/lgbt/ - LGBT

before i knew HRT was an option i daydreamed about all the expensive "sex change" surgeries
the only reason i pursued a career was being able to afford these as my dysphoria made me more and more doomer about any future in my assigned gender

This sounds like cope, like you've convinced yourself that you'd be 100% "normal" if it hadn't been for your wealth bracket, when there's several well off trans people, such as at least 5 of Elon Musk's kids, or the many trans people that do have families to support.

Also trans people were just as abundant in whatever before-times you're idolizing, just less well documented.

>>8297
Yeah nah. transhumanists have been around forever but the technology has just gotten better and they are less persecuted so they are more visible these days it seems

>>8297
>the bulk of new trans people are trans women
this isn't even true lol
they're just the ones the media focuses on because it's harder to demonize AFABs

I think to be trans you already need to be kind of well off, otherwise where are you getting money for surgeries?
But then, even if you are rich, transitioning is still worthwhile, because nobody likes men. If you're a rich man, yes, you can buy women, but they will not really like you, so you have to either transition or lookmax as a man - two processes that are way more similar than society would like to acknowledge.

>>8722
Edit: Transitioning when you are poor can, however, work if you have a good starting point. That is why, for example, so many ladyboys are in Thailand, which is a very poor country, because Thai people are very androgynous by nature. By the way, Thailand is actually the prime example for OPs point - you don't see a lot of FTMs in Thailand, I don't think I have ever seen or heard about one, but MTFs are so common, they're one of the first things people think about.

By the way, what I said earlier that your starting point affects your chances of getting out of poverty by transitioning - shows that feminity itself is a very valuable resource, you cannot really be poor if you are feminine, not in the same sense and to the same extent as a poor man.
Bringing this up usually make a certain demographic absolutely lose it and foam at the mouth, so I'm not sure how long this post will stay here.

>would you be trans if you had a good job making 120k a year? if you had the ability to support a family?
It would follow that there are no rich trans people, an easily contradicted implication.

>>8722
>I think to be trans you already need to be kind of well off
Civilized countries cover the cost of trans healthcare.

This is a popular urban myth tats promoted by right wingers.
Also most women donot have as much economic prosperity under feminism as you think.
The only successful women in the era are the lucky few who found jobs and wages relative to thet degree

>>8803
An onlyfans girl can make several times more than a professional wage worker.
Women get offered a professional worker's monthly wage for a night with some rich guy.

A dominatrix can easily charge $1000/hour. To be clear basically no software engineer at google or whatever gets paid $1000 an hour. People with PhDs, very senior positions, researches, scientists etc, are overwhelmingly valued less than a woman who can dress in latex an spank a man.

I am not sure why women bother to wageslave at all. I mean I understand if a woman likes her work and just does it because she enjoys the work itself, not for the money. But women definitely cannot be wage slaves, they are NOT in the same boat as me when it comes to employment as a phenomenon. I have to participate in this circus because I cannot survive otherwise. I imagine they can participate in it only if they enjoy the process for some reason.

>>9379
> An onlyfans girl can make several times more than a professional wage worker.
Women get offered a professional worker's monthly wage for a night with some rich guy.

Those are the top one percent of Only Fans.

> A dominatrix can easily charge $1000/hour. To be clear basically no software engineer at google or whatever gets paid $1000 an hour. People with PhDs, very senior positions, researches, scientists etc, are overwhelmingly valued less than a woman who can dress in latex an spank a man.

Again, those are outliers. Also, dominatrixes aren’t valued as much as you think. They have a short time window.
They can be rejected for losing their beauty or nuance. Those sex clubs that seemingly glorify women? Those women get Pennie’s


> I am not sure why women bother to wageslave at all. I mean I understand if a woman likes her work and just does it because she enjoys the work itself, not for the money. But women definitely cannot be wage slaves, they are NOT in the same boat as me when it comes to employment as a phenomenon. I have to participate in this circus because I cannot survive otherwise. I imagine they can participate in it only if they enjoy the process for some reason.

Anon, have you ever looked and the average woman? Most of them aren’t as pretty as you think they are. Their beauty comes from makeup.
And eve then, most women don’t want to be mere meatbags for cishet male sexual gratification.

>>8297
> this only accounts for a small but noticable percentage of trans people, and does not imply that all trans people come from this logic, only that this logic does to some degree create trans people, and if economic opportunities were better, there would surely be less trans people. This is also why the bulk of new trans people are trans women. Women don't really need to transition to a man to access the economics that womanhood innately brings. The inability to perform the role of man, which is fundmentally an economic role, leads to men transitioning.

This is so retarded.

First off, trans men aren’t given any media attention at all. Only trans women because they’re worried about “rape”
Also, the amount of men who wanna transition for social value are way smaller than you think.
Plus most trans women aren’t all that gorgeous.

Also the economic value of women is limited only to their looks or expertise.

>>8297
nah, although your theory's implications would proxy my own "forbidden" theory. it is not that women make more money, or that men do not wish to be breadwinners, but that maleness is an entirely hollow and negative role nowadays. there is no real "Positive masculinity" as such because all positive traits are merely neutral, leaving behind only the traits nobody wants. As such, a man really has a limited set of options: to just kind of ignore this in a charming neurotypical way (where the sheer force of individual personality overcomes gender distinction), to just kind of ignore this in an autistic way. (where the sheer force of their special interests overcomes this distinction), to accept incidentally holding a purely negative role as part of their identity either in a depressive way or in an asshole way, to become non-binary but not really get any credit for it, or to transition.

the problem with any economic theory is that it implies trans women are retarded. now, this isn't unique to trans typology (what is blanchardism but the distinction between the intelligent pervert and the retarded homosexual?) but it's still a big barrier to overcome. even if cis women made more money with less responsibilities, it wouldn't follow that trans women have the same privilege. economic reality is that trans women mostly skew poorer, which is truly remarkable given the prominence of STEM-transwomen in well paid jobs.

now you could draw from this that the reason there are more trans-women is because masculine women experience less dysphoria as a baseline. you can be a tomboy, that is an actual recognized social category of womanhood, but being a sissy isn't really a thing outside fetishism and being a "tom-girl" is a coinage unique to chris chan. as a result, feminine AMABs are much more restricted in how they can express femininity without transitioning.
personally, however, i'm uncool and subscribe to the biological theory: because all foetuses start as female, some kind of hormonal fuckup in the womb triggers the "become masculine physically" flag without the "tell the baby it's a boy" flag, and that's why you get more mtfs than ftms.

>>8707
oh, this is also true.
(although a big chunk of women are what a politically incorrect type would call "theyfabs")

>>8722
HRT is reasonably cheap and surgery is more of a nice to have. a lot of transgender people are just kind of stuck in the "visibly transgender" phase.

>>9379
you're looking at the long-tail of a miserable, lopsided distribution. for every onlyfans girl or dominatrix making $1000/hour you'll find some desperate sap selling her nudes for $1 or desperately trying to be a dominatrix on twitter and totally flopping with like 20 followers.

this is like going "elon musk earns $3.6 million to $29 million per hour" to demonstrate the economic superiority of men. yes, he really does! but he is a very, very improbable man and the average man makes (get this) basically the average wage.

>>9390
> personally, however, i'm uncool and subscribe to the biological theory: because all foetuses start as female, some kind of hormonal fuckup in the womb triggers the "become masculine physically" flag without the "tell the baby it's a boy" flag, and that's why you get more mtfs than ftms.

Nope. It’s more that male individuality isn’t respected as much.
Also fetuses don’t really start out as “female”

You’re using the typical pop sci of crypto autogynophilia

>>9390
> but that maleness is an entirely hollow and negative role nowadays. there is no real "Positive masculinity" as such because all positive traits are merely neutral, leaving behind only the traits nobody wants. As such, a man really has a limited set of options: to just kind of ignore this in a charming neurotypical way (where the sheer force of individual personality overcomes gender distinction), to just kind of ignore this in an autistic way. (where the sheer force of their special interests overcomes this distinction), to accept incidentally holding a purely negative role as part of their identity either in a depressive way or in an asshole way, to become non-binary but not really get any credit for it, or to transition

That’s because being a cishet male is seen as an acceptable target for mocking and demonizing now.

