Why is promiscuity bad?

Why is that when a woman has lots of partners she is a slut but when a guy has a lot of partners it only raises up his worth in the eyes of others?(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.)

Because women can easily find sexual partners while men can't. We as society and individuals value difficult things, especially if people do them voluntarily.

>>69254 because men and women are different

Why is a key that can unlock any door valuable, but a door that can be unlocked by any key worthless?

>>69254 The success of a male is measured by how many females he breeds, while the success of a female is measured by how many pups she rears. This is true in most mammals, and humans are mammals. That said, almost all mammals change behavior depending on their environment, so this simplistic evolutionary explanation doesn't tell us much.

>>69257 And why should women be locks in this analogy?

>>69254 To paraphrase an image I can't find, to be a stud (a man with a lot of sexual partners) you need to be witty, charming, hot, have nice shoes and a fake job. To be a slut, you just need to be there. There are fat, ugly sluts, but there are no fat, ugly studs. In my opinion promiscuity is bad regardless of your sex, but the above is how it generally works. >>69259 Do you know what men and women have between their legs, Lainon?

>>69254 Sexual promiscuity is just bad in general. It leads to a society of distrust where everybody questions the sincerity of the people around them and breeds an attitude that people are disposable walking sex toys. Is it any wonder how a society like that breeds everything from incels to women taught to hate their appearance? Men get away with it because they don't get pregnant, they don't have to experience its biological effects or having to explain it to everyone. A guy can impregnate a girl and disappear. Why does having a lot of sex partners increase his social standing? For the exact same reasons as winning many shouting matches, fights, having money or killing lots of people. Men are fickle creatures impressed by feeble ape-like displays of dominance and power. It's one of our worst traits.

>>69254 Is that actually the case? I can't tell anymore if it's just a meme that people assume how everyone else thinks. I don't think this way myself; I wouldn't respect a man who has too much indiscriminate sex, and I wouldn't respect a prudish woman who deprives themselves of any sexual satisfaction or intimacy out of some misguided shame and cultural obligation. Rather what is admirable is when a person has the strength to act or not act on their sexuality in a way that is an authentic expression of themselves and uplifts those around them. Analogies to defense of private property and animal breeding seem to make very crass and dubious assumptions about the source of value of people and their lives. You can get the high score, but that doesn't make it matter, and it certainly doesn't imply a broad moral imperative for everyone to be also playing that same game with obsessive tryhardism.

>>69262 It is more so that we have a base instinct. Men breed as much as they can by any means nessesary, women chose a good partner and try to keep him no matter what. Promiscuous and cheating males and women that hold their man on a tight leash are like bar fights. We don't really want to participate but admire the hutspa and understand it on a base level regardless of mortality. Like Ancient Greeks had a head god who is a cheating bastard and a irritated wife that plots horrendous schemes to kill off his offspring that she doesn't approve of? We kinda kept it in our cultural zeitgeist since then at least

>>69263 >Men breed as much as they can by any means nessesary, women chose a good partner and try to keep him no matter what. Do they? I don't. If this was our natural inclination why would it be necessary to impose cultural shaming of men and women who don't adhere to their respective roles? Wouldn't they just follow them on their own? >Promiscuous and cheating males and women that hold their man on a tight leash are like bar fights. What do you mean they are "like bar fights"? >Like Ancient Greeks had a head god who is a cheating bastard and a irritated wife that plots horrendous schemes to kill off his offspring that she doesn't approve of? Ancient Greeks don't exactly seem like a good example of humans in a primal state, their society existed in a relatively new and unnatural system of organized war for plunder and mass enslavement. Men were systematically raped as children, women were regarded as something like property. Certainly we inherited ideas from these people, but I'm not convinced they are really still so universally accepted, let alone accurately describe what defines our behavior.

>>69264 Modern atomic family structure in the postindustrial urbanised environment is not natural, thus it requires cultural pressure to mold appropriate citizens that are adapted to this way of living. I mean in a way that people enjoy MMA or watching people fight. It provides catharsis to them without them engaging in it. They may be against doing it themselves or even promoting the activity, but they won't stop it nor will they avert their gaze. I recommend this video on the subject https://youtu.be/3RD72deHti0 But TLDR is that it was very much closer to our tribal way of doing things than a modern government at early stages. And rape, slavery and other things are perfectly natural for hominids, we practiced that for thousands of years before civilization most likely. I don't want to convert you to my way of thinking nor do I subscribe to it fully or morally support it. Just my conclusions based on my knowledge on the subject.

>>69267 >But TLDR is that it was very much closer to our tribal way of doing things than a modern government at early stages. And rape, slavery and other things are perfectly natural for hominids, we practiced that for thousands of years before civilization most likely. I don't see there much of an argument in favor of ancient Greece resembling our evolutionary environment. Not to say I think we were well behaved pre-civilization, but there are practical changes to what is possible that civilization implies. Without a certain scale of social organization, controlling the movements or behavior of other humans isn't something anyone can do beyond a limited extent. Once you get to the point of city states with armies, agriculture, and shared rules between large numbers of people, it's very different. Just the fact that human men have a very large penis size ratio relative to most animals is telling evidence that any sort of model of chaste, cloistered wives wasn't around for most of our history. If it was we'd have tiny dicks like gorillas or lions, animals that are able to make that happen with force and don't compete otherwise. That aside, even assuming I'm wrong about that, I'm not clear on how the rest of what you're saying fits together. What type of modifications are required for modern civilization? If you believe men are naturally promiscuous and women are not, then isn't that exactly in line with the cultural pressures described here, and not a modification at all? How is this supposed to work?

>>69261 >a guy can impregnate a girl Girls are people and can make conscious desicions (which is a thing rather independent from their gender identity) + contraception exists + abortions exist. So why is it still bad for a normal woman who thinks and knows all this (not from a 3rd world soykafhole) to have as much sex as she wants? Why are guys turned away once she mentions that she had lots of partners. This "worth" how is it determined?

>>69270 No? Promiscuity in men is not really rewarded in small communities because it produces single mothers that have to rely on the community for help. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, especially if it's patriarchal, just look at the Roman Republic or Victorian England. What I'm saying is that our civilization breaks these small communities and atomises the families. It used to be a family unit was like 10 people at least, now it's 2+kids, maybe 6 if grandparents are close by.

>>69257 My dad used to tell me this saying back in the 90s.

>>69271 It hasn't existed for most of human history, so our whole society was built without a reliable means to end a pregnancy. Contraceptives aren't 100% reliable and abortions are expensive and invasive procedures. Another reason for why she's turned away is fear of sexually transmitted disease or the baggage history with ex-partners can bring.

>>69272 Ah ok, that clarifies things. So then this attitude that men should be promiscuous is an atomizing force deployed by postindustrial civilization.

>>69275 >Another reason for why she's turned away is fear of sexually transmitted disease or the baggage history with ex-partners can bring. There is also paternity uncertainty. The best strategy for a woman is to marry a nice guy with a good job and then get impregnated by alpha-chad. That way she gets alpha-genes children but also a nice, loyal, stable man to help her raise them. That's why basically every human culture is at least somewhat paranoid about female fidelity. The men who weren't paranoid were literally ϲuϲked out of the genepool. >>69272 >It used to be a family unit was like 10 people at least, now it's 2+kids, maybe 6 if grandparents are close by. I'd say the opposite, the new family unit it bigger. It's a single mom + 10,000,000 men paying taxes to support her.

It's not that having a high bodycount increases the value of a man. It's that it is only attractive men that are able to garner a high bodycount in the first place. Women are more than willing to look past a high bodycount if you check all other boxes. This is predominantly the case because a lack of promiscuity isn't a core attribute desired by women - height, status, wealth and facial attractiveness are. Combine this with the fact that in the west, women typically attempt to punch above their weight class and you end up in a dynamic where women both have to and are completely willing to look past a promiscious past of an attractive man. It's as hard for women to acquire a long term relationship as it is for men to get sex. If you're going to tell me that "a woman can get a relationship in 30 minutes by just messaging one of her simps" - yes she can, the same way you can fuarrrk a landwhale today too, but you don't want to, do you? Anyway, a lack of promiscuity is a core component men look for in a girlfriend. I can't think of a single friend I have who have or would date a whore.

>>69278 >Combine this with the fact that in the west, women typically attempt to punch above their weight class This is the product of feminism and sexual liberation. A 5/10 woman can bang a 7/10 man but he's never going to marry her. The more 7/10 guys she bangs in her teens and 20s the harder it is to settle down and marry a 5/10 man who was always available. No sex before marriage was to protect the long term wellbeing of women as much as men.

I don't think it's bad to be promiscuous. It's just not attractive when looking for a long term relationship to get with a brain dead whore, and if you actually pay attention enough you can weed those out. Much like anything though it becomes a problem when you're a retard about it and end up with kids later in life or stick your dick in crazy and you have to deal with that.

>>69260 Do you know that analogies don't work because of physical resemblance of the objects?

>>69290 What do you mean? Bananas are shaped vaguely like penises, so when you pull back skin to reveal the tasty interior it's like peeling back the layers of a man's soul and appreciating his inner self. Bananas are really deep if you think about it.

>>69294 Hm, I see what you mean. It really makes you think.

>>69276 Pretty much. And nobody really is happy there, exept those that love that profits go up. Men are just as miserable in this situation as women as they chase the series of false summits endlessly. You can hear a lot of theese types say that sex doesn't even feel that good, it's all about the chase and measuring numbers with other males. Now, I agree that sex can be taxing physically and not even really feel better than good masturbation from pleasure perspective, but it's much more intimate with a person you love and in a long standing strong relationship with. Hard to describe, I guess oxytocin owerload is the best word for it I can think of right now. >>69277 You're just being facetious.

>>69254 think logically: women can get pregnant by only 1 man. men can impregnate as many as circumstances allow. So women are forced to be selective while men can use spray & pray as a strategy. That aside whoring is encouraged cause there are multiple industries attached to it while there is 0 money to be made with celibate.

every time I think I'm a broken person I visit this board and feel better about myself

A key that opens many locks is a Master Key. A lock that opens to many keys is a worthless whore. >>69271 It has to do with sexual selection. Did you know human females are one of the few mammals for which ovulation isn't readily apparent to the males? Nearly every mammal has sexual routines dependent on the female saying "fuarrrk me, right now." in less vocal but exactly as specific circumstantial language. Why is "invisible ovulation" an evolutionary benefit? This is what we now need to answer. We'll use cats like the rest of the internet. >Be male cat >She's not ovulating >"Lol fuarrrk off" >Sexual selection is irrelevant >He comes back when she's ovulating >The have babies >Be male human >Idk when she's ovulating >None of my genetically defined operations allow for me to know when she's going to ovulate >"Stay near me, at all times, and don't go near any other males, ever, for any reason." This is known as sexual security, and is acquired in two ways: Genetically driven monogamy, or genetically driven hypersexuality. There is no in-between, there is no gray zone, every single male is one or the other, never both. This manifested as what we see today. If you want another cold, calculated example of why sex isn't free, we'll use snakes. >Mammals >Social animals(group structure) >Single male can impregnate 20 females >This is normal sexual selection among mammals >One male : Multiple females = Mammal >Reptiles >Females lay eggs >Single female can lay 20 eggs, serviced by up to 20 males >This is normal sexual selection among reptiles >One female : Multiple males = Reptile Sex addiction is fine, and that's all this "culture" is. Syphilis and 30 year old women that can't get laid anymore being mad they fuarrrked up their life because they got addicted to penis.

Women's sexuality should be restricted to ensure social stability, prevent the spread of disease, prevent uncertainty over paternity and stop society degenerating into a horde of sex fiends and depressed incels. Is this unfair? No, it is necessary. If you look at all traditional societies, they had lower rates of loneliness, relationship induced depression, marital infidelity, cheating, self-harm caused by a fear of being unattractive etc and practically everybody ended up with a partner, whereas today you have a whole class of men and women that don't have the looks or the hooks to cut it in the modern dating market.

>>69313 "restricting women" is framing so people can rally behind "fight for freedom". Avoid using your enemies rhetoric. Call it protecting women from pump&dump or whatever. Btw whoring has one simple purpose for society: It protects regular women from rape by funneling the potential rapists into whore houses. That's evidenced by SK banning whoring and seeing an immediate increase in rape.

>>69307 Then why concede to projecting the expectation that men will want and gravitate towards that pattern of behavior? If it isn't really even about the sex, which has been commodified into yet another bloodless status measurement, then it is artificial, and the commonsense notion that this is just how we are is a self propagating delusion that would be better rejected. The way I see it, the natural and ideal role of sex is in forming and maintaining emotional connections between people. That role is defeated both when it is treated as a game, and when it is treated as a moral failure except within rigid institutions. Promiscuity vs chastity is a false choice and misses the point.

Its not projecting something that men want as much as projecting something human has done and evolved to do for hundreds of thousands of years. People forget that humanity has been unchanged for a long ass fuarrrking time and only now did we start to break the old "rules". But here is the fun question... Where did those rules come from? If humanity has been treating female promiscuity as bad for 200 thousand years, then only in the last 50 years did it start "praising" it, you could see it as a rebellion against something archaic and an evolution, or you could see it as a 14 years old teen telling his dad "fuarrrk you i know what's good for me" as he starts chugging alcohol and chain-smoking cigars because it feels and looks good. The only real way to tell whether this is the "correct" behavior or not is to wait and see. The only test that truly matters is the test of time. If humanity will still be here in ten thousand years, what kind of behavior would you personally expect to see? I would personally vote on us being still the same old cavemen we always were. Because that's what carried us through thousands of years and that's what will carry us through thousands more. Behavior of promiscuity is what works best for this society. But do you honestly see modern society lasting thousands of years?

>>69318 >If humanity has been treating female promiscuity as bad for 200 thousand years Again, I don't think this is the case. Humanity was likely unchanged for most of its history, but it wasn't now that we started to break with tradition, it was several thousand years ago. Details are of course sparse due to the lack of written language before that time, but as I said earlier I think our physiology speaks for itself to some extent. >If humanity will still be here in ten thousand years, what kind of behavior would you personally expect to see? Incomprehensibly different. We will cure death in the next century, probably get AGI before that, we will increase our mental dependence and integration with mechanical prosthetics and networking, and the taboos on tinkering with the human genome can't last long and those practices will get more extreme the more generations pass. Whether we make it through this process without our society becoming a hell will depend on our capacity to overcome isolation and maintain empathy, and I believe sex has an important role to play in that.

>>69317 I like the way Bret Weinstein put it (not a fan of his COVID obsession, but he is a good biologist). Both are true. Biology is not so linear. We have two wolves in us, so to say. One seeks what you describe, a good partner for monogamous relationship. This partner will have X characteristics. This is a high effort, good chance of success strategy. But the other wolf seeks women with Y characteristics (they are not Nessesarily opposite of X in every way, but notably different) that will let them fool around once or occasionally without asking to settle down with them. This is low effort, low chance of success strategy. Not many people employ both simultaneously, but the biological urge and rationale is there

>>69317 >Promiscuity vs chastity is a false choice and misses the point I see this. Ideological polarization is such god damn cancer. Our inclination to see and apply order has completely fuarrrked us in some respects.

