Respecting women is the ultimate COPE from cucks, especially male feminist reddit cucks who, having passed a critically SMV-destroying threshold of low-testosterone and incel-tier looks, are now condemned to spend their entire lives defending women without even seeing their vaginas as a reward. Respecting women is so utterly retarded that even mostly bluepilled normalfags were able to make a meme of it, and the meme was only considered "edgy" because it transgressed the social expectation that all men get on their knees and start kissing the ground whenever there's a woman within respecting distance. Just like the "despite making up thirteen percent of the population" meme, the fact that respecting women in no way does them a favour is simply a politically incorrect fact. Women do not want to be respected, and if they tell you they do it's because they feel socially obligated to lie about it.
We all know about women getting beaten up by Chad and not pressing charges against him, sometimes even demanding he get freed from prison after beating her half to death. But did you know that, outside of these fairly uncommon cases, it is perfectly normal for women to be sexually aroused by men getting mad at them and behaving threateningly towards them? Here's some mundane examples from yahoo answers, but it's all over the internet because when women are anonymous they too are allowed to transgress the boundaries of what is acceptable to say and what is not.
A lot of the answers on these yahoo answers questions also talk about part of the woman being turned on by her husband's anger and threatening behaviour being an impulse to fulfill a submissive, "womanly" role. In the last of these questions, a woman answers the question by saying it's perfectly normal and talks about the fact that, when her husband gets really mad at her, "he's just so damn MALE " and that turns her on. She knows her purpose is to get dominated and then bred, and if her husband holds a knife to her neck and calls her a stupid whore her pussy will still get wet even though he's one second away from putting her on liveleak.
Women don't think rationally anyway. They never debate, they just argue. When they argue it's not over who's in the right, but over who gets what goodies. Women don't care about anything for the sake of that thing itself, as a concept, they care about it as an accessory or as something with utility. Trying to reason with a woman is useless for a reason, terrorising them is probably the more efficient way to run a household anyway.
Speaking of knives and murder, the fact that women get turned on by criminals and mass murderers is also well known. Ever wonder why? Because women are not made to be respected by a little puppydog of a man, they are made to be forced into submission. Terrorising a woman int he most needlessly brutal way possible will only make her turned on by you.
Go look up Stockholm Syndrome. Most famous examples of it are women. Women are more agreeable and thus submissive, this is well known. Naturally, when held captive by a dangerous criminal, they are more likely to end up wanting to serve and be dominated by that criminal. Seeing as women themselves admit they get wet over criminals who could kill them and boyfriends who could beat them because being dangerous is sexy and "so damn MALE", should it come as any surprise to anyone that most people who develop Stockholm Syndrome are women? I found no studies on Stockholm Syndrome by gender, but I did find a reddit page asking why most sufferers "seemed" to be female and a bunch of articles by feminists projecting like an imax theatre. If any university wants to do a study on gender and Stockholm Syndrome be my guess, I'll bet my left nut women develop it more than men and for an inbuilt, biological reason.
Imagine if there were no white knights and cops to protect women from domestic violence. If he grew a backbone, the average man could terrorise his woman into submission. Instead of trying to talk rationally to her about her retarded feelings, he could puff up his chest, walk up to her and threaten to beat the shit out of her if she didn't agree with him. Aside from reddit/tumblr dykes whose brains are beyond salvation, do you think the majority of women would even be unhappy with this situation? With the threat not ending the second he's gone and they can use a phone to call the cops, women would just develop Stockholm Syndrome while fingerblasting themselves to how dominant their man is. They would get wet thinking about how womanly they are being dominated, and how able to protect them their dangerous man would be if an enemy male entered the house. They would feel like getting power fucked by him every time they tried to serve him and please him. This is not me establishing this, but women's thoughts and actions which they admit to and live by every day, despite being forced to deny it by society.
She only feels the need to stop submitting to you because you're not in total control once she can call the cops. That makes you weak in her animal brain.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said in the Koran that if your wife is arrogant, you may "strike her lightly". There is a reason it was written down and in this manner. Firstly, I think we all understand why striking a woman is a legitemate strategy for getting her to come to her senses. Secondly, if it wasn't commanded that a man only strike his wife lightly, men would end up beating the shit out of their woman. However, if beating the shit out of women is so terrible and makes them less efficient due to injury, why would people still feel a need to do it after millions of years of humans being social primates capable of pair bonding?
