 1 a transgender who hopes that this treatment will be used on her
3. So those 2 believed she's entitled to reproduction. As opposed to sex. "I can't breed".
4. Sex and reproduction are what we've been complaining about. She got access to that but men don't. So women it seems are entitled to that but men not. Is that your take on it?
The question was "Do people have to go by the reason the woman gave?" 2 examples is plenty, because I only ever needed one to prove it was possible. You said they were all donating because they all believe she's "entitled" to sex because she's a woman. I said "No, there are other reasons to donate to a vaginaless woman, and I'm pretty sure people chose their own reasons."
And I don't know where it says Sherman wants that operation. Sherman wants to have a baby of their own. But Sherman can't have a baby because Sherman doesn't have eggs. The two examples don't complain about sex, or having a hole to fuck with, they complain about having babies with your own DNA. Is that what you want? Because if that's really what you want, surrogacy is an option. Plenty of men do it.
1. Under your logic that person isn't entitled to a call back? But reddit seems to think so. Hmm.
Where in that thread does anyone say the person is "entitled" to anything? What's "considerate" isn't the same as what's "owed." It'd be nice if a person's hard work was rewarded, but they were never promised that.
Now, there's the argument for reform, that people SHOULD be promised that. That the job searching process should be fixed. But that's a harder argument to apply to sex and romance. You can say businesses should be regulated so that they can only subject job hunters to so much torture. But you can't say humans should be regulated so that the "right" people end up together. Persons have more autonomy over their bodies than business entities.
Saying you're not guaranteed something in a competitive or combative arena is disingenuous when dealing with interpersonal companionship based on a quid pro quo friendship.
Why are friends with benefits getting sex as opposed to merely guy friends? What's the non sex getting guy friend getting out of that friendship?
If you're not getting what you need out of a friendship, you're not obligated to be part of the friendship. If you wanna have sex with your friend, make a friend who will willingly have sex with you. But friends don't "owe" each other anything. That's the beauty of friendship, they give and take because they choose to and want to.
Also adding that if "rape survivors" don't have to go into detail about their experiences then why should we?
Okay... even rape survivors must first say "Hey I'm a rape survivor and don't wanna talk about it." A rape survivor must first let the person know they don't wanna go into detail. Second, getting raped and trying to self-improve aren't the same thing. No one's asking you to relive any pain, just tell them what you've tried. Third, the sexless are looking for a way to not be sexless. That's why people give them advice. What would a rape survivor be looking for that anyone would ask "But can you tell me how the rape went?" And IF they were looking for that, whatever it is, I'm sure they'd understand the necessity of explaining whatever they needed to explain.