Lurker > Sad_Face

BurmesePenguin posted...

Twitter person: Tate is accused of pimping, raping and beating women

Peterson: I can not forgive pimping!

Read "Pimp: Story of My Life" by Iceberg Slim. Pimps tend to also rape and beat their women, so it generally goes without saying if you admonish pimps, you're also admonishing their harsh treatment of women.

Soon? No. The biggest boon of the deal for MS and major blow to Sony is that Sony no longer gets exclusive DLC and marketing perks for Call of Duty. MS committed to bringing games to Sony consoles, but that doesn't mean they have to market them. MS is going to spend the next decade rebranding CoD's image to make it look like an Xbox franchise to eat away at Sony's marketshare.

bsp77 posted...

And both signed up Oct 2010 and have similar views (even if one give long posts and one gives just comments). I can't be 100% certain but would be surprised if not

Sillyface interprets my posts properly for the masses. Why would I have an alt to do this when I could just post it myself? The only reason I can think of is to attempt an appeal to majority fallacy ("oh these guys all think it's a good idea so it must be a good idea too!" ). Obviously not going to work with just a couple other guys and I already don't subscribe to appeal to authority so obviously I wouldn't subscribe to that either.

You can wish for me to disappear however you please but search your feelings, you know it to be true. I spoke nothing but the truth that you very well believe too!

Gladius_ posted...

You're a random dude on the internet and you aren't more sound or more knowledgeable than dedicated researchers. Yeah, experts get things wrong from time to time. Then it's corrected in the future. Unqualified people get things wrong when discussing things they don't understand or have experience in more often than the dedicated researchers. That's why I've had to educate you on very key details that should have challenged your mindset on your stances but instead you circled back around and tried to figure out how to come to a conclusion that works with the new revelation to parrot the same mindset.

You educate me on the facts but you don't disprove my points (unless it's about you personally from this topic here). You can gloat about schooling me on evolution but it means fucking nothing to me since it was merely your rebuttal in your claim that what women want in a man has evolved. That is not true and the evidence is not on your side.

It's not enough to bring up data, you have to use it to prove a point and you don't do that. You bring up a solution and make a conclusion that "They used X to solve the problem therefore X was the problem". That is shallow and face value. In addition the point has to be accounted for in both micro conditions and macroconditions.

Whatever, I'm tired of this. You don't believe in the point of gender norms, you don't think men and women are valued differently because of the value of the womb versus the abundance of sperm. And you keep blaming shit on the patriarchy (as if the matriarchy has done shit for who), the same one that brought accessibility of contraception.

And do note that you don't need credentials to make a point. That appeal to authority inhibits true exchange of ideas and intellectual discourse. There's a reason why 4chan has been one of the most influential sites on the internet and offers insane insight.

Gladius_ posted...

Your "Essays" are irrelevant. You aren't qualified to extrapolate what you see out in the world and come to reasonable conclusions over actual researchers who are conducting studies in this field. You don't even understand the work that is presented in these studies. I literally do this for a living. Currently I am one of the team leads regarding a study that has to do with young gendered minorities here in the united states and this project will not be complete until 2026+.

Not once have you challenged the points I made regarding the dynamics from "Women control access to sex and Men control access to relationships". Do you even believe that statement?

And I don't care about what's considered qualified or being an authority. The investing world of bloated with people abusing their credentials and researchers who get things wrong but get a soapbox anyway because they're "qualified". The medical world is filled with antics of lobbyists paying off researchers to push medicine and whatnot as factual. If the logic is sound, it doesn't matter who it comes from as the logic is indisputable.

bsp77 posted...

Allowing a couple to determine their own roles is unsustainable? Lol, okay dude

You misunderstand me, the nontraditional norms being followed are unsustainable. I haven't made a statement how they're determining their roles relating to the sustainability.

Gladius_ posted...

Progressive values have very little or no bearing on the rise of unhappiness nor do they have any baring on birth rates. This is arm chair speculation from red pill communities that have never done an ounce of research in this field.

I wrote essays upon essays in this thread regarding one traditional gender norm's deprecation causing a shit ton of problems including the OP's tweet. Stop deflecting. A comment on the consensus and state your case for sex before marriage.

bsp77 posted...

Those are traits though. I don't believe in the gender roles of men being the breadwinner and women being the homemaker. Now if it works for certain people, and both are 100% on board, then that is fine.

This is why I abstracted the concept of social norms as easy bake strategies for success, happiness, and getting along in society but they aren't one size fits all or the best strategies possible. However, if you go against traditional social norms, your mileage will vary.

Currently the social movement to push against traditional social norms (the traditional gender norms in particular); the alternatives they're presenting are wholly unsustainable and are causing more problems. This topic's OP is a tweet that is derived from the deprecation of the purity female gender norm. And we discussed that indepth among touching on other norms previously.

EthanSilver posted...

The problem is in bringing it in like it's something statistically prominent/relevant.

Dude, my original statement is in #250. You interpreted it as me generalizing. I did no such thing. In fact, I want to know how prominent it is. She is only talking about her experiences in dating liberal guys versus conservative guys.

The games I've seen of Brawlhalla, it's so freeform in movement that it feels like the platform layout of the stage isn't as big of a factor compared to Smash. One thing I really appreciate about Smash, the evolution from Melee to where we are in Smash Ultimate is the off stage play and the ledge trapping. This is equivalent to pinned against the wall in traditional SF type fighters but this is where the platform fighter genre shines in differentiating itself from the like.

EthanSilver posted...

You're full of lazy generalizations aren't you? Is it how you cope with your beliefs?

Liberal here who holds doors.

Bet your world view just shuttered.

Not my words, it's hers.

https://www.tiktok.com/@ms_petch/video/7239744324483845422

EthanSilver posted...

One can both encourage certain things/traits, while at the same time not being a zealot or rigid about them.

This was addressed previously in the topic. If a populace wants to get people to go with the status quo, they'll shame them to get in line if they act against it. In addition to obviously encouraging and praising supporting the status quo.

You want me to be more liberal minded, no? People have already called me misogynistic and whatnot.

Now about that consensus...

I am writing so much but I don't know if we have a consensus on the statement "Women control access to sex, men control access to relationships".

Sillyface_Mcdum posted...

