Income Redistribution vs. Sexual Redistribution

[DahmerBoy]

If we lived in a pure capitalistic society, with no income redistribution at all, there would be rampant inequality, no equality of opportunity and extremely high social instability. In order to prevent this we have a progressive tax system and regulations. Even if you are unemployed in the West, you will still have money and live a relatively comfortable life.
However, this cannot be said about the sexual market since the sexual revolution. In a purely unregulated sexual market, which we have almost reached, there is rampant inequality, no equality of opportunity and social instability. Everything that can be said about income redistribution and regulations, which the populace - especially the left - accepts en masse, can be said about the sexual market.

The left will take an anti-liberty/authoritarian stance on economics to ensure social stability and fairness. However, when it comes to the sexual market they will take a libertarian stance and vehemently oppose regulations on the sexual market (e.g. enforced monogamy, social shaming, etc.), because everyone should be free to do what they want and if you don't succeed in the unregulated market then it's your own fault. We need to raise awareness to this blatant hypocrisy.

 

[acnescarcel]

even if it did change it would feel forced the girls still wouldn't like you

 

[DahmerBoy]

even if it did change it would feel forced the girls still wouldn't like you

Regulations on the sexual market were a completely normal thing before the sexual revolution. If faced with fewer options and societal pressure foids will accept their partner.

 

[Robtical]

even if it did change it would feel forced the girls still wouldn't like you

Who cares as long as you're getting sex? I'm sure a lot of the guys betabuxxing for landwhales aren't happy.

Regulations on the sexual market were a completely normal thing before the sexual revolution. If faced with fewer options and societal pressure foids will accept their partner.

High iq. Just like in SEA.

 

[BlkPillPres]

even if it did change it would feel forced the girls still wouldn't like you

I realize more and more over time there are two kinds of incels, incels that deep down want to be normies (failed normie males larping as incels), and incels who just want to get laid like normies (black pilled sexually starved males), guess which one you are.

 

[Robtical]

I realize more and more over time there are two kinds of incels, incels that deep down want to be normies (failed normie males larping as incels), and incels who just want to get laid like normies (black pilled sexually starved males), guess which one you are.

I'm for sure a blackpilled sexually starved man.

 

[Rice Cel]

Fuck income redistribution

 

[micropenis29]

Yeah, it's blatant hypocrisy. The same bleeding heart leftists that obsess over income inequality couldn't give any less of a shit if Chads get all the sex and the other 95% get none of it.

It's beyond idiotic.

Always remember that liberals don't care about rationality or logical consistency in the slightest. Everything is 100% feelz for them.

 

[acnescarcel]

I realize more and more over time there are two kinds of incels, incels that deep down want to be normies (failed normie males larping as incels), and incels who just want to get laid like normies (black pilled sexually starved males), guess which one you are.

if you just want to get laid y not fuck a h00ker? you guys are the ones that are coping with ridiculous bullshit. its 0ver. nothing good is ever going to happen and are situations aren't going to change. you guys are the ones that can't accept it. black pill press? more like delusionalpress. you can't even accept the most basic tenet of the blackpill that its 0ver and always will be 0ver. you think the government is going to go along with this autistic screeching? yeah right. keep coping. get more LMS or rot those are the only two options. the government isn't going to save us and society hates us. "the concept of deserving is inherently false, a slight of hand utilized by society to keep lesser men in there place." stfu u edgelord.

Fuck income redistribution

right. what idiots never understand is that that means all of their money is going to be taken too.

 

[micropenis29]

Fuck income redistribution

Well yeah, fuck it, but the fact is that we already have it. And given that some of my money is being redistributed to Chad's baby mamas, I want some of Chad's foids being redistributed to me.

 

[BlkPillPres]

if you just want to get laid y not fuck a h00ker?

I did once (first and only time I had sex, wasn't all that great, bitch was loose and not really my type), and I plan on continuing, escourtceling is one of my goals, I want to increase my income first though........ so yeah, let me stop you before you even begin, I'm not like some of you idiots here with inconsistent though patterns, I just want to get laid so I have no problem playing for, I'm not larping as if I'm some normie who has their ego tied to the acquisition of sex.

