/girltalk/ - Girl Talk

If by "online" you mean strictly in dms, yes.

And never any face reveals.

>>11571

I thought you were being a bit autistic but then you mentioned the BF part, and that reminded me that once I broke up with a gf I had when I found out about some nudes she had sended to some guys way before we were together.

So I guess I can see your point, anyway, don't send nudes, girls.

This is just asking to end up on >>>/shamedsluts/.

>>11571

Just a male perspective on this, I have a folder full of nudes and amateur porn made with exes. I've never shared any of it anywhere, I never would, but it would be mutually assured destruction if I did.

The exes that sent nudes and made videos with me were the same ones who would ask for dick pics and fapping videos, as well as snap pictures of me at embarrassing moments because the pictures were "cute" or "funny". Each of those exes has a picture of me hunched over in an old shirt I've outgrown, sitting on the toilet, making a horrible 'O' face or with a flaccid dick. So *if* you're going to do it, assuming you won't post it in a fit of rage either and then provoke him to post yours, this is a good insurance plan.

Is it "good"? Well, I used to think it was pretty slutty, but it's certainly less slutty than doing anything in person. It seems girls mostly do it to build self-esteem, which admittedly is kind of fucked up. I've never sent out a dick pic (without a lot of pleading and specific request from someone I was already dating) because over the years I've found online a loooooot of fat chicks have their own version of a dick pic they'll send out without any provocation, and every time I've gotten one it's easily in the top 10 of the grossest things I've ever felt. I'm not saying to be self-conscious about your pussy, but there's already so many ways much like a dude's ballsack your pussy can simply not be pretty. And I'm not talking shit on fat girls, I've been accused of being a chubby chaser because I mostly just care about face and breasts and everything else is just a bonus, but frankly, fat girls tend to have the least appealing pussies. Puffy, discolored, looking like open axe wounds. And then some girl who easily weighs a hundred pounds more than me just sends me a zoomed in picture of her cunt spread open and goopy with curled pubes stick to her skin, making the whole thing look like the gaping maw of an undersea abomination with whiskers? No thank you.

Also the whole no face thing. That shit's annoying as fuck, I can't just fap to a random torso. I want to see your reaction to what you're seeing, I want to get you to pose for me with your mouth open and your tongue out. I need eye contact. I've honestly cammed with girls and negotiated to have them put clothes back on and let me see their face so they can go down on a phallic object or something because that's way hotter. I'd say that's a good rule of thumb, if you don't trust the person enough to show your face, you probably shouldn't send him nudes.

I did, but it's not a guilty pleasure at all. It's just guilty guilt.

NEVER do it. NEVER EVER.

>>11592

Where did you post them and why do you feel guilty?

>>11601

>female

>dick

Did you forget to turn off your female roleplaying flag?

>>11602

Some girls are born with dicks.

>>11601

>>11603

Pls no larping or else ding dong bannu.

>>11595

I am in no way saying where. I just feel guilty because it wasn't worth it.

The sexual validation I got from that is not worth the chances of it coming back to me.

>>11610

That's not confidence, that's sexual validation.

Honestly, at that point, you should try dating instead of relying on giving pics to strangers. That's never good, unless you honestly don't care about being an internet slut.

>>11613

>validation

What's wrong with that?

>try dating instead.

That would involve being around other people and putting myself in uncomfortable romantic scenarios. By sharing photos they get adoration while maintaining unattainability

>>11618

>What's wrong with that?

Everything. You should value yourself a little more, and not look for sexual validation in such a way.

>By sharing photos they get adoration while maintaining unattainability

It's so easy to give photos to the wrong guy and then have them leaked and the like. Never trust a man with something like this.

>>11621

>>11621

>It's so easy to give love to the wrong girl and then have them cheat and the like. Never trust a woman with something like love.

See I can make broad and ignorant generalizations too.

Fortunately I know better than that.

>>11636

Also, I've given reciprocal pics in direct messages when I was a teenager, but honestly the real problem in the wall of autism above is the other person using pics to bully or posting something given in confidence. That goes with pretty much everything given in confidence, it's just a shitty thing to do.

tbh I don't even understand nudes anymore. Somehow my autistic ass was capable of receiving them in high school and nowadays I just want to talk to someone and don't even know where to start.

I can only imagine my aspie ass saying something cringeworthy like "nice, you have a vaginal canal. What really makes you tick?" A real turn on, I imagine.

Not implying I'm morally superior, it's probably just the desperation for a connection talking. Excuse my male shitposting.

>>11606

I'm not larping, i really have a nice dick :^)

I'll drop the female flag for you.

I wouldn't recommend posting nudes on the internet but if you do, at least follow the basic rules of not getting Doxed.

1. Don't show face

2. Take picture in front of plain wall with no objects in view

3. don't wear jewelery in the picture

4. don't show tattoos (you shouldn't have them to begin with)

5. if you're really paranoid then first save your nudes to your computer and then take a screenshot of your nudes and save/share that instead of the original. That will remove any meta data.

The only way to be 100% certain is to just not post nudes.

>>11590

>Each of those exes has a picture of me hunched over in an old shirt I've outgrown, sitting on the toilet, making a horrible 'O' face or with a flaccid dick.

Christ, WHY

>>11653

"You just look very relaxed." "It's just cute, that's all." "No, I'm not going to show anyone."

I always figured part of it was so if I decided to drop our amateur sex videos or post her nudes something embarrassing about me would get spread around as well.

>>11623

>Implying men don't cheat as much as women, or even more than them

Where are you living, son. Women hurt men in other ways, but cheating is mostly male.