> oh, this is also true.
(although a big chunk of women are what a politically incorrect type would call "theyfabs")

Most popular representation/proclamation of gender queerdom is just women using alternative aesthetics

>>8722
By your logic, no one really likes women either. Whenever society acknowledges women, they mainly focus on prime age women. Older women are treated as second class citizens. They’re only seen as maternal figures, meant to be some sort of sentient plush teddy bear to appeal to peoples feelings.

>>8722
> you're a rich man, yes, you can buy women, but they will not really like you, so you have to either transition or lookmax as a man - two processes that are way more similar than society would like to acknowledge.

Not true. A lot of men who transition don’t really look as good as they’d hope and often suffer from hormonal side effects
Looks maxing can be done without transitioning and much cheaper and less dramatic

>>9390
> now you could draw from this that the reason there are more trans-women is because masculine women experience less dysphoria as a baseline. you can be a tomboy, that is an actual recognized social category of womanhood, but being a sissy isn't really a thing outside fetishism and being a "tom-girl" is a coinage unique to chris chan. as a result, feminine AMABs are much more restricted in how they can express femininity without transitioning.

Have you considered that maybe trans men are just as plentiful but they’re ignored and that pre-op trans men are often shuffled into the tomboy category?
Not all masculine women are tomboys. Not all FtM are into sports or whatever.

The FtM experience is often overlooked and undersympathised compared to its counterpart.

>>9392
on the contrary i would say male individuality is basically the only thing that can salvage being a man. (this is what i was getting at by "sheer force of personality" and "sheer force of special interests"

pop sci has advantages for explaining concepts quickly and glibly (which is obviously my approach here), the details don't matter so much as the directionality. so long as the cause is something in the womb (and don't be too hasty discrediting that in favour of social constructivism, look at the well documented birth order effect influence on male homosexuality and the way that this does not happen to adoptees.) the details aren't too important.

>>9393
even if men weren't an acceptable target for mocking and demonizing, masculinity would still be hollow. it's (basically) acceptable to make fun of the irish, italians, etc, but those identities have some positive content (even if like all nationalism it's a bit of a LARP, the irish are generally seen as friendly and funny people, italians by good food and art and so on.)

>>9396
to be overlooked and undersympathised is the gender affirming way to treat a contemporary man.
as far as i know, trans men are more plentiful, but they rub against social norms much less. they can't really be spun as a threat in the way that transwomen can. (hence why most anti-trans grift portrays FtM people as victims rather than as potential predators.)

>>9397
>on the contrary i would say male individuality is basically the only thing that can salvage being a man. (this is what i was getting at by "sheer force of personality" and "sheer force of special interests"

Individuality is the only thing that can salvage any demographic regardless of race, gender, or age.

>pop sci has advantages for explaining concepts quickly and glibly (which is obviously my approach here), the details don't matter so much as the directionality. so long as the cause is something in the womb (and don't be too hasty discrediting that in favour of social constructivism, look at the well documented birth order effect influence on male homosexuality and the way that this does not happen to adoptees.) the details aren't too important.

You’re just rationalizing woo woo right now. No different from urban myths about “coal burners” or natural disasters are divine punishment.

>even if men weren't an acceptable target for mocking and demonizing, masculinity would still be hollow. it's (basically) acceptable to make fun of the irish, italians, etc, but those identities have some positive content (even if like all nationalism it's a bit of a LARP, the irish are generally seen as friendly and funny people, italians by good food and art and so on.)


It seems to me you have a problem with masculinity. But ok, if masculinity is hollow then so is femininity.