>>69325 I feel like it's deeper than that. It's hard to say where the bipolar view of the world comes from exactly, but it runs deep. Some suggest that the whole concept of gramatic language relies on opposites to function and thus since we mostly use it for internet discussion and programming to run the platform for this discussion. I don't wanna be a religious grandma from the 70s, but it must be said that the concept of becoming whoever you want to be in the tabletop RPG games and then computer games and social media must have had some effect, although it did exist for millennia (note the face that in many cultures theatre actors were considered an underclass and a cesspit for deviants, where the rich and powerful come to mingle behind the closed doors to explore their fantasies as they have nothing new to excite them in the normal world)

>>69257 Can you elaborate so I don't have to guess what you mean by this? I don't see what trying to protect your property has to do with the cultural acceptance of certain sexual behaviours

>>69254 It shouldn't be any different. Promiscuity either for men or women is a bad thing. To prevent unrest, it is good to have men marry and start families. It gives them something to focus their energy on and a goal that's worth trying to attain. Families mean that people are taken care of, too. It gives people more stability and support. A family also means that the children and babies are taken care of. The dumbest thing that I hear is that people supposedly need to have more than 1 sex partner to get some sort of "experience". WTF? Why not just find the right woman/man and be happy? Promiscuity just leads to a situation where only small % of the population has a gf/bf or wife/husband and a family. And that causes unhappiness. At worst it increases the amount of people who don't want to participate in the society.

>>69337 Crab bucket mentality. That's why they tell their "friends" to get fuarrrked at parties. Cant unfuck yourself so drag them down with bad advice to not be below them in value.

>>69333 >Can you elaborate so I don't have to guess what you mean by this? It's a common expression to compare women to locks and men to keys because men will have sex with basically any woman who will let them but women are very selective about which men they choose to have sex with. It doesn't actually explain anything it is just an observation on how the world works. Women choose which men to have sex with and men choose which women to commit to. So men have to work to get the date and then women have to work to get the ring. >>69337 >It shouldn't be any different. It has to be different because women pay a much higher price for sex. Getting pregnant means being crippled for 9 months and then being stuck with a child for another 16 years. Not having a committed man to help her through that ranges from difficult in modern society to literally suicide in a hunter-gatherer society. Women also have a narrow 20 year window to have children where as men can keep shooting off loads till they die. That also means if a women gets impregnated by a deadbeat she has to wait 9 months to try again with someone better. A man can impregnate as many women as he wants at the same time so quality makes no difference to him. Women are also more vulnerable to sexually transmitted diseases since it can infect the babies or make her sterile whereas a man can just keep shooting different women until he gets lucky. So there are a ton of reasons why expectations should be different for men and women.

>>69333 Human boundaries and property go hand in hand. Women and children were once (and in some places still) legally belong to men. Raping family members was not abnormal behind closed doors because women and children were men's property to take care of, whether they took good or bad care was mostly irrelevant. Control over autonomy and control over the use of others and their property has had an effect on what became women's rights and civil rights. Wanting to breed your slaves for work, or telling your wife she can't go outside alone because she is your property is at the heart of what started this whole debate. These kinds of problems are recent tho. If a woman left the cave and got ate by a tiger, obviously the other women would not want to go outside without a male escort. When people have to collaborate, they collectively operated as a team, not as owner-property. While slaves may have been "lesser" humans, they were not treated so much as budgetary expenditures for a calculated return on investment like they have been in the last few hundred years. My body - My choice pro-abortionisnm notice I didn't say pro-choiceis a pure objectification of bodily autonomy, often for financial reasons (I can't afford a child, or then I won't be able to do the things that I want -clearly derived from financial responsibilities). Money, as a status symbol, an a motivating factor for the exchange of goods and services to obtain property has encouraged female promiscuity to aggregate money from multiple men. Meals, Gifts, and even payments for sex are commonplace, which is why so many people started onlyfans -their actions are low physical risk but potentially high financial gain. Celebrities encourage and celebrate these kinds of things because they make women into boss bitches for having simps follow them around, essentially objectifying men into a passive income source.

>>69341 >It has to be different because women pay a much higher price for sex. Getting pregnant means being crippled for 9 months and then being stuck with a child for another 16 years But women have contraception, no? We have abortion in civilized countries if the worst comes to worst or whatever. The "price" for sex is the same for both parties. Also if the woman happens to be psychopathic kind she can lie about contraception and get herself pregnant which leads to the father having to pay for the kid for years on end without consent.

>>69342 >having simps follow them around, essentially objectifying men into a passive income source. These "men" are doing it voluntarily insofar as they are autonomous beings. Having natural urges hardly makes you unable to not give money to whores on the internet instead of seeking physical contact in the real world.

>>69344 Women can be deceptive and be secretly promiscuous, other women don't really discourage it. "Yaaas queen, live your best life!" I started dating a woman and then walked in on her parents yelling at her for trying to date multiple guys and act like they were the only one. Her friends encouraged her to be dishonest and get the best out of multiple guys trying to date her. Needless to say, I walked away from the relationship and the other guys just wanted to fuarrrk anyway. It broke her heart, and I ignored her to this day and I'm pretty sure she had a mental breakdown after she realized I was the only guy who didn't just like her for her body. Glad I didn't have sex, because she acted innocent around me but was actually a real whore, lol.

>>69345 >Women can be deceptive and be secretly promiscuous, other women don't really discourage it. "Yaaas queen, live your best life!" Most slutshaming comes from other women. Imagine you have a boyfriend and want to get married but then some younger girl with a short skirt seduces him for lulz. Women controlling access to sex is not always an advantage for them. >her parents yelling at her for trying to date multiple guys Parents have a vested interest in their daughter's fidelity because guess who she's going to leech from if she ends up being a single mom.

>>69346 >Most slutshaming comes from other women. To me the culture seems to be still going in the direction of >>69345 >"Yaaas queen, live your best life!" ...instead of shaming at large. There's the ideological component that you HAVE to enjoy and take every experience NOW or you will regret. Enjoy your netflix after work, have lots of sex and buy that coca-cola because you don't want to be a uptight bitch right?

>>69348 >To me the culture seems to be still going in the [other] direction I think that's just proof that women don't actually have any control over the feminist narrative. Young women who don't know any better fall for it and older women who have been burned are silenced.

>>69351 >women don't actually have any control over the feminist narrative If you're a lefty then it's a corporate plot to drive women into the workplace and keep wages low. If you're a righty it's a malthusian plot to reduce the birthrate on an overpopulated planet. Either way modern feminism has nothing to do with what women want.

>>69352 >why not both? There is value for a strong underpaid workforce, and family values drive people to appreciate each other more instead of treating each other like commodities. Even where gender roles are not strong, having good relationship values and seeing each other as equally beneficial to raising a family or community counteracts the lefts "muh corporations" and the rights "muh gubmint oppression" Its beneficial to keep the lower class subjugated, and whores work if it keeps the people focused on cooming and consooming instead of establishing a foothold in society.

>>69254 Because societies are largely run by men and have done for ages lmao, so obviously they're going to say getting to fuarrrk and impregnate loads of women is cool but getting cheated on, unwittingly raising someone else's kid or having your daughter get fuarrrked without first acquiring a dowry is lame.

>>69254 Thats not even true, if you believe that its a good thing for guys your wrong.

>>69359 >Because societies are largely run by men and have done for ages lmao The fact that monogamous cultures have existed for 1000s of years is proof that men don't actually run everything. Civilization itself is a compromise.

>>69362 Compromises aren't necessarily equitable

>>69363 >Compromises aren't necessarily equitable How do you think till death do us part became a thing? Women have zero sexual value after menopause, primitive tribes used to murder middle aged women because they were nothing but a resource drain.

>>69365 >How do you think till death do us part became a thing? Well that part sounds pretty equitable to me, but I sense you feel this is unjust?

>>69367 >I sense you feel this is unjust? Lose the argument attack the person. Classic. >that part sounds pretty equitable to me So clearing men never did unilaterally control everything.

>>69368 >Lose the argument Well not really because marriage is a single feature of society and is entirely voluntary. >attack the person Why do you feel attacked? I'm just asking a question. >So clearing men never did unilaterally control everything. Do you honestly not see how men haven't also benefited from "till death do us part"?

>>69369 >Well not really because marriage is a single feature of society and is entirely voluntary. Marriage is a social construct, pair bonding is biological ans psychological.

>>69370 Yeah but a voluntary one, women don't voluntarily agree to be called a slut for being sexually successful or voluntarily agree to get paid less for the same job as a man. The only example of equitability you've got so far is voluntarily and even then it seems you're implying it's unfair for men. Like, marriage was 'till death do us apart until a man decided that didn't work for him and introduced divorce as a get out clause, still beheaded two of his wives even after giving himself the privilege to divorce them. So thanks to that, marriage is voluntary in both its onset and its continuance.

>>69369 >Do you honestly not see how men haven't also benefited from "till death do us part"? 30s and 40s is when men hit their peak sexual value while women hit their bottom. So the optimum strategy for a man be to get a new, probably better, wife at 40 instead of carrying around dead weight for the rest of his life. So your implications that men run everything and women are just poor oppressed slaves is objectively wrong. I've already explained to you what the optimal strategy is for a woman. It's annoying to talk about because of the language dehancer. Since women start off at high value and go down, men start off low value and go up, marriage is a good compromise. A pretty 16yo girl marries a broke 16yo boy. The girl gives him her best years and when the time comes the boy will give her his best years. That's how it's supposed to work at least. >obviously men are going to say getting to fuarrrk and impregnate loads of women is cool You're also missing the point about how promiscuity is bad for women. To get the best partner women need to settle early when they still have high sexual value. The longer they wait the worse the options will be. Especially when you consider men and women age in opposite directions. It's not just that a 35yo woman has limited fertility left, it's also that a 35yo men now has a strong career and is making 6 figures. >Why do you feel attacked? I'm just asking a question. You projected a very negative position on me in the hopes that I wouldn't disown it strongly enough then you can claim the moral high ground while bypassing the real discussion. I see it a lot.

>>69374 So don't get married, just keep impregnating 16 year olds your entire life? There's no law to say you have to marry anyone, it's not even a social expectation anymore, there's plenty of women out there these days that would give you their "best years" without marriage and then you can chuck them as soon as you want a younger sexual partner. This is why love is said to be the most important part of a marriage, because it's one of the few things in society that is truly equitable and that's also why it's entirely voluntary for everyone involved. Although some men are unhappy with that and believe the modern world is unfair in that marriage is voluntary for women as well these days, what with their financial independence and no obligation to settle on a man just to have a home and something to eat. >You projected a very negative position Never projected anything, just discussing the topic with you, pressing you on your opinions, you're not a victim because I've asked you a question about your opinions.

>>69371 >women don't voluntarily agree to get paid less for the same job as a men They do by working less and retiring where men make the job their entire live. The pay gap is rooted in the choices women make not in some madeup conspiracy against women, the latter just feels nicer for your ego which is why its popular.

>>69359 >Unwittingly raising someone else's kids I've heard it explained as >Taking a females reproductive security is called rape >Taking a males reproductive security is called lol cry more If a female wants a paternity test at birth, it's free. If a male wants one at birth, it costs $500.

A few things that have not been mentioned: -There have been studies that showed when people do get married, their success rate depends largely depended on how many sexual partners they had. -Often times it is a sign of other issues, like self control issues. I hate to be like that, but I try to let people be and recently that bit me in the ass. People are not that unique of snow flakes. There are exceptions but people tend to be sheep. -Often times the present value is wasted when there could have been a better pay off. IE Dopamine depletion.

>>69376 >The pay gap is rooted in the choices women make not in some madeup conspiracy against women, the latter just feels nicer for your ego which is why its popular. Wrong, unequal pay for equal services rendered is where the pay gap comes in. However, if the job requires specific work requirements that women can't meet, then the pay gap is justified. One Of the top stock brokers on wallstreet got it right when he said a woman can never make it to the top if she wants to be a mother. It isn't sexism, when a job requires 100% focus or extreme fitness, most women just can't cut it. Military jobs also limit women in their roles because they can't perform tasks. All of this is actually relevant to promiscuity, because contraceptives allow all the reproductive drive, but none of the reproductive consequences or obligations, which leads women to think they are equal to men in all fields, not just some specific ones like mundane white collar 9-5 jobs.

>>69377 >If a female wants a paternity test at birth, it's free. If a male wants one at birth, it costs $500. Because the reason for having a paternity test is likely different depending on who is getting it. >Woman is finding the father so it will ideally help raise the child >Man is trying to get out of raising the child, if it's not his then he doesn't need to raise it, so paternity tests are the first call for trying to weasel out of fatherhood Men are expected to face up to their responsibilities, and that's the result of not just historical attitudes, but also there's a modern resurgence of people saying that having a nuclear family is the most important thing for society, where ideally every child has a mother and a father, so the $500 is kind of a tax on men trying to avoid their responsibility. Y'know it is like kicking dead whales down the beach to pay for a test AND find out your partner cheated on you (and if that is the case, losing $500 surely pales in comparison), but I imagine in the vast majority of cases the results come back and say "Yes, you're not nearly as good at pulling out as you thought, time to do the right thing friendo". Anyone who is on the conservative side of politics will all support this, from their perspective women trying to pull a family together is doing the responsible thing while a man trying to break it apart is being irresponsible and like is wasting paternity tests in denial.

>>69382 >success rate depends largely depended on how many sexual partners they had I did not know this. Pretty interesting stuff "Psychologists Galena K. Rhoades and Scott M. Stanley found that the study respondents who had sex with other people prior to marriage reported lower-quality unions compared to couples who slept just with each other. Multiple sex partners prior to marriage reduced marital quality for women, but not men." https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-sexual-history-affect-marital-happiness "On the speculative side is their notion that having multiple partners increases awareness of spousal alternatives. It’s evidence for this proposition that the divorce rate increases in regions with more single people; in other words, we’re always willing to consider alternatives to our current mate. By implication, our marriages suffer when we make more comparisons." Seems like being a slut isn't the way to go if you want to have a lasting marriage. This does not surprise me in the least

>>69393 Doesn't that mean that a woman just knows that there an alternative and so can make a choice to divorce a bad husband?

>>69396 >Doesn't that mean that a woman just knows that there an alternative and so can make a choice to divorce a bad husband? The theory I heard is that it's more of a trauma reaction. The ideal is to find a good husband when she is young and pretty and stay with him forever. In our evolutionary history, losing a husband means he was killed somehow, perhaps by a rival tribe. That means soykaf is unstable and it's better to not get too attached to the next partner. If she's burned through 20 sexual partners then a woman's lizard brain is really not expecting number 21 to last long and subconsciously sets expectations accordingly.

>>69398 >>69393 >the lizard brains and evolutionary psychology! Isn't the point really that going from chastity to marriage is the change from not having sex at all to having sex, while promiscuity to marriage is a change from freedom to have sex with anyone you can to only being able to have sex with one person? In the former case you're gaining something, in the latter you're losing something. Surely this is applicable to both men and women?

