Debate Betonhaus on women's rights and rape fantasies - ITT a penis pumper who doesn't know how to properly lubricate thinks he knows what's best for women

Bivona, J. M., & Critelli, J. W. (2009). "The nature of women's rape fantasies: An analysis of prevalence, frequency, and contents."Published in The Journal of Sex Research, 46(1), 33–45.
I am still waiting for explanation from men about their cuckoldry fantasies but alas . They all deserve to be cucked by tyrone according to this book and this researcher

58% of them reported wanting to get cucked and this is actually survey of 4000 plus Americans.

So men why are you cucks?
 
I am still waiting for explanation from men about their cuckoldry fantasies
I am not a cuckold enjoyer personally, however, my theories on why cuckoldry is so popular bring me to two possible explanations.

1) It's a cope, in short. Guys are mentally tricking themselves into thinking they like to see other guys fuck their woman, because then, it's not shameful and humiliating any more (in anything but a kinky way), it is in fact them getting what they want. It's a victory.

2) The Jews.

I hope this illuminates the matter.
 
Except the need for laws is also the acknowledgement that it's wrong. And thus not 'natural'
Getting the ideas of what is natural behavior and what is human-defined moral behavior confused is a mistake to begin with, but it is particularly egregious in this case, because the threadbanned user's reductio ad absurdum was to reject the biological naturality of behavior or policy as a moral justification for it. Having used the biological naturality as an argument for the morality of a behavior and its legality, the word naturality can't then be plucked out and redefined as equivalent of legality, as done in "not legal, thus not natural", because that would be completely circular reasoning.
 
You're a WHAT? well that makes you one of the few ones I can actually get along with.
Just a heads up that sucking up to the zogerators has never bought any user favors, leniency, influence or anything else you might be motivated by, and looks obscene. Have a gander at the user graveyard just beyond the thunderdome there.
 
Just a heads up that sucking up to the zogerators has never bought any user favors, leniency, influence or anything else you might be motivated by, and looks obscene. Have a gander at the user graveyard just beyond the thunderdome there.

Nigga, I don't care. I'll be friendly with whoever I want to.
 
Your entire perception of women and being trad is based off memes that has nothing to do with reality.

Let's look at some ancient societies that people idolize as "trad".

Ancient Sparta:

https://www.worldhistory.org/article/123/spartan-women/
You don't have knowledge on the subject you chose. Your argument actually works against you.

The article on women in Sparta was at many points ahistorical and inaccurate.
The subjugated class of people known as helots took care of menial labor, including weaving of clothes, allowing a female Spartan to concentrate on what Lycurgus believed their most important role: motherhood.
The helots allowed the women to focus on mothership? What? Who paid for this? Who approved it for publication...well...I am not wasting my time with other inaccuracies.

No woman of Sparta was a citizen, and the majority of women were non-free subordinates, known as helots, which meant they were property of the state, and also meant they were denied rights of Spartiates. Any emancipated woman would have thanked her husband's military service for this new freedom, and later thank her husband's lack of male heirs for the inheritance she received, and generations of women that followed could generally thank the later too.

Speaking of a lack of male heirs in Sparta: wasn't the material wealth of the woman a symptom of the city state's decay and death?

Finally, there were no "Spartan" women, insofar as Spartan described a social class which excluded women. Women were non-citizen, free or unfree subjects of the Spartan city state. Calling them ethnic Spartans would also be incorrect.
 
You don't have knowledge on the subject you chose. Your argument actually works against you.

The article on women in Sparta was at many points ahistorical and inaccurate.

The helots allowed the women to focus on mothership? What? Who paid for this? Who approved it for publication...well...I am not wasting my time with other inaccuracies.

No woman of Sparta was a citizen, and the majority of women were non-free subordinates, known as helots, which meant they were property of the state, and also meant they were denied rights of Spartiates. Any emancipated woman would have thanked her husband's military service for this new freedom, and later thank her husband's lack of male heirs for the inheritance she received, and generations of women that followed could generally thank the later too.

Speaking of a lack of male heirs in Sparta: wasn't the material wealth of the woman a symptom of the city state's decay and death?

Finally, there were no "Spartan" women, insofar as Spartan described a social class which excluded women. Women were non-citizen, free or unfree subjects of the Spartan city state. Calling them ethnic Spartans would also be incorrect.
i cited several other examples as well as the bible
 
i cited several other examples as well as the bible
You have nothing to say to my last reply?
Your first citation was not a source on ancient Spartan society. To begin with, it was written by an English major and, more importantly, it contained multiple inaccuracies and false claims in the first four paragraphs. The article itself used no citations. It was nothing but a cheap opinion piece filled which used its subject to purport this disney land fantasy image of emancipated women.
Even if it was authoritative, I don't think you could gain knowledge from it, other than the author's opinion of course, because like I said, you're not broadly familiar with the subject. Therefore, I don't trust your ability, or ability of everyone who liked your post, to analyze any source, and for that reason I don't waste my time with the other citations you provided.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
You have nothing to say to my last reply?
Your first citation was not a source on ancient Spartan society. To begin with, it was written by an English major and, more importantly, it contained multiple inaccuracies and false claims in the first four paragraphs. The article itself used no citations. It was nothing but a cheap opinion piece filled which used its subject to purport this disney land fantasy image of emancipated women.
Even if it was authoritative, I don't think you could gain knowledge from it, other than the author's opinion of course, because like I said, you're not broadly familiar with the subject. Therefore, I don't trust your ability, or ability of everyone who liked your post, to analyze any source, and for that reason I don't waste my time with the other citations you provided.
citing the actual bible isnt good enough lmao
 
I am still waiting for explanation from men about their cuckoldry fantasies but alas . They all deserve to be cucked by tyrone according to this book and this researcher

58% of them reported wanting to get cucked and this is actually survey of 4000 plus Americans.

So men why are you cucks?
We must distinguish between cucks. There is the supercuck, and the last cuck.
I teach you the supercuck: Free from the obligation of sex, the supercuck pursues competition in other areas of greater value, and grow spiritually. They are now free from (your) material world. The degenerate last cuck masturbates and plays video games. He's addicted to physical sensations, appreciates the culture of the slave, and is pleasured by the concept of ownership, much like his wife.
From the citation you provided, only 25% of the men are supercucks. Low number (they're probably millennial). This makes me sad. Who taught them to be last cucks? I blame the society.
Cuckoldry can say many good things about men. Sadly, the society grows last cucks, and not supercucks.

citing the actual bible isnt good enough lmao
No, it's not. You cited the bible to satisfy a strawman argument against your opponents. Popular, but not effective.
 
No, it's not. You cited the bible to satisfy a strawman argument against your opponents. Popular, but not effective.
He set up the strawman in the first place!

The entire West seemed to do a pretty good job of this, from Roman times up through about 1960. Pick your favourite location and time period, and women probably enjoyed the highest quality of living vs. anywhere on the planet, without letting their tardedness get out of hand.
 
He set up the strawman in the first place!
I don't care about what he said. Also, please read examples of what strawman arguments are. I'll give you one:
Many people cope after seeing this by demanding that women live according to the example set by the Bible
This, the bible citation that followed, and your subsequent analysis of it, was a strawman. This is my last reply to you.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole