I love fucking love how normie ape inferior retards ALWAYS compare heterosexual rape of a woman to HOMOSEXUAL rape of a MAN. They do the fucking same with prostitution and harassment.
I would not like it, you know little cucked retards, because i am NOT HOMOSEXUAL and you are comparing apples and oranges. You should ask "well why don't you go being paid to have sex with a woman" "What if a woman harasses you, huh?"
RETARDS RETARDS RETARDS.
But it's kinda telling since you can see it's their subconscious mind working here. THEY KNOW men love and crave women but not viceversa so YOU CANNOT just switch the genders and have the same effect. They know the average man is as repulsive to the average heterosexual woman as a gay man is to a straight man. They deny it with words and rationally but when it comes to arguing spontaneously or reacting instinctively they fall back to their subconscious awareness telling them this blackpilled truth.
Of course like the good ape brained cattle they are they are not aware of this process
@GeckoBus @WorthlessSlavicShit
Yes, they always do this. As I say, the proof is always in the pudding. When you dissect their claims, it always comes down to misandry and foid worship. Just ask them what a woman is and what a man is. Or what masculinity is. They will always give you some version of "a man is someone who serves women." Even christians do that. I thought a man is someone who loves God with all his might, heart and soul? Where in the bible does it say a man is someone who protects his wife and constantly brawls with other men to get pussy and female attention?
Does it not say in the OT somewhere, talking about a fallen nation, "and women and children will rule over you?"
Any time they say shit like "men are biologically disposable," they are doing two things:
1. they are subconsciously voicing their own internalized misandry
2. they are literally repeating feminist rhetoric from the 70s without realizing:
According to Carol Mukhopadhyay and Patricia Higgins, the concept of male expendability was first described by fellow anthropologist
Ernestine Friedl in 1975,
[1]
en.wikipedia.org
It is a classic case where people just accept some idea simply because it seems plausible on the face of it. And it seems plausible because they hate men without realizing. Just like in that study I showed, where they found people are way less critical of negative claims about men than positive ones.
Analysis finds that across the board, there is pro-female bias in society. - research findings that report favorably on male traits are viewed as less credible - research that reports unfavorably on women is viewed as less credible - pro-female bias is deliberately misconstrued as being harmful...
incels.is
But when you think about it, reducing the male population to a significant degree would probably just collapse a society instantly. Men are needed for basic infrastructure tasks, raising children (women are horrible at it, as we now know from single mom stats), and having only a few men breed with all women would lead to massive incest.
The reason why the "men are disposable" trope is so commonly accepted is because people are inherently misandrist, so they just accept claims that shit on men with very little thought. Just recently someone here made a large thread where he repeated that claim, that men are just "inherently less valuable because 1 man can knock up 10 women."
No justification was given, neither a counter-perspective provided. They never ask themselves, does this even make sense? Do we have any examples in nature of this? Has there ever been an animal population reduced to 10% of its male population size, and did that animal population recover?
Where did this idea of male "biological disposability" come from? As I quoted above, it is just a flimsy theoretical construct created by some foid in the 70s with very little validity.
In reality the roles are probably inverted. Pregnant women are useless. If the male population was reduced to nothing, then every woman would have to be pregnant 24/7 to make up for lost children. This would fuck up these women, as pregnant women are susceptible to death in childbirth and also can't work as hard since they are pregnant. It would probably lead to a general population collapse with giga high child mortality, as mothers would die, leaving nobody to provide, pushing the burden to take care of all these kids on the remaining men and women.
In the end, everyone would just fucking die, leaving only a tiny group of men and women, probably in a rough 50/50 gender ratio, as always.
If you have a jenga tower with 100 pieces, you can't just remove 30% of pieces and expect the tower to remain stable. Systems are interdependent, can't delete 30% or more of any system without massive fallout.
This goes back into what you always point out, this crazy schizo-mindset society has: Society simultaneously downplays the role of men, saying they are useless, but also pushes hyper-agency on men, implying men are overly important.
Feminists express this by openly calling for male genocide, while also claiming men rule the world somehow. So men are useless and to be disposed of, but also vital to the functioning of the system?
Right wingers do it by saying men are biologically disposable, weak, effeminate, but also the backbone of society and therefore have a duty to keep up the system. As you said in another post, they say the system is rigged but then shame you for not participating in the system. It makes no sense.
Here is an example of an orthodox christian first admitting that men are obsessed with women and even die for them, but then blatantly lying about what the bible says on this.