>>69396 Well we are talking about the number of premarital sex partners. This means that the previous experiences do not let you know the other person on a deeper level and on top of that means that these people were not chosen by the female for marriage. If I'm not incorrect you are suggesting that the now married female is more able to spot a "bad" marriage but I don't see how her past sexual experiences could've told her anything about what good marriage is like. One night stands and fuarrrkbuddies are nothing like a marriage. The alternative that you mentioned is not even in the same category. The completely unnecessary comparisons being made are between shallow relatively short experiences and one of the biggest social bonding that one can make in life. This most likely means that you are grasping memories of ideal versions of one's sexual partners that have been tainted by time and I argue that these comparisons between the previous partners and your current spouse are destructive for one's contentedness.

>while promiscuity to marriage is a change from freedom to have sex with anyone you can to only being able to have sex with one person? Marriage is not reducible to sex. This much should be obvious.

>>69401 I think often people look back at old marriages and see how many unhappy marriages there were and just how many divorces there were back in the 70s and 80s when it became socially acceptable, and surmise it was the "no sex before marriage" that was the problem and people need to play the field before settling down. I think people are missing the reality that people married very young to justify having sex, like no one is the person they are at 20 when they're 30, 40, 50, etc and people do a lot of growing up in that age range of 16-30, so getting married in your late teens and early 20s is just asking to grow apart from each other. I think really a happy marriage is predicated on both partners knowing who they are when they enter a marriage and I don't think that's going to be discovered just by fuarrrking everything that moves, nor do I think that's likely to come out of chastity. People are just denied fully appreciating experiences and free choice because young people get a lot of marketing thrown their way, all of it trying to commercialise coming-of-age and pulling them towards the fads and lifestyles they're selling. If you're a woman of 17, you're unlikely to find happiness in either of the two extremes >Cosmopolitan telling you to fuarrrk at least 10 guys, a jock, a nerd, a murderer, a conservationist, etc to better understand "your type" >Tradwife TicTok channels saying you dedicate your entire life to serving god via a single god-fearing man you marry as soon as it's legally possible to do so and your life will be about baking cookies and waiting for the afterlife

>>69401 I'm suggesting that sexual experience is just an indicator of past relationships that reached the intimate level. I don't know how it is for the 8 billion people around the world, but in my small corner you usually still go on at least like 3-4 dates or something before that and then if you decide to continue with it you start to have a relationship that does or doesn't work out. So essentially it's just that people before just married and divorced a lot. Notice how previous generations have much more of multiple marriages and divorces? Essentially they could've just dated and split but they were brought up with the notion that it's proper to marry if you want to move in together for more that a month Essentially. People here talk about the sanctity of marriage and such but forget that by the 20th century divorces and multiple marriages were the norm. And so, women that had a third husband were much less likely to accept being treated poorly than women whose whole concept of a man was basically her father (if there was one) that was probably not very cordial with her mother by the 21st century standards and her husband who was her first in many ways and so bonded with her psychologically, and so she didn't think of an alternative because she didn't have an experience. My own partner had me as her first and I had 2 sexual partners before her and I do feel like she accepts me a bit too much since I'm all she knows. I try my best and people tell me I'm very above average in the way that I care about her wants and needs, but I feel I could do better and the fact that she accepts my outbursts without pushback kinda scares me because I feel that she would not leave if I cross a line many years in the future and that's kinda... I feel like a ticking bomb.

>>69403 Agreed, but the conversation has this preconception that too many sexual partners before marriage makes for an unhappy marriage, so isn't that also reducing marriage to sex?

>>69405 >>69404 Good points. I think what makes a qualitative difference is if one has tried to have a serious relationship instead of sleeping around with as many people as possible for the sake of sex. The former gives you a frame of reference and experience which is not bad. The study does not make a difference between these two and thus we can only speculate what the numbers would be. >I cross a line many years in the future and that's kinda... I feel like a ticking bomb. I would honestly bring this up if I were you. Marriage related things should be between you two, not only you. You obviously care for her happiness but if you are gonna carry that burden alone by yourself you might just end up sabotaging yourself and in the process of protecting her, do the opposite. >>69406 >so isn't that also reducing marriage to sex? Not reducing since sex is an aspect of marriage but not all that there is.

>>69312 First off, lets clarify one thing: analogies aren't evidence. Second: why is woman a lock and a man a key in this analogy besides physical resemblance of a keyhole to vagina and a key to a dick, intuitive things aren't always right things. Third, there's no such thing as "invisible ovulation", as far as I am concerned, ovulation cycle is replaced with menstrual cycle in human females. I don't quite understand what you mean by "sexual selection", please describe it, I don't understand what it means from your example. What are you "securing" yourself from why?

>>69407 Hey man, don't let them get to you, it's totally fine. Trust me, what matters in sex is not how many partners you had, but how many times you've had sex with one partner and whether you pay attention to each other's needs. It's like dancing with a partner. Practice makes perfect. People talk about body compatibility and give praises if it works well the first time and such... But it's all bs, first few times will be awkward no matter what because you don't know how it is IRL and nothing you find on the internet can convey fully. So just don't get traumatized and discouraged for the rest of your life if it doesn't go amazing the first time. Just talk to your partner about it no matter how embarrassing it is and try to communicate until you just kind of "feel it". Every person is different, but they are usually consistent in their sensitive spots, thresholds and such (exept for when the menstrual cycle issues arise, the changes in the mood and physiology are noticeable but again if you communicate it can be resolved) It's much more important what you do besides sex that sex. Trust me, no matter how good you are or how good your partner is, it won't persuade a person to stomach a bad match in personality and such. >>69411 Oh, I do. We try to be transparent with each other and during the years we probably know each other better than anyone (maybe our parents know more about our childhood since memories are hazy when you're young). She promised to tell me if I ever go too far in even a little thing no matter what. I don't hope it won't come to that, I'm human and life's hard sometimes, but I do hope it's far in the future and won't be a big deal.

>>69261 Lets say that by "sexual promiscuity" I mean that the woman doesn't get judged for previously having many relationships and partners she didn't like (so like, tries that didn't go well). The girl herself might be a loyal partner in relationships, she is just not the easy one to make her settle for you

When a woman has lots of partners she is a slut When a guy has a lot of partners he is a slut

>>69254 I don't know if that observation is true. Men who sleep around are often labeled as womanizers and see some negative treatment and negative reputation for it. In my experience, people, regardless of gender, who support promiscuity for men also support it for women, and people who disavow it for women also disavow it for men. I'd agree that promiscuous women are treated more negatively than promiscuous men, however. I don't think promiscuity is inheritly bad for anyone, and none of the arguments for that stance in this thread are convincing to me. It is true that promiscuity can be a symptom of an underlying issue, such as poor impulsive control, personality disorders, sex addiction, and many other undesirable traits, but promiscuity alone isn't indicative of these, and promiscuity can exist without any negative underlying issues. >>69275 >abortions are expensive and invasive procedures Most abortions are just taking a pill, waiting, then taking a second pill. Even if you look at "surgical" abortions (quotation added because while this is the common vernacular, but there's no surgery done in most cases), most of those are just sticking a thin tube into the uterus and sucking out a little stuff. No more invasive than a routine gynecologist appointment. Expensive is true, but if you're using modern contraceptives, the need for an abortion should be rare - a once or twice in a life event (indeed, only 1/4-1/3 of women have one abortion, and most stop there, with only 2/5 of those having a second abortion, and a third abortion being very rare). Even assuming the worst luck with contraceptives and landing in the rare triple abortion category, with an average abortion cost of $800, thats only $2400 over your lifetime (assuming it's all out of your pocket with no monetary contribution from the sex partner(s)), which is a price I'd happily risk to enable me with a lifetime of sex (especially when you compare it to the lifetime cost of other small luxuries). And that's the practical worse case, the average case is never needing an abortion at all or needing only one (0-$800). >>69260 >There are fat, ugly sluts, but there are no fat, ugly studs I've known plenty of fat, ugly, broke men who were promiscuous. I don't think looks or money is as important as you make it out to be. Looks and money help, of course, but as long as you're charming, it's still easy to be a manslut.

>>69401 >>69400 A pattern of non-attachment is a pattern of non-attachment. You pick up people in bars because they are the kind of people you pick up in bars. I remember they used to teach family planning and parental responsibility and healthy relationships in school. Now they just teach you to be whatever flavor of the month gender you feel like and have sex however makes you happy which for most people gets misunderstood to the most immediately stimulating sex you can have. Lifetime sexual partners went though the roof as people base relationships on initial sexual contact then relationship building, instead of relationships that build to intimacy. There's a reason being a slut is degenerate, because it is selfish and does not contribute to the collective like responsible parenting.

>>69436 >Most abortions are just taking a pill, waiting, then taking a second pill. And that fuarrrks with your hormones for possibly months.

>>69436 >>69459 Most post-WW1 suicides by cyanide are just taking a pill and waiting ;^) Im just piling on this but of course I agree with your point, the "invasiveness" of any procedure may not be psychologically heavy to bear (i.e taking a chill pill) while the physical aspects are simply obvious. I just want to point out, since I tldr'd this entire thread between OP's question and my answer 69428, that it all started with a question about a misleading false premise, then everyone got trapped in some seemingly BS fruitless argument... that truly the only real way to respond and to shut down attempts to waste your effort ant time, is thinking 69428... aren't there better things to think about? >flood detected post discarded

>>69470 You said nothing, dismissed the conversation and then patted yourself on the back for doing so. Why reply here in the first place?

>>69254 Women are always complaining about whore mongers, but whore mongers wouldn't be a problem if they didn't act like such whores. Even the clothes they wear are extremely slutty, but they act like persecuted victims if you tell them this. They dress like street walking whores then wonder why they attract the attention of whore mongers. Godless retards, all.

>>69488 That kind of split mind double think ritual is designed as a bizarre sort of filtration mechanism, and it's also intended to degrade and destroy societal cohesion while weaponizing the intersex dynamic,

>>69459 >>69470 And yet most women who take it feel fine a couple days after and notice nothing aside from cramps and fatigue during those days. The physical effects of abortion pills are usually mild. It's also worth noting that the hormonal changes associated with abortion pills are much more mild than the hormonal changes that happen during the pregnancy. Even so, the low risk of a couple months of off-balance hormones is also a price I'd be willing to pay for a lifetime of sex.

>>69489 >>69488 To play a devil's advocate: The argument against this is that who are you to constrict their freedom to dress however they want? Just because men don't tend to dress skimpily doesn't mean that women can't. Some people might choose to wear clothing like this to empower themselves.

>>69488 >whore mongers wouldn't be a problem if they didn't act like such whores. Untrue. Women have plenty of run-ins with womanizing whoremongers when they're dressed and behaving modestly. Desire for sex stems primarily from internal biological systems. External factors like outfits or behaviors can trigger it, but the baseline reason for whoremongers existing is that most people have an innate desire to fuarrrk. >Even the clothes they wear are extremely slutty, but they act like persecuted victims if you tell them this. They dress like street walking whores then wonder why they attract the attention of whore mongers. Seems like a strawman. Women understand that when they dress attractively or sexually, it will draw some attention. Their complaint is that some men treat their outfits (or just their bodies, as it happens even to modestly dressed women) as an invitation to act inappropriately or a promise of sexual conduct, both obviously unrealistic and unearned expectations, and those men act out when their expectation doesn't meet the reality. It's like when someone finds out you enjoy programming and they start badgering you to work on their soykafty app or game idea, and act as if theyre entitled to pitching it (and repitching, and repitching) to you. Just because I enjoy programming or discussing program concepts publicly, doesn't mean I'm willing to program whatever you want. It's annoying as fuarrrk, but at least when we say no, the no is more likely to be respected (not ignored as just playing hard to get) and we don't have to worried about getting raped.

>>69495 >and we don't have to worried about getting raped Well, as long as you don't live in Silicon Valley

>>69254 Men are expected to go forth and utilize their testosterone while women are to be more virtuous and selective in their partners since they are the ones who bear the children. Also, men produce more sperm than the amount of eggs produced by women. I will say that quality beats quantity when it comes to sex especially concerning issues of sexually transmitted diseases and undesired pregnancies. I also take a eugenics stance when it comes to procreation.

I don't understand why everyone is obsessed with sex and won't shut up about it. This is the lamest time ever if you're a real outlier person. I can't identify with these people who will die for sex

>>69404 >Tradwife TicTok channels saying you dedicate your entire life to serving god via a single god-fearing man you marry as soon as it's legally possible to do so and your life will be about baking cookies and waiting for the afterlife I don't see the problem. Even in a secular context, at least that option is much more conducive to stable marriages and families than racking up astronomical body counts

>>69501 Mostly hollywood influence on how the internet generation views what a "normal" years of formation look like (drinking, sex, partying and so on) which then took root in social media as THE thing to "achieve". Even the great contrarians of 4chin are complete slaves to this ideology. The general view is that sex is something to be achieved; something that raises your social status and an ultimate pleasure in itself. Everyone who has had sex knows that it's nothing that the ideology promises but everyone acts as if did nonetheless. You can find posters even here on lainchan that have never thought of this critically and you can immediately tell this from their writing. Maybe they never even heard anyone questioning it. It's all somewhat sad to think about

How many women have read the yeast tea discussion that's been going on here and how many posted. Reasonable arguments get ignored for some classic incel rhetoric. Women are people. They are not that different from men fundamentally. It depends on their personal upbringing and physiology. Trying to make assumptions that include both teenage girls from rural Ohio and 40 year old South Korean ladies won't produce valuable discussion. Try to talk specifics, some actual historic facts would be a good start

>>69517 It is. People who can't connect with the other sex, especailly men with women, are not truly part of society. Women are the glue, the substance that binds the collective mind. Only incomplete and malformed beings can't either achieve or bring themselves to allow this magnetic connection. So those who didn't, don't, can't, are cut off from the greater energetic signature. It's a sign of defect. Not part of the world. Subhuman. Damaged. Incomplete. Missing the experiences and inner development a real person should have. Such things are useless, they either fight to the death, or they have the life draine dout of them being cast out. This is hardwired, everyone knows this. A person has to give (masculine) and receive (feminine). Those that cannot are polarized and will fizzle out eventually, they have no place in anything. All the forms of sublimation and cope are just that. Deferring the drives, pretending. The quasi-maternal having children through creation of something else, is pointless and hollow. The paternal trying to act as a mentor or spread an ideology is as well. People who do not date and have sex are defective. All it takes is identifying what internal structures keep them going, and it's very easy to bring down the house of cards they call a mind, value system, and motivation.

>>69521 Nikola Tesla was the greatest engineering genius in human history and he never had sex. Having sex or not doesn't determine the value of a person. Cut this soykaf out

>>69522 A lot of people never date or have sex, yet there are very few Nikola Teslas. One particular constellation that happened to exist in the right conditions to work out doesn't disprove the rule for the fate of that particular pool. Odds are low you will be comparable to Tesla in any way, however you can use the possibility is a power source and means of maintaining direction and self value. Do waht you have to do, but it's just a mental trick.