Blame women when it comes to alimony and the like (why does that trash even exists anyway, we can work now, we don't need alimony)

>>11657

>why does that trash even exists anyway

1. feminists only want equality when they benefit from it

2. the merchants keep alimony to scare young white men away from getting married/having children

>>11682

Repeat the second point, but without putting the ebin merchant meme on it.

And that's not feminism, that's radical feminism. But most people don't care about the differences nowadays.

1st world countries do not need feminist movements anymore. It's third world who need them.

>>11694

the ebin merchant meme will stop being used when jews stop being at the heart of all degeneracy. i'll remind you that all of those "radical feminists" are either jews or funded by jews, and that they're the ones trying to normalize their corrupted, misandrist version of feminism by calling it by its moderate and widely accepted name.

i mean we don't need to turn into /pol/ here but as long as we're talking about feminism, we have to acknowledge the nose in the room.

>>11700

>The entire concept of attacking "the patriarchy" is a Marxist concept. Burning bras, attaching "man" as a prefix to every bad thing while pretending women don't do it. Not even getting into the indisputable fact that the more feminist a country gets, the less happy it's women get year after year.

Way to burn down your whole argument. Traditionalism is NOT the answer, no matter how much you and your cock would want it to be. Sure, today's extremism isn't good either, in any way.

>Acknowledge that specifically by name, the goal is never equality, if it was equality you'd just be an egalitarian.

Now that's BS. I want you to look back at the old years, and not think about feminism today. Think of gender roles of the 19th, the Victorian era. I don't think I need to elaborate any more on that.

>Mainstream feminists are the NOW organization…

Again, stop thinking on what you see on first world countries. The thing those "feminists" do is just plain old oppression and bullyinh. Anyone who thinks first world countries need such feminism is honestly retarded. I have read the SCUM manifesto and it's nothing mroe than literal nazi ideologies, written with zero factual arguments and only fueled to cause a reaction on the impressionable readers. With a coarse language, and pseudo-relatable topics. I still have the PDF laying around I think.

>The entirety of feminism from day one has been control, attacking men, and gaining more power for women.

Attacking men when they deserved, and gaining power we never had in the first place. We had no say, we had no voice, we were mere toys. Now tho, things have changed and, like I said, 1st world countries are fine. It's places like India and Syria that need feminist movements.

>Tell me, where are all these "good" feminists, and why in the hell aren't they instead calling themselves egalitarians?

Where are they currently? Beats me. All I see is stupid Tumblr bullshit.

>>11706

>Traditionalism is NOT the answer

why not?

>>11707

Why would you think it is? It's literally the extreme opposite of the so called "degeneracy". And it's not healthy.

I like being able to do things, you know? I like being able to wear what I want, I like being able to read what I want, I like being able to be an individual and not just a pretty doll who needs to become a mother to be validated.

I like playing Yugioh and playing tabletop games and doing "boys stuff" that, under traditional values, females would not be able to do. And I know several women do not want to live under control of men again.

You all blame radical feminists, but do not realize you are just as bad as them, with the very same ideologies. Think about it.

>>11717

>https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/18/womens-rights-happiness-wellbeing-gender-gap

"vidence supports the idea that women’s rights and roles in the home in the US and Europe have not moved in step with changes in the workplace. Therefore, because women with jobs often do most of the chores and childcare, they shoulder a dual burden that cuts into their sleep and fun."

That's what your own source cites that as one of the main reasons on women's happiness decline.

>(Fewer than 35% of Swedish women do three-quarters of the housework, compared to 81% of Greek women.)

>Expectations also lie behind the curious finding that performing household chores makes men statistically less likely to become depressed but contributes to depression in women.

Lookie here, it talks about housework. Something that has been attributed to females for years. And the main problem of women is having to juggle between life and that extra work. If anything, the unhappiness comes from still being expected to carry gender roles as "housework". Why won't more men work on the house themselves?

>Back then they had political power, ads directed at women prove this.

ONE (1) movement. Also I am pretty sure that whole "women's petition agaisnt coffee" was a meme, and nothing serious or worth worrying about.

>I don't think entire genders ever need be attacked.

Then why do women get attacked. I don't think men need to get attacked, but you can't honestly deny women had it awful back in the day.

>If I told you to stop inhaling oxygen, would you accept "It's not healthy" as sufficient reasoning?

But oxygen is healthy.

>How are tabletop games gender-linked? Why do you think because it's preferred you be a housewife you'd suddenly lose the right to get a job or have hobbies? If I like to cook does that mean I'm taking on "female traits"?

They are usually male-based hobbies and any female who partakes on them "just wants attention". I shouldn't have something "preffered on me", and no one should have. Why do you want women to be housewives only? Some women like it, some don't. That's all there is to it.

And cooking is vital. If you don't cook, you will have to eat shit.

>>11708

it's a lot more complicated than that. the issue didn't just suddenly crop up – it has ties to WW2 and the now-defunct soviet union.

as a (very) brief history lesson, jews led a soviet political party known as the bolsheviks. these are the popular that popularized many of the academic terms we use today in an institution called the frankfurt school. these are the people who are almost exclusively responsible for the entirety of WW2 as well as the cold war following it.

so, the answer is "kind of". it's not strictly jews but it's become so closely tied that the two are almost synonyms – jews and bolsheviks. you might hear the term "zionist" there too, which is essentially a type of jewish supremacist that follows the same bolshevik ideology.

this is also the reason for the nazi fetishism of today's far-right – it's in reactionary opposition to the bolshevik's strongest adversaries and ideology polar opposite to it (national socialism)

i hope that explains some things

>>11724

That would be the best-hidden secret then, just like Hitler in Argentina, because I have never seen anything about that.