However there's cost to consider, one day i'll move to some third world country with legal prostitution, maybe brazil and just fuck my days away

What always amazes me are the so called incels complaining about how they can't find "love" yet claiming to be black pilled JFL, love isn't real, you just want to fuck, love is an excuse our brains give us to feel there is a deeper reason or higher purpose in simply achieving an orgasm. Stop living a lie and just pay for sex and use your "buying power" or maybe even political power to make it legal in your country, and if already legal make it cheaper.

 

[Angus13]

Economic communism ends in catastrophe, there is no "equality" of classes, we can see in various commie regimes that governments and military elite living far better lives than the average person. Cuba and North Korea are just a few examples that come to mind.

Sexual "redistribution" is a new gynocratic word for what has worked for centuries without anyone calling it communism-- fact: capitalist, monogamous, slut-shaming America fought a cold war against the communist USSR, so anyone saying "sexual redistribution is communism" are full of shit. Communism leads to degeneracy and collapse, monogamy leads to strong families and strong communities.

 

[Robtical]

Economic communism ends in catastrophe, there is no "equality" of classes, we can see in various commie regimes that governments and military elite living far better lives than the average person. Cuba and North Korea are just a few examples that come to mind.

Sexual "redistribution" is a new gynocratic word for what has worked for centuries without anyone calling it communism-- fact: capitalist, monogamous, slut-shaming America fought a cold war against the communist USSR, so anyone saying "sexual redistribution is communism" are full of shit. Communism leads to degeneracy and collapse, monogamy leads to strong families and strong communities.

High iq. Hopefully the cucks learn before it's too late.

 

[Life Wasted]

Yeah, it's blatant hypocrisy. The same bleeding heart leftists that obsess over income inequality couldn't give any less of a shit if Chads get all the sex and the other 95% get none of it.

It's beyond idiotic.

Always remember that liberals don't care about rationality or logical consistency in the slightest. Everything is 100% feelz for them.

 

[Lord Byron]

even if it did change it would feel forced the girls still wouldn't like you

This is the conundrum isn’t it?

We want women to love us for who we are, yet we propose systems that essentially force them to settle for other reasons.

Unless women are free, how can any love be genuine? A woman who cannot work in the same capacities as a man will marry simply for economic reasons. Not love.

Unless women are of age, how will they know enough about the world and themselves to know what they want? They will marry before they can really decide, and the marriage will not endure.

Unless women are safe without the protection of a male partner, how will we ever trust they chose to be with a man at all out of attraction rather than fear of vulnerability?

If we force them, we don’t get what we want anyway. If we don’t, they don’t make realistic choices. Perhaps love was never something everyone was supposed to have. Perhaps only a few men and women were really ever capable of achieving it. The majority were always destined to stumble through life swapping partners, or cursing their loneliness.

 

[OMGFML]

Economic communism ends in catastrophe, there is no "equality" of classes, we can see in various commie regimes that governments and military elite living far better lives than the average person. Cuba and North Korea are just a few examples that come to mind.

Sexual "redistribution" is a new gynocratic word for what has worked for centuries without anyone calling it communism-- fact: capitalist, monogamous, slut-shaming America fought a cold war against the communist USSR, so anyone saying "sexual redistribution is communism" are full of shit. Communism leads to degeneracy and collapse, monogamy leads to strong families and strong communities.

Lol @ thinking the USSR was more degenerate than the West lmao.

 

[micropenis29]

This is the conundrum isn’t it?

We want women to love us for who we are, yet we propose systems that essentially force them to settle for other reasons.

This is what social norms are for. They encourage certain behaviors and discourage others. We have perverse social norms right now in that they encourage women to be promiscuous to the extreme detriment of most men in society.

Unless women are free, how can any love be genuine? A woman who cannot work in the same capacities as a man will marry simply for economic reasons. Not love.

The problem isn't freedom for women, but rather that women have much more than just freedom right now; they have the right to murder their own babies, which of course provides an incentive for them to sleep around and not care whether or not they get pregnant.

Like anything else in economics, when people don't have any reason to account for the costs of their behaviors, they'll simply rack up more and more costs without limit. In this case, women sleep around and get pregnant then abort, or get pregnant and have taxpaying normies and incels pay the costs for raising and educating Chad's offspring.

Women are heavily incentivized to behave this way. If we removed the incentives for such behavior, the behavior would diminish.

Unless women are of age, how will they know enough about the world and themselves to know what they want? They will marry before they can really decide, and the marriage will not endure.