>>69523 Your argument's conclusion turned from "never" to "the odds are very low". Your standpoint has been built on sand. The tides will turn and it will wash away into the depths of the ocean.

>>69529 Yeah, no. That was a nice try though.

>>69517 >The general view is that sex is something to be achieved; something that raises your social status and an ultimate pleasure in itself. Everyone who has had sex knows that it's nothing that the ideology promises but everyone acts as if did nonetheless. Most people I know grew out of that view in their early 20s. >raises your social status I mostly agree with you on this. it really only raises your social status if your social group is mostly young people who still consider it an achievement. I guess there are some subcultures of adults that treat sex as an achievement, like the pickup artist scene, but they're a small part of the population and those subcultures aren't worth a damn to most people. >ultimate pleasure Agree and disagree. Good sex in the right mindset feels incredibly good. It's not the ultimate pleasure, but it's really nice. When I was young and didnt have as many experiences to compare it to, I thought receiving oral sex was the most pleasurable feeling I had ever experienced and couldn't fathom anything feeling better. Now I'm older and experienced many different kinds of pleasure, and while sex is high on the list, there are a number of other pleasures I'd choose over sex. But I wouldn't fault someone for considering sex the most pleasurable thing they've done, or a virgin for having high hopes for it. >>69521 >the greater energetic signature Look lain, having connections with women is important, but phrases like this just sound like schizo delusions. >Missing the experiences and inner development a real person should have. No true Scotsman. People are real people regardless of their experiences. >useless There's plenty of value to be given to society that doesn't involve sex or romance. Tesla, Erdos, and all of history's celibate scribes, have impacted the world more positively than any of us probably ever will. Connection between the genders is important, but as long as enough of the population shares this connection, society will be fine with a few asexuals. >People who do not date and have sex are defective. All it takes is identifying what internal structures keep them going, and it's very easy to bring down the house of cards they call a mind, value system, and motivation. You can do this to anyone, whether they're sexually active or not.

>>69538 >Look lain, having connections with women is important, but phrases like this just sound like schizo delusions. The first reply in your post invalidates the rest. You are relatively normal. Your perspective is from the inside looking out, and unimportant.

>>69514 not really, because these marriages usually end up being atomic families rather than real families, two inexperienced lovers marrying very young has a high chance of leading to abuse or resentment later.

>>69521 >People who do not date and have sex are defective. All it takes is identifying what internal structures keep them going, and it's very easy to bring down the house of cards they call a mind, value system, and motivation This is a very lizard brain mentality. It only applies if reproduction is your goal. Its very easy to mentally break people who's motivations are sex. Self determination or survival drives other urges that supersede these base urges. Its just as easy to tear apart anyone's value system, except in my experience, those who are hellbent on dying. And those people can be persuaded by redirecting their values towards other behaviors.

>>69544 > It only applies if reproduction is your goal. No. It applies in cases of collapsing the foundation (the body and mind), such that the inner machinery and feedback loops required to maintain a sense of self value in the face of broader society stops functioning. When all those self made illusions fall away and you're no longer able to be and do as you used to, ie, your body and mind are maimed and functionally compromised, you see the truth. I have been through this process. It took over a decade of sustained torture, but you will break. Usually ~27-30 new vulnerabilities open up.

>>69547 >I have been through this process. It took over a decade of sustained torture, but you will break. Usually ~27-30 new vulnerabilities open up. You aren't the only one lain. In fact, i was quite the opposite. After I shed my ego, i got rid of the illusion of the material. Instead of vulnerabilities opening, I became more confident, and my values became so strong that I am not vulnerable to anything external to myself. I realized sex does not matter, and so I have had no reason to go after it. It's entertaining to see people who crave the material feeling of sex and go so far as to be hyper-sexual and act like they need sex to find meaning.

>>69548 >After I shed my ego, i got rid of the illusion of the material. Do you heat your house? If you touch a hot burner, does your body recoil in pain? Do you avoid types of discomfort which you cannot turn to use? You don't get it. You've never broken the foundation to the point where it won't support the ego or higher activity. What you're talking about is a coherent state. If you maim and torture the body it falls into decoherence, the energy required to coerce it through states and keep it functioning is too high to sustain.

>>69550 >Do you heat your house? no >If you touch a hot burner, does your body recoil in pain? no >Do you avoid types of discomfort which you cannot turn to use? no I just live my life. If I want to do something I do, If i don't, I don't. Sex is the same way. People pressure others into sex, and they just have to say no if they don't want to. I'm not saying people can avoid rape, but self control goes a long way to preventing rape, or having the will to fight back at any cost.

>>69551 >no Further explain all of these. >I just live my life. Define living. Look, you're me from like a decade ago. Superficially anyway. If there's an actual difference however I want to know about it.

>>69552 >Further explain all of these. Physical discomfort is trivial. Heating a house is a luxury in many cases. In cases where survival is involved, home heating would be the same as a utility, like having a stove to cook, or a refrigerator to keep products from spoiling. Why one heats a house is important. I could care less about it, except for the sake of utility, frozen pipes would inconvenience me and I don't really feel like spending the short span of existence fixing messes. When I touch a hot burner, I usually contemplate its effect, the connection between mind, body, and spirit. The pain is just a transient sensation, and really irrelevant. I also stir hot water and food with my hands when I don't feel like washing dishes. >avoid types of discomfort which you cannot turn to use I would be interested in what you would call a useful discomfort. >Define living. The culmination of action and consequences leading to my inevitable death. Ive literally had women grinding on my dick in the club, but I was unfazed, and rather inconvenienced by her being in the way of the conversation I was having. Promiscuity is a means to an end, and usually people form relationships to find meaning, safety, or stimulation in some form.

>>69554 >Physical discomfort is trivial. What types of physical discomfort are you used to? How much control do you have? For how long does it last? >Heating a house is a luxury in many cases. Uh, no. I live in the North where winters can be well below 0F for long periods. A lot of people still have those old stoves that double as a cook stove around, but they've mostly become ornamental. Either way, without heat you'll be gradually worn down. Destroying the belief or awareness that you're cold doesn't exempt you from this. >When I touch a hot burner, I usually contemplate its effect, the connection between mind, body, and spirit That doesn't answer the question. Does the body recoil, do you do it deliberately. >The pain is just a transient sensation The ability to tell yourself that comes from control. Pain that you cannot gain reliable control over is very different. >I would be interested in what you would call a useful discomfort. Discomfort you must go "through" to get somewhere else. Or discomfort which provides the means. You put it into the body to create contrast to branch from. >The culmination of action and consequences leading to my inevitable death. Vague. >Ive literally had women grinding on my dick in the club, but I was unfazed, and rather inconvenienced by her being in the way of the conversation I was having. Now imagine your entire body burning during that so you can't have either one.

>>69555 >What types of physical discomfort are you used to? How much control do you have? For how long does it last? Physical ailments and some other uncontrollable situations that result in constant and unwavering agony. It becomes a matter of self control to continue to exist. kms would not be an unreasonable response by most people. >Destroying the belief or awareness that you're cold doesn't exempt you from this. You didn't read my whole post >That doesn't answer the question. Does the body recoil, do you do it deliberately. Again no, and what kind of dummy intentionally touches a burner outside of self harm? I touch burners when I have a need to. >The ability to tell yourself that comes from control. Pain that you cannot gain reliable control over is very different. The illusion of situational control is delusional. Depressed people are not delusional and are immune to this effect. The ability to control yourself is not delusional and is a sign of maturity. >Vague. But not inaccurate >Now imagine your entire body burning during that so you can't have either one. Why Tho?

>>69557 >Physical ailments and some other uncontrollable situations that result in constant and unwavering agony. It becomes a matter of self control to continue to exist. kms would not be an unreasonable response by most people. It wears you down over time. >You didn't read my whole post I did. >Again no, and what kind of dummy intentionally touches a burner outside of self harm? I touch burners when I have a need to. What's your point then? You aren't slave to the body? Yeah, and? And what? >Why Tho? After a certain level of pain for long enough you either have to use endogenous opioid systems which alter the cholinergic system, you have to use selective self hypnosis, you are detached and forced out of the body, you numb the body, you draw on other resources to flood the body with another state, or you're dragged down and drowned in the body which is drowned in the world. Needless to say, in constant pain you cannot be present or connect. Those channels are redirected and repurposed. Self hypnosis to ignore pain also has a cost.

>>69554 >When I touch a hot burner, I usually contemplate its effect, the connection between mind, body, and spirit. The pain is just a transient sensation, and really irrelevant. The pain is alerting the mind that the body is undergoing damage. Ignoring it when you get absolutely _zero_ benefit of any kind (as you have indicated you do in this thread) is pure retardation. also, ITT: >no, I've been tortured more! congratulations, you're broken.

>>69561 Come on, lain, don't oversimplify their argument. They're not just arguing about who's suffered more, they're also arguing about which types of suffering produce the exact right level of mental illness that leads to an eccentric, narcisstic enlightenment that allows them to posit their beliefs as fact and keep their superior minds unburdened from any criticism with a simple "normal people could never understand!" We are clearly in the presence of intellectual greatness. We should feel blessed that instead of engaging in a rational, good faith argument about their beliefs, one which our meager minds could never understand, they've demonstrated that they've both suffered enough to know the truth, and we can simply accept their truth as fact without straining our tiny brains or subjecting ourselves to a "decade of sustained torture" or caressing a hot burner with one hand and stroking our beard pensively with the other.

>>69571 This entire post is pathetic. You disgust me.

>>69310 We aren't animals. In modern world man is bound to pay child support so making babies with a woman and the leaving isn't an option for him as much as it isn't for a woman. Why do you still use those simplistic retarded analogies with animal world that ignore vast majority of nuances of human relationships?

>>69313 >Women's sexuality should be restricted Why? In what way specifically? >To ensure social stability? What do you mean specifically under a vague term "social stability"? Maybe you deviate from standard definition. >Prevent uncertainty over paternity Are you manually challenged or do you live in 18th century? DNA tests to determine fatherhood exist. >Prevent society from degenerating into a horde of sex friends and depressed incels And why do you think that will happen once a woman is free from being judged on the basis of some imaginary "value" which is determined by the number of her previous relationships? I personally only see it reasonable to judge women based on how likely she is to cheat in you, hut it should be no surprise that it is exactly the same for males. >No, it is necessary Why? >If you look at traditional societies Such as...? How do you even define a "traditional society"?

>>69315 Your mistake is that you are trying to promote and sell your opinion rather than coldbloodedly try to understand a different perspective. Why? Please don't do that, I didn't create this thread for flame wars, I am sick of them, they got old for me and they are never constructive

>>69412 The key analogy is in bad taste, a common joke on the subject matter, one that is mildly applicable. But women can be just as jealous as men. But invisible ovulation is a massive aspect of evolutionary biology, and psychology by extension. My former post is the specific nature of why men prefer females with as few sexual partners as possible, but please understand this is a single archetype male and many breeding patterns exist, but answers the question of the thread from an entirely analytical perspective. I've ripped an article from the female perspective, just for you, and I reiterate: The reason that when women have a lot of partners it's looked down upon is based in evolutionary psychology, both rivalry from women and men instinctively seeking reproductive security. Otherwise, it's hedonistic and the pursuit of pleasure is addiction. I'm ok if you're addicted to sex, but from a cultural standpoint, and to remedy what ails you, EVERYONE needs to be ok with sex addiction. Then you can have as many partners as you want. Me, as a male, I will likely have children one day. I've had enough sex to know drugs are way less expensive and sex really just isn't my thing, despite females being very willing to approach me, having every opportunity to engage but I pass. If I inseminate a woman, if I even trust her with a loaded condom in her bathroom trashcan(that she won't take matters into her own hands), it is absolutely REQUIRED that she is under the age of 20, or otherwise a like minded individual that I can confirm is not a sociopathic relationship addict. I certainly don't judge females for whatever path they take, I just don't mix words. I hope my mindset helps you understand others the same way I understand you. >>69571 I dislike that you're posting with the mod tag.

>>69645 You are either an actual Patrick Bateman or just deluded (so maybe Patrick Bateman again) and don't seem to have any trust or empathy if you genuinely wrote the part about having children from your heart. I don't envy your children or their mother if you go into it with that mindset.

>>69636 >pointing out that you are using marketing language and should avoid it unless you want to help promote their stance means you are promoting your own stance ...

>>69645 It's not a mod code. just put "joke" in the email field, new friend.

>>69254 >Why is that when a woman has lots of partners she is a slut but when a guy has a lot of partners it only raises up his worth in the eyes of others? Because women are the gatekeepers of sex. Men have a physiological need for sex while it's in the self accomplishment sphere for women. For this reason there is always 10 men who are looking for sex for every women and it mean a men who have a lot of partners is a men who succeeded in a harsh competition against many people why a women who do the same is just a women who let a lot of guys nut in her. The key and lock analogy is perfect. >>69271 >So why is it still bad for a normal woman who thinks and knows all this (not from a 3rd world soykafhole) to have as much sex as she wants? This is an excellent question that need to be asked and answered more often. You see, at the end of the day the only thing that matter in a society is if it have made enough kids and invested in them. This is what make a society become the tradition of its future or to fall into poverty and violence until an external force get involved. Anything that is not the number and quality of the kids is a temporary benefit. It's fine as long as the quantity and quality of the kids are here and the root cause of chaos, crime and murder for the future generations if it is not. For both to happen, it require that the parents stay together at least long enough to raise the kids and the man need to know its his kids to invest heavily in them. The second one is not possible if the women can fuarrrk other men and the first one is not possible if young people get the habit of short duration relationship. Old habits die hard, you see, so if a women fuarrrk left and right when she is young it will be hard for her to not do it when she want to settle down. You can't live all your life a way and then just change for no reason. Old habits die hard. So we used to force the men to marry the women they made pregnant and we used to shame everyone to fuarrrk outside of wedding.

>>69635 Not him but I can answer you. >Women's sexuality should be restricted >Why? In what way specifically? It's not sexuality that need to be restricted, and certainly not only for women but promiscuity. If we don't, then we don't have long, stable heterosexual couples supported by their own parents to raise the kids, and so the kids grow up at best in monoparental families also called crime factories and at worse are raised by the street. When you look at the most common point between drug users, delinquents and big criminals or even mass murderers, the number one factor they have in common is to have been raised by a single mother. One of the reason for the well known 13/50 statistic is that blacks in America have a lot more single parent families. If you know another way than ensuring a low body count for both sexes to have long lasting families, tell me. Until then everyone can fuarrrk as much as they want with all the deviancy they want but only in long lasting couples. >To ensure social stability? >What do you mean specifically under a vague term "social stability"? Maybe you deviate from standard definition. Drug usage, average number of arrest, personal income, domestic violence, chance to resort to prostitution or to join a gang for easy money, criminality, rape, the number of years you stay in school... There is plenty of objective and measurable factors. >Prevent uncertainty over paternity >Are you manually challenged or do you live in 18th century? DNA tests to determine fatherhood exist. And they are illegal in my country. Guess who made them illegal. Now guess why I think they made it illegal. Given what society has become, they must be mandatory. >Prevent society from degenerating into a horde of sex friends and depressed incels >And why do you think that will happen once a woman is free from being judged on the basis of some imaginary "value" which is determined by the number of her previous relationships? I personally only see it reasonable to judge women based on how likely she is to cheat in you, hut it should be no surprise that it is exactly the same for males. Cars and women mileage isn't an imaginary value. If you are a men looking for the mother of your future kids, beauty and youth aren't too important but the capacity to stay with you is. That being said, the wife potential of a women was not what he was talking about. See my second pic for more information. >No, it is necessary >Why? Read my third picture. We had this debate one million time. >If you look at traditional societies >Such as...? How do you even define a "traditional society"? You must be jesting. A traditional society is a social organization that survive the trial of time. Natural selection apply to biological beings and to social structure as well.