> to be overlooked and undersympathised is the gender affirming way to treat a contemporary man.
as far as i know, trans men are more plentiful, but they rub against social norms much less. they can't really be spun as a threat in the way that transwomen can. (hence why most anti-trans grift portrays FtM people as victims rather than as potential predators.)

So I guess treating women as invisible after their thirties is the gender affirming way to treat them.

Again your rationale seems to have willful contempt for cishet males which is a common thing I find in “leftist” spaces, especially in gender discussions

The glorification of femininity as some omnipresent essence while treating masculinity as a defect or total spook.

>>9397
> the details don't matter so much as the directionality. so long as the cause is something in the womb

There isn’t.
Transgenderism and homosexuality aren’t genetic although they are bio psychological

Would you apply this same logic for trans men and tomboys?

>>9397
> even if men weren't an acceptable target for mocking and demonizing, masculinity would still be hollow. it's (basically) acceptable to make fun of the irish, italians, etc, but those identities have some positive content (even if like all nationalism it's a bit of a LARP, the irish are generally seen as friendly and funny people, italians by good food and art and so on.)

Most of which are because of men.
If you view masculinity as hollow, then you have to admit that femininity is also hollow especially since it focuses on youthful beauty and docility far too much.

I will admit that masculinity is wrongfully gatekept and mystified but so is femininity.

>>8297
>would you be trans if you had a good job making 120k a year? if you had the ability to support a family?
Yes? Retard.

>>9408
>No they don't, there are 50yo+ dominatrixes charging barely less. And let's be honest, if at these income levels she doesn't have enough to not have to "work" anymore ever she must borderline mentally retarded, I think those that do it at that age just enjoy it.

Those older dominatrixes are all on Botox or other cosmetic procedures.

>And on beauty: any ugly woman is valued infinitely more than the average male (who is not valued at all) and can charge just as much.

Ugly women are only valued as convenient meatbags. And those ugly women charging to have sex probably don’t get as much customers as you think.

Also, average men are valued a lot more than you think. In the cishomo community, average looking adults are well received and liked. Even cishet males looking to blow off steam will get an average looking guy to lend a helping hand.

>I've seen escort profiles where it's basically the female version of Chud and she charges $400 an hour (again, it's someone's monthly wage here). Sis, if you were male with these looks, you'd never get to touch a woman, you'd be bullied at school, you'd likely hang yourself by the age of 20-25 due to loneliness. Yet here you are, blessed with a vagina

Girls like her probably are bullied a lot. Those kind of women do end up with kids but have no husband in sight.
You’re forgetting that customer service jobs usually hire based on looks.

>Yeah only for RICH OR MEGA PRETTY cishet male sexual gratification. They would genuinely prefer to work for pennies than to have to interact with a sub5 in any way, I know.


Men act the same way too. Men wouldn’t wanna bend over backwards for women whom are level five or below on the attractiveness scale.

>Btw note how you write "cishet male sexual gratification" as if it's a bad thing and whoever delivers it is a "meatbag", because it is - males are lower caste, therefore being with a man is automatically seen as below a woman, humiliating, unless he can seriously compensate, with money or better with looks.

Women encounter the same problem as well. Women whom are lacking in curves, smooth skin, docility, slender extremities, etc are looked down upon.
They’re seen as harbringers of moral decay.

It’s especially made worse if they’re single mothers.

>>9408
>Btw this all is exaggerated even more in poorer countries. I live in the outskirts of eastern europe and a dominatrix will still charge $200 as the bare minimum, and I've seen them charging close to $1000 too. That's one thing when it happens in the west, although even there that's absurdly much, but here it's even more absurdly much - like come on, $300-400 is already someone's monthly wage, so an unfortunate man legit wakes up every date at 8am, goes to his wagecage, gets humuliated by management, phyiscally tired and emotionally drained, gets back home after 6pm, and this all month long only to get $300-400 for a month of this soul-draining slavery, less than a woman gets an hour or two at worst for having her feet licked or smth like that. So a month of a man's life is worth less than an hour of woman's. Just how dehumanizing is that?