That actually raises a good point, which is that the end consequence of no gender norms is basically men almost never doing things women actually like, like chivalry, providing, protecting, approaching, etc. because it's simply all been phased out of culture. Women suffer this probably more than men, actually

Hard to imagine what hetero relationships would even look like with fully homogenized genders

Now I'm reminded of that one Tiktok of a girl lamenting about liberal guys completely treating her as an equal in every sense while conservative guys do stuff like holding the door, offer to pay for her meal, but they're conservatives. I am very curious to know how many ladies echo her sentiments.

Torgo posted...

What are the standards for a man?

Abstractly speaking, traits that demonstrate the man will behave in such a way that he is reliable, is a productive and contributing member of society, and can and will handle the responsibility and commitment of taking care of his wife and raising a family and guiding his children to be productive and contributing to society like him.

What traits exemplify this? Depends on the culture. But I'll point to the boy scouts' 12 principles;

A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.

However, there are social norms to ensure harmony among participants of a society and said norms are also adopted to optimize one's chances of success. Because men and women are different, there are norms exclusive to both of them aka gender norms. Makes sense why gender norms exist and how standards are derived?

Think of norms as equivalent for most accessible and easy to deploy practices to be accepted in society and easy bake strategies to find a minimally acceptable level of success. Does this mean that these norms are the best way to live? Absolutely not, everyone is different and has different ideals, values and interests. Do they mean that they're the only way to live? No. There are a gazillion ways to skin a cat. However, it's a set of time tested strategies that generally work if you don't have any idea on how to live life. If you're smart, go on the off beaten path and you'll still be fine as you'll figure it out. If not, stick to what works or you're screwed if you don't get stupidly lucky.

Gladius_ posted...

Sadface you mention without enforced gender norms then men will have no standard to point to what makes them a man and I ask.. why does it even matter? Yeah, some women are upset men aren't approaching as often, some women are upset more men are being open with their emotions, and some women..

Because the alternatives presented to challenge the established gender norms are causing more harm than success (the example I gave of feminizing men and the point of deprecation of chastity till marriage gender norm being exploited), we have a rapidly growing population of men who suffer from being either directionless, can't figure out their life, can't find a girl to call their own, and are checking out of society. The general populace isn't helping them as we don't have strong male role models to aspire to be like and so they will eventually gravitate to the redpill society and follow peeps like Fresh and Fit or Andrew Tate. Or they go through extremely drastic measures in the opposite direction to find acceptance with the current status quo.

Makes sense?

Masked-One posted...

Social regulation is different from the GOP pushing anti-abortion/anti-alimony/etc. laws. It's simply shaming certain types of behavior. People already do that.

Thank you.

Social shaming is exactly what half the posters are doing to me, name calling to get me in line with the rest of the status quo. And social shaming in general is already what happens in cultures all around the world. It's extensively used in Asian cultures as they are more collectivist and and as a result people's decisions are generally shame influenced (what would everyone think of me if I did this?) versus our Western culture that is more individualistic and our decisions are guilt influenced (how would I feel if I did this?).

In any group or population, people's behavior will be regulated to maintain a certain culture; whether through direct law and enforcement or through social shaming. On this site, we have moderators and the reporting system as the equivalent of law and enforcement while the users name and shame for social shaming.

What would I do without you or Sillyface_Mcdum to interpret my armchair psychology? GOD.

Gladius_ posted...

Weird, you already acknowledged that I have no problem with men who are in touch with their emotions (though, I disagree abolishing gender norms in any way would 'feminize' men.) You're under, again, the misconception that I believe every guy should be the opposite of masculinity. Again, when I say enforced gender norms it's the idea that men "must" be that way that I oppose or that women "must" be a certain way.

I could nitpick more about your marriage (the financial contribution in particular I want to speak on) but now I'm hitting speculation points for others and I have to take your word for it. But simply put, I don't buy it, that you happen chance married a guy who still has been able to maintain typical male norms. But I won't bring it up again. In fact, I will acknowledge defeat in that you're just built different, extraordinary and completely atypical of your female contemporaries.

Now regarding the above. I am going to point to to this line:

for any rule; If it can, it will be first be used, then exploited, and then abused and over time make things worse for everyone.

We can all agree that the ease of access to contraception and abortion is a major economic, behavioral and reproductive freedom boon for women. Probably the biggest advancement of freedom for women of the last century (yeah, I would argue more than the right to vote... maybe). However, all of thousands of characters I've written in this topic regarding the point of "Women control access to sex, men control access to relationships", a key enabler, the key exploit that was used and abused to generate all the problems I spoke about is in fact that very same advancement of freedom for women. Is it worth it? That's basically what country is divided on (granted most people aren't thinking of all these implications).

So when you talk about abolishing enforcing gender norms, I say you're being idealistic. Right now we have news of women complaining that "men aren't assertive enough, men don't approach enough, men don't do this. Men don't do that. Where are all the good men at?". Literally in fact complaining about feminine traits (yes, it's acceptable for a girl to not be assertive, not so much for a dude). And the implication of not enforcing any gender norm means there will be no standard for what a man is.

What I wrote about previously in this topic are problems arising from the cultural deprecation of the female expectation of chastity. And you want to remove (enforced) ALL gender norms?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


It's an adage to teach guys to have a tough exterior and also to prevent the risk of a relationship going south as there are cases of guys showing weaknesses and seeing the attraction his significant other had for him disappear. Some ladies aren't affected, some are. However, I'll give you this.

"Men should be providers."

My husband makes half of what I do.

You claimed to outrank the majority of populace in terms of salary. You are a reasonable and very thoughtful person and so you made the decision to be more lenient on value of salary to improve your dating pool size. However, "I make more money than him so I broke the gender norm" misses the point of that gender norm when you still expected him to have a respectable career for himself. The point of this gender norm is to emphasize that if a dude is making $250K a year, he would likely be okay if his spouse wanted to be a homemaker from early on. Could you accept the same role if he voiced the same sentiments early on in your dating relationship? Many women wouldn't be okay with this if a guy proposed such a condition.

"Men should be tall."

Husband is 5'7.

I'm 5'6'' and half my family is short. And they have families of their own too. I don't know your point here as I've never said short guys can't get find a companion of their own. Also, you're shorter than your husband no? You'd rather he be shorter than you? Aren't you short yourself? Women tend to want their man to be taller than him but I can imagine a number of tall girls would be lenient so they can have a reasonable dating pool size.

So let's see.. my husband is on the shorter side, isn't a financial provider, is a nerd, is in touch with his emotions, but just because he can do martial arts he suddenly "upholds basic gender norms."