But the question is: Did the Holocaust happened.I am pretty sure it did.

>>11723

>That's what your own source cites that as one of the main reasons on women's happiness decline.

It's not a source, it's an article, that's editorial, not evidence. And men do do plenty of housework, "honey dos" they're called. All the hard shit. Take out the trash, clean the gutters, mow the lawn, clean the garage, fix/wash the car, walk the dog, etc. Then there's the concept of the "mancave" where a man is pushed off to the dirtiest room in the house which is condescendingly referred to as a cave, while the wife controls every other room in the house. I'm not saying this is universal, and I'm sure you're going to deflect from this, but the point of the article was that in study after study, women have become less and less happy as there's been more feminism. You can try to handwave that away, but it's pretty damning any way you look at it.

>ONE (1) movement.

No, I gave one example, an example of a very feminist cause hundreds of years before feminism was a thing. There's also the prohibition movement, the white feather movement, and numerous books and ads targeting women. Why advertise to a class if as you claim they have no power to purchase anything?

>you can't honestly deny women had it awful back in the day.

I gave you examples of women clearly preferring it, referenced a ton of media women consume specifically taking place in that era, you completely avoided answering why if the era was so horrible it's the one women fantasize about most overwhelmingly?

>But oxygen is healthy.

The point is you haven't provided any reasoning to claim traditionalism isn't.

>any female who partakes on them "just wants attention".

No, you have to put yourself in the shoes of the men in these hobbies for a moment. I know you don't want to hear it, but just like some guys are douches, some women are whores. It's hard not to question how many of the girls on twitch are fake when you scroll over to their other accounts and find them also making asmr videos and chaturbate shows. If a woman legitimately just wants to play the game, very few men will be opposed to it unless she just has a terrible personality, but this is true of male players with terrible personalities as well.

There's this video IGN put out some years ago that perfectly sums it up. It was one of their journos interviewing porn stars at some convention asking them their favorite video games. They all stood there with empty, vacant smiles, claimed they loved video games and played them all the time and then said their favorite was "Uh, Mario. Yeah, that one." You could see boredom on the interviewers face until he got to Bobbi Star. I'm paraphrasing but her response was more or less "Oh, recently I've been playing just a lot of Plants vs Zombies, but my favorite childhood game was Zork." without missing a beat she went on to list a couple dozen other games she loved. The comments weren't filled with hate towards the other whores, but admiration for the one who actually knew her shit. When women respond with a bunch of casual shit, guys just react the same way they would go a guy doing it. That's what you don't get.

>Why do you want women to be housewives only?

Historically, it's what you want most. Ignoring this programming is what leads to catladies, bad relationships, and the massive uptick in (literally) infantilizing fetishes like abdl, ddlg, and so on.

>>11694

>feminism

>3rd world

Thats not likely going to happen.

>>11726

>But the question is: Did the Holocaust happened.I am pretty sure it did.

how is that the question, that was not the question at all

it really looks like you're deflecting now

>>11726

>That would be the best-hidden secret then

It's really not a secret. The Frankfurt school is a very well known institution, Bolshevism is a very well known political ideology and two wars were fought over this issue.

You might not know a lot about it but that doesn't mean it isn't real. Is it insane? Yes. Is it real? Yes.

>Did the Holocaust happened.I am pretty sure it did.

All evidence points to yes. It also points to a couple other facts that are conveniently ignored, such as

- The death toll was much lower (~20,000 instead of 6,000,000)

- It included non-jews, the camps were basically for bolsheviks due to being politically subversive. It just happened that they were mostly jewish

There's also very little evidence suggesting that it was a systemic extermination. Most likely the crew within the camps took out their anger on the prisoners when they began losing the war, which is only exacerbated by allied destruction of axis supply lines. These camps were located on railroads, where they bused prisoners around, but also supplies. Those railroads were high priority targets for the allies. It had the consequence of also basically totally dooming the prisoners.

Meanwhile, in the US, Roosevelt began imprisoning Japanese-Americans in camps and exposing them to very poor treatment. If the US had lost, the same thing would have happened to them.

The lesson to be learned from the holocaust is that war is hell and we should abstain from it.

But this is all irrelevant. The point is, Bolshevism is a cancerous ideology that's alive and well. It's responsible for all the insanity on the radical left, including "radical feminism". You might also hear it called "marxism" or "communism".

>>11729

>>11733

guys, there's no need to pile on the poor girl.

i highly doubt that she's the kind of white-hating commie you're imagining her as. sounds like she just wants men to do their share of the housework too, which is fair. a healthy relationship is going to have the man and woman communicating and coming up with an arrangement that's healthy and makes both of them happy.

can everyone agree on this?

>>11736

God forbid a woman has opinions on anything on the internet.

> women have become less and less happy as there's been more feminism. You can try to handwave that away, but it's pretty damning any way you look at it.

I find that really hard to believe. It cannot possibly have been feminism, it has to have been other reasons. There are literally millions of reasons. Perhaps now that women are more independant, they too can realize the world isn't the happy place they were sheltered to believe it was in the old days. Which isn't a bad thing.

>Why advertise to a class if as you claim they have no power to purchase anything?

The books and ads made for women were what men wanted women to be: Books about cooking, knitting, clothing and the like. You would never see a woman buying a science book, because they were forbidden of such things. Women had to be ncie and pretty.