Could it be that reproductively successful women have, for millions of years, been complacent in and sexually aroused by men not only dominating, but also TERRORISING them? And that they are built to be terrorised today as well? Just some food for thought.
We all know about women getting beaten up by Chad and not pressing charges against him, sometimes even demanding he get freed from prison after beating her half to death. But did you know that, outside of these fairly uncommon cases, it is perfectly normal for women to be sexually aroused by men getting mad at them and behaving threateningly towards them? Here's some mundane examples from yahoo answers, but it's all over the internet because when women are anonymous they too are allowed to transgress the boundaries of what is acceptable to say and what is not.
A lot of the answers on these yahoo answers questions also talk about part of the woman being turned on by her husband's anger and threatening behaviour being an impulse to fulfill a submissive, "womanly" role. In the last of these questions, a woman answers the question by saying it's perfectly normal and talks about the fact that, when her husband gets really mad at her, "he's just so damn MALE " and that turns her on. She knows her purpose is to get dominated and then bred, and if her husband holds a knife to her neck and calls her a stupid whore her pussy will still get wet even though he's one second away from putting her on liveleak.
Women don't think rationally anyway. They never debate, they just argue. When they argue it's not over who's in the right, but over who gets what goodies. Women don't care about anything for the sake of that thing itself, as a concept, they care about it as an accessory or as something with utility. Trying to reason with a woman is useless for a reason, terrorising them is probably the more efficient way to run a household anyway.
Speaking of knives and murder, the fact that women get turned on by criminals and mass murderers is also well known. Ever wonder why? Because women are not made to be respected by a little puppydog of a man, they are made to be forced into submission. Terrorising a woman int he most needlessly brutal way possible will only make her turned on by you.
Go look up Stockholm Syndrome. Most famous examples of it are women. Women are more agreeable and thus submissive, this is well known. Naturally, when held captive by a dangerous criminal, they are more likely to end up wanting to serve and be dominated by that criminal. Seeing as women themselves admit they get wet over criminals who could kill them and boyfriends who could beat them because being dangerous is sexy and "so damn MALE", should it come as any surprise to anyone that most people who develop Stockholm Syndrome are women? I found no studies on Stockholm Syndrome by gender, but I did find a reddit page asking why most sufferers "seemed" to be female and a bunch of articles by feminists projecting like an imax theatre. If any university wants to do a study on gender and Stockholm Syndrome be my guess, I'll bet my left nut women develop it more than men and for an inbuilt, biological reason.
Imagine if there were no white knights and cops to protect women from domestic violence. If he grew a backbone, the average man could terrorise his woman into submission. Instead of trying to talk rationally to her about her retarded feelings, he could puff up his chest, walk up to her and threaten to beat the shit out of her if she didn't agree with him. Aside from reddit/tumblr dykes whose brains are beyond salvation, do you think the majority of women would even be unhappy with this situation? With the threat not ending the second he's gone and they can use a phone to call the cops, women would just develop Stockholm Syndrome while fingerblasting themselves to how dominant their man is. They would get wet thinking about how womanly they are being dominated, and how able to protect them their dangerous man would be if an enemy male entered the house. They would feel like getting power fucked by him every time they tried to serve him and please him. This is not me establishing this, but women's thoughts and actions which they admit to and live by every day, despite being forced to deny it by society.
She only feels the need to stop submitting to you because you're not in total control once she can call the cops. That makes you weak in her animal brain.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said in the Koran that if your wife is arrogant, you may "strike her lightly". There is a reason it was written down and in this manner. Firstly, I think we all understand why striking a woman is a legitemate strategy for getting her to come to her senses. Secondly, if it wasn't commanded that a man only strike his wife lightly, men would end up beating the shit out of their woman. However, if beating the shit out of women is so terrible and makes them less efficient due to injury, why would people still feel a need to do it after millions of years of humans being social primates capable of pair bonding?
Could it be that reproductively successful women have, for millions of years, been complacent in and sexually aroused by men not only dominating, but also TERRORISING them? And that they are built to be terrorised today as well? Just some food for thought.
Last edited:
. Maybe milk chocolate. 