So from your own silly viewpoint unless he is the opposite in absolutely every category he fits somehow with "upholding basic gender norms" and if that's your stance then I guess everyone does in some way because we all have a pulse.

Here's the thing, you have claimed that you chose your husband because he was able to make you feel safe and you talked about how he had a respectable career and demonstrated competence. You can talk about his awesome personality and zany hobbies but for him to get his foot in the door so you can give him a chance to show his sensitive side in the first place, he still had to hit basic expectations, ones you share with the general female populace. However, these expectations are not inherently shared by the male populace in what they want in a woman.

This is why I push back on you so hard, you keep pushing for the abolition of gender norms when worst case scenario is that you create a population of feminized men that not even you or other women would be attracted to. Fighting for the forced abolition still poses the same problem because for any rule; If it can, it will be first be used, then exploited, and then abused and over time make things worse for everyone. The things I discussed previously with bsp was simply because the exploit abused by the leniency provided by the lack of chastity.

bsp77 posted...

But why does it matter if she is a virgin? That has nothing to do with her potential dedication and desire to start a family.

Two reasons. First, it's not just starting a family, I need to ensure a certain family culture is instilled in order to pass on what wealth I can pass on and not have it wasted. That standard is a good demonstration of the ability to discipline oneself in choosing to delay gratification and not go with the flow of what the rest of the world does. Or could just mean she's too sheltered (if her social skills aren't up to par).

Secondly, my friends were not praising my friend's marriage in jest. That was genuine praise. I was there, and read the tone. So I'm making a statement against today's culture. This is the standard I will demand. If I do nothing, if no one does anything, there's nothing stopping a world where an early 20 something year old guy should fully expect that if he finds a girl in a my community, he will be raising some bozo's son. My friend was in his late 20's when he met her, no reason why this won't escalate and get worse.

And you say people shouldn't settle, but it's the problem of them having unrealistic expectations. If a girl screws up with some dude, has a kid for him, she should still have her fairy tale happy ending with a guy with zero baggage and everything she and other girls could ever want? What about on the flipside? If a guy does everything right, his best option is a girl who messed up monumentally? Come on now.

bsp77 posted...

That sucks. Truly. But still what is the actual solution? You can't enforce anything. A big problem is way too many people think pulling out is viable birth control. It isn't. It is stupid. Not saying that was what happened. But unplanned pregnancies aren't common at all with proper birth control.

A lot of people in general are that reckless. However, it's a low income community, they're more inclined to carry the kid to term since they have nothing else at stake to lose having the kid. In higher income communities, when someone's career is on the line, other, more desperate measures are taken for those emergency accidents. I know personally when I was in college of two... desperate measures to handle such accidents. The reason being the uni has a rule that if a girl were to be pregnant in undergrad, she'd be expelled. Couple this with the high tuition and their future career going to a halt and there you have motivations for... such drastic measures.

But for solution, some kind of regulation (governmental or social or environmental) of human behavior historically worked.

bsp77 posted...

I understand your point. And if everyone waited until marriage would it improve some societal problems? Sure. However, the morality police is never a good road to go down. This can then be expanded to lots of other things that could be changed for the better of the majority, and could include things such as suppressing certain LGBTQ rights or other religions. If you keep enforcing things for the betterment of the majority, the sum total of all of those decisions would lead to almost everyone being suppressed in some manner. It would be totalitarianism.

There's a delicate balance between maintaining a healthy dose of conservatism and liberalism. One stagnates society and everyone is miserable in worst case scenario while the other could cause total anarchy and destruction society in worse case scenario at the other spectrum. This is why the morality police exists; society needs to keep behavior in check to keep running but not too many so it can compete with other societies.

Am I looking for someone, nope. Need to get my career in order. But when I'm in the dating game, my standards are going to be unrealistic, simply put because I'm going to look for a virgin bride. The reason being is that one of the few accomplishments I'm proud of requires extreme discipline to accomplish. Therefore if I'm going to start a family which requires me to share my spoils from said accomplishment, I need to find someone who can get with the program else everything I've sacrificed for will be wasted. In addition, I've seen some divorce statistics, I need to minimize the chance of that shit as much as possible. I have shit to lose, and I refuse to take unnecessary chances.

bsp77 posted...

The argument is very MAGA. Let's return to the good ole days. The problem is that the good old days was typically only good for those in charge - white, male, straight, Christian. Just to stick to the argument though, many women weren't happy. The funny thing is that your argument is focusing on how it is best for women but they were more adversely affected. Well, guys who were secretly gay were adversely affected too, but I digress.

For me, I married my first gf and that was a mistake. We both realized we should have grown up more first. Now, I did get my daughters out of it, so hard to regret, but in terms of relationships, I needed the extra experience. I am much happier and more confident with my fiance because I spent some time with quite a few different women and learned what I actually need and want. And I keep in touch with many of those women, and they have found men better for them than I would have been. It is all about compatibility, and sexual compatibility is a part of it. Sometimes people wait until marriage and realize there is no real spark.

That's a respectable point but unfortunately, the world can't afford to give so many people this much leeway to figure themselves out without significant sacrifice. You say this is a white Christian Male solution, but this a worldwide cross-cultural solution that has stood the test of time for millennia. Every demographic wants this solution desperately. Why? Babies are born in the process and need their parents to commit to the job.

I was just on jury case where we put away a guy for drug smuggling. Where I live, a low income minority community, this is rampant and the guys who get caught up in this, it's a practically a predictive factor of whether or not they're likely to be in this field by their lack of fatherly presence in their home growing up. This, the problem of crime, is just a smidgen of the host of other problems arising when a father isn't home. And we significantly reduce this problem by getting the guy to commit to the woman who is gifting him kids as opposed to gambling on whether the guy will step up and do his job when he's not living with his family. You don't have to be a ladies' man to recognize how this dynamic of sex has such a vastly wide implication for society.

I am begging you dude, while we know both guys and gals can get horny as hell, look at the basic point of chastity before marriage as an example of delayed gratification versus instant gratification and consider the trade offs.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I am also an extraordinary armchair investor so no offense taken. Without stepping foot to get any experience in the inner workings of finance, I shall give you the most important of investment advice; buy Chainlink; they're revolutionizing finance by connecting banks' private blockchains (linking blockchains yo, it's in the name) together to handle their disputes and settlements quickly and securely. SWIFT announced a pilot program for this last month and you can read more, googling "swift explores blockchain interoperability" where they're working with BNY Mellon, Citi, the DTCC among others on this.