>I gave you examples of women clearly preferring it, referenced a ton of media women consume specifically taking place in that era, you completely avoided answering why if the era was so horrible it's the one women fantasize about most overwhelmingly?

Just because people fantasize of something, it doesn't means they want to be in that era. That's dumb. Just because we have tons of war literature and videogames… Does that means people want to go back to war?

We also have prehistoric stories. Do we want to go back to prehistoric times? How about Jesus times? We have plenty of literature and media about it, does that means people want to go back to that time? Not at all.

>The point is you haven't provided any reasoning to claim traditionalism isn't.

But I have. Extreme traditionalism is oppressive. I want you to tell this to all women you know and on the street, and see how many will feel insulted at the idea. Few will agree with you, and it probably should give you a hint.

>all that hobby stuff

I know. But if I can show I know rulings about Yugioh (missing the timing, god damn it)… Shouldn't that show I am in for the game and not for the attention?

>Historically, it's what you want most.

Or maybe historically is what we were forced to want the most? We had to other options or say on the matter.

Let women decide for themselves. You aren't a woman and would't know what we think.

>>11731

But it should.

>>11733

Calm down.

>>11734

I can assure you few have heard of it. Isn't widespread in the slightest, unlike the Holocaust.

>But this is all irrelevant. The point is, Bolshevism is a cancerous ideology that's alive and well. It's responsible for all the insanity on the radical left, including "radical feminism". You might also hear it called "marxism" or "communism".

>communism

Say no more fam. I know all about communism. I just didn't knew the rabbit hole went that deep.

What possesses someone to send nudes?

>>11752

Being horny and wanting sexual validation.

I won't lie I felt happy when someone complimented me. Even tho they were guys not worth my time, and I was retarded for sharing such thing.

Luckily I didn't include face or room.

>>11740

I can't comprehend what you're trying to say fam.

>>11744

But it wont.

>>11744

>Say no more fam

That was literally the last word in that long post lol

I'm glad I helped explain some things. Even if /pol/ seem spastic at the best of times, they're genuinely good people. Just a little naive. For example, their idea of "traditionalism" is something totally different from what you imagine and basically a reaction to hook-up culture. "Traditionalism" to /pol/ is basically just monogamy, but they don't seem to quite realize that it means something very different to other people.

Don't think they're an evil boogeyman or anything. They're good people.

>>11752

Pretty much this lol

>>11754

The worst part about posting nudes is when the guys are able to respond with more than just text. Like, I don't want to know that they're really people, I don't want to see their faces or their dicks. I just want to see countless faceless guys getting hard cause of my tits. Usually that's exactly what I get. Pretty hot imo

I'm awful for it though

>>11754

I'm the anon who was just talking about bolshevism, the holocaust, communism, etc. It's kinda funny to me that despite the fact that I lean much more to the right, politically.. You seem much purer than me, lol

Could you please please tell me a bit more about your experience with it?

Was there anything about it that you really disliked? (like, did they show you their dick? they did, didn't they. THEY ALWAYS TRY TO DO THAT.)

Was it hot to you at the time?

Why do you regret it?

Would you do it again?

>>11736

Well I never said she was a commie, just that feminism itself is definitely stemming from marxism. I just think she has some surprisingly antiquated ideas about men and gender. I'm sure there are plenty of housewives that play yugioh, and I highly doubt if men were given 100% power the patriarchy would come in and take away your deck. A lot of the shit she's saying is just really, really silly and shows a total lack of familiarity with men.

>>11768

>ISIS bucket challenge

kek

in other news, white knight to the rescue. the guy was literally just clarifying that he doesn't want the things you're accusing him of. but i guess you're just a twat

besides, i'm pretty sure the girl is perfectly fine of discussing this without your aid, m'lord

>>11771

he's reacting to the marxist idea that men and women are the same. he's not wrong. we're equal, sure, but different.

but now we live in an age where we aren't living in caves for fear of cougars, and the man doesn't need to go out to kill a bear to feed us. so the give-and-take has changed, but it's very much still present. wishful thinking doesn't undo hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

>>11772

anon, not to pile on you here but i think you're misrepresenting her position.

she's saying "extreme traditionalism" is bad. what do you think she means by that? why not ask her before sperging out so you can understand what she actually thinks instead of assuming?

>>11775

>i think you're misrepresenting her position.

Maybe you haven't read all of the posts, but her original assertion was and I quote "If we went back to traditionalism they'd take away my yugioh cards because that's a boy activity".

She was the first person to mention traditionalism in the thread, since then I've asked her to specify *how* it's bad, but she just comes back and says it's oppressive. She didn't originally say "extreme" traditionalism, just traditionalism. I'll go back to her original assertion:

>>11706

>Traditionalism is NOT the answer

Note the word "extreme" is not present, and she in all the posts since has not explained. She immediately follows this by saying:

>Think of gender roles of the 19th, the Victorian era. I don't think I need to elaborate any more on that.

So I asked why that specific era is the single era women fantasize about most based on who buys books on the topic, writes books on the topic and attends movies in the setting.

Maybe you should read the post history instead of assuming?

>>11776

no, i read all of it. it reads like she has a lot of incorrect assumptions about modern traditionalism.

in otherwords, her (or your) pretense is wrong but you're arguing her points. your approach is wrong. ask her what she thinks is oppressive about traditionalism and address those points. because right now you're both arguing about two different things.

>>11779

so you agree with the guy but you're being a douche anyway?

how about try having a productive discussion instead of calling people names?

>>11779

Oh, you're just trolling.