Every single marriage doesn't have to endure. The problem right now is that no woman actually has any reason to even get married let alone stay married; they can just fuck Chads and abort their babies whenever they feel like it (all at the taxpayers' expense).

Unless women are safe without the protection of a male partner, how will we ever trust they chose to be with a man at all out of attraction rather than fear of vulnerability?

One can say this about any relationship or friendship, romantic or otherwise. It's a non-issue. There are always risks in life.

If we force them, we don’t get what we want anyway. If we don’t, they don’t make realistic choices. Perhaps love was never something everyone was supposed to have. Perhaps only a few men and women were really ever capable of achieving it. The majority were always destined to stumble through life swapping partners, or cursing their loneliness.

Right now, society's leftists are disincentivizing stable, monogamous relationships as much as possible. If we fixed the perverse incentives (make abortion illegal, eliminate the welfare state, eliminate public education, etc.) and fixed the social norms (you're a shameful slut if you have sex before marriage) then we'd see a lot more "love" than we see now.

 

[Angus13]

Lol @ thinking the USSR was more degenerate than the West lmao.

I never said that, but you really can't separate communism from feminism.

 

[Mainländer]

This is my fight as a proud sexual Marxist revolutionary.

 

[NoMoreSlaving]

200 IQ post

 

[Robtical]

Unless women are free, how can any love be genuine? A woman who cannot work in the same capacities as a man will marry simply for economic reasons. Not love.

They learn to love when they know they don't have any better options. Plus getting love from a low iq foid isn't important anyway, loyalty and sex on demand are the most important things.

 

[DahmerBoy]

Economic communism ends in catastrophe, there is no "equality" of classes, we can see in various commie regimes that governments and military elite living far better lives than the average person. Cuba and North Korea are just a few examples that come to mind.

Sexual "redistribution" is a new gynocratic word for what has worked for centuries without anyone calling it communism-- fact: capitalist, monogamous, slut-shaming America fought a cold war against the communist USSR, so anyone saying "sexual redistribution is communism" are full of shit. Communism leads to degeneracy and collapse, monogamy leads to strong families and strong communities.

I never advocated for communism. There is income redistribution in the US, in Switzerland, Canada, Germany etc. That doesn't make them communist. Some level of income redistribution is very reasonable to ensure equality of opportunity and especially social stability.
Even during the Cold War the US had a progressive tax system to ensure social stability. The same morality, though more "socialist" than its economic system, applied to the sexual market.

This is the conundrum isn’t it?

We want women to love us for who we are, yet we propose systems that essentially force them to settle for other reasons.

Unless women are free, how can any love be genuine? A woman who cannot work in the same capacities as a man will marry simply for economic reasons. Not love.

Unless women are of age, how will they know enough about the world and themselves to know what they want? They will marry before they can really decide, and the marriage will not endure.

Unless women are safe without the protection of a male partner, how will we ever trust they chose to be with a man at all out of attraction rather than fear of vulnerability?

If we force them, we don’t get what we want anyway. If we don’t, they don’t make realistic choices. Perhaps love was never something everyone was supposed to have. Perhaps only a few men and women were really ever capable of achieving it. The majority were always destined to stumble through life swapping partners, or cursing their loneliness.

As I stated above, foids will accept and even like their partner when they're faced with fewer options and social pressure. By the way, I'm not advocating for the government to randomly distribute foids to men. I want a return to a traditional sexual market with enforced monogamy and social pressure against promiscuity and divorce.

I remember a study I read a while ago which proved that we're happy with less freedom and less options. In the study, a person either could choose between a wide variety of t-shirts, which they then would own, or they would be handed one randomly, without having the ability to choose. After a while they asked the test subjects how happy they were with their t-shirt and on average the individuals who couldn't choose their t-shirt were much happier with the t-shirt than the ones who could choose. The same can be said about women and why they're so unhappy with their partner and why divorce rates are so high. They are confronted with millions of options, so they will never be happy with the partner they have.

 

[Lord Byron]

I remember a study I read a while ago which proved that we're happy with less freedom and less options. In the study, a person either could choose between a wide variety of t-shirts, which they then would own, or they would be handed one randomly, without having the ability to choose. After a while they asked the test subjects how happy they were with their t-shirt and on average the individuals who couldn't choose their t-shirt were much happier with the t-shirt than the ones who could choose. The same can be said about women and why they're so unhappy with their partner and why divorce rates are so high. They are confronted with millions of options, so they will never be happy with the partner they have.