>>69655 >Won't have children unless she's a like-minded person as me >Makes me a lunatic Lmao what the fuarrrk are you talking about retard?

>>69693 >Mandatory paternity testing I like this a lot and there isn't a single reasonable argument against it that I can think of.

>>69517 >The general view is that sex is something to be achieved; something that raises your social status and an ultimate pleasure in itself. It only raise the social value you have in the eyes of your peers. When you are looking to make a family, your bodycount isn't a quality. Imagine you have to chose between two women. They are 30 year old and have the same life. One of them have been with a high school lover and then with 2 relationship that lasted 5 years. The other never stood with the same men for more than a week, have 3 STD and the trust issue you would expect for someone who have lived this life. Who would YOU choose? >>69542 >two inexperienced lovers marrying very young has a high chance of leading to abuse or resentment later. I am going to ask for why you think that and if you can validate your opinion with facts. If anything, it seem to me loving your highscool crush for your entire life isn't coing to end in abuse. >>69520 >Women are people. Correct. >They are not that different from men fundamentally. Incorrect. Our bodies give different brains and make us grow in different ways. Even in young kids you can see it: girls are people oriented and boys are object oriented. There is a reason why it's harder for women to modelize things in 3D in their mind and why it's easier for them to get concerned by the problems of others. Women have meetings where they discuss dildoes and masturbation. Have you ever heard of men doing this? Men like to do stupid things with their good friends and women says that they will never do that with theirs. We are not the same.

>>69494 They might be free to choose to dress in skimpy clothing, and I might be free to dislike that and shame such activity. If you act like a whore, then expect people to treat you as one, with all the baggage that entails.

>>69695 state could determine when father is "unfit" (for instance, incorrect politics) and take away the child.

>>69708 How does that at all relate to paternity tests? Also the reverse is happening - they derezzed paternity tests because state wants men to pay for whores. French had a 30% infidelity rate according to paternity tests so they derezzed them to keep the husband chained and paying for kids that werent theirs.

>>69710 it seems that you can only get a paternity test if it's ordered by a judge and the lady consents. If the test is denied a lawyer could definitely leverage that in a paternity suit.

>>69711 >it seems that you can only get a paternity test if it's ordered by a judge and the lady consents. That's odd. Who would make laws like that and why?

Let us all love sex. If promiscuity leads to undesirable consequences, let us all destroy such causal connections so that sex is always morally correct or indifferent.

>>69713 It's just another drug, Lain, and a soykafty one. Brain chemicals that cost nickels to manufacture by the ton. Pigs orgasm for 30 minutes straight, don't you want that? You can have it for 5 hours straight, days in a row, for a cheaper price then a parking meter.

>>69714 Sex is an activity, not a drug. The orgasm is enjoyable but it is not the whole enjoyment of the act.

>>69425 The issue there is that people do not like going into relationships with a high probability of failure. If the girl is incompatible, it is unironically her responsibility to stop the relationship before it starts. Also, there are biological issues such a pair-bonding hormone saturation and the like that lead to a higher chance of divorce down the road.

testing Why is a key that can unlock any door valuable, but a door that can be unlocked by any key worthless?

>>69712 Apparently it's because they always cause tension within families. Incredibly stupid reasoning, but French people are weird. Also saw an interesting response on reddit when idly searching: >Because paternity isn't determined by genes here. It's determined by legal recognition. Basically, it doesn't matter who "gave the sperm" for the kid's birth, the only person to have paternal relationships and rights is the legal father - the person who raised the child, biological dad or not. Whether this is true or not, I don't know. Other sources I found didn't mention this. It also appears that child support payments are generally low (<100 euros/month) and aren't mandated as frequently as they are in the US, which is a better situation paternity tests or no in my opinion.

>>69713 >>7975465 >Let us all overcome biology and chemistry and violate the laws of physic The actions of your past have consequences on who you are today. There is no shortcut.

>>69554 THESE GUSHIES LOOKS DELICIOUS

>>69691 >honestly baste incelposting to be honest It seems like the entire thread has merely confirmed the thing about contraceptives. The mere illusion of the consequences of uninhibited lust.

It's bad, first, psychologically because it prevents pair bonding Second, genetically because of microchimaerism

>>69691 The implicit assumption in your statement is that women would want the society wlthey live in to continue existing the way it does by having children. Many women chose to engage in sexual activity (be that with one partner or many) without conceiving because they don't want to give their government the resources they want to extract from them. Alternatively they just think that the world is fuarrrked up right now so let's wait till it gets better and she can actually afford to leave her job for a while and raise her child instead of leaving it up to the iPad, kindergarten and school to turn them into the resource for society. Personally I'm conflicted on this, but in the end I won't force my partner to have children until she's ready. For the ready part also... Fertility is dropping in both males and females for the last few decades. I don't know what it is (microplastics, porn addiction, God's punishment, doesn't matter really) but it's happening. As such, having sex is quite easy and possible. Conceiving a child is a whole ordeal taking a lot of money, time and energy. Women just don't have the time since they are busy trying toake money to live.

>>69803 And you think that this is natural? We have had a technological revolution in the past few decades with one computer capable of beating 1000 accountants/ mathematicians, and yet we are making less than ever. No, it is very clearly a manufactured system. Wages have massively stagnated, prices have shot up, the rich have gotten exponentially richer, and you are told that this is just your free will. This is bullshit and we all know it. I am not saying to return to the past, but rather to roll back the awful decisions of the present. Who thought that it was a good idea to push people into fields they didn't want to do? Who thought that importing the third world would improve living conditions? Who thought that letting the banks regulate themselves was a good idea? Who thought that . . . You get the idea. You can choose to not have kids in this modern society, but then it is incumbent upon you to propose changes such that you would be comfortable having kids in this society. (And please, for the love of god, don't cry capitalism. We live in what is approaching a totalitarian fascist dystopia.)

>>69333 Woman are the gatekeepers of sex while men are the chasers of sex. This means that while woman give sex away, men achieve sex. It is not seen as an achievement to give someone money, but it is seen as an achievement to get a lot of money. This would imply that the man able to get a lot of sex from a lot of different woman is more valuable, but the truth of the matter is that such men often focus on the shorter term dating strategies and are poorly suited to, or disinclined from, longer term relationships. They also have very poor pair bonding, hence why they tend to switch partners so often. In the woman's case, there is no implication of achievement, but there still comes all the downsides that the promiscuous man has. In any case, the promiscuous among us often trick the vulnerable with their shorter term dating strategies into relationships, giving them false impressions of the reality of relationships with their short times together before leaving them with trust issues once they leave. They spread disease, prevent pair-bonding, lie, and overall just screw over the entire system of committed relationships because they are too immature to settle down with anyone.

>>69715 >Doing heroin is an activity, not a drug. You really got me there, huh?

>>69813 >I changed the words into nonsense now your argument is nonsense! Scathing.

>>69810 As a biologist I must say that a computer is just as natural as an anthill or a bee hive. It's a tool built by animals for the benefit of animals. No, I view it similarly to the industrial revolution It significantly worsened the quality of life for a huge portion of the population and turned the cities into a slums. All that fog from the Sherlock Holmes stories? It's not fog, it's smog from the furnaces. But then it all turned around rather spectacularly, didn't it? After the printing press became a widely available tool there was a period of religious warfare because the next popular book after the bible was a manual on finding out who is a witch. Then the Protestants fought bloody wars with the Catholics. And then it became a tool that ensured much better communication of ideas and education of the masses. Nowadays we see all of this economic stagnation and the propagation of health hazards. Hopefully the tree of progress that's been watered by our tears and sweat and nurtured by our blood will bear fruit for the subsequent generations.

>>69803 >Alternatively they just think that the world is fuarrrked up right now With the exception of our parents, we are the wealthyest, safest, more comfy generation in entire history. Ten thousands generations of your ancestors who lived in wood huts, drank muddy water, ate only bread and with a child mortality of 25% are looking at you in disgust. >The implicit assumption in your statement is that women would want the society wlthey live in to continue existing the way it does by having children. That's exactly my point. Either men and women join in a common effort to make kids and invest heavily in them or or society decay, generation after generation we sink into poverty and criminality as the social thread grow thin and eventually external forces see our weakness as an opportunity. This is >Why is it important >Women just don't have the time since they are busy trying toake money to live. Crazy how one and two generation ago a men could provide for an entire family and live in a big house but now that productivity have risen even if both people work it's hard to make end meet. Ask yourself if the previous generations made quantity and quality of kids. The future I am talking about isn't hypothetical, you live in it. Now as women have to "focus on their carrer" the quantity and quality of our kids drop even more and it don't seem there is another alternative than chaos until an invasion begin. Ask yourelf this: is it better for a women to be a scientist or to make 3 scientists and 3 scientists makers?

>>69810 >We live in what is approaching a totalitarian fascist dystopia A totalitarian fascist dystopia is when the state lend you money at a low interest rate so you can buy a large home and start a large family and it forget 25% of the debt for each kid. In addition it also give you a bag of money when you become a young adult so you don't have to whore yourself to capitalism. It also give a good education to your kids because the state want brain power to prepare for the future and it give time to your wife to go to the factory. The streets are clean and safe, you can let your kids play outside without supervision and taxes are lower than now. Your boss is forced by the state to give you a livable wage and good working condition and you know you have a strong welfare net under you if anything goes bad. You also know no one is festing with public money and no one abuse the welfare system. We live in a corpo dictatorship where half of the economy is the state and the laws that made the economy based on fair competition are gone. There is a reason why fascism become trendy again.

>>69816 >Hopefully the tree of progress that's been watered by our tears and sweat and nurtured by our blood will bear fruit for the subsequent generations. Back to the topic: the next generation won't have enough people, will be raised by a school system designed to make them fail, nutured by a flatphone that feed their reward processes and deprive them of their only tool they have to improve themselves, will be fed corpo propaganda and will possibly be made a minority while the majority of the country will be told to hate them and the country they live in and they will be told that the now minority next generation is a powerful oppressor that needto be dealth with. Weanwhile, China and India will become the new superpowers and they will look at the factories that still exist in our now unstable countries. Whichever of this new superpower get its hands on our countries will rule over the other. Whatever fruits this technological progress may eventually produce one day, it won't be enough.

>>69823 Excuse me, when and where was this?

>>69822 >With the exception of our parents That's exactly my point. All those people you mention are just words on a page or an old photo. Humans don't really understand what they didn't experence. >or or society decay, generation after generation we sink into poverty and criminality as the social thread grow thin and eventually external forces see our weakness as an opportunity. Not really. It's usually followed by a collapse of some institutions, maybe a civil war, after or during that people from even worse conditions immigrate and rebuild because their expectations are met and they are motivated to have children and work hard. >is it better for a women to be a scientist or to make 3 scientists and 3 scientists makers? That's a ridiculous statement that reduced women to mothers. Since the ancient times there were plenty of women who are much more inclined to do activities that have nothing to do with raising children. Most women even in not very prosperous classes left their children to a wet nurse and Nannies and then boarding schools (check out Churchill's biography for a good example) The parenting that you are talking about came about around the second third of the 20th century when child labour became unfashionable. Even still it's practiced all around the world. There really aren't that many women that want to dedicate their lives to raising children to be great members of a society... And let me tell you, it's a good thing because the archetype of a smothering mother is not just a trope. I love my mom but she caused me a lot of grief untill I grew up, became somewhat independent and we could come to an understanding of boundaries and be friends.

>>69829 These were the policies of national socialist Germany 1933 - 1945. In part, they were also the policies of Oswald Mosley in the UK.

>>69834 single child issues. At least from my observation every friend with siblings had less issues than single child families. Also if the gap is huge it also applies. One friend had a much older sister who was out of the house so mom could only helicopter parent him which she did.

>>69837 Fair. >>69836 You forgot the part where the system is unsustainable and they conscript you to go on expansionist conquests and then put your son into a wooden jet plane because they decided that the whole country should go down in flames with them.

>>69815 Doing heroine is an activity, heroin is a drug. Have sex is an activity, orgasm is the drug. It's the exact same thing with the exact same risks for habitual dependency, albeit heroine comes with metabolic dependency, too. And just like an addict, you're trying to rationalize your behavior as normal because it makes your brain happy. The first step is admitting that you're an addict Lain. You're a lump of chemicals and every feeling you can ever feel is just chemicals. Are you going to pretend those chemicals are more "moral" because your brain synthesized something I can also synthesize in a lab?

>>69839 I want to add that former addicts who no longer use the drug still like the activity; They will play with needles, even inject saline, because they like the pinch and the plunger. An activity, safe and harmless. Very much akin to people pretending they like the downsides of the sex game. "I like the chase...." and so do heroine addicts. Don't misunderstand me, I have absolutely no disdain for you if you enjoy lots of sex, and encourage you to live life to your absolute fullest and enact every desire you have that doesn't harm other people. Sex just isn't my drug of choice, which as an outside observer, allows me to critique people for who it is. Much like if your buddy was doing to much heroine and you shot the soykaf with him over it. He'd probably get mad at you and try to rationalize his behavior, but you never told him not to enjoy his life. You're just telling a friend to be careful.

excuse me we live in a society

>>69693 First off, thank you for your response being not an ad hominem, user. >Its not sexuality that needs to be restricted but promiscuity What do you mean by 'promiscuity' specifically? Is it the number of relationships a woman has had? Is it the number of sexual intercourses she has had with different partners? When I originally made this post I was referring to a mentality/mindset/sentiment (a cultural thing which is rather subconscious and is sucked in into our brains almost from the time when we first go to to school) in which it is somewhat more acceptable for a male to have a big number of previous relationships but is not so for a woman. A woman is expected to be as "pure" as possible, ideally a virgin when at the same time males are shamed for being virgins. >If we don't then we don't have long, stable, heterosexual couples supported by their own parents to raise the kids, and so the kids grow up at best in monoparental families also called crime factories and at worst are raised by the street Seems like you are talking about the amount of people, who made a child but weren't quite ready to raise it (or made one by accident). We can reduce those by sexually educating highschoolers and introducing safe and affordable birth control as well as abortions. Obviously, if a person capable of producing new life knows exactly what sex is and how children are made as well as has ways to prevent it, they can avoid making children so they don't end up raised monoparentally or in poor conditions. >When you look at the most common point between drug users, delinquents and big criminals or even mass murderers, the number one factor they have in common is to have been raised by a single mother There might be a corellation-not-causation issue. Haven't you thought that it can be just a matter effect of some bigger underlying problem you overlooked? There is no reason to believe that having been raised by a single mother causes a person to become mass murdered, delinquent or drug user. I will respond to the rest of the points later, just don't have time for this

>>69823 Sorry, my bad. The correct term would be corporate socialism. The only real thing separating it from fascism is that the people in power hate the people/places they lead. China, for all of its hellishness, has the goal of forwarding itself.