Now regarding your bolded part, to give context, I made the claim in rebuttal to you that it was impossible for women to have evolved to the point that what they find attractive in men has changed over the past 50 years. In response, you pulled up a paper showing that evolution can take place within 50 years or something (with I assume humans).

So is this the L you want to bring up? That you schooled me on the definition on evolution in your argument that women's tastes in men have evolved to be different in the last 20 years due to the social movement of challenging gender norms? Can you prove this? When you, a champion of destroying gender norms, married a man who upholds basic gender norms every woman expects their man to uphold?

It's not enough to correct facts, you have to prove to points. If I did make the wrong assumption that women only sleep with guys because they were pressured into it and not because they also wanted it, it wouldn't disprove my point because my point revolved around Action -> consequence. Intention isn't a factor.

You bring a lot of facts and data, but they don't necessarily prove points. Quick example: right now, males are going to college at a noticeably lower rate than women in the US. If the government implemented a country wide program where every male who enrolls, he gets free tuition and a $50K stipend for attending for 4 years, male rates will significantly improve, but does this mean money was the issue for male attendance? It definitely is a solution, but it's another case to prove it was the problem. So when you come up data, you still have to use it to prove a point. You've done this before, where you pulled a story of X government implementing a monetary program to solve a problem so you concluded money was the problem. That's a shallow interpretation of the data.

And since you're here, I'm going to also use your online dating experiences as another talking point. When you tried online dating, you were fed up with guys who kept asking for "netflix and chill" or some variation within days of meeting you. If there was an expectation for women across the board that they were waiting till marriage, guys would instead go through the whole courtship ritual; thereby significantly reducing this occurrence (save for the rebels) and make your and every other girl's dating experience much easier.

bsp77 posted...

I wasn't saying the virgin part as an insult. Just that you don't have the experience with women to know what you are talking about. I also think your conservative nature is making it hard for you to come to terms with how much women enjoy sex.

Then show me in my logic. Saying "women like sex too!" or "women don't think about what you're talking about!" doesn't change the dynamics between the two genders; i.e. how women's deliberate choices to go for instant gratification (sex) can and do end up backfiring on them collectively with making it more difficult to secure marriage. There's a reason why men control access to relationships. And there is a huge historical precedence on how societies made men commit to marriage.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but at least sleep on my points. This conservative nature didn't derive from "I was raised this way so everyone should think the way I do". It came from looking at society, recognizing flaws, understanding the historical precedence behind why it originally came to be and coming to the ultimate conclusion of "an individual's actions influence society, big or small, whether or not someone witnesses it or not". I acknowledge it's not at all easy to see this before it affects you personally, especially if you're a benefactor.

bsp77 posted...

I just realized that you are simply really conservative and a prude about sex (and likely a virgin).

There is no point in this discussion with you.

"You're just a virgin!" Timeless insult. But it doesn't refute my argument.

I understand you're an older poster and have lived quite the life experiences; but that doesn't guarantee you have an understanding of the dynamics of how and why things happen within the experiences you have. And I can understand if it's doubly difficult to understand the flaws of a system despite finding success in it.

At least consider how the tweet in the OP "Girls should use guys for sex too!!!" ties into what I'm talking about.

bsp77 posted...

Way too many words to respond to above what I quoted. And the very basic thing I countered with is still true. Most women aren't thinking through this tradeoff you proposed, because they simply want to have sex! At least the women I know really enjoy sex.

Just because they're ignorant of their actions, doesn't make the consequences of their actions nonexistent. Nothing of what you said refutes my argument.

This is something I think a lot of people have trouble with. There are ripple effect consequences of behaviors that take time and a certain population of people to cause noticeable real world effects. Just because the consequence isn't immediately apparent like getting tipsy off of booze and noticing you're struggling to work out or have the same physical performance the next day, doesn't mean it's not there.

This hookup culture took decades to come into place, a cultural transformation to accept sexual freedom, all while being accelerated by technology, leading us to a world where that knucklehead tweeter in the OP can't figure out why guys can't commit.

As you said before, men have a hard time committing, but we had external social factors that remedied this previously to prevent this type of problem from happening.

And yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but they're simply that; exceptions to the rule. Don't count on the average joe to be a gatekeeper of sex, nor some average jill to dictate when she's getting married if she's in a relationship.

bsp77 posted...

That whole argument is invalid because it assumes that women don't want sex as bad as men. They do, they are just more likely to want it in the confines of a relationship while men are less picky about that aspect.

Once properly dating, women are horny af. Often more than men. Most don't want to wait for marriage either.

I see no conflicts with my points. A girl could get her sexual needs satisfied early on at the cost of making it more difficult to secure marriage, OR she could delay her satisfaction to secure marriage earlier.

An analogy that everyone goes through is saving/investing in the future versus spending on pleasures. I would absolutely positively love to go backpacking in Europe but I chose to put my money in BTC/ETH/LINK/what have you and so I am financially sound for the future as opposed to blowing my paycheques on traveling in the years I was investing. Conversely, we hear of stories of people who are traveling on loans and not saving anything for the future. Delayed gratification versus instant gratification.

For women and sex, it's the same way, if they collectively delayed gratification, they could get sex AND security much more easily. But as it stands, many girls are struggling and not making it to the end goal. But what your post serves to do is demonstrate just how high the bar for discipline needed to exercise what I am arguing for. It's rough out there for the ladies.

Sillyface_Mcdum posted...

You're totally misunderstanding what he said. He didn't say women don't want sex, only that they also want security. They're trading one for the other in his thesis (well, gambling one for the other to be more precise).

Perfect, thank you.

bsp77 posted...

Actually he did and it does. There is an assumption that she would only sleep with him so that she has a chance at marriage. And she can't play the chastity card because another women would sleep with him, so she must sleep with him to even have a shot. It is sexist and denies women's own sexual needs.

Never implied such a thing. But if you inferred this, my apologies and allow me to mention that women have an organ dedicated to sexual pleasure if to help illustrate I am aware that a girl would have other, more selfish reasons to find sex.