No wonder you're flailing around so over the top and acting like a ridiculous charicature of an internet tough guy whiteknighting. Not once did I mention washing shorts, you're not even trying to be believable.

>That's not his real insinuation.

And now you're a mind-reader, using the classic Cenk Ugar tactic of "Ignore whatever was said, let ME tell you what this retard REALLY means!"

>Everyone knows why what you're saying is fucking retarded

All the classic autistic button-pushing statements. In this case, after a childish verbal attack, you assert that "everyone" agrees with your attacks, speaking for a fictional majority existing entirely up your own ass.

>You outright generalize women to be of a fucking infantile mind

I bring up scientific studies and speak from experience dealing with an increasing number of women who have become infantile. I'm not saying women are infantile, I'm saying feminism infantilizes them. Find a tumblr that isn't switching back and forth between reblogging porn gifs and gifs from children's films. Finding a woman born after 1995 that doesn't have a fetish as a "little" "babygirl" or "adult baby" is becoming increasingly rare, and I'm not saying this is a good thing.

>Your argument about marketing implies that they're so simple minded that they cannot make that choice for themselves.

No, there was no argument about marketing. She said women were little more than toys in that era, why would anyone market to toys? The reaction is irrelevant, the point is companies and politicians only market to those who have some form of power, be it financial or otherwise. If women in that era had no power, there would be no point in marketing to them.

>To insinuate that the lack of feminist perspective being a cure-all with the "direct correlation", which in its true, and not extreme form, is simply autonomy, your biases are laid clear.

So your assertion is that Betsey Stevenson, author of "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness" just wants women to "wash shorts"?

>I will fucking end you m8.

>If it gives you the satisfaction because I don't bother to reply

3/10, this is such standard over the top internet tough guy shit, and the avatarfagging really kills it. I know I should rate it higher because I actually replied, but I reply to just about everything so it's no real accomplishment.

>>11784

>manwearingsuit.jpg

>insinuations

>tiptoe

This'll be your formula for the next forty posts. Your trolling is so devoid of humor I feel like I'm talking to Peter Coffin. You work and get paid on sundays?

>>11788

You know, using big words doesn't make you look smart, it just shows everyone how dumb you are when you fail to use them properly.

>>11789

Nah, it's the right word. You're artful in your self deception, friend.

You know what would be healthier?

Being honest with yourself.

>>11788

>You keep insinuating it.

I didn't insinuate shit, fuckwit. There was no implying, there was no "tiptoeing" I linked to specific studies, posted specific videos. Happiness among women in the passed 35 years has specifically declined among western countries in keeping with the spread of feminism. This is specifically, exactly what I said. If anything in this thread is autistic it's extrapolating some insane rant about "washing cum-stained shorts" out of that. You're not a mindreader, you'd ironically have to be retarded to repeatedly assert that what someone said doesn't matter, but instead your assertion of what they're "insinuating". You've already admitted not word one of any of your claims was in a single of my posts. Now can we cut to the part where completely and totally defeated you admit "I was just egging you on, trying to get a rise out of you, I win because you made me look stupid!" and you slink back to a corner to shit up another thread?

>No one said that you *explicitly* cried and shit your pants over da joos or not having someone to wash your cum stains.

Now you backpeddle as you're realizing there's no defensible position for you to try to sound rational while making those completely asinine claims.

>fundamental liberty, or autonomy, however you want to phrase it

That's the thing sparky, I didn't phrase it. You're flipping out about a conversation that you clearly had with the voices in your head.

>rambling about "marxism" and what not

I'm just using it as shorthand for communism. Read the article on the founding of national organization for women I posted earlier. The talk of power, revolution and liberation, the entire point from day one was to destabilize western civilization. The original point of this discussion was that other anon asserting there was a difference between feminism and "modern radical feminism" but it's always been garbage.

>You're disingenuous about it, and afraid to really commit, even though you wrote fifty fucking paragraphs.

Ah, hanging a lampshade. "Yeah you wrote a lot of words and reading is hard so fuck you for all those paragraphs! And yeah you linked to specific articles and youtube clips and stated you believed what you were saying was a matter of fact… but you were totally vague and non-committal about it and stuff!" You can't have it both ways, Noamskull.

>No one said sexual dimorphism wasn't a thing, you fucking moron.

Did I say you said sexual dimorphism wasn't a thing? Okay I get why you're replying to so much shit I didn't say. I don't know how it works for schizophrenics, but do you have any system or filter to help you tell which things you hear are things other people said to you and which ones are coming from inside your head? Because right now the filter seems to be breaking down.

>>11788

>are adult humans, could be anyone but let's focus on generalizing women, so fucking stupid that they should be fundamentally forfeit of their liberty, autonomy, however you want to phrase it.

When did you stop beating your wife?

>about how marxism has corrupted *your* (and I stress: your, the power in the insinuuation) potential traditional waifus who would've washed your shorts and they now post on Tumblr and isn't that a shame.

For the tenth time, I didn't bring up traditionalism, when it was brought up I said simply dismissing it without reason wasn't an argument and wanted to hear what specifically was wrong with it. I'm not single you dip. This has nothing to do with my desires in a mate, you're projecting and hard. The closest you could come to accurate would be asserting I was gloating because I have a traditional girlfriend, and to begin with I'm not because no one's relationship status had a fucking thing to do with this discussion, but to be honest with you I'd never given any thought to how traditional or non-traditional my relationship was.

There is no insinuation, the studies all show a direct correlation. The standard of living has gone up in most every country, women are allowed to work in most of them, so why aren't women less happy in third world countries? Other than the utter lack of feminism in India, what's so different there that the women who live there aren't as depressed as the women in the US, UK and Sweden?

