Gender Divide

I think it was pointed out by one of the women here that guys like to get laid to prove how canniving they are. This is a female way to look at it. You can’t trick a man into having sex with a woman. Everyone knows that having sex with women is to trick them.

I will tell you straight up, there is no guy who really thinks women or men are sluts for having sex with lots of people. This is 100% female. The only reason men will say this, is to get sex from women, not because they believe it. The dickheads, the men who only think with their dicks, force themselves to go to church, watch sports, defend female psychological hypocrisy… even Urwrong is doing it, by stating that women who choose one man is more respectable, more intelligent… he’s contradicting himself to puff himself up in the wild to show he can survive while destroying wealth (logical consistency in this case), which is the only thing that sexually compells a female towards a male. He criticizes slut shaming, and then unequivocally does it. Men are programmed by female sexuality to contradict themselves to get the social standing necessary to secure a sexual resource. Self contradiction in the human species IS EXACTLY like a bird singing a song, or a male peacock spreading its feathers… females will NEVER fuck a male peacock who NEVER spreads those feathers, EVER!

This is important! The lower the contradiction frequency of a male, the desire to not destroy wealth, live off false flags and planned obselesence and just polluting etc… human females see NO spreading of the feathers!! They are EXACTLY like a peacock to this degree. Females are extremely simple sexually in the human species. A male HAS to destroy wealth AND show that he can survive it, survive contradicting himself and the whole species. If he doesn’t get hurt by it, he’s seen as fit to a human female. That’s it. That’s exactly how female sexual consent works. It’s a basic broken computer program, there are no exceptions in this species, just like a female peacock has never mated with a male who never spread their feathers etc… or other male “song” - type species.

On the contrary my logic is solid as my vision has depth. It’s as simple as a child. Imagine the perspective of a child, whose mother is a whore, versus the child whose mother is a saint? Which child has it better or worse? That the other children, and adults of the tribe, know the child of the whore. Other children will make fun of and bully the whore-child. The whore-child will probably be single-parented, father absent, which marks shame. The saint-child will have an easier life by comparison, call it “privilege” if you must. The saint-child probably has a married mother and more cohesive, loyal family.

It’s simply more difficult to convey a sense of respect and security for a promiscuous woman. Again I’m not saying it’s “bad or good”, as Ecmandu implies. I’m saying this is a matter of -is-. I could be wrong, prove me wrong. But chances are, YOU’RE wrong.

Convince me that a whore-child is more respected, will have “equal” privileges in life, will not be shamed by the community, will not be made fun or bullied in school. Give me real life examples and scenarios. Show me.

One of the central tenants of early religions, Christianity as an example here, was that the Church was best able to record and track who had children with whom. Married in the church, with chastity, virginity was checked by the priest before marriage, and consummation was required the night of marriage. Thus the Church checked female promiscuity. You can argue that women are “equally” as promiscuous as men. But history transpired nevertheless. Churches were erected, in due part, to quell female promiscuity. And so when people abandon churches, common morality, and descend into hedonism, then what is the result of female promiscuity? People don’t know who the father of a child is.

Let me repeat for those who are dense: society at large doesn’t know for certain whose a child is.

Thus there are questions of loyalty, familiarity, lineage, and honor. The Church evolved and developed to fulfill these roles for bastardized children, and then the State has also taken the role of moral leader and patriarchy in the recent decades, called Modernity. Church or State step into the missing, absent father. Again, a third time, because people don’t know whose the father of this or that child. Because modern women are promiscuous.

My perspective is rare because I have a liberal reservation. I believe, could be wrong, prove me wrong, that women can be as responsible as men. Let me repeat, women can be as responsible as men. Thus, the way women choose mates, have children, make families, is their fault. Women are to blame, for the good and the bad. Thus, in my view, a woman who chooses well, rightly, and superior, should enjoy the benefits of such choices. And women do, women who choose, build, and defend good families lead to respectfulness. This is innate. People respect morally stringent, strong families. Because they are harder to undermine, more loyal than average people. Average means an ambiguous degree of morality. Maybe this or that man or woman will betray one another.

Prove me wrong, please.

1.) a whore is much different than a slut. All women are whores, not all women are sluts.

2.) genealogy matters less if children are raised by community rather than tribal family structures - offspring possessiveness to this regard, rather than being the backbone of society, degrades society.

3.) women have exactly as much sex with men as men have with women (duh!). Actually, since women are more bisexual than men, women get more sex than men as a whole. The difference is that women cluster most of their sex to a small percentage of men - which men don’t do to women.

Explain in detail how all women are whores…in detail with facts not your projections EC.