That explains a lot about your solipsism.
Anon, have you ever really hung out with prostitutes? Have you ever really looked into their finances and how they live?
Most of them are broke as bitches.

Those women who get paid a few hundred dollars an hour for sexy times? They don’t often get customers that can splurge that kind of money.
Also, you’re forgetting that they have to spend money on medical checkups and rent.
Also, most women have to toil under shittt management for hours per day while getting paid in Pennies.

>>9535
You’re exaggerating.
Nobody likes males as erotic sexual creatures but that doesn’t mean men aren’t valued.
Also, womens SMV is shaky at best, so trans women have even less stable SMV.
There’s a lot of trans women that don’t pass. They’re constantly rejected for dates:

Also, there’s places that do conscription for women as well, not just men.
Also, women are not valued as people either. They’re expected to be pretty and docile and are demanded to pay their way just like men are.

You’re only looking at social value from purely the sexual prospect angle.

Men and women both aren’t valued as people.

Yes, mens lives are worse in the sense that they’re expected to be meatshields
But women also have it worse in that they’re seen as sentient sex dolls.

>>9408
>I couldn't even start earning $400/hour out of nowhere. Any woman can, it's basically zero effort.


Not true. If you hung out with whores, they will tell you that four hundred dollars an hour doesn’t mean it’s constant. It usually means that you’re lucky enough to get one client within a fortnight period that has four hundred dollars to spend in an hour.

>Take a party yacht: men who end up there either had to have generational wealth or build their own business, taking risks and luck in the process. Women on that same yacht are just typical girls from poor families in Ukraine or some place like that who didn't have to do a goddamn thing to end up there, nor have any generational wealth. Very different requirements for men and women to end up in the same boat, literal or proverbial

Again, not always true. Women often come from generational wealth as well. And some women do actually earn their own money or had to get connections to get on that yacht.
Also, you’re familiar with straight guys having DL male lovers?

It’s more common than you think. In fact I would say there’s more men fudge packing other men on the yacht than there are women getting bred in the yacht especially nowadays

>>9576
>That's an unusual admission! A man would usually cope around this fact, and a woman would gaslight.

Not exactly. Men say thi shit all the time. But actually, men are valued as sexual creatures by other men.

>You must be transsexual

What a stupid assumption. I’m a cishet male.

>No they're not. The get free shit all the time, even the ugliest of them

Wrong. Women are expected to pay their way through college. Other is why else would they do sex work?

>You're forgetting that EVERYONE needs to pay rent and medical checkups. The difference is that for me rent is half a month of my time, for her rent is a couple of hours. Not sure why you bring up rent, it helps my point, not yours lol.

You’re looking at the top one percent of hookers who get filthy rich.

>I contacted one self described feminist and left wing activist prostitute to inquire about the price. She said: "I charge $350 an hour and not for a specific activity but for a date where we'll decide together what we'll do, we'll meet at a cafe", so what this means is the first $350 goes down the toilet for sure because you won't even make it out of the cafe in an hour, then the following $350's get wasted because as "you both" (her) decide that all you want today is hold hands while she wears a hazmat suit, or maybe indeed some action if you look good enough.
>So, this *at least* $700 a day (and more in reality), for context this was in a country where a man is lucky to earn those $350 a month wageslaving. Not sure how this counts as broke, she'd have to be really fucking stupid to stay broke with such income.
>Or actually I saw another one such on a bdsm site. She rationalized her charging by "while we live in a patriarchy and communism takes over men pay", lol. That's why I cannot take a person who uses the word "patriarchy" unironically seriously.

Again, those are the lucky minority of whores

You’re forgetting that money is limited all around. Those women charge a lot because everyone doesn’t have seven hundred to spend off in one go. They’re looking for the minority of rich men.

>They absolutely would, and the above example of a chudette charging that much isn't even the worst.

That’s because men are more guilt tripped into chivalry. And men don’t hold women to the same accountability

>They get enough customers to be able to price gouge.