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=feminism+makes+women+unhappy

Take your pick, I honestly couldn't decide which video to embed since there's so fucking many on this topic. See, what I'm getting here is, you don't have an answer. And this frustrates you, drives you nuts. So you try to assert that merely asking the question means and I quote:

>subtle implications about how marxism has corrupted *your* (and I stress: your, the power in the insinuuation) potential traditional waifus who would've washed your shorts and they now post on Tumblr and isn't that a shame.

>you're just whining about how you want a house wife and using statistics to insinuate that she's a child who doesn't know what she wants, the implication being that she's going to be more happy washing your cum and shit stained boxers with a washboard and a bucket.

This is pure and total ad hominem. You don't really have a counter for the evidence, so you just assert I'm some terrible loser for presenting it.

Do you have an alternate interpretation of the studies, or just more random gibberish about washing underwear?

>>11791

>>11792

>I didn't tip toe, etc.

lmao, you most certainly did to ignore the extreme elements of one ideology and then present the extreme elements of another, at the very least. Not going back and reading your now 60 autistic paragraphs to quote again.

>You're not a mindreader

To the contrary, friend, I know your thought process.

>what someone said doesn't matter

You're trying really, really hard, and I can feel the anger about your selfish preferences now that you're splitting up your autism into several posts at a time to fit all of the werds.

>You don't really have a counter for the evidence

Counter the "evidence"? You retarded m8? That would simply be "counter evidence".

What you're really talking about is your "conclusion" drawn from statistics. The conclusion being: with this, therefore because of this (correlation == causation), and therefore, you have no real argument.

I guess I shouldn't really be surprised that you failed to even subtly answer, "no".

>>11793

>ignore the extreme elements of one ideology and then present the extreme elements of another

How in the fuck is explaining exactly what's wrogn with one ideology while directly asking what's wrong with an opposing one the other brought up "ignoring" it? This is moving goal posts. Again, she didn't initially use the word "extreme" and when asked "What's wrong with it?" she never answered. You're asking me to do her work for her?

>To the contrary

So now you're saying you *are* psychic. We're back to the voices in your head thing.

>You're trying really, really hard, and I can feel the anger about your selfish preferences now that you're splitting up your autism into several posts at a time to fit all of the werds.

So again, all you've got is interpretations attacking things I never said.

>What you're really talking about is your "conclusion" drawn from statistics.

So who am I? Am I Betsey Stevenson? Justin Wolfers? Gavin McInness? Jordan Peterson? Stephan Molyneux? Slate? The Guardian? This isn't "my" conclusion, it's the conclusion. What everyone who has read the studies or interpreted the study has arrived at, to the point that feminists are now making articles saying "So what if feminism doesn't make women happy?" http://bigthink.com/harpys-review/whoever-said-that-feminism-was-about-your-happiness You're trying to make it about me, personalize it with identity politics.

Do you have another interpretation of the data? Is there some reason all those people are wrong? Stop avoiding this. Why are women less happy the more feminism there is in their country?

>>11796

>You're asking me to do her work for her?

I'm not asking you to do anything, I simply do not care, you continue to waste your own time.

>We're back to the voices in your head thing.

Friend, you implied that I did not know about sexual dimorphism, especially in that context, when you brought up the Scandinavian studies, as if this discussion hasn't been had fucking tens, hundreds of thousands of times. I'm not a moron, and nothing you have said hasn't been said before.

>So who am I?

No one fucking cares who you are, dipshit, answer the yes or no question. We can already chalk what the caveats of "no" will be for you, and then the discussion is over, and you can go back to self-deception.

Unless you surprise with some honesty, what else is there to say? You've made the fool of yourself.

>>11797

>I simply do not care

Your 14 posts in this thread suggest otherwise.

>you implied that I did not know about sexual dimorphism

Quote the specific post where I even *said* sexual dimorphism. How can I be implying something I never mentioned to begin with? See, it must have been voices in your head, otherwise you're just an idiot.

>No one fucking cares who you are, dipshit,

Then why fixate on me? You seem pretty mad I pointed out it wasn't specifically my conclusion, and you're still avoiding addressing the point. Do you have another interpretation of the data?

>Unless you surprise with some honesty, what else is there to say? You've made the fool of yourself.

"You're an idiot unless you say I'm right"? Fuck off. You didn't even phrase your "when did you stop beating your wife?" question in a way that makes sense. You're asking me a question on a basis that I answer for something I never said while refusing to address what I *actually* said. Why in the fuck would I so dramatically change goal posts and address your asspull when you repeatedly ignore the original topic?

Now sit here for forty more posts about how this is a waste of time, and you're totally not going to reply again, and whatever I say no matter what proves you right because reasons and blah blah blah, you're an incredibly predictable troll.

>>11798

Calling you a fucking retard before I work does not mean I actually deeply care what you do with your time. Everyone's free to shitpost.

>where I even *said* sexual dimorphism

In the video you linked with Jordan Peterson, where the conclusion of the studies are pretty plainly evidence of sexual dimorphism when it comes to certain interests.

The topic as a whole encompassing nature versus nurture, human instinct, tabula rasa social science bullshit being dead wrong (they lost, straight up), computational theory of mind, and basically free will to an extent, so on and so forth.

Want to know why I didn't bring up any of the other big words, friend? Because it's easiest not to ramble and pick the surface level about sexual dimorphism because this is a deep topic.

