Objectively, without moralizing: what’s wrong with being a cuck? Especially if we’re talking about fapping to NTR hentai - it’s not even real, after all.
160 posts and 20 image replies omitted.>>817790>literally what guy isn't rapey if their desire is a member of the other sex at this point gngIt's rapey if you're dishonest or coercive and male feminists are rapey
>>817780>increase the female population by 20% and aggressively filter men for defects.What the fuck would that accomplish?
>>817730This is already a thing, tard. Gay men using surrogate wombs always want their kids to be tall and blonde.
>>817797and that can literally depend on anyone's interpretation, if you think full honesty is a very desirable trait you are dead wrong, all potential relationships have lying or faking it to make it.
its kinda funny going with this logic, "hey, women don't like patrirchal men, you should probably change your values for the best grow as a person, oh but you just changed them, that's rapey and dishonest"
>>817794>>817798You want both sexes to be happy so you filter the men to make them all viable and create a female abundance. Problem solved.
>>817800>"hey, women don't like patrirchal men, you should probably change your values for the best grow as a person, oh but you just changed them, that's rapey and dishonest"It doesn't change your porn habits or the fact that women are into men of some status so the male feminist is a contradiction
>>817800besides i still remember when the 2024 elections came along, how did the dems try to appeal to the male votes? why by saying that women love a democrat man, love a feminist man..i pay little attention to US politics but you shouldn't deny that's by your logic, rapey, they are telling men if they want a girlfriend or a loved one, they must change, which will absolutely be seen as inauthentic and rapey, best part, they implied real virtue comes in how many women have sex with you
maybe this is what some dislike of NTR, that your absolute worth as a man is how many women you have sex with, that defines how "good" you are, next to how beautiful and desired by them you are.
>>817802but then, wouldn't the man who tries to grow his status in order to be appealing while pursueing women be seen as rapey? opportunistic?
>>817804>but then, wouldn't the man who tries to grow his status in order to be appealing while pursueing women be seen as rapey? opportunistic?Not anymore than a woman going to the gym to look and feel better and it's honest and direct too
>>817801I think this solves everything
>>817805lmao
not even close, for i have seen enouh people calling everything a man does rapey and creepy. gym and status being absolutely one of them
if you try to act nice you're a "nice guy" and only do it to have SEX with girls, eww
if you try to get muscles you're a gymrat and only do it because you think that will make you have SEX with girls, eww.
if you try to look more attractive, that's not attractive, you're a looksmaxxing incel type and probably only do it to have SEX with girls, eww.
and if you try to be a male feminist, oh well you're a performative male, a contradiction, women do not like that, and you probably only do it to, you already know, have SEX with girls. how gross
>>817806its still gross, the assymetry, one gender has to just be more since men can just be "shared" or not, all the choices to them, the other have to be extremely filtered down to the genome to be attractive, only one of the two has the toll of attraction on them, one can be itself, the other 'Needs' correction
>>817808>if you try to act nice you're a "nice guy" and only do it to have SEX with girls, ewwThere's a schizo who posted on nice
>>>/tech/34154 and
>>>/ufo/1559
>not even close, for i have seen enouh people calling everything a man does rapey and creepy. gym and status being absolutely one of themThat's like the 6ft 6 figure stuff, it's women lying about what they want in a guy.
>and if you try to be a male feministEven men don't like that shit
>>817809>men can just be "shared" or not,I don't have a problem with being shared and I don't care to exist in a world that doesn't want me. Why do you want to hold on to and moralise something that doesn't want you?
Any other solution will involve controlling women. Just change the material conditions and let them find their men. Everyone is happy.
>>817812>Any other solution will involve controlling women.i like how altering men for genetic defects or more so isn't somehow registered as controlling men, or as bad as controlling women, that's how replacable they are
>>817813It's not any more controlling towards men than this world and also you can't control something that doesn't exist yet so it's even less.
Look around. Men are getting shamed for being straight while being overstimulated. Surely that won't lead to mental illness and wacky ideology?
>>817812>Why do you want to hold on to and moralise something that doesn't want you?to be honest with you anon? i don't know, maybe i was told on and on about feminism, that women in general being well taught and self aware, so i held on to these belives as the years pass for no other reason, than to see if equality really is their core believe for the most part
so, seeing how it becomes flexible, makes me keep on pressing just to see if that idea holds up, equality, instead now i get people telling me abort boys, talking casually of castration.
let alone this, sharing, the same concept that tells you women are more than their looks, tells you the reverse isn't equal but is actually good, bio engeineer men to look good
>>817813>genetic defects or moreA bad set of cards is a bad set of cards. Don't pass the problem onto women or other people and start moralising something that they don't want and have to take SSRIs to tolerate.
>>817816lol
i am responding to the dude that thinks controlling men and increasing women population isn't controlling and helps everyone, but the reverse is controlling and bad, the senatio itself is fictional and made as a fix to society
>>817819>i am responding to the dude that thinks controlling men and increasing women population isn't controlling and helps everyone, but the reverse is controlling and bad, the senatio itself is fictional and made as a fix to societyIt isn't. You're controlling the numbers and not the men.
>>817818heh, don't pass it into women here implies the reverse is true, a genetic defect in a woman isn't really something she shouldn't pass down
and trust me, i have seen, i swear to god, women in wheelchairs or with club foots and a skin condition having kids with a defect anyway, it was in a news segment, they went on about how "my body shouldn't stop me from having kids, we're all beautiful".
maybe my point is, if we're talking actual defects like the 8chan inventor, not say, shortness in men, or hair that falls off in the 30s, many won't tolerate that too, even when its not severe defects just aesthetical ones
>>817821
>It isn't. You're controlling the numbersmy point exactly, fixing society by making one gender just more populous, that's not controlling, and then fully editing and filtering the second, that's very controlling
> and not the men.see for yourself the second paragraph
>>817822>>817823You don't get it. Go home and think about it for a while.