That being said, it is not an uncommon reason why a girl would have sex. Anecdotally speaking, I went to this one university where there was an all female affiliate college right across the street. This caused a ratio discrepancy between males and females in undergraduate and because the college they're going to is considered "inferior", a lot of the side college girls are pressured by the culture to sleep with the guys from the main university to compete with girl who go to the university. And so they do, and so guys then expect girls from the college to sleep with them on the first date which gives them the reputation of easy. And so any girl who goes to the college and wants to date is pressured into the culture thus continuing the depressing cycle. In fact, it's so prevalent there's a saying; "A *college girl to bed, a *uni girl to wed", substitute the asterisks for the school names.

With the male:female ratio skewing way in favor in males, this type of behavioral dynamic is popping up in other colleges (for the guys in the dating world, not the bros who can't get any), and is dubbed the golden penis syndrome. You can also look at HS girls' experiences as well, it's eye opening how many are pressured into it.

Just because older women are used to this culture doesn't mean it's not still in effect. Most people aren't aware of this. Hence knucklehead tweets like in the OP.

Also, I want you to elaborate on this

It is sexist and denies women's own sexual needs.

You were the first one to state that women control access to sex and men control access to relationships in this topic. Why would you say this? You don't think this dynamic directly affects behavior? And if you do think it does affect behavior, point out the flaws in my logic. There are also benefits to men who support the chastity till marriage as well even though I haven't brought up those points (not needed for my argument in this topic).

Nasty_Nitro posted...

Women get rejected for marriage tho. They find themselves messing with a dude who wants to bang f*** sleep but not buy a ring which ie a heavier rejection

bsp77 posted...

I have always said that on average, women are the gatekeepers for sex but men are the gatekeepers for a serious relationship

Indeed. And, going on a tangent here, this is one of the primary arguments for chastity before marriage; the behavioral dynamics between the two genders. Once the girl is sleeping with the guy, she's waiting on him to take the next steps and formally and legally commit to her. The ball is purely in his court since she gave up her trump card, sex. While ladies want guarantees of security, guys are simpler beasts; give him food, sex (with a companion of his own), his own space, and a job that is meaningful, he's good to go. So there are a lot of guys who need external pressure to marry his girl, and there are others who are selfish and only think of themselves and won't bother with the responsibility of marriage and being "tied down" if they don't have to and have no guilt wasting women's time in a relationship they know won't reach to marriage.

A remedy was having discipline and being abstinent till marriage. But in today's culture for a girl to try and pull this card however, some other girl will oblige if a guy demands sex, creating competition. So the first girl will be between a rock and hard place; either she remains true to her conviction and risk the guy leaving or she complies and now the ball is in his court for her hope he'll prioritize her to take the relationship to the next and final steps. So the chastity till marriage gambit is a bit of a prisoner's dilemma, if all girls adhere and remain disciplined till marriage, everyone would get what they want (save for the playa players), if too many girls cave in, then the ball is in the (dating) men's court and we have tweets like in the OP and the existence of ****bois and so many girls who struggle to get married despite doing what they perceive as right.

And this is also the logic behind slut shaming back in the day. Just so you know.

COVxy posted...

A lot of people, but it's definitely very very common in the gaming community, don't really know what it means to critically evaluate something. But they see people they view as savvy being negative during reviews and just take that correlation at face value. To them, critical evaluation should be negative or you're not savvy/you are deliberately shilling.

This is one reason, among many, that the gaming community is so toxic.

On the flipside, if a gamer likes your product overall, he'll ignore the flaws. And if he really loves your product, he'll become your warrior. He'll show it off to all his friends, sing praises of its name despite any objective criticism otherwise and fight for you as long as you're in the business and treat him right.

You call this toxic, but abstractly speaking I believe this is purely investment (time and/or money) intermingling with emotions. When people get invested in something, wew lad, they get REALLY invested and the pendulum swings both ways in terms of emotion.

Not say that.

It's a product to be sold. The creator isn't entitled to anyone's money. Consumers have a right to be critical.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Not unreasonable to believe. It would certainly be a different experience for them since they're usually in the driver's seat and get their pick, choose, and refuse of guys to date. For a guy to tell her from the getgo, "yeah, this isn't gonna work out" when they get validation from endless guys courting her, would definitely be a major blow the ego.

But I have to make a distinction between a guy who is flat out honest to not waste his time versus the other population of guys who will lead a girl on into thinking she is in a relationship with him because they want to get laid and not give a damn about the girl otherwise; aka the type of dude the tweeter is talking about.

It appears ArsGoetia and Sonicfan are arguing two different things. Sonicfan and the like is saying "14 1.0 was a really bad product overall and the reboot is a quality product worthy of bringing to the market". Ars' argument is "14 1.0 was flawed, yes, but it had good game design ideas that could have built upon and refined and the reboot throws all those unique ideas and replaces them with the gameplay design seen in other popular MMOs in the market."

I don't see what the conflict is here. You can still be critical of a decision made despite it being made during a time where tensions and stakes were high (the decision to play it safe to get the game out). At the same time, you can also recognize that because the brand's life was on the line due to the awful release of 14 1.0, decisions had to be made to and sacrifices had to be made.

Prismsblade posted...

I've lived in my HOA condo for a few months now with no issues. The community is clean, and well maintained, neighbors are all kind and on the same page on top of being invested in the community's well and keeping out problem neighbors that would disturb said bring.

They arent perfect but the hate is way overblown. Especially when majority of these complaints are applicableto renting as well. More so even.

I live in a low income neighborhood and beyond the constant littering, we had an issue where a crackhead returned to his property that his mother left him. He routinely brought in trash to pick through and leave the remains out his property out on the alleyway to his and everyone else's houses (there's one walking path to our houses and his was the closest to the main road). He would invite other homeless guys to live with as a good Samaritan, but then they would constantly argue about him stealing from them. Even worse, one was a convicted felon for murder and I'd wake up to him threatening to kill the crackhead owner multiple times a week. Then multiple occasions I've had to run in to put out a fire in his house since he didn't have power in his house for some reason nor did he have running water. And of course, with no running water, the place smelt of human excretion. And weekly, I had to come in to feed those guys since they were penniless.

That chapter ended a couple years back, and while my neighborhood situation was an extreme case, I'd pay for a property within a HOA community if I could afford it. If I have to price people out to uphold a certain standard of behavior in a community, so be it. Sick of this shit.

asdf8562 posted...

Now you're walking it back to pretend like you never said church is a quick solution to the problem.

No, I've been clear on my points from the get go. You are misrepresenting me by now saying I'm trying to walk back on my church solution to the problem when I'm calling you out to make it out like I said my church solution is the answer to all the country's problems like you tried to say here:

asdf8562 posted...