Maybe because of the assumption that uglier women will be less haughty and there will be less sympathy for the ugly girl if she raises a fuss

>Ugly men are not valued whastoever, one could say they have a negative value.

In terms of romantic/sexual value, yes. But they can still be valued as friends.

>Oh you mean the sum total of a few ultrashitholes and one genocidal regime, where in all cases it's still lighter for women than for men?

In the west, there’s some countries that began female conscription.

>Wageslavery and conscription are not "purely sexual".

You know that women still get paid less than men in more demanding forelegs of work where it’s a male majority, like trades?
Also, not all women go into prostitution for easy money. I know it’s hard for you to believe this, but women are people too. They’re not all doted on excessively nor are they looking to skimp on work.


>If you're rejected while presenting as a woman, you'd basically stand no chance as a man. At a given looks level, a woman can be worth infinitely more than a man, and a trans woman is still worth more than a man.

Lol at yourself. Non-passing trans women aren’t sexually/romantically appreciated. A cishet prettyboy will be given more value than a transgender woman

Beautiful trans women usually either transitioned young or and/or had a cosmetic surgery
Even a good looking hunky stud or a cis femboy is sexually valued more than trans women.

If we are to go on looks, gender matters alot less than you realize

More men will flock to femboys than to trans women.

Also, masculine beauty is a thing. Men can glow up. Beauty is unfairly assigned exclusively to women.

>>9604
>Yeah no. It matters more than anything else. Femininity ~= beauty. A woman is born valid, a male either has to transition or look like a greek god, for which surprisingly the average male has go through surgeries too, likely more invsasive than those for mtfs, and some aspects are basically irreparable anyway, like height.

Femininity doesn’t mean automatic beauty. Most women aren’t drop dead gorgeous.
They often only look good because of makeup or cosmetc surgery. Women aren’t born “valid” unless they open their legs or have homesteading skills

>Unfairly? Uhm sweetie don't sound like an incel. Whatever women collectively decide is fair and angelic. They have collectively decided that the average man is garbage that has to compensate monetarily and still be treated like trash and the average woman can easily get lesbo experience

uyghuh, you’re the one whose been spamming incel logic for the all this thread
Again, most of your arguments are purely from “manosphere”.


>So you read "at a given looks level" and proceeded to compare different looks level. Yup.

You’re coping. Beauty isn’t exclusive to women and women they’re not all held as the high standard. A pretty boy will be given more value than the average tasnwomen. Most trans women aren’t passable.

>So you don't even disagree but try to rationalize. You are more accepting of reality than most.

Your entire logic is coping and rationalizing against reality. You have a cartoonish shallow view of gender relations.

>Maybe because they commit to work less. They don't worry about money as much, they often work just to have something to do - this is literally what I've been told by women irl.

Not exactly true. Go ask single moms. Even in the old days, women had to work to feed their babies.

>Same reason women are resposible for much less violent crime - why rob someone when you have an ATM between your legs.

It’s more because women are not told to fight. Men are badgered/harrassed to fight.

>>9665
>And you proceed comparing different looks level, because there's no other way you can defend your point

No. It’s not “different” looks level. The average trans woman isn’t that passable.

>I never needed anyone to tell me that if I don't work I'll end up homeless, that's just the reality. It's not the reality for women though. You trying to shift as if it's about what you're told not about reality

Women are told they have to work as well.

>>9666
>umm actually this popsci I glaze over explains all my points

The solipsism is strong with you
May I suggest incel.is?

>>9665
If women are all valuable by virtue of having a pussy, would you be willing to fuck fat/ugly/blemished/old women?

>>9671
Most women aren’t fuckable either.
You’re the one who keeps missing this point.
Most Women are not all that attractive.
Women don’t have the same libido as men.
If men were offered a choice between a pretty boy and an ugly girl, they would choose the pretty boy. They would only choose the ugly girl to keep up appearances

>Most men are, and I have. Admittedly my pick wasn't the worst, but at their looks level if they were men they wouldn't stand a goddamn chance of ever feeling the warmth of a woman's skin, especially of a woman of my looks level

Not exactly true. Men will fuck animals and inanimate objects if there’s no woman in sight.
Men are more flexible in their sexual gratification.
Most women aren’t fuckable but men are willing to put up with it if it means getting gratification.

