Topic: A girl warned me in work, don't piss me off right now!
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #119,857
I was somehow in the way you see, as some people are less agile than others you see, on the trucks at the banana house. I can't imagine how hard this job must be for girls almost half my size. Plus for some reason management keeps sending me on cleaning duty which shields me from all stress and pays more only because I drive through a colder area that's refreshingly cold. Her country is also at war.
She's also unfairly getting a rep for being arrogant. But idk, I like a straight forward girl.
She's also unfairly getting a rep for being arrogant. But idk, I like a straight forward girl.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 26 minutes later[^] [v] #1,312,888
She's got two hands and a few holes, plenty of spots to put bananas. I don't know why she's mad.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,312,894
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,312,896
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,312,910
@1,312,894 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Good point! I could make an ad platform that links up lonely singles in my area and make some cash.
Good point! I could make an ad platform that links up lonely singles in my area and make some cash.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,312,913
@1,312,894 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)Because this is how mammals mate in an unregulated environment.
Giving up dirty jokes doesn't change the fundamental dynamics involved.
The only way to fix this is for society to support monogamy. This used to exist as unwritten social norms plus tax benefits for heterosexual marriage. The loneliness crisis started when those norms eroded.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,312,916
@previous (E)
That wasn't even a joke, it was another chance to be disgusting
And it never looked like that. More men have always died virgins than women
That wasn't even a joke, it was another chance to be disgusting
And it never looked like that. More men have always died virgins than women
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,312,921
@1,312,913 (E)
Families used to set people up together, now it's left to the individual and it's against our nature as a social tribal animal to be like that.
Families used to set people up together, now it's left to the individual and it's against our nature as a social tribal animal to be like that.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 33 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,312,926
@previous (F)
its funny how women so desparately want to think of themselves as being equal or even superior to the male, but every one of their behaviors, verbal or not, seems to imply they want to return to their traditional place in the houshold. like damn bitches make up your minds, lol
its funny how women so desparately want to think of themselves as being equal or even superior to the male, but every one of their behaviors, verbal or not, seems to imply they want to return to their traditional place in the houshold. like damn bitches make up your minds, lol
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 18 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,312,931
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 38 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,312,932
*cues Yakety Sax
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,312,934
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,312,937
@1,312,916 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
That's right, but society was much closer to the picture on the left when we have social norms that encouraged monogamy than what we have today.
The image doesn't claim the picture on the left was ever how it worked, it says that's what men would accept. Technically there are more men born than women, and a perfect 1-to-1 matchup would never be possible.
It is odd that the political faction that wants to increase awareness of inequality when talking about money, land, health, or political power so that they can create a more egalitarian society is the same political faction that is against acknowledging hypergamy and harems. The left does not want to talk about, let alone equalize, romantic inequality.
That's right, but society was much closer to the picture on the left when we have social norms that encouraged monogamy than what we have today.
The image doesn't claim the picture on the left was ever how it worked, it says that's what men would accept. Technically there are more men born than women, and a perfect 1-to-1 matchup would never be possible.
It is odd that the political faction that wants to increase awareness of inequality when talking about money, land, health, or political power so that they can create a more egalitarian society is the same political faction that is against acknowledging hypergamy and harems. The left does not want to talk about, let alone equalize, romantic inequality.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,312,944
@previous (E)
Even during those times, protestations was rampant
You cannot make equalize sexual relationships when only one group can get pregnant
Even during those times, protestations was rampant
You cannot make equalize sexual relationships when only one group can get pregnant
(Edited 59 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,312,947
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Even during those times, protestations was rampant
Protestations of what?
> You cannot make equalize sexual relationships when only one group can get pregnant
Sure you can, pregnancy doesn't prevent people from pairing off 1-to-1.
> Even during those times, protestations was rampant
Protestations of what?
> You cannot make equalize sexual relationships when only one group can get pregnant
Sure you can, pregnancy doesn't prevent people from pairing off 1-to-1.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,312,951
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,312,958
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Prostitution
That's an entirely different topic than what we were discussing. How did you get from monogamy vs. hypergamy to that?
> That plus lack of orgasms make sex inherently less fair for women
It's unfair that women have to get pregnant, while men don't, but that's going to be the case in either system. Hypergamy doesn't free women from getting pregnant, and pregnancy doesn't prevent monogamous societies.
> Prostitution
That's an entirely different topic than what we were discussing. How did you get from monogamy vs. hypergamy to that?
> That plus lack of orgasms make sex inherently less fair for women
It's unfair that women have to get pregnant, while men don't, but that's going to be the case in either system. Hypergamy doesn't free women from getting pregnant, and pregnancy doesn't prevent monogamous societies.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,312,959
@previous (E)
Because actual monogamous societies have always been rare
And I don't see why women should try to further "equalize" a practice that already gives them less benefit
Because actual monogamous societies have always been rare
And I don't see why women should try to further "equalize" a practice that already gives them less benefit
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 25 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,312,971
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Because actual monogamous societies have always been rare
I never said they were common, but I did say modern society (in the west) is less monogamous than before.
>
> And I don't see why women should try to further "equalize" a practice that already gives them less benefit
A stable society benefits everyone.
Women don't benefit from a large portion of society being incels. Monogamy wasn't perfect but it provided a lot of benefits because the man had obligations and responsibilities that were to women's benefit.
What do you think should be done when half of men can't get a wife? They either have to be sent to war, mass imprisoned, or everyone has to deal with the problems they bring.
> Because actual monogamous societies have always been rare
I never said they were common, but I did say modern society (in the west) is less monogamous than before.
>
> And I don't see why women should try to further "equalize" a practice that already gives them less benefit
A stable society benefits everyone.