If this was not true, I cannot explain why arranged marriage works so much better than the system we have in the West.

 

[OMGFML]

I never said that, but you really can't separate communism from feminism.

That is true but in the USSR they got their 'freedoms' and that was it. Hoeing wasn't encouraged and girls couldn't even wear makeup to school.

 

[KilluminoidBR]

High IQ Thread.

 

[Looksredpilled]

I never advocated for communism. There is income redistribution in the US, in Switzerland, Canada, Germany etc. That doesn't make them communist. Some level of income redistribution is very reasonable to ensure equality of opportunity and especially social stability.
Even during the Cold War the US had a progressive tax system to ensure social stability. The same morality, though more "socialist" than its economic system, applied to the sexual market.

As I stated above, foids will accept and even like their partner when they're faced with fewer options and social pressure. By the way, I'm not advocating for the government to randomly distribute foids to men. I want a return to a traditional sexual market with enforced monogamy and social pressure against promiscuity and divorce.

I remember a study I read a while ago which proved that we're happy with less freedom and less options. In the study, a person either could choose between a wide variety of t-shirts, which they then would own, or they would be handed one randomly, without having the ability to choose. After a while they asked the test subjects how happy they were with their t-shirt and on average the individuals who couldn't choose their t-shirt were much happier with the t-shirt than the ones who could choose. The same can be said about women and why they're so unhappy with their partner and why divorce rates are so high. They are confronted with millions of options, so they will never be happy with the partner they have.

Thank god someone in here is high IQ and understand human behaviour. Most of ppl on here are so fucking clueless and brainwashed by feminism.

 

[The End]

Women are in total control of sexuality. They will never allow the narrative to be told from our perspective. Whenever we talk about the inequality of sexual distribution, their reactions are to mock us or cry rape. And when women cry rape, they are never challenged on it, because challenging rape claims is seen as tantamount to outright support of rape. It's like how women won't allow men to comment on menstruation or child-birth; we just gotta shut up and do what they say or we're sleeping on the couch tonight.

 

[Angus13]

I never advocated for communism. There is income redistribution in the US, in Switzerland, Canada, Germany etc. That doesn't make them communist. Some level of income redistribution is very reasonable to ensure equality of opportunity and especially social stability.
Even during the Cold War the US had a progressive tax system to ensure social stability. The same morality, though more "socialist" than its economic system, applied to the sexual market.

As I stated above, foids will accept and even like their partner when they're faced with fewer options and social pressure. By the way, I'm not advocating for the government to randomly distribute foids to men. I want a return to a traditional sexual market with enforced monogamy and social pressure against promiscuity and divorce.

I remember a study I read a while ago which proved that we're happy with less freedom and less options. In the study, a person either could choose between a wide variety of t-shirts, which they then would own, or they would be handed one randomly, without having the ability to choose. After a while they asked the test subjects how happy they were with their t-shirt and on average the individuals who couldn't choose their t-shirt were much happier with the t-shirt than the ones who could choose. The same can be said about women and why they're so unhappy with their partner and why divorce rates are so high. They are confronted with millions of options, so they will never be happy with the partner they have.

That seems sensible, I mean the SJWs have been peddling so much entitlement, that a backlash (mostly on the alt-right) automatically jumps to the opposite extreme, ie "if you need help it's automatically your fault and you don't deserve any help." I mean I'm against just giving people free shit, but I'm also against a society where nobody wants to help anyone else.

 

[Robtical]

Whenever we talk about the inequality of sexual distribution, their reactions are to mock us or cry rape. And when women cry rape, they are never challenged on it, because challenging rape claims is seen as tantamount to outright support of rape.

Pretty soon men will stop caring about rape and when they complain it then it will fall on deaf ears. Everyone here supports rape according to sjw landwhales, if we need evidence or say a femoid is responsible for drinking and having sex, then we're rape supporters. Luckily lots of conservative men are fighting back and making fun of those low iq loud mouth cunts.

It's like how women won't allow men to comment on menstruation or child-birth; we just gotta shut up and do what they say or we're sleeping on the couch tonight.

A lot of men still do it. No one will care soon.

 

[Deleted member 1410]

that's why Nazbol is the answer.