Also, you say that women can gatekeep men with the lesbian experience?
Well, a lot of lesbians report not getting much prospects in their dating lives.
The more butch type of lesbians report having to jump through hoops to get any sort of validation.

>Again doesn't matter what the fuck they're told, the reality is they don't have to and I do, I wouldn't care about being told to if I didn't have to do it to sustain my existance

You’re being in denial.
Women are told that they have to work for a living as well. Not all women go into prostitution for easy money. That’s an outlier. You’re aware that women don’t outearn men on average. Most of those whores that seem to earn more in a day than men make in a week are outliers.
And their run is short.

You keep sticking your head in the sand about this

It seems to me you’re making a whole bunch of conjecture for copium

>>9682
>Husband provides. I've been told basically the same things by several milfs: "yeah, I didn't really have to work when I was married, but it'd be boring to stay home". So a workplace is taken from a man who needs to sustain himself by a bitch who's "bored" and who'll of course demand less because she doesn't need the money, effectively dumping the market for everyone! And then this is claimed to be about women being oppressed lmfao fucking clowns

I wonder what era or world you live in where that’s the case. Here in North America and South America, and Western Europe, women are required to have to work as well, even if they’re married with kids

In fact, the historical notion that women were stay at home Nannie’s is a bourgeois notion. Women were required to split logs, tend to animals, or even help their husband in the workshops.

>Ok mr broken record I wrote twice it's not about what they're told, you're getting too braindead in your copium so I won't write it a forth time.

You’re the one repeating copium about how women on average can outward men by merely spreading their legs despite evidence showing that such prospects only work for the top five percent.
You’re also on copium about how ugly women can earn just as much money in prostitution as the pretty ones

>Also, Nancy Friday, a feminist, wrote an interesting book on this, including dogs… And again, women do this not out of sexual deprivation, but purely out of perversion, men at least have something resembling an excuse.

Close but no cigar. When men fuck animals, it’s not always due to deprivation. There are some men that are into bestiality and they’re not all ugly nor do they lack female attention.

>>9707
>Required by who? That doesn't at all match the narratives of western female influencers. Biology is the same around the world, any continent.

So you admit that you get your knowledge from popsci hosts.

>Is this evidence in the room with us right now?

Your sense of reality sure isn’t.

>>9707
>Is this evidence in the room with us right now

Yes. It’s called reading up on some history books

>Required by who? That doesn't at all match the narratives of western female influencers. Biology is the same around the world, any continent.

Women were required by society to learn how to cook, clean, do laundry, split logs, tend the farm, etc

It’s not my fault that you’re so illiterate from over consumption of “redpill philosophy”

Completely moronic

>>9715
>>9716
You’re showing your true colors
You admit that your knowledge about women is mainly based on FDS watching and internalizing their bullshit
>idk what this has to do with modern dating

Modern dating is about mutual entitlement and bitterness from both genders.

Nobody is forcing you to be a butler for women.
You are choosing to do that.

Every thing you say from here on out can be safely dismissed as someone suffering from cognitohazard syndrome

>>9719
Whom are you taking to?

>>8297
>transness as an economic symptom
you clearly don't know anything about Marxist historical materialism. No trans-investigation, no right to speak!
> seek to gain that economic power via transitioning
https://theonion.com/ill-tell-you-what-id-do-if-i-were-gay-1819584035/
<I'll Tell You What I'd Do If I Were Gay
<Published: February 19, 2004

A guy from work introduced me to his boyfriend this week. He seemed pretty nice, but it was weird, because he didn’t look gay at all. He was a computer programmer and looked like any fat, balding slob you’d run into on the street. I have to say, I would never let myself go like that if I were gay.