Women don't benefit from a large portion of society being incels. Monogamy wasn't perfect but it provided a lot of benefits because the man had obligations and responsibilities that were to women's benefit.
What do you think should be done when half of men can't get a wife? They either have to be sent to war, mass imprisoned, or everyone has to deal with the problems they bring.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 20 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,312,984
@previous (E)
I think that this first comment is debatable and hard to prove. Less monogamous then which eras?
Even during the times where women were very dependent on men, men frequently visited sex workers. I don't think we have the same definition of monogamy
Also, men were even more violent during times where people were more "monogamous". Are you stating that crime is worse now?
I think that this first comment is debatable and hard to prove. Less monogamous then which eras?
Even during the times where women were very dependent on men, men frequently visited sex workers. I don't think we have the same definition of monogamy
Also, men were even more violent during times where people were more "monogamous". Are you stating that crime is worse now?
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 11 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,312,995
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> I think that this first comment is debatable and hard to prove. Less monogamous then which eras?
At a minimum from the industrial era to the sexual revolution, and then there was a shift away from these norms. Even the middle ages had social norms that enforced monogamy.
> Even during the times where women were very dependent on men, men frequently visited sex workers. I don't think we have the same definition of monogamy
The vast majority of men did not, because there were expectations and consequences for those that broke these rules. Do you have any source saying it was frequent?
> Also, men were even more violent during times where people were more "monogamous". Are you stating that crime is worse now?
Monogamy is one important factor, but it's not the only one. Technological improvements alleviated the scarcity over basic needs like food. Also the invention of a surveillance state and modern forensics made crime harder to get away with which reduced rates further. If multiple factors push crime down, and one factor pushes it up, then overall crime will go down and it will be hard to see how much damage the erosion of the nuclear family is doing.
> I think that this first comment is debatable and hard to prove. Less monogamous then which eras?
At a minimum from the industrial era to the sexual revolution, and then there was a shift away from these norms. Even the middle ages had social norms that enforced monogamy.
> Even during the times where women were very dependent on men, men frequently visited sex workers. I don't think we have the same definition of monogamy
The vast majority of men did not, because there were expectations and consequences for those that broke these rules. Do you have any source saying it was frequent?
> Also, men were even more violent during times where people were more "monogamous". Are you stating that crime is worse now?
Monogamy is one important factor, but it's not the only one. Technological improvements alleviated the scarcity over basic needs like food. Also the invention of a surveillance state and modern forensics made crime harder to get away with which reduced rates further. If multiple factors push crime down, and one factor pushes it up, then overall crime will go down and it will be hard to see how much damage the erosion of the nuclear family is doing.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,000
@previous (E)
I think you need to read up on the history of Prostitution. Especially in Victorian England. It was very common to visit sex workers if you could afford it
But then you have no proof that that one factor is raising violence. You can't possibly have proof of that
I think you need to read up on the history of Prostitution. Especially in Victorian England. It was very common to visit sex workers if you could afford it
But then you have no proof that that one factor is raising violence. You can't possibly have proof of that
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 16 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,006
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> I think you need to read up on the history of Prostitution. Especially in Victorian England. It was very common to visit sex workers if you could afford it
So you don't have a source, thanks.
> I think you need to read up on the history of Prostitution. Especially in Victorian England. It was very common to visit sex workers if you could afford it
So you don't have a source, thanks.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,010
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,012
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You were the one claiming they were visiting prostitutes frequently, not me. Back up your own claims, that's not my job. Thanks.
You were the one claiming they were visiting prostitutes frequently, not me. Back up your own claims, that's not my job. Thanks.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,014
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,019
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 1 year ago, 5 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,063
boof joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 8 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,094
@1,312,937 (E)
whoa there tiger, you could have been persuasive until you shoehorned "the left" towards the end.
whoa there tiger, you could have been persuasive until you shoehorned "the left" towards the end.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 31 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,101
boof replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,123
@previous (E)
people can be a fuckhead in a highly specific area without having any political affiliation generally. so fuckheads.
also, the phrases "the left" and "the right" just traps the mind into thinking that people must be in a specific camp on everything, or have to choose a side. "because there's a fight comin'. got to kill the bad ones, see." don't get played by the monied elite than installs buttons in us and then presses the buttons as we get angry over horseshit while the cock is shoved in
people can be a fuckhead in a highly specific area without having any political affiliation generally. so fuckheads.
also, the phrases "the left" and "the right" just traps the mind into thinking that people must be in a specific camp on everything, or have to choose a side. "because there's a fight comin'. got to kill the bad ones, see." don't get played by the monied elite than installs buttons in us and then presses the buttons as we get angry over horseshit while the cock is shoved in
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,313,154
@previous (boof)
That's a fair point, but for better or worse there is a bilateral split in politics. Created by monied interests, yes. In general each side has certain types of fuckheads, who have unique ways of perpetuating that false division.
Resolving the divide means each side needs to be accountable for certain unscientific myths that they spread, myths that contribute to that divide. The false model of gender dynamics being spread is mostly the fault of one side, while the right has it's own unique problems that contribute to the divide in other ways.
Partisanship isn't the answer, but it's going to be even harder to solve these problems if we pretend that partisans don't exist.
That's a fair point, but for better or worse there is a bilateral split in politics. Created by monied interests, yes. In general each side has certain types of fuckheads, who have unique ways of perpetuating that false division.
Resolving the divide means each side needs to be accountable for certain unscientific myths that they spread, myths that contribute to that divide. The false model of gender dynamics being spread is mostly the fault of one side, while the right has it's own unique problems that contribute to the divide in other ways.
Partisanship isn't the answer, but it's going to be even harder to solve these problems if we pretend that partisans don't exist.