Ironically, the real consequences of conclusions like this when it comes to the Scandanavian studies, or implying that people are unhappy when they make irrational choices, are potentially striking at the heart of the underlying assumptions in totalitarianism (changing people through total control of the environment, the totalitarian's wet dream is a blank slate), the idea of a rational choices underpinning laissez-faire, and genocide, all /pol/'s favorite shitposting topics. So I think it's pretty ironic.

Of course people are unhappy. They're not rational actors. That doesn't mean they're fucking stupid, people are just not perfectly rational. That's human.

>I pointed out it wasn't specifically my conclusion

You seem to really like mixing up "conclusion" and "data", you don't seem to know what causation really is.

The main point is that you don't really know what the fuck you are talking about by implying that the "direct correlation" means that the ideology is the de facto causation.

You might as well be bitching about freedom and autonomy destroying happiness and how freedom to make their own choices to a reasonable extent poisons the mind. But that's not really the right conclusion to draw, and people would know you're a fucking retard right off the bat if you say what you felt, wouldn't they?

>you're an incredibly predictable troll.

You're incredibly predictable in your self-deception. There's no trolling here, friend, just you being disingenuous.

>>11798

>>11799

Anyways, I do have to actually work, so in conclusion: eat shit.

>>11799

>before I work

On Sunday.

>does not mean I actually deeply care

Fifteen posts now.

>In the video you linked with Jordan Peterson

Are you suggesting you I'm in the video, or are you stupid enough to think quoting something someone said in a video is the same as quoting me? The point was that the most feminist country on Earth has become the most segregated with the most unhappy women as a result. Which I specifically said in that post.

>The topic as a whole

The original topic of the thread was girls taking nudes on the interweb. The topic I was discussing was whether or not feminism in any form had any merit ever, and to a lesser extent asking why if it was so awful for women in the victorian era, it's the number one go-to era for their preferred fantasies. Your word vomit has never been a topic in this thread.

>Ironically,

>So I think it's pretty ironic.

So why are women specifically less happy in countries the more feminist they become?

>That doesn't mean they're fucking stupid

Where in the fuck is this even coming from? Who said them being unhappy meant they were stupid? This is some next level projection. Like, you're one of those male feminist betas trying to compensate for your past negative actions towards women and deep-seeded hatred of them by accusing others of having your own biases. In this case, you're suggesting that the only conclusion to be drawn from women being less happy the more feminist a country becomes is that they're "stupid" but there are numerous obvious reasons feminism makes women unhappy. In the US and UK at least 85% of women do not identify as feminist. They don't like the changes being made on their behalf.

>You seem to really like mixing up "conclusion" and "data"

You seem to focus on semantics when cornered to avoid addressing things you have no answer to.

For the record skippy, just screeching "You're a retard" over and over isn't an argument, it's an assertion.

>just you being disingenuous.

Psychic powers don't real. You're not a mind reader. It's telling you're reduced to saging the thread now, btw.

>>11779

>Listen faggot, you're the moron typing out autistic paragraphs about it

And what is what you wrote if not a paragraph?

What a silly thing to say….

>>11801

>On Sunday.

Not everyone shares your 5 days a week shithole schedule, if you even work, considering I work from anywhere and whenever. My main "day off" is saturday tbh,

>your word vomit

Are pretty much tree nodes of related topics when it comes to the conclusions of the studies that you bring up. Try reading a fucking book instead of arguing about it on your shithole "political discussion" boards where you just vomit out "muh studies muh studies" day in and day out

>implying mixing up "conclusion" and "data" is """semantics"""

lmao

>meant they were stupid

That was your implication, yes.

>trying to turn it around on me

That's quite the pitiful attempt. Not that I give a fuck, I'll happily play the part, but it's quite telling that you think I care about the implication that I'm a racist or sexist. Oh well, t's your self-deception, friend.

>They don't like the changes being made on their behalf

That depends on the "changes" but ideally what's the difference between the freedom of autonomy egalitarianism and first-wave feminism bring?

Protip: there are none.

There's no real "changes" that are being done anyways, other than biological sexes being a protected class, which goes either way. There may be changes in "expectations" but it's really no one's fucking business what roles work in your personal relationship.

You still won't answer the question, it's not even a loaded question, it's the autonomy to make their own choices in a relationship and figure out what works or what each other's preferences are, beyond the ability to realistically participate in both private and public, both sexes being protected by law from discrimination.

That's not a loaded question, it's common sense.

To that end, if two people want "traditional roles" for themselves than who cares? A bunch of old hags and screeching harpies who also want to tell others what will make them happy? They made the rational choice from your perspective, did they not?

>the more "feminist" they become

The same exact countries that you call out for being the most "gender segregated" with the Scandinavian studies, when it comes to biological predispositions and careers, because they're the "most feminist", top the list of happiness.

>saging the thread

Mainly out of habit, it's a total derail. Guess it doesn't matter because it's so slow.

>>11802

The main difference at this point being that I don't vomit out pages worth of text with pre-bookmarked studies and three images to start off every thread derail like this faggot.

>>11564

I've posted them on the chans a lot. It's my guilty pleasure.

Sigh. Another perfectly fine thread ruined thanks to politics.

>>11811

That is the nature of image boards, all threads end in shitposting and autistic arguments. You could always find tumblr if its too much for you.

>>11819

I feel like a broken record repeating this over and over again:

I don't give a fuck of what the "nature of imageboards" is. We have rules here.

>>11807

Did you ever post on 8ch/b?

>>11804

>Not everyone shares your 5 days a week shithole schedule,

The point is unless you're trying to tell us you're a drug dealer, you're not doing any job. You're doing an over the top beta male feminist tough guy routine and trying to sound responsible, but you clearly have no idea how to come off as masculine or mature.