>>69838 Nazi Germany was actually sorta sustainable for a time, but the end goal was unironically Communism, but with Aryans this time. The largest short term issue was the obsession with command and control economy where entrepreneurs were discouraged and resources were distributed inefficiently. Still, the recovery of Germany from the hell of Weimar during this time was truly a miracle. And then nearly 100 million people died . . . A match in the dark that was thrown onto the gasoline.

>>69838 >You forgot the part where the system is unsustainable First, I didn't need to critique it. I was only responding to the individual asking the other individual who made the statement that they had made. Second, I didn't need to mention this because it's unproven to be "unsustainable". The context in which it is accused of being "unsustainable" is heavily dependent on the context. As the dominating ideologists that happen to be materialists of the world rejected third position and continued to attack the system, yes, it would be unsustainable. If not attacked, the economics of the system aren't unsustainable because the concept of tax as a limit on money printing rather than state income / project funding works fine and prevents inflation. >they conscript you to go on expansionist conquests Once again, you misunderstood defense as expansionist. Maybe stop reacting with emotion. Germany was attempting to undo the treaty of versailles, a treaty that was considered unfair by everyone except the USSR, which had an axe to grind against every anti-Marxist ideologist, and the French government, who hate the Germans to a level that would be seen as an almost madness for decades by other countries. Are you going to bring up Poland? If the Polish government stop the murder of Germans, or just kicked the fuarrrking Germoids out, there wouldn't have been a problem. I wouldn't expect anyone to know how to deal with guerilla warfare at this time period, but removing the source of contention is a damn good way to prevent getting your soykaf pushed in by a bunch of pissed off racialists that openly said they'll do whatever they feel they must to protect their race. On a side note, I didn't only mention Germany but you guys have no real criticism so you create strawmen after strawmen and can't even attack those right. For example, Oswald Mosley's fascism wanted to give Ireland back to the Irish, Scotland back to the Scotish, and give votes to all of the other colonies so they could determine their own destiny. What kind of expansionist gives up land? I imagine you have done zero reading on the philosophy and doctrine of any and all third positionist ideas, from Falangism to National Socialism to Fascism. You guys used to say "Know your enemy" but you guys don't even know your own ideas, let alone your supposed "enemy". Did you know that most 3p is based in Marxist ideas? Did you know that it derives from Engels and Marx, but felt it was too materialistic and branched off into its own thing? I bet you didn't know. That's why the retarded liberals keep calling "nazis leftists". Because they're talking about an idea that rejects the notion of material. You wanna know the icing on the cake? I think national socialism and fascism is fuarrrking retarded and puts too much emphasis on progress for the sake of progress. But you won't be able to accept that I'm not a right-winger or anything like that because of all the other soykaf I just said.

>>69847 They had a failed communist uprising that caused 2m dead right before nazism. I doubt anyone wanted communism.

>>69688 No, I don't promote my own stance. Is that so hard to believe?

>>69834 >That's a ridiculous statement that reduced women to mothers. Since the ancient times there were plenty of women who are much more inclined to do activities that have nothing to do with raising children. Most women even in not very prosperous classes left their children to a wet nurse and Nannies and then boarding schools (check out Churchill's biography for a good example) Okay but that don't answer the question. What is best for society: that a women become a scientist or that she give birth to 3 scientists and 3 scientists makers. You can choose borh if you wish, but answer the question. >>69846 >China, for all of its hellishness I live in the west, it's worse there. Fascism have the goal to end the class war by forcing both class to cooperate by propaganda and force. If the only thingthat separate it from fascism is precisely to be corpo pupets, then it's the opposite of fascism.

>>69845 >What do you mean by 'promiscuity' specifically? Is it the number of relationships a woman has had? Is it the number of sexual intercourses she has had with different partners? I thought I was clear the first time. You can have all the kinks and deviancy you want in the bedroom, it won't affect the only issue that really matter for a society to survive. You must of course keep it there. But if you remove what cause life long lasting couples with perhaps a few experiences in they youth then you affect that issue. You just can't have a 3 digit body count and then expect your life to change and to show the stability needed for the production of quality kids. If it isnot obvious to you, observe what happen to the peapole who do that when they grow old. And once again, it have nothing to do with women, it apply to men as well. >A woman is expected to be as "pure" as possible, ideally a virgin when at the same time males are shamed for being virgins. Yes, I love how feminists ignore the second occurrence. This is completely unrelated to the previous argument. Here, we take for granted that making quantity and quality of kids isn't part of the debate, we will all enjoy hedonism until we die and hope that our world won't collapse before that. In that case, hypergamy is a fact. Women conglomerate around the most attractive males and the others live in misery, find refuge in "polyamourous" relations or retreat to escapism. The males who swim in pussy are obviously the ones who fit best the social expectations of the moment. It's not the fact that they score a lot that give them a high social status, it's the opposite. For women it's different. A women who get many different men is a women who want to have many different men and nothing more. Somehow, it's not admirable. >We can reduce those by sexually educating highschoolers and introducing safe and affordable birth control as well as abortions You are 50 years too late for this argument. We did just that and we don't have to argue about it anymore. The selling point was that birth control would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancy and we now observe that it allowed the behavior that get the number of unwanted pregnancies increase even despite the availability of the pills. The selling point of abortion was to reduce the number of single parent families and we observe that it's existence allow the behavior that make them more common despite the availability of abortions. The only reasonable option is to ban them. >There is no reason to believe that THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN SOMEONE YOUTH AND TEENAGE YEARS causes a person to become mass murdered, delinquent or drug user. Surely, you are not serious.

>>69849 Officially Hitler hated communism, but his end goal was an agrarian society using the lands of Russia in order to allow every Aryan to have a plot of land. Not quite as much "destroy classism", but he held many of the communist ideals. He also did quite a few communist flavored things such as trying to replace money with surveys (they ran out of paper) and making giant unions for different industries. (This video covers it fairly in-depth if you care enough https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8) His logic for why it would work is that he thought that Aryans had some special racial spirit that would allow them to make it work. He blamed the Jews for causing the evils of Communism (to be fair, the Soviets and revolutionaries in Germany were overwhelmingly Jewish). If I had to characterize the situation with Socialism simply being the centralization of resources/power in the state, Communism is socialism with the goal of ending classes. Fascism is socialism with the goal of empowering the state. NAZIism is socialism with the goal of empowering the Ethno-state. Every society in history has had some aspects of socialism, but every society that allows that focuses on increasing its socialism inevitably self-destructs through war or just decay.

>>69693 >Car's and woman's mileage isn't an imaginary value. There can be other reasons for why a woman might have lots of previous relationships that didn't work out besides her being a cheater. Maybe all of her previous partners were cheating on her instead or they were just abusive assholes. Besides, who says that simply being uninterresting is a bad reason to dodge a boy? Why do you equate number of previous relationships with the likelihood to cheat? Or why do you equate the number of previous mindless sexual contacts with the likelihood to cheat? Say, a young girl wants to party and doesn't want to have serious relationships, but when she becomes older she starts to want to have something more meaningful and serious, because she already have partied enough. Is that really so hard to believe thay she will now treat those relationships more seriously and try her best to become a wife if she wants to and thus be loyal and loving? She still can be a wife and a mother even despite her having sex with lots of boys in her 20s, maybe even a better one than a girl who suppressed her natural urges.

>>69854 stds lead to birth defects. Thats why statistically anyone fuarrrking arround has lower value. Secondary theres also data on ammount of partners vs marriage stability and guess what it fails more with increased ammount of previous partners. Why would you even assume youre the magic partner that can fix it instead of maybe if they failed 20x times they are the problem?

>>69693 >It's not sexuality that need to be restricted, and certainly not only for women but promiscuity. In what way specifically do you plan on restricting "promiscuity"? Again, define what you mean by it (a number of what?)... Introducing penalties, fines?

>>69851 >What is best for society: that a women become a scientist or that she give birth to 3 scientists and 3 scientists makers. >You can choose borh if you wish, but answer the question. The one in 1,000 women who actually wants to be a scientist and has aptitude for it becomes a scientist and the other 499 that are above the mean make babies. Same goes for the men.

>>69857 Ignoring the issues with your math, you are failing to account for the fact that woman are being artificially pushed into higher education and the workforce. Your number of woman becoming "scientists" or work-oriented is irrelevant since the number becoming parents is well below the number necessary to even meet the replacement rate, and that is what truly matters here. Now imagine the number of woman actually becoming good mothers and wives . . . It is better for the average woman to be focused on raising good kids with the option of the odd-one out being work oriented, as it used to be.

>>69863 NTL, but seems not-better to me. A relatively low human population plateau is highly desirable for obvious reasons. The average woman should not be breeding.

>>69854 >Maybe all of her previous partners were cheating on her instead or they were just abusive assholes And the fact that she was attracted to them at all is the same cultural phenomenon that allows for her to be disgraced: Promiscuity as a norm. Another Lain above me brought up that while women are held to a higher standard, bur the issue isn't exclusive to them. Call it MTV, call it porn, call it rock and roll for all I care. Sex addiction is rampant and everyone is pretending like it's normal.

>>69848 >But you won't be able to accept that I'm not a right-winger or anything like that because of all the other soykaf I just said. I can easily accept that because what you said was an equivalent of throwing some weirdly connected factoids of dubious validity. It is clear that you are not a national socialist from that. Don't get me wrong, it's good that you are not, but I would advise against strawmanning so hard because it's annoying and people won't want to continue the conversation. Most people won't take the positions you assigned to me in your mental debate with my phantom. It's impressive that you struggled to win even against that and resorted to a claim that you're misunderstood. >>69851 The answer is that there is no objective answer since scientists are not a civilization 5 resource in real life. One scientist can make progress that 10 couldn't due to different circumstances. It's also important to note that all of the 3 scientists you are talking about would become scientists in about 25 years if they start to be born now one at a time every 2 years. Meanwhile an 18 yo woman can become a productive scientist in about 5 years and then give birth to one or two children later in life and both of them can become scientists or other upstanding members of society. If they are not corrupted by being born extremely rich, having a distinguished scientist as a mother is a good thing for the child, no? So I'll chose a women becoming a scientist because: 1) it's much sooner and time is of the essence in science since the 20th century 2) she can have children later in life and provide much better education for them that way And what if one of those 3 children is a woman too? Should she forsake her career to bring up her 3 scientists now 50 years into the future?

>>69869 Aw man. I don't think you understood a word that I said. How disappointing.

So, I know that this debate is going to be hard to not become emotionally involved in, because from each side's perfective the other side is trying to take away what they are fighting for. But you have to try your best to coldbloodedly understand your opponent's opinion in as great detail as you possibly can. That is all I am saying, try to put your feelings away and avoid namecalling, ad-hominem'ing eachother or using any kind of emotionspeak. Be reasonable and understanding

>>69863 >Ignoring the issues with your math, what's the issue? >you are failing to account for the fact that woman are being artificially pushed into higher education and the workforce. The question is "what is better" not "what is". Also, literally everyone is being artificially pushed into higher education and the (white collar) workforce. >It is better for the average woman to be focused on raising good kids with the option of the odd-one out being work oriented, as it used to be. That's literally what I said.

>>69872 OP, there's probably very few women in this discussion so it's kinda pointless anyway, don't you think? I bet if I showed all of this to my gf she would just recoil in disgust at the initial question as would most gf's of the posters if they currently have one.

>>69875 >Even females are disgusting by female behavior Tracks.

>>69852 >I thought I was clear the first time. You can have all the kinks and deviancy you want in the bedroom, it won't affect the only issue that really matter for a society to survive. You must of course keep it there. But if you remove what cause life long lasting couples with perhaps a few experiences in they youth then you affect that issue. You just can't have a 3 digit body count and then expect your life to change and to show the stability needed for the production of quality kids. If it isnot obvious to you, observe what happen to the peapole who do that when they grow old. And once again, it have nothing to do with women, it apply to men as well. So what is it? You didn't really answer my question. How do you count it? Were we "clear" as you mention? You said "not sexuality, but promiscuity that needs to be restricted regardless of a person's sex", because you believe that "promiscuity" (whatever you are referring to, please, tell me) causes the number of criminals and some other dysfunctional societal elements you mentioned to raise. You didn't say anything about how we measure or count it. So at the end of the day my 2 questions remain unanswered: 1) what do you mean by "promiscuity" and how do you measure it statistically speaking?; 2) in what way specifically this "promiscuity" you are referring to should be restricted?. What methods do we use? Is it making cheating a federal offense? Is it making having more than 1 relationship a federal offense? Just tell me.

>>69875 I mean, not women but just opposing sides in general each of them can include both men and women

>>69873 The issue with your math is that you assume that the proportion of woman going to make kids is massively outweighing the number going into purely career oriented lifestyles. This creates a false premise as you remain on "scientists" rather than "careers". Woman are being pushed into higher education, in most western countries, with a vigor greater than men. It has been shown that woman in such countries are less happy on average. This course of action also lowers the birth rates in these countries due to the unwillingness of woman to mate with those of lower financial statuses, and when they do mate, their careers often stagnate or end. This creates a poor outcome for the woman involved as well as the society they live in. >>69864 It is better to have well raised natives as opposed to well raised foreigners in any culture purely due to minimized cultural conflicts. You argue that a low population ceiling is desirable, but the societies where woman are promiscuous and are pushed into higher education at disproportionate rates are across the board, currently importing foreigners to maintain the birth rate. As such, the effect upon the population is negligible, but the effect upon the stability of the country is disasters.

>>69885 >This creates a false premise as you remain on "scientists" rather than "careers". The question was about scientists rather than careers. I don't like this type of allegorical reasoning. Even so, I think that most people wouldn't have a career given the option.

>>69885 >currently importing foreigners to maintain the birth rate. As such, the effect upon the population is negligible It is objectively not negligible, birthrates are declining worldwide regardless of culture and the population is headed towards no further growth, which is as it should be. Did you actually mean "maintain the birth rate" or did you misspeak there? I'm not sure how immigration would counteract a declining birthrate in terms of total population, immigration isn't new people coming into the world, it's people moving from one place to another, the effect on global human population from immigration should be zero.

>>69885 >>69887 as a germanistan immigrant: imports dont cover the loss. Im expecting the country to implode in next 10 years and looking to bail because the largest population segment is about to retire and kids joining work force make only about half of that in size so you will be dealing with a pensioner majority country were a few working kids are supposed to sustain everyone. Only thing im uncertain of is how far you need to run. Might affect the entire eu when the central country goes down the toilet.