There are literally a multitude of issues going on between the economy, technology, and more.

The answer to all of our problems in the world isn't, "we need more church."

My original post had both two separate solutions to the same problem, a non-secular (church) and a secular solution (public works) for those who don't want any religious connection. And yet you're still making a big stink about the religious solution. Stop it.

Religion period isn't needed for core values.

What do you think religion is? Even consumerism is a religion.

cjsdowg posted...

Before I reply to you. Are you bulls***ting right now. Are is this your real feelings be honest because I want to give you a reply. But I have issues writing and I don't want to waste my time if you are just trolling .

Oh come on. How bad is your sarcasm detector?

asdf8562 posted...

You don't want to continue a conversation about it because you want a push for religion.

No, I don't want to continue this conversation because you don't argue in good faith and all you want to do is complain about religion. I already said religion, Christianity, isn't the end all be all to all our problems yet you still act like I'm implying this. Not once did I say Christianity is the end all be all and the only way a successful society can work and yet you act like I did. Stop it.

willythemailboy posted...

I can't be the only one annoyed that he has these terms reversed, right?

You could have said something directly. But duly noted.

asdf8562 posted...

You missed my point, we can get that without religion.

You never made that point regarding a shared core values and beliefs, don't twist it. And whatever core belief system you use to distribute so that a person in Mississippi would share the same values as someone in some town in Wisconsin who shares the same values as someone in the heart of NYC, that would be considered a religion. It doesn't have to be Christianity and it doesn't even have to be theistic. In fact, this is what religion is looking like nowadays.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/8/9/AAZroiAAESjt.jpg

I don't know the motive behind GOP pushing for religious core values in terms of legislation but Christianity wrote the playbook for a successful society that Western culture has used as a template for success for centuries. Society moving away from those values is causing problems, that a lot of people are unaware that it previously solved, to surface.

Someone asked me to make a proposal to solve X problem, and I gave a secular and non-secular answer. I'm not going to entertain this conversation if you intend to use this as a platform to go off on a tangent to complain about the current politics and make pointless statements like "church won't solve ALL of this country's problems" (who suggested this?) as opposed to addressing my points directly. If you want to combat this "shoehorning" of religion (Christianity), look at what it's designed to accomplish and how, and design a system to address the same problems and more in a more efficient manner. Yes, there's more than one way to skin a cat so we don't absolutely positively need Christianity, but it's a tried and true system that has a history of working effectively with infrastructure already in place to deliver to the masses.

IceCreamOnStero posted...

Alternatively: Leave them alone

Can't. The problem will only get larger and larger. You don't want a large population of demoralized men as then some leader will inspire them and galvanize them to impose his ideals on the world.

asdf8562 posted...

You can get a sense of community without church.

We don't need more religion shoehorned into people. It's also not a lack of religion that both men and woman have trouble dating nowadays.

It's that kind of thinking along with many other things that's turning many away from religion in the first place.

Religion is at an all time low and is continuing to plummet even in religious countries. It's not at all being shoehorned into people. In fact it's being replaced and people are worshiping brands and making them their identity instead.

But you miss the main reason why I am bringing it up, it's to instill a shared sense of morals and values. It's pretty easy to agree with everyone that we shouldn't kill each other. But what about something like a girl streaming and taking donations, knowing they're doing it because they want a chance to date her and she knows that won't happen? Some say she's exploiting, others say she's being a capitalist. Religion is powerful for being able to distribute a certain belief that would stretch from coast to coast in the US and around the world so you'd have a similar answer to an opinion on that scenario. Heck, with Christianity, it would have helped combated against the problem Gladius had of every guy online she interacted with was asking her to slip out of her dress within a day of meeting her (there's another component needed to help eliminate the hookup culture not mentioned). And I recall somewhere in the bible it banning high interest loans too.

In any case, I mentioned a nonsecular suggestion.

bsp77 posted...

All I am hearing is that many guys will simply ignore my advice. That's fine then. My advice isn't harming anyone. And it might reach someone, as it has a few people here and a few people in real life.

Fair enough.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Well, from the issues bsp and I discussed, we have a population of boys who aren't getting social interactivity in healthy amount and don't have a community to feel a part of beyond the internet world. I haven't put much thought into this but a quick solution would make everyone go back to church. Satisfies the community aspect and satisfies the necessity of having a community that shares a common set of values and morals.

If you want a non-secular solution, I suppose a redesign of the Boy Scouts for adults where the focus is on building some public works project in their community as well as meeting some fitness standard. Here, the intent is for the physical investment in the community gives you an emotional investment in your community and its inhabitants.

Spitballing here, I dunno.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Yes. This is why people have been shouting from rooftops that college is a scam for almost 20 years now. The government knew exactly what they were doing in allowing college tuition to skyrocket. Congress even passed a law that prevents people from declaring bankruptcy on their school loans in the 00's. It's not by accident that so many people are in debt slavery.

bsp77 posted...

Put these two quotes in order and this is my point. Yes, lots of guys struggle because of their limited hobbies and limited social skills. But I have witnessed exceedingly awkward guys go from shut ins who only played videogames and watched anime to having broader hobbies, gaining social skills, making friends and eventually dating. I made no assumptions that I am aware of.

My concern is while we know the solution works, how many guys are putting this into practice percentage wise? How many guys are getting out of their comfort zone to try new things that require physical interactions? We're in the age of instant communication yet people are more lonely than ever in addition to the percentage of males dropping out of society rising. I feel as though giving this advice falls on deaf ears. You could say (not you but you as in a person in general) that if they don't want to listen it's not your problem, but we live in a society where our actions affect each. If 95% of males drop out of society and don't give a damn about the future, I think that spells trouble for everyone.

My point is the advice needs to be refactored to get guys to listen and act on it. Telling people the equivalent of pulling themselves up by their own bootstrap ain't gonna cut. You're competing with Fresh and Fit and Tate's platforms. If you want them to adopt your values over theirs, at the minimum you need to acknowledge their problems, give actionable advice, and give guidance.

A lot of folks on this board don't understand how popular the aforementioned guys are and why it's the case yet complain about them spreading toxic views without sincerely trying to understand the madness of their popularity.

AverageDude9 posted...

People aren't going to Meetup to organize relationships. Meetup doesn't work when you try to approach and date a woman who isn't interested in you.