Advocating for "male rights" is complete bs
>>817824i do fully get it, in fact i find it insulting when you think about it too much, and just waving away your hand with a think about it doesn't change that fact
>advocating for "male rights" is complete BSlol, that came out of nowhere, do you have anything to say anon?
>>817825>lol, that came out of nowhere, do you have anything to say anon?Like what?
>>817827the fact i didn't bring up male rights activist types, just the basic rights of any gender in this senario to not be filtered agressively
>>817825>i do fully get it, in fact i find it insulting when you think about it too much, and just waving away your hand with a think about it doesn't change that factI don't want to waste time arguing something that you're going to end up agreeing with anyway.
If you have a better idea, you can share it.
>>817828>the fact i didn't bring up male rights activist types, just the basic rights of any gender in this senario to not be filtered agressivelyAre you one of those anti abortion types?
>>817831lmao, if that's what you think of me, some red hat type you made in your head, some control muh women's bodies type, do know i always thought abortion is a solid idea, do you know how tiresome child bearing is?
>>817832So you're a woman?
>>817828>just the basic rights of any gender in this senario to not be filtered agressivelyThey can speak for themselves.
>>817829eh, who would right? we're already too deep here.
all this started because i read "increase the female population by 20% and aggressively filter men for defects. You don't have to fuck up the genotype." like a solution to all the lack of relationship and thought damn, is this how unappealing men are? that they must be filtered? cause im sure most men aren't with defects yet here we are..
that anon's solution is controlling to men, but i guess we're so used to them just accepting whatever the fuck that its not controlling..
my crappy solution would probably be investing hard into test tube babies, not altering the actual population, and that would include aesthetics later on, if a kid has a recessed chin or what not, have them be sent to the right experts (say orthodontists) as they grow, to engineer both sexes to be likable to the other in the future generation
but even this is controlling is it not? that your of little value if you don't adhere to beauty standarts
>>817836and when i did, look where we drove in argument, men in general have this believe more than women you should adabt for love, not for your own sake. take whatever you're tossed as "what women want" so none gather up and say this is problematic or any speak like that. just follow along.
>>817833do you really have to be only a woman to know that? im not one.
>>817837>>817839Okay "not-woman". You're being too emotional about the issue.
>>817837>my crappy solution would probably be investing hard into test tube babies, not altering the actual population, and that would include aesthetics later on, if a kid has a recessed chin or what not, have them be sent to the right experts (say orthodontists) as they grow, to engineer both sexes to be likable to the other in the future generationWhat's the difference between then two? You want scissors into the human genome and fuck it up. All I'm saying is that you can just filter instead of chopping and keep the population of women slightly higher. You're over-interpreting all of this.
>>817837>hat anon's solution is controlling to men, but i guess we're so used to them just accepting whatever the fuck that its not controlling..If you want to call it that? Your method is "controlling" to everyone involved. Controlling is when you tell them what to do and not when they wake up strong in a world that wants them.
>>817837>but even this is controlling is it not? that your of little value if you don't adhere to beauty standartsJust buy ozempic at this point.
>>817839>do you really have to be only a woman to know that? im not one.Either way, you don't seem to like taco parties
>>817844>You're being too emotional about the issue.lol, for arguing? i find it a terrible idea so i say its a terrible idea
>All I'm saying is that you can just filter instead of chopping and keep the population of women slightly higher. You're over-interpreting all of this.only that, well..the filtering only happens to the male side, what's to say they won't start only liking a portion of the women themselves? and i mean actually paying more attention to them, should we filter women as well?
>Your method is "controlling" to everyone involved. already said that myself, we're basically controlling the babies with this one
>Just buy ozempic at this point.uygha im talking more about chin recession, shortness, you know being skinny but not aesthetical, guess what you can't just ozempic your way into long hair, a dad bod or broad shoulders, or the sexiest face you've ever seen
>Either way, you don't seem to like taco partiesrandom but uhh, im more of a sushi bar person
>>817849Yeah, if anything its the straight women who should be ashamed, they are the ones attracted to moids.
>>817849It's one of the really weird things that you would have to see for yourself first.
<Objectively, without moralizing: what’s wrong with being a cuck leftist?If the sub is wrong, I would like to see a strong argument.
>>817875The last seconds are diabolical
>>817875A real gigachad would've set up that little chud with a chick.
>>817875This is what AI was made for
>>817849Perhaps not in the "heterophobia" way but I think anon is referring to people demonizing male sexuality. Like
>you want sex? well everything in life is about sex, except sex which is about power you fucking pervert freak >you don't want to be with a promiscuous woman? she's not your property / you're a pedophile>you don't like your girlfriend showing herself off? she's not your property>you're attracted to this woman for her physicality? stop objectifying herDialectically, materially, and siberianly speaking of course.
>>817908i mean i couldn't have said it better but this thread is sorta including it too, everyone thinks disliking NTR means you have too much ego or think the girl you like should only be to you or some shit about fragile masculinity, not. say, that most people don't like torment in their porn or seeing a good relationship divided
>>817908>Dialectically, materially,The straight male dialectic is the only forbidden dialectic
>>817875I dare you to share this to incels
>>817917anon…mostly likely people in the "incel" communities made this
>>817872not sure people read ntr for the creative plot and not the pain or secret affair or bittersweetness so you'll likely not find much
Unique IPs: 16