At timestamp 32:43 in this video.
View: https://youtu.be/48naDt7xqz8?t=1963
TL;DR: He mentions a book from the 70s called "sexual suicide" by George Gilder. He says Gilders main argument was that men literally die for foids, their entire life is based on pleasing foids. He then lays out how Gilder also pointed out that women basically control men and society.
But then the orthodox dude begins lying (33:16). He claims "and this is what men are called to do" by citing Ephesians 5 in the Bible.
This is what he cites:
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,
Walk in Love - Therefore be imitators of God as dear children. And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma. But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is...
www.biblegateway.com
BUT THIS OMITTS THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH WHICH LITERALLY STARTS WITH
"WIVES, SUBMIT TO YOUR HUSBANDS" LMFAO:
FULL CONTEXT:
Marriage—Christ and the Church
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,
26 that He might [
g]sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word,
27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.
28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.
This clearly states that husband and wive should be equally dedicated to each other. Yet the dude in the video twists this most famous of passages into supporting his weird fetish of men as the sacrifical lamb for the foid.
They deny it with words and rationally but when it comes to arguing spontaneously or reacting instinctively they fall back to their subconscious awareness telling them this blackpilled truth.
They also always intantly go for your looks, which is hilarious. Like, if a guy says anything they dont like, they say you look like a pedo, school shooter, you are ugly, short or whatever.
And it's always shit you can't change too.
They also resort to calling you gay as a man. But the same insult is never used on women.
"Ugh, look at that bitch, she is probably a lesbian!
"
"Ugh, shes so, ... emasculated... barf!
"
This is another big tell always - the entire discussion is always about men being broken and needing to change. They never even bring up women in a proactive sense.
Before this gets too long, here is another example. These right-wing podcasts like "whatever" are just advetisements for OF whores. Women know this. One whore said she made 80k just by going on. That's why these women PAY to get on these podcasts. The people running the podcasts know that. It's like a pyramid scheme. Both the male grifters and the whores are fleecing desparte men. That's why most foids that come on these podcasts say nothing and just sit there. It's a billboard. They know just sitting there, guys will leech and drool and look them up.
In this clip, a foid literally admits it (16:34):
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mygPV1gtbw&t=994s
All these "muh strong trad male" guys watch these podcasts and then jump straight over to OF to subscribe to these girls
.
As always, the failure of the "the nuclear family" or any of that is not mens fault. Men are still 100% willing to marry women and have kids. It is women that are blocking mens attempts do that. We know that from what I just laid out. The girl can be a total whore, admit it on a public podcast and still have guys simp. We know it from juggernaut law threads like these two:
A study here shows that very unattractive women are more likely to be married by age 29 than unattractive or average women. Also, another study shows unattractive men were less likely to find a marriage partner than other men whereas this wasn't the case for unattractive women. In the study...
incels.is
The existence of femcels once again debunked (water wet) The analysis of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) shows that very unattractive women were significantly more likely to be married at Age 29 than unattractive or average-looking women, and their spouses or...
incels.is
- For men, the results show that being unattractive decreases the likelihood of finding a partner, of finding a partner with a university degree, and of finding a partner with a higher educational level.
- For women, physical attractiveness does not affect the likelihood of any of those events occurring.
- Among women, physical attractiveness did not matter when it came to mating.
- The results for women indicate that attractiveness did not matter.
Yet the orthodox dude in the video blames MEN and says, because women are whores now, men do not want to comitt to them, and so this is the issue. No. Men still want to comitt, but they are now called simps for doing that. So if a man is comitted to a foid you are both simp and trad male. More on that down below, because it perfectly overlaps. You can't win. You simp for trad-wife = based. You simp for whore = cuck. It makes no sense. Simping is simping.
The entire fall of traditionalism is not mens fault. Men just follow whatever women do. If women choose prostitution as the baseline for what a relationship is now (OF, buxxing etc), then men will just accept that as the new status quo. There is no difference between OF and a trad marriage. It's just the regular wealth and energy transfer from men to women, just in digital form. You still don't get sex and validation from her and you still give all your money and attention to her.
It is hilarious how people point out the cult like nature of these interactions (men literally buying foids poop and bathwater), but fail to point out the exact same dynamics in regular relationships.
View: https://odysee.com/@colttaine:d/Communism-For-Two:3
Anyway, enough. Thx for tagging me, always appreciate it!