>>69884 Do you feel like discussions of male promiscuity on female forums are constructive and balanced without the presence of male voices? >>69887 >birthrates are declining worldwide Nope https://www.populationpyramid.net/world/2023/ We have a very healthy pyramid if you consider all 8 billion people.

>>69902 Why are you trying to make that point with secondary metrics when birthrate graphs themselves are readily available? If my claim was false it should be easy to disprove directly. It's a steady long term trend and will not show up in a pyramid chart, which will only invert from large, sharp and sudden birthrate decline like German Lain talks about. Pic related. Similar trend most everywhere, more pronounced some places than others, but even the countries that are the current biggest sources of population growth are on this track.

>>69693 >Cars and women mileage isn't an imaginary value Does that mean that man's "mileage" isn't as well? If you think that the number of previous relationships impacts the likelihood of cheating then do tou think it applies to men as well?

>>69905 Birthrate is typically a secondary variable calculated from census data, actually.

>>69905 https://www.statista.com/chart/3410/global-child-mortality-rate/ https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality Early childhood mortality significantly affects the statistics, lainon. It's the same reason the life expectancy was so low in ancient times while dirt poor Socrates lived to like 70 till his execution. The birthrate is, not coincidentally, high in places where this metric is high. Having a child born is like quarter of the way at best. You would need an environment for bringing them up and the lack of that is the main problem.

>>69906 From an anthropological perspective, men have never sought sex to increase their societal standing or availability of resources, yet it's standard and acceptable behavior for women. Why are men valued as providers but women not?

>>69855 Wear a condom to not get them. Simple as

Dumb question, and a lot of dumb answers here. People with high worth generally have their choice in partners, men tend to want more partners. People who will easily sleep with anyone are generally viewed negatively (men or women, although women generally get more shame for this).

So I want to point out an analogy I find interresting regarding corellation-not-causation issue. Statistically speaking, if you are a female — you are more likely to wear earrings. I bet noone here would doubt it rite? (provided we are in US or any other European country in which it is considered a feminine trait by an overpowering majority, I know some of you may bring up other cultures in which it is a male trait but that is the kind of absurd a kid would understand, bruh) But then we are left wondering which causes which to correctly understand which regulation we need to apply in order to achieve our goal. So: – does that mean that wearing earrings causes a person to be a female? — the answer is NO, cos one does not become a female ones they put earrings on. Pretty simple right? – does that mean that by banning earrings we will cause more people to be males? — subsequently to the previous statement - also NO. Whenever you think of stats, keep in mind this simple example. Thanks for reading and good luck. I hope we will reach understanding

>>69911 This is false. They are only for preventing pregnancies, not for preventing STDs. I don't know why this lie is still cycling.

>>69856 The way we did for tens of thousands of years. No abortions, no contraceptive, welfare being kept at reasonable level and organized by the community and not the state. The only reason why all of this is happening in the first place, the birth rate, half the young men being forced into basically solitary servitude, women being little more than cheap prostitute when they don't do it for free while the men pay a meeting app to access them. The previous and current generation being raised to fail. None of that would happen without abortions, contraceptive and women marrying the state instead of men.

>>69857 >Numbers. Yes, it's fine if Marie Curie don't make kids, she contributed to mankind in another way. But how many women are like her? We designed society so all women could fill excel sheets all day and we are now paying the price. The fascists made it a lot harder for women to get into higher education so they would have more babies factories. The cold fact is that they were right to do so. One trillion filled Excel sheets don't compensate for the missing generation. >>69869 >One scientist can make progress that 10 couldn't due to different circumstances. You have not yet realized that for that scientist to exist, we need that his mother didn't became one. >It's also important to note that all of the 3 scientists you are talking about would become scientists in about 25 years if they start to be born now one at a time every 2 years. Meanwhile an 18 yo woman can become a productive scientist in about 5 years and then give birth to one or two children later in life and both of them can become scientists or other upstanding members of society You are like Keynes. In 100 years we all are dead, right? Learn this: we are in the "in 100 years" Keynes was talking about and we are alive. And we are in the "in 25 years" you are talking about. This isn't the start of the sexual revolution. The scientists who make progress than 10 other people could not do, he is not born because her mother was a globe trotter and had a career in whatever executive. >having a distinguished scientist as a mother is a good thing for the child, no? It indeed is. Being born is most important however. Career woman have few child so the hypothetical son of a scientist we are talking about have a high chance to not exist at all. >it's much sooner and time is of the essence in science since the 20th century I now must fall to namecalling. Fool. Science is pretty much dead. Quantum physic have halted in the 50, medicine have a so called replication crisis meaning that only corporate interests exist and not knowledge. No major discoveries have been made since decades. Our computers are just evolved versions of the computers of the 70. 50 years and nothing new. A global communication network, a noosphere for ideas to merge. Look at it. Porn and opinions. Quantum computer had a chance to change that but it turn they will only be one more tool in the box. AI have a good potential but it's too soon to say.

>>69915 They reduce the risk significantly, because they are transmitted through bodily fluids

>>69852 >You are 50 years too late for this argument. We did just that and we don't have to argue about it anymore. The selling point was that birth control would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancy and we now observe that it allowed the behavior that get the number of unwanted pregnancies increase even despite the availability of the pills. The selling point of abortion was to reduce the number of single parent families and we observe that it's existence allow the behavior that make them more common despite the availability of abortions. The only reasonable option is to ban them. Do you have any stats to back that up? 1) what country (or for the US, a specific state within it) do you take as an example?; 2) show me that birth control pills and/or condoms are indeed affordable in there (an averege income woman can afford to buy them regularly); 3) show me that since they became affordable the number of unwanted pregnancies has increased in number; 4) show me that the latter (increased number of unwanted pregnancies) is indeed caused by the former (affordability of birth control pills and condoms) by showing that this isn't caused by something else (see Corellation Does Not Imply Causation wiki-article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DThe_phrase_%22correlation_does_not%2Cassociation_or_correlation_between_them.?wprov=sfla1 + my example to better understand what I mean: >>69913) Lets for now concentrate our efforts on that and put other issues aside. I hope we will manage to reach more clarity and concreteness in our discussion. Try to be as specific as you possibly can. Thank you for taking you time in advance.

>>69916 Where do you think all the babies in the woods stories come from? They did not abort, they simply threw the babies out. Rome has also some brutal stories regarding that Yeeted & deleted

>>69919 >Spouting correlation does not imply causation as if it would demonstrate it does not That is not an argument and I will not pretend it is one. I will take France because I live in it. Birth control as well as abortion are paid for by the state. Condoms are like 1€ each, how much bitchy do you need to get for that to be of any importance? Furthermore, plenty of place give them for free. >4) show me that the latter (increased number of unwanted pregnancies) is indeed caused by the former (affordability of birth control pills and condoms) by showing that this isn't caused by something else I told you it's caused by something else: by the sexual revolution, which, and there in no shortage of literature on this, was cause by ending the correlation between sex and pregnancy. Even feminists say it loud and clear. Do I have to demonstrate that fuarrrking a lot cause a lot of pregnancies? Here you can see when abortions became legal, approximately when contraception was, the number of pregnancy rose. >>69920 >Where do you think all the babies in the woods stories come from? From a brain since babies were abandoned near monasteries or churches at nights.

>>69907 Ok, but the point is that a population pyramid graph by age group is a poor choice because it is only indirectly related to the statistic in question. It is entirely possible for that graph to look like it does and for birthrate to be declining. >>69908 >Early childhood mortality significantly affects the statistics, lainon It affects them, but if you want to argue that they offset reductions in birthrate so much that population growth is not declining, you need to compare those numbers to each other, which you haven't attempted. Infant mortality was never enough to cancel out population growth, and as that second image shows, it's pretty low at this point. Further reductions have increasingly negligible impact on population, while further reductions in birthrate retain strong impact. Population projections take this into account, and they pretty much all show the same thing: long term slowing growth. >The birthrate is, not coincidentally, high in places where this metric is high. Yes which is yet another reason pushing for more women to reproduce is a bad idea. Low birthrate has many advantages, even if the biggest is allowing total population to be capped below a number the planet cannot now sustain, it is a mistake to try to reverse this. It is a good thing that many women do not want children and choose not to have them.

>>69922 >It is a good thing that many women do not want children and choose not to have them. It is not a good thing that idiocracy is unavoidable and only the women who can give a good genetic potential to their kids choose to not reproduce. What do you think will happen for the rest of history if we let that happen for even just 3 generations?

>>69917 The general reasons for why women don't have many children are as I outlined before the economic factors. It cost more to live, it costs much more to have children (and for a good reason mostly, children were neglected in both time and investment for most of history). By restricting access to higher education for women you lower the family income. Raising income for fathers and providing sufficient safety nets if he becomes unable to work is a pipe dream and is unnecessary. Why? Because women are people and people want to express themselves. If you restrict access to power and expression like it was before, women would do the same thing they did before: gain it through their sons. I fundamentally disagree with the notion that birthing a child is a most important part. You can check out basically every board in the Humanity and Random section for the examples. If you can't provide decent upbringing to your child, don't have one. >Fool Pic related Being a fool, Allow me to make broad statements based not on facts, but vibes. The are not really defined and intercepting, but ages to science if you look at it broadly. First came the age of math giving us modern engineering and the basis for other sciences, Then the age of chemistry giving us the first breakthroughs in agriculture and pharmaceuticals and also military capabilities Then was the age of physics that gave us too much to even mention culminating in atomic energy and weapons research, space exploration and particle physics Then came the age of biology we are still experiencing with the PCR, human genome project, modern updated evolutionary theory and pharmaceutical giants being the largest companies... After big tech, which is ushering the age of computer science with the advent of AI. Some argue that the next age is the age of ecology with the climate and pollution concerns, but time will tell. I'm a biologist, my specialty is Alzheimer's. We had a big scandal recently. But I'm also a fan of the history of science. And it's better that it ever was essentially. We have plenty of giants to stand on their shoulders and the AI revolution will help refine many issues since modern biology is primarily statistics and data driven and AI is great for big data analysis. Just because physics and orthodox computers are becoming less prominent doesn't mean the science is ending, it's just the new age coming and who knows, it may help solve those physics issues too. I for one welcome it

>>69922 We used mainly pyramids when discussing demographics in the class I took. Granted, it was an ecology class and we studied population dynamics of every living thing during the course and only the last two classes were dedicated to people. It was my assumption that population pyramids is the main determining factor because In my limited knowledge experts always point to them to show the results of the dynamics they discuss in graphs. Infant child mortality is a big factor in population growth and life expectancy but not the only one so comparing it directly to population growth is not really productive. It's a complex equation so it might be unintuitive. Plus we seem to agree that we are close to the appropriate ammount of people in the world. As a biologist I'm concerned with this old testament style treatment of the biosphere. The ammount of land that is not incorporated into urban or agricultural and mining sectors is huge, but it doesn't mean we then must incorporate all of it. The biosphere needs a lot of the planet without much of human interference to maintain its energy and chemical cycles properly. We don't really even know all of the cycles properly to tamper with them as brazingly as some countries do. It is obvious that when population evens out economy will shrink and that will lead to consequences but it's a price for this unsustainable way of life we had since the baby boom of the 40s and 50s (I know some countries joined it later or even never, but tough luck, you can't debate with nature and if you push it too hard it pushes back and the results are catastrophic). The future looks a lot more Indian, Arab and African (sorry for lumping together) and that's just fine by me, they seem like wonderful cultures that waited long enough for their turn in the sun (since the age of exploration basically).

>>69923 >only the women who can give a good genetic potential to their kids choose to not reproduce. >that image Are you suggesting the rest of the world should be engaged in a reproductive arms race against Africa, and that doing this is a more important priority than limiting the total human population? I don't think there will be any real negatives from letting the current circumstance play out for 3 generations.

holy crap this thread is a mess >evopsych is totally real and not a loser cope >muh fertility rates also what >>69713 said

>>69929 >replace 100iq with 80iq population >no negatives lold, though i guess you could argue if westerners are retarded enough to tolerate their replacement then they already are defect and deserve going the way of the dodo

>>69931 Right. I won't further derail this thread trying to disprove racist pseudoscience, but I will point out the other major thing wrong with what you're saying: that snapshot of birth rates cannot be extrapolated linearly, which should be obvious just by the fact I keep repeating, that birth rates everywhere are in decline. Think acceleration vs velocity. The African population is not going to increase exponentially to dwarf the rest of the world, you don't have to worry about it.

>>69935 there's no use arguing with polacks. if they truly cared about whyte birth rates they'd stop posting and have ==SÉX== . the fact that they don't tells us a few things

>>69935 >cant read if they would actually lower population it would be neat and improve conditions but they don't. EU is replacing their native population with africans and the best part is the natives get taxed to fund it so they cant afford their own families. Enjoy getting replaced while simping for it.

>>69937 You're only getting replaced if you identify by these racial labels. The number of people with mixed ethnic backgrounds is higher than ever and the rate is not going to slow any time soon. So we hopefully be able to go back to ethnic hating and stop pretending Irish, Greek and Jewish people are the same group in any way other that being humans. Also incidentally having a history of being working class in America together with Italians

>>69941 this but also this evergreen franklin quote

>>69941 >race replacing you matters dumbo. If you import people instead of having kids you are replacing yourself regardless. Whether they import africans or chinese or whatever and all the race talk is just distraction. Its the dead of their culture because immigrants dont give two soykafs about loser values.

>>69943 Well, if the culture of the host is being accepting of other cultures than that's following their culture, no? And what do you mean by values? Won't they be importing traditional values? Maybe an interesting addition to slang? Interesting cuisine?

>>69926 >If you can't provide decent upbringing to your child, don't have one. In the west, the safety net is so strong that we have no shortage of social oddities single mother who get 5 childs from 3 different fathers and live in relative comfort. >By restricting access to higher education for women you lower the family income. I will tell you how to hack the world: life is cheap. Food don't cost much, you don't need one room per kid. If you avoid the consumerist trap, life is cheap. If you look for a professional to keep your kids all day and then go see professionals to feed you or entertain you, then it's expensive. But you should not do that. By staying home a few years at every kid, your wife already provide for almost everything you will need. >Some argue that the next age is the age of ecology with the climate and pollution concerns, but time will tell. We are entering the age of China and India and they do not even care about the climate. They will do whatever gove them an edge in the geopolitical race and that's why they are the future in the first place. >we are still experiencing with the PCR, ... and pharmaceutical giants being the largest companies.. Yes, progress. A so called vaccine pushed by Orwellian level of disinformation and covered by a new kind of obscurantism. I can't wait to see where we are going.

>>69941 >>69929 >It's not a problem of 75% of the world population are the people who have an average IQ of 80, who can barely think abstractly, who have a lot of testosterone and estrogen, who have a low self control and who always, with no exception transform any place they move to in a third world soykafhole >>69935 The UN have predicted 2 to 4 billions niggers for 2100. It is absolutely obvious that they won't stay in Africa. Tell me, what will Europe look like if even just one billion niggers and half that of southeast Asians move there? >>69941 >You are only being replaced if you don't identify to the word on a plasticized paper Today, I have witnessed a man made horror beyond my comprehension.