You have to trade for sex with women - sex itself isn’t considered good enough trade for a woman.

Even a homeless guy will fuck most any woman - the sex itself is the trade - he’s not even going to ask for a 5 cent empty can for it.

Men are also unblackmailable in small populations - meaning of you offered him a trillion dollars to fuck another guy, and he wasn’t gay, he’d shrug it off and say no. If you said you’ll chop his dick off if he doesn’t fuck a guy, he’ll shrug it off and say no, if you say you’re going to destroy the whole species, if he doesn’t fuck another guy, he’ll shrug it off and say no. You know why? Because men know the stakes for prostitution have infinite implications FAR more serious than stuff like that. Men can do long term planning, abstract cosmic laws better, can see implications of behavior trillions of years into the future … women aren’t wired that way shrug

Even if a woman takes a serious vow to be chaste, she’s making the claim that all sex is evil necessarily in all instances, forever, which is false - her hypocrisy will gain her material security - monks do the same thing - the topic of nuns and monks is very long actually sigh

Why isn’t it? An orgasm for an orgasm seems fair. If contraceptives are guaranteed, then women desire ecstasy too.

You’re stating the obvious, not the reality. Even women who can’t get pregnant because of infertility require trade greater than sex … men don’t. For men, sex is the trade.

Only heterosexual men are required to be moral agents

You ask me why? Women aren’t moral, and unlike urwrong stated, they don’t have to be.

Both genders are forced into morality. For women though, it tends to revolve around caring for their own children. For men, it’s everything else.

You are not explaining with any evidence these claims you make, about the soul of a woman being evil, about all women being amoral, about women being whore’s…you are not providing anything but your opinion.

This part is really, really, super-really important to explain, I can’t emphasize this enough!!

A woman in this world, if she opens up the whole can of worms that is morality, is like a father watching a small child walking to poke a paper clip in an electrical outlet - if he doesn’t get off his ass, both him and the child experience hell, the child for the first time, and his gets worse… it’s not a perfect analogy because the politics of women is much more complicated. But generally speaking, throwing a female into that ring is extremely severe abuse through passive neglect. Plus it makes men hypocrites. This stuff I’m explaining here is like preschool, it can’t really harm you much. Men know they can’t open that can of worms for women!! They know better. Men have to solve the problem before they teach the lesson. Women of earth are not placed in this type of sphere of consciousness. The irony is, the severe abuse women perpetrate on men causes a selective funnel that some men go through. the ones who are abusing women to get laid, haven’t gone through that funnel yet, the ones seeking revenge etc… the men who believe that they are good for a woman, so it’s ok if THEY trick women into sex, because it’s better than a real asshole getting sex… the means are the ends, guys still abusing the mating system are hopelessly stuck.

What forced morality? And what would be the alternative to this forced morality?

sigh

I’ll tell you something…

You ask ANY fucking nun on earth… will you fuck me for 50 trillion dollars and you can give it to your order, or any charity you want. Every fucking one of them would find a way to rationalize the sex.

Not all men are built this way.

Men do far more for children than women do, trying to collapse resource dependencies - and stop saying women are morally accountable fuck! They’re not morally accountable !!

If a woman keeps abandoning or murdering her own children then society will rebuke or punish her. She is obligated, morally, forced, to care for her children, to live at peace with society.

There is no “alternative” except, what, praising a woman who abandons and murders her own children? Is that what you’re implying, to take the “forced morality” away???

You’re all over the place.

So you have no evidence only your rationalization based on nothing concrete? Not good enough Ec.

Let’s bump up the stakes…

Let’s see how much you understand reality

The man offers 50 trillion dollars, if you don’t accept it, he will rape you, and torture every person on earth in a torture chamber for 50 years…

Do you consent to sex??

The thing is Wendy, women don’t understand reality.

Call me full of shit.

You are wrong on this though

Society has no guaranteed knowledge of this abandoning/murder of children, so it is not forced per se without societies knowledge, only when the woman admits to abandoning/murdering does such morality come into play after the fact. I don’t care to know how many women cause their own miscarriages, for that is a sad state of affairs and shaming a woman into being a poor mother is stupid. The more we delve into the whole double standards department, the more incoherent I will become because there is no end to it and that disturbs me on levels that I can’t even articulate…yet.

Why would I need money to have sex? Or better yet, why would I consent to sex with a psycho?

You answered the question half correct!

I’m impressed!

It’s immoral to be a nun.

That’s the other half. It was a trick question.

However, attempting to tamper with sexual orientations for reasons of very deep implication is a greater crime than this world is worth.