You're essentially stuck if the meet up group you join doesn't have your ideal woman. At that point, you might as well online date. Because meeting people on meet up=/=wanting to date/get laid/

To reiterate bsp's point in a more abstract manner, the objective is to find a community where you find people of similar interests, goals or values. Meetups are a quick method of accomplishing this. From there, in a community, you will interact with others, build up social skills, and eventually the opportunity to pair up with a girl will present itself.

In any case, you don't care for this and you say you're thriving anyway, so you don't need this advice. That being said, bsp is making decent points but he's making a bunch of poor assumptions. A lot of guys struggling have hobbies centered mostly in gaming, very male dominated, and in addition they have underdeveloped social skills. Yeah, you can tell them to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and get better hobbies, but people are continually receiving less exposure to new experiences and guys are finding refuge in the gaming/discord world.

We have a societal problem at large and telling guys individually to "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps" and they're the problem just isn't efficient. This is why platforms like Tate and Fresh and Fit gain so much attention; they acknowledge the changes in societal trends and offer guidance on how to be competitive.

OP's talking about CEO 2023, a tourney series that took place this past weekend, for the uninitiated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyOZ5YQVcdg

Dabuz has gotten a lot of criticism over the years for camping and having a defensive playstyle with his character line up. But his strategy here of being incredibly safe and not forcing the situation is a necessity. Kazuya will blow you up at any percentage.

The loser's finals is more aggressive in tempo while also illustrating why it's also in your best interest to be more mindful of your stage choices and to keep your distance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbmSosEC3zk

EDIT: Watching over the loser Finals, it seems the theme here is to never make any mistakes against Kazuya. If you throw out a move and whiff, you're screwed.

tremain07 posted...

I'm here because I got IP banned on Reddit and 4chan, Reddit because I got into a fight with several people and to my own admission I may have gone overboard, 4chan because I got into a big fight with some racists on /pol/ and got popped for apparently making violent threats,

whaaaat. I've been IP banned (a week long at most) a couple times on 4chan, one for posting a "copyrighted image" and another one a videogame general board for joining the complaints about some competitive leagues being overtaken continually kowtowing to X groups and forcing stuff on the rest of us.

I'll take your word for it and say there are some mods who don't know how to moderate a discussion. The bar for what's unacceptable on 4chan, given how flaming while on topic is practically allowed, is way higher. It doesn't matter what my opinion on your take is, you have a right to voice your opinion on the subject and voice your rebuttal to the opposition.

Sorry man.

Also, you can still interact no problem by going on your phone and using your phone connection instead of WiFi in case you get blocked on there. Multiple ways to skin a cat.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

it isnt a gatekeepers job to keep random people from getting scammed

and were talking about hobbies

A gatekeeper's job is to preserve the status quo and prevent outsiders from changing it for the worst. You don't think this could happen to a hobby group where people come in with their own agenda and drastically change the environment for the worst?

The example I gave can easily apply to any group dynamic accepting new persons. It doesn't matter if it's an industry or a small hobby. The same rules apply.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

theres no downside to something being more accessible

The lack of community gatekeeping and social policing is what led to so many scams in the crypto world. The Terra/Luna blockchain or whatever it's called should never have been allowed to be as popular as it was when just analyzing the whitepaper makes it apparent the protocol was inherently flawed. $36 Billion dollars gone. Mostly from retail investors who got caught up by their marketing. Celsius Network, everyone knew it was basically a centralized bank dabbling in blockchain (meaning they take your assets to make money with it with zero accountability ) but no one tried pushing them out for not sharing the central crypto punk libertarian values. $4.7 Billion owed to the users. People's life savings they'll never get back.

To say there's zero merit in gatekeeping and only value in achieving full accessibility is ignorant. When you have a mission or goal, you want the people you involve to share the same values you have, respect your vision, and strive the same goals. Otherwise you risk inviting people to exploit you for their own gain, making it their own, and you risk being pushed out.

tehzeldafanboy posted...

I mean, do people really think Littlefinger's motivations with Sansa went beyond her utility to him

*Season 4 finale spoilers* He had no plan after tossing Sansa's aunt out the hole. He was completely surprised when Sansa vouched for his innocence. He wouldn't have done that if he wasn't absolutely in love with Kat and by proxy Sansa.

BurmesePenguin posted...

Well, I'm never gonna finish season 3 and above now!

@BurmesePenguin if it helps, Season 4 had a stunning conclusion. You should at least watch up to the end of Season 4 so you can walk away with the hopes and optimism we all had before we all inevitably became let down.

Not even Ryu is the main character of SF6. Luke inherited the torch as the MC.

GameGodOfAll posted...

Varys and Littlefinger were the best and you can track how fucking bad the show got each season by how dumb they got.

It was season 5 that made me drop the show when the script writers had Littlefinger marry Sansa off to a sadistic sociopath despite the previous season ending with Littlefinger nearly throwing his life away in desperation to protect Sansa.

I can believe the bolded wholeheartedly.

Sorry Burmese.

TheGoldenEel posted...

Im more concerned that 2500 young women wanted to attend this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCftJ8Hf0kI

Look at the comments to glean more info on the type of woman receptive to this.

Gladius_ posted...

Despite fears that soon there will be too few people to sustain our economies, services and societies, experts say falling birth rates do not spell disaster. Instead, they are hallmarks of demographic transition and correlate with rising lifespans.

https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/4/2/last-students-graduate-school-closures-spread-in-ageing-japan

tl;dr the school's closing because there weren't any kids left and because there isn't a school, people aren't going to go live there meaning that village has no hope of survival.

There's another article out there where an arts and craft tools industry in Japan collapsed because there aren't enough kids born and consequently not enough kids entering that hobby.

Look, I'm not disputing the cost of living being a factor in birth rates. I agreed. But marriage rates and birth rates are two different topics. And my argument there focused on marriage.

And regarding those stats; I'd also like to see the rates of progressive/conservative sentiments, the rates of religious denomination over the years, and also contraception usage before you can say the lack of traditional values has no bearing on the birth rate. There has to be individual behavior (the micro level) that is traced from the general statistics (macro level).

Gladius_ posted...

Different people are effected differently from the disease. My husband had to be hospitalized.

It does bear mentioning I've been taking a Vitamin C + Vitamin D + Zinc supplements daily (for a halfbaked version of following the Zelenko protocol) for almost a year. Perhaps that could be a factor.

This is hyperbole. Vast majority? Lol.

Also:

49% of millennials delay marriage due to financial burdens.

Financial reasons are still a massive concern and hindrance when it comes to people marrying and having families.

I will give you there is a lot of guys who aren't in the dating scene and living with their parents. However, the question I have is how is this reflected in society? Millennial females are still heavily active in the dating scene and in being in relationships yet they aren't getting married. How is it that the single mother rate is skyrocketing despite people staving off marriage due to financial burdens? How is it that career woman, aka the ones most financially successful, are the least likely of female demographics to start a family or even get married?

The survey has merit, but I don't believe it gives the full picture (even at 49% for the reason suggested) and I can dig into it with a simpler hypothesis.

Girls have sex before marriage; thereby burning their ace in the hole in securing a marriage. By sleeping with the guy, she now has given him full control of the relationship and it is on him to propose. If there's no incentive for him to get on a knee, you're relying on his good will and desire to put her first to do so. Some guys will put their lady first, but we're seeing a large population of guys who have to be externally pressured into doing so and with no real community pressure, they don't receive the external pressure needed to propose.

A guy would marry a girl despite her $100K school loans if it meant access to sex. This is the secret to how so many people got married 50+ years ago. Slut shaming and limited access to contraception meant it was a huge risk of being socially scorned along with the burdens of pregnancy and raising a kid alone deterred women from "hooking up", therefore they demanded commitment.

How is this reflected in society? Think of the instances where your female friends are in X year long relationship and she's waiting on the ring but the guy refuses so they eventually break up.

Gladius_ posted...

You mean countries that have people taking 2-3 jobs in order to support a household? Working obscene hours as companies purchase up entire housing districts only to charge rent people can barely afford? You mean countries that have staunch traditionalists that seek to make money off the people as they blame everything but their own greed?

Are these problems in every developed country in the world? Or just the US? Because what I'm talking about is reflected in developed countries, even where the rent is low due to extreme controls on immigration (more people, more need for housing -> housing/rent prices go up).

Gladius_ posted...

Glad you're hanging in there then. Don't wish covid on anyone and I genuinely hope you're feeling better. My energy to argue is limitless I'll admit that. I take my activism seriously. Though, after tonight I am going to disappear for awhile again (I only post regularly when working.)

I had plague outbreaks in my region way worse than covid tbqh. I hid in my room, feared for my life for 3 years for this? Bullshit.

Boiling people's values to egg and sperm is offensive to both genders and I won't do that.

You should. Acknowledging it reveals so much about society and why men and women act the way they do. It's why your endeavor to kill [enforced] gender roles are fruitless.

You tell me it's hopeless as we are winning. I'll turn it around on you. Face it. Progressive values are coming and you can't stop it. The 1950's are dead and we will fight tooth and nail to keep it that way. Trying to force it otherwise will destroy this nation because the people aren't going to give up especially after tasting freedom.

I'll point to the vast majority of our Millennial female contemporaries being destined to being forever single. And the incel population still growing with nothing stopping its growth. I'll also point to developed countries' birth rates being in the dumpster and is terrifying each of their governments. Japan in particular is in desperation mode because industries are collapsing and schools are shutting down with villages lamenting that their cultures are going to die as there is no next generation to hand it down to. Whatever you guys are doing, it ain't working.

Gladius_ posted...

Lol. Yes I can and I will. Traditional gender roles can go die. Also not getting into a "5 page debate" with me is wise because while you may do better than "most" that really isn't saying much. I wouldn't want to debate me either if our past experiences are anything to go by. You left last time when we had our scientific debate and even after I complimented your attempt. You never got back to me on that. I not only showed you that you were wrong when it came to your understanding of evolution but I also showcased how you were wrong when it came to human selection regarding mating and that it isn't something that is universal or even set in stone.

Got corona chan. Wasn't going to rack my head trying to convince you when you have endless energy to argue while I was suffering.

That being said, give up on trying to kill traditional gender roles. A woman's womb and her eggs are far more scarce and far more fragile and some dude's sperm. As such, by the laws of supply and demand, women have the power to dictate whose bloodline lives on. Societies around the world throughout the ages designed to try to limit or exploit this immense power while individual male's behavior is influenced to raise their chances of being chosen by women (i.e. this is why a guy would get offended at a girl opening the door for him, he is to demonstrate his value in doing for her, not the other way around). Conversely, due to the strength discrepancy of the genders, women's behavior evolved to ensure their survival in lieu of the average male being able to overpower an average female.

If you can't solve these differences, there's no hope in changing gender roles. Accept it. Respect its authori'tay. Count your blessings that you're not on the other side.

Gladius_ posted...

Toxic Masculinity is not about what someone finds toxic. That's not how it works. Holding a door open for someone is not toxic masculinity unless you are doing it under the belief that we (women) are dainty little creatures and that it's your job as a man to do it. It's not toxic unless when a woman holds a door open for you that you get bent out of shape because that's the man's job. It's not toxic unless you believe men who do not hold a door open for women are not behaving in a way a man should.

Ignoring that presently the average man's testosterone levels pale in comparison to 50 years ago (I doubt this affects my point anyway), the average woman is tiers weaker than the average man. Lower muscle mass, lower bone density, narrower shoulders, smaller, more slender frame. Guys are taught to treat women as dainty little creatures and this manifests with societal norms like "men under no circumstances may hit a woman". So you'll see guys challenge each other to duels (get into a ring/fight/whatever to kick each other's ass), but you don't see any society letting a guy challenge a girl to a duel be the norm. You may also see guys play games that involve smacking each other as hard as possible (we played on our knuckles), but women are disbarred from joining. More closely to the topic, the overall general higher levels of strength is why guys are expected to carry the weight for women.

More importantly, women have wombs, the critical yet delicate irreplaceable incubator that brings to life and continues the future of this species yet is incredibly taxing on a woman when in use. A stark contrast to the (relatively speaking) near limitless supply of some random joe's baby batter with no significant effort needed to generate. This is why women and the literal future of society, children, get first dibs on survivor boats from a sinking ship and why they also get excused from being called to action if a nation gets invaded.

I'd rather not get into a 5+ page debate with you over toxic masculinity, but complaining/protesting/contesting the bolded is taking it too far. No, you may not so much as even suggest complete parity in how genders treat each other. Or even complain about a guy holding the automatic door for a woman because of his chivalrous motivation to support the lady.