If I were gay, I would be very well groomed. I’d purchase two high-quality suits, one nice suit jacket, and two pairs of wool trousers. I’d get about eight shirts tailored, and I would own my own tuxedo, for special occasions. I’d grow my buzzcut into a sophisticated Caesar cut, and I would brighten it with tastefully blended golden highlights. Each morning, I would tame my hair’s unruly kinks with a dollop of molding paste and a little reparative shine serum. (It’s important to use the right products, if you want to maintain healthy hair—especially when it’s gay. )

If I were gay, there’s no way I’d shave with a disposable razor and a bar of Dial soap, like I do as a straight man. As a gay man, I’d make shaving a ritual. I would prepare my face with a foaming exfoliating cleanser, then I’d use a cucumber shave gel and a sharp blade. I might even use a straight razor that I would sharpen on a soapstone. I would definitely use hot wax to bring my unruly eyebrows under control, and my nose hairs would never see the light of day again.

As a gay man of the world, I would have a career that made use of my inherent talent in art, architecture, fashion, or entertainment. Right now, I bus tables in the hospital cafeteria. But as a homosexual, I would be resourceful enough to channel my passion for antiques into a viable means of self-employment. My antique shop, located in a trendy neighborhood, would attract an interesting mix of university intellectuals, vintage furniture collectors, and fashionable shoppers. Sometimes, my weakness for kitsch would threaten to overpower the sophisticated environment of the store, but I’d manage to mute it. I’m not sure what my lover would do for a living, but I assume he’d run the vintage costume and prop shop next door. I do know this: If I were gay, my lover and I would spend our weekends combing estate sales together.

Gay Keith would have a brassy but likable personality. Even though I would have lost a few of my younger years to partying, wanton sex, and a love affair that ended badly, I would have gained wisdom and experience from this “walk on the wild side.” While I would be too honest with myself to ignore life’s harsh realities, I would be playful enough to have a sense of humor about them. This sense of humor would be quite salty and acerbic. Some would consider the way I would chide my close female friend—her name would be Trish—for her frumpiness a tad harsh. But I would only tease Trish to encourage her to better herself. I’d see potential in her, even if she didn’t.

True, the way I call my real-life wife a lazy slob isn’t constructive, just abusive, but heterosexual men aren’t as understanding as homosexual ones.

If I were gay, I would donate generous amounts of money to the fight against AIDS. I can’t say enough how important that would be to me. AIDS is a global scourge that has taken countless lives in the gay community, and has reached epidemic proportions in many Third World countries. I would donate a portion of my business’ profits to various groups that conduct AIDS research, and place a coin-donation bank from a reputable AIDS charity near the cash register in my shop.

Finally, if I were gay, I would make an excellent uncle. My kids know to stay away from me when I’m drunk or watching ESPN, but gay Uncle Keith would be totally different. I’d get down on my hands and knees with the kids and dig for fossils at the children’s museum. I’d read to them from the beloved storybooks I’d have saved since childhood. I’d even let them rollerblade on the rooftop of my condo. Then, we’d all pile into my 2001 forest-green Jaguar XK convertible and go out for frosty malts at a retro diner. Sometime in their early teenage years, it would dawn on my nieces and nephews that I didn’t own a television, and that I was a homosexual.

I’m still unsure about a few things in my gay life. I haven’t decided whether I should re-establish contact with my estranged father. I also don’t know whether I should lend money to the fun-loving but irresponsible drag queen who was my first boyfriend after I came out at age 19. Would I enjoy the occasional tab of E or bump of cocaine with my wild friends at the dance clubs, or would I prefer to drink Bombay Sapphire martinis in my living room with a small handful of close confidants? I’m not sure how my laugh would sound. But I do know that I would always be mindful of my many strengths. I wouldn’t be afraid to make mistakes, because I would know that that’s just a part of the learning process. I would believe in myself, and my happiness would be my own, because I would have sought it on my own terms. After all, things would just keep getting better.