You initially stated "work I get paid for" and said you have to "go get paid" but I can't think of any job that sends out paychecks on sunday when banks are closed. You've also switched back and forth between asserting you don't have time for the discussion you've made 17 posts because of work, then in other posts said you work whenever you want to. Then when you say you've run out of time because of work, tellingly you come back anyway. You're making this claim for the same reason all your avatarfagging involved men in suits.

>"muh studies muh studies"

This is what it keeps boiling down to. You have no response for what's presented, so you attack presenting it. I've asked you repeatedly to give an explanation for why women are specifically less happy the more feminist a country becomes, and the closest you came to an answer was dropping the incredibly telling "…It's not because they're fucking stupid!" which is clearly exactly what you think. Why would someone who hates feminism think women hating it made them stupid? Feminism ironically punishes femininity and beauty, takes away all of women's agency and only allows them to be victims while suggesting they should live in constant fear of the opposite sex.

>implying mixing up "conclusion" and "data" is """semantics"""

I said conclusion, the conclusion drawn by the authors of the studies and the conclusions of the various people who have read it. Since you don't want to address their conclusion you just go "don't you mean data?" but I'm specifically talking about their conclusion. Their fucking conclusion that feminism makes women unhappy.

>That was your implication, yes.

You are the only person in this entire thread who has asserted women being unhappy because of feminism makes them stupid. I think it's the only sensible reaction. I gave the Koko analogy, remember? Same circumstances but with politics removed?

>trying to turn it around on me

You fucking said it.

>Protip: there are none.

Answering your own question because you know I'll point out specific differences. Feminism didn't give men any additional rights, powers or protections, egalitarianism would by definition always apply equally to both sexes, so any rights or protections would apply both ways. I mentioned how before feminism, the goal of women's groups were mostly either banning activities (coffee shops, alcohol, pornography) shaming men (white feather movement) or gaining rights without consequences (the right to vote but with exemption from the draft while men had to be eligible for the draft in order to vote. All the privilege, none of the responsibility.) Egalitarian would be universal and not have a focus on propping up one sex while tearing down the other.

>That's not a loaded question, it's common sense.

Your insistence suggests you know it is a loaded question, why else would you try to assuage a concern I haven't expressed? It's a cut and dry "When did you stop beating your wife?" question. I've shown you studies showing that feminism makes women unhappy, period. You're trying to drag some bizarre argument about taking women's freedom away as a result, as if feminism gave women freedoms they wouldn't have under egalitarianism, or even traditionalism. A system that tells women that their biological imperatives are stupid and they should seek to achieve "male" accomplishments if they want to really contribute, and makes sustaining relationships with men impossible and leaves them alone and barren isn't really benefiting them in any way.

>To that end, if two people want "traditional roles" for themselves than who cares?

The point is those people are according to the studies going to have much happier lives. On top of that, none of the celebrities who promote feminist babble actually live it themselves. Miley Cyrus spends years posing nude and claiming to be a non-binary individual and promoting all the social construct garbage to her impressionable fans, and then what does she actually do? She grows her hair back out, starts dressing more traditionally feminine and marries a straight white man to have his babies. They all do this.

>top the list of happiness.

Show which study you're referring to, please.

>I don't vomit out pages worth of text with pre-bookmarked studies and three images

So your complaint boils down to "I don't like long posts or people being prepared before they post things (I googled most of what I posted as I was going by memory, but still.) As if the only proper thread derail is screeching "autistic retard" and "dirty underwear" over and over?

>>11811

In fairness, however passionate it got the discussion remained civil with everyone else involved.

>>11830

Maybe it might have been civil, but it still was offtopic.

Check the new /poltalk/ thread if you really want to keep discussing the subjects of this thread. Any more politic posts outside of thatt hread will be removed from now on.

Gotta rewrite the rules too to mention this.

>>11834

>Check the new /poltalk/ thread if you really want to keep discussing the subjects of this thread. Any more politic posts outside of thatt hread will be removed from now on.

Oh sorry. I wrote a long post whilst you were submitting yours so I missed this. Just delete mine >>11835.

>>11835

>>11836

Copy and paste your post in the /poltalk/ thread. After you do that, I will delete this one.

>>11807

me too! i'm really innocent and shy irl, but the thought of all these total strangers getting hard from my tits.. demanding more. it's so hot to just give in and be slutty in the confines of that anonymity.. even though i'm not like that irl at all. the most i'll do is little stuff like wear a skirt to work, but when i'm driving i'll pull my panties down and hike my skirt up. i know no one can see but it feels sooooo good to be exposed like that, knowing all these guys would love to see.

am i bad?

>>11845

No but you're a guy.

>>11824

no, I hate both /b/s

mostly /soc/

>>11845

nope, whatever gets you off lol

>>11843

Alright, I posted it in the pol thread here >>11878

>>11811

The boyim strike again.

>>11726

>best-hidden secret

That was already declassified a few years ago, it doesn't even qualify as secret anymore.

https://vault.fbi.gov/adolf-hitler/adolf-hitler-part-01-of-04/view

Yup. Back in the day, when I had an extra psychotic phase and was starved of affection and attention I did it some times on imageboards. Never with face though of course.

Sure felt nice, but when I got a bit better with my mental health I kinda realized that while it's not as bad as hooking up with strangers and such behavior, that it's kind of the same thought process behind it. At least for me it was, but I could justify it a bit better since you don't actually talk to anyone.

Lol you're such a slut. Aren't we all.