>>69948 that's not how IQ works you stupid cu ck

>>69949 Even when raised in the west, in western schools, a 15 points gap remain.

>>69950 my gott, the stupidity is even greater

>>69951 >>69949 Race deniers are so weird. If you're sure you're right, why not open up the legality of scientific testing into the matter? If you know you're correct, you have nothing to fear by enabling actual scientific study. But right now study along racial boundaries is illegal or otherwise grant-walled. White people/Black people do not exist and never have. Africa is the largest center of racial warfare on the planet, or are you telling me you're faceblind and can't tell the difference the 12 distinct racial groups of "black people" in Africa? That's racist, lain.

>>69951 Go ahead, tell me why blacks are the way they are if racism is false.

>>69954 I uhhhh purely economic reasons....

>>69921 { >4) show me that the latter (increased number of unwanted pregnancies) is indeed caused by the former (affordability of birth control pills and condoms) by showing that this isn't caused by something else >I told you it's caused by something else: by the sexual revolution, which, and there in no shortage of literature on this, was cause by ending the correlation between sex and pregnancy. Even feminists say it loud and clear. Well, maybe I didn't read all of your answers or simply missed something (you tell me, lol), but I don't see where you said "the increase in number of unwanted pregnancies is caused by sexual revolution". Here: >>69852 I see you saying just what I said you said: >"The selling point was that birth control would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancy and we now observe that it allowed the behavior that get the number of unwanted pregnancies increase even despite the availability of the pills" So it wasn't __contraception__ or __the legality of abortions__ that allowed for the behaviour that makes the number of unwanted pregnancies go up, it was __sexual revolution__ and its consequences. That is quite the deviation from your previous claim.... } Anyways, how come the only reasonable option is to ban abortions along with contraception? Intuitively, both me and people, who are reasonable are prone to assume that by banning all possible ways of preventing unwanted pregnancy as well as all possible ways of preventing unwanted childbirth with existing pregnancy will have an incremental effect on the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of unwanted childbirths + will have an incremental effect on the number of women, who scoop our their unborn infants from their vaginas with rusty spoons. Naturally, this will also have an incremental effect on the number of single-parent families. The graph you provided doesn't show causal effect between the availability of contraception and either the number of unwanted pregnancies or the number of single-parent families (it doesn't even have either of them). It only shows us that the number of given births has expectedly decreased since the legalization of birth control and abortions in 1967 and 1975 respectively. The graph doesn't mention any reasons for that whatsoever. >Do I have to demonstrate that fuarrrking a lot cause a lot of pregnancies? Yes, you do have to do that, because just from superficially looking at this I don't see how if you are putting on a condom so that she doesn't get pregnant. So, at this point I am not even sure what you are talking about since you seem to fluctuate between completely different things arbitrarily without fixating at anything specific: -the number of single-parent families -the number of unwanted pregnancies -the availability of abortions -the availability of contraception -sexual education -sexual revolution and it's consequences The most important stat seems to be the number of single-parent families. Hell, you didn't even show me that it indeed increased, but here I'll do it for you: https://www.ined.fr/en/everything_about_population/demographic-facts-sheets/faq/en-france-combien-de-familles-monoparentales/#:~:text=In%202016%2C%201.9%20million%E2%80%94or,when%20the%20figure%20was%2012%25 >In 2016, 1.9 million—or 23%—of France’s 8 million families with children under 18 were single-parent families. This represents a steep increase since 1990, when the figure was 12%. In 85% of cases, children live primarily with their mother. So yes, it did increase, but was it because of the availability of either contraception or abortions? That is for you to prove and find sources for. Same for sexual revolution and it's consequences which is a rather loaded topic. >Spouting correlation does not imply causation as if it would demonstrate it does not >That is not an argument and I will not pretend it is one. Why not? Causal relations are something to prove exists if we have corellation, but it itself does not imply them. Intuitively, there is no reason to believe that birthcontrol, abortions and sexual education have caused the amount of singleparent families to go up unless, of cource, you can prove otherwise by showing that it cannot be caused by something else (controlling for other variables) So, in conclusion, you are being very vague and imprecise. Pick something specific and try to prove it to me instead of wandering in the forest of claims.

>>69935 Where can I find it being disproved?

>>69968 Somewhere else, don't hijack barely related threads with this soykaf.

>>69968 You probably don't want to ask here. Most lainons aren't open minded enough to discuss racialism. They mostly just disregard it and then seethe about it until they forget. >>69970 But where would he be able to discuss it? You claim there is an elsewhere, he asked where, and you said "elsewhere" -- This isn't an answer, it's dismissive and dishonest rhetoric.

>>69972 I don't know, maybe in threads that are actually about that, instead of ones for which the subject is incredibly in the weeds? I interpret the request as not mainly for a place to discuss, but for argument and engagement with the topic (presumably as an excuse to bring more attention to it), and no one is owed that from me. I was sick of arguing about race years ago and am on this website and not po1 for a reason.

>>69973 The direct question of why people don't like promiscuity has already run its course in this thread with plenty of responses on the consequences. Now the question is why the consequences of promiscuity are disliked, and the answers seem to always boil down to "controversial" topics since these topics are the lynchpins of most of the issues of the 20th and 21st century. We achieve nothing by lying to ourselves about these things beyond self-masturbatory congratulations. Threads should not be treated as lists, but rather as trees. Now if only the tree-view option worked correctly on lainchan . . .

>>69973 If we didn't had geopolitics and replacement levels of immigration, we could not care if racialism is true or not but the fact is, our low birthrate make our politicians organize massive and unsustainable immigration and we get the worse people of the planet. To get back to the topic, in the ideal world we would have an organic population raise and our countries would still be functional. Unfortunately we don't have that. Because women now focus on their careers, the birthrate is low. Because the sexual revolution happened, forming couples is now an achievement. Because we have people entering our country, housing price are artificially driven up. And so it's a big deal to know if the people who will be the majority in our countries soon are capable of maintaining an advanced society. So far, every indicator says no. Now, if you could give me a link or two to places that would show me that a lot of blacks can live somewhere without turning it into a third world soykafhole, I would gladly read them and become a better man.

>>69964 >"the increase in number of unwanted pregnancies is caused by sexual revolution" Consider the following: Sex cause pregnancies. Contraception and abortions caused the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution caused a lot more sex to happen. Before, it was usual to only fuarrrk your wife and maybe a prostitute and two in your life. Not everyone take his meds correctly, just look at this place. Contraception don't always work. With tens of thousand more sex happening, even with a failure rate of 0,1% for contraceptives, more unwanted pregnancies happen. >Intuitively, both me and people, who are reasonable are prone to assume that by banning all possible ways of preventing unwanted pregnancy as well as all possible ways of preventing unwanted childbirth with existing pregnancy will have an incremental effect on the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of unwanted childbirths Only if you ignore that the number of sexual acts is not independent from the existence of those tools. Now, I am well aware that this isn't going in the way you want things to go and you are just going to reject everything I say. I could show you that 1+1=2 and you would ask me to demonstrate that additions are real. You are simply going to continue until I grow tired and leave and then you will keep your convictions. >Show me that A cause B <A cause C <C cause A <Therefore, A cause B >No, give me a direct proof! Well, you have decided to not change your mind and you won't.

>>69978 >in the ideal world we would have an organic population raise Then you are back in the Malthusian trap and your billions of white ethnostaters get to cannibalize each other when the resources run out. This lain had it right: >>69927 >when population evens out economy will shrink and that will lead to consequences but it's a price for this unsustainable way of life we had All problems resulting from halting growth are transient and must be dealt with instead of picking a short term solution that dooms the future.

>>69982 >Then you are back in the Malthusian trap and your billions of white ethnostaters get to cannibalize each other when the resources run out. Only if it's an exponential growth, which can only happen if overpopulation does not impact population growth. Look at Japan: everyone live in a shoe box with his mom and even if they wanted they couldn't get many kids. We had some overpopulation events in the middle age of Europe like the demography crisis in Scandinavia that created the Viking age or when France had 20 millions people and that was before chemical fertilizers/pest control.

>>.69985 jp got fuarrrked by murrica. They rigged their economy post ww2 for failure controlling their central bank. Princess of yen is the documentary about it.

>>69988 I don't know. It seems to be that most serious problems that Japan faces are inherently Japanese in nature. >>69985 I don't agree with the ethnostate lainon, but there are entry of livable land in Japan as is in most countries. https://www.quora.com/How-much-uninhabited-unused-land-is-there-left-in-Japan Of course you would need to build there and that's costly but that's a policy and economy issue, not a physical limitation I don't think it should be populated, of course. We share this planet with other species of life that are not domesticated too, and we rely on many of them for quite a lot of things, so wiping them out is a bad idea practically. Check out China and Sparrows story for a good example.

>>69985 >which can only happen if overpopulation does not impact population growth That impact is what is happening now. It's somewhat abstracted and not directly driven by food availability, but it is happening. The population cap we are headed for is the most we can sustain (for now, it could be even less after climate change or other adverse future circumstances). You are proposing to find ways to bypass that safety valve. The big risk with that is, stress and chaos prevents humans from self regulating their reproduction. Where there is civil war and mass death, rates inevitably spike and stick at high levels for many years. So once we start getting to the point when we see the most overt impacts of overpopulation and the violence that comes with it, the safety valve will be broken, it will not protect us anymore. Pushing for higher birth rates at this stage is like taking a chisel to a dam because you want water for something, a profoundly terrible idea that could doom our species.

>>69979 >Consider the following: >Sex cause pregnancies. >Contraception and abortions caused the sexual revolution. >The sexual revolution caused a lot more sex to happen. Before, it was usual to only fuarrrk your wife and maybe a prostitute and two in your life. >Not everyone take his meds correctly, just look at this place. Contraception don't always work. >With tens of thousand more sex happening, even with a failure rate of 0,1% for contraceptives, more unwanted pregnancies happen. I see how it makes sence: >The point there is that using contraception gives a false sense of security. Many people are overconfident, use it improperly or only most of the time, and then end up taking more chances than they would have without it. There's almost enough information there to make an answer, but not quite enough but then again, show me stats or I won't believe you. Did the general amount of people with self-reported unwanted pregnancy rise since contraception and abortions first have become legal? Found an interresting article for you, but it doesn't have stats either: https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/blog/why-contraception-fails-and-how-to-choose-a-method-that-works But then even if we assume that this is true then wouldn't it be restricting freedom to deny the possibility of consequenceless sex? Whats more important for you, freedom of the individual or the wellbeing of society in general. For me its the former, but, I guess it is not so for you.

>>70013 >Whats more important for you, freedom of the individual or the wellbeing of society in general. We already gave up freedom one step ahead. We are forced to share costs be it straight taxation or mandatory health insurance,... which means the collective is paying for your choices. So demand for control stems from obligation to pay for you. If you would carry 100% of the risk a lot less people would care what you do.

>>70015 That's just on paper. If the raiders take half of your caravan's earnings as a toll for passing and it's about 10% of ther income, do you suddenly have 1 out of 10 votes on when deciding on their next target? Of course not, you would need to bribe them extra for that and as a bonus for their services they will offer you a special deal where the toll is only 5% in exchange for some info on targets and regular employment of ther services to hamper the competing caravans. No shame in that since they have their own raider partners looking for you. So unless you have some leverage you just lay your taxes or go to jail. In some countries you are free to share your grievances publicly but that's about it.

>>70020 Its more like if the caravan has people wasting cash on boooze and then im supposed to pay for their raiders toll im gonna get pissed at them

>>70013 You are talking as if it was not the same thing. Show me the freedom of a women who do naked dances for the price of a sandwich. Show me the freedom of the men who know he will stay forever alone. Show me the freedom of the kid raised by a single mother. Show me the freedom of the 40 year old women who want to settle down and make kids. You are the equivalent of someone who have made drugs legal, encouraged kids to take addictive drugs and then ask what's best between individual freedom and sanity. I can not find the statistic either and given who "own google" it let me suppose the stats show something unpopular. >>70015 This guy is correct. We are not free anyway. The citizens of the late Soviet union were probably more free than us. Half of our income is stolen, corpos and alphabet agency watch us fap, we have tracking devices in our pockets recording even our heartbeats and selling them to health insurance corpos. Free speech is in the gutter and even economic freedom is harnessed by one million laws and regulation and the corpos beating every possible competitor while he is still small. Freedom is gone. We may as well get a good life.

>>70031 The most important part of freedom is the ability to make informed decisions, not being free from taxation or surveillance, that's more like anarchism. As such, it is critical to have easy access to information that's been distorted as little as possible. That's what the citizens of the Soviet Union lacked. You can't make informed decisions of you're not informed. Maybe in the long run what we have is basically the best it could've been if we analyse it rationaly. Seems not, but there's no way to know because this kind of research would not be distorted in a mirriad different ways. So we judge our hight by our reflection inside the reflection in a dimly lit hall of mirrors. We are dying of thirst in the ocean.

>>70034 >We are dying of thirst in the ocean. happens all the time. Seawater makes you puke.

>>70034 >As such, it is critical to have easy access to information that's been distorted as little as possible. That's what the citizens of the Soviet Union lacked. We are not any better than them. The so called war against disinformation bear fruits and now if you are interested by, say, climate change, you have only access to places that goes with the narrative. Ask if the great replacement is real, or if the gene therapy is safe, you only get state sponsored, corpo friendly, WEF aproved information. Now it even become hard to say what is a women. The information that the modern dating scene breed hypergamy, leaving the majority of young men forever alone, bitter, angry and without prospect or reason to contribute to society isn't available or easy to acess. The information that if a women have a lot of partner she will develop trust issues, mental problem and the uncapacity to bond and have a high chance to become very unhappy from 35 to the end of her life isn't easy to acess. Beside, even if it was, the majority of young men would still not be free to have a GF and young women would still not be free to not fall for the fast reward trap because everything encourage them to. >>70040 Thirst killed no one on the raft of la Medusa until the raft became light enough to lift the people on it so they would't have water up to their knees. The skin is porous and will exchange water with the sea. Unfortunately, the salt will eventualy detach the skin from your legs.

>>70048 >Ask if the great replacement is real, or if the gene therapy is safe, you only get state sponsored, corpo friendly, WEF aproved information. >The information that the modern dating scene breed hypergamy, leaving the majority of young men forever alone, bitter, angry and without prospect or reason to contribute to society isn't available or easy to acess. >The information that if a women have a lot of partner she will develop trust issues, mental problem and the uncapacity to bond and have a high chance to become very unhappy from 35 to the end of her life isn't easy to acess. M8 this soykaf is plastered all over the internet. Here we can barely go one thread without someone mentioning it.

>>70031 I am kinda curious: how does a true utopia looks in your imagination? How does it work, under which law does this world operate? Too busy and tired from work to actually put effort into responding to your points, so for now I am letting you have a word

>>70052 Nothing but scorched earth and ashes, plz meteor senpai.