Topic: Mormons are monogamous, and secular society is polygamous.
Anonymous A started this discussion 5 days ago #126,350
Secular society follows the 80-20 rule of sexual dynamics, with a few men monopolizing multiple women. This is accepted because of secular liberal values. No man or woman would be published if they were caught participating in a harem, just the opposite: the men advertise it to show off, and the women shamelessly partake.The entire argument against this is that it doesn't count as polygamy because it was never formalized with a public ceremony and legal certificate. There is no law punishing this behavior unless you specifically order more than one marriage certificate at a time, which no polygamists would ever actually do because there is no reason to. They can practice with impunity as long as they keep it informal.
Mormon society has strict rules about any sexual relations outside a single heterosexual marriage. Pre-marital sex and adultery during a marriage are both considered enough of an infraction to be excommunicated from the church.
In the early days of the church polygamy was practiced, but the context was a group of settlers heading west with men dying from battles, disease, and hard work. After they finally settled down, it was a short time before the church disavowed it altogether. The small splinter group that kept it going has almost completely gone extinct.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 5 days ago, 11 minutes later[^] [v] #1,367,534
Nearly every religion has those rules and men have always flaunted them
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 days ago, 20 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,535
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Nearly every religion has those rules
Islam doesn't.
Most Christian sects have it as a guideline that can be ignored without any real consequences. Very, very few sects have any real enforcement mechanisms. Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, and some fringe orthodox groups with low membership have it.
> men have always flaunted them
No, a small group of rich men, and the vast majority of regular women have flaunted it.
The majority of men are in a situation where they are lucky to get one woman, and must work hard to obtain and maintain that.
> Nearly every religion has those rules
Islam doesn't.
Most Christian sects have it as a guideline that can be ignored without any real consequences. Very, very few sects have any real enforcement mechanisms. Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, and some fringe orthodox groups with low membership have it.
> men have always flaunted them
No, a small group of rich men, and the vast majority of regular women have flaunted it.
The majority of men are in a situation where they are lucky to get one woman, and must work hard to obtain and maintain that.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 5 days ago, 26 minutes later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,536
@previous (A)
No
Men in nearly every religion had a group of women for sex, and another for marriage. Even poor men would visit prostitutes
Also, when Mormons would start up mission colonies in areas where brown people lived, babies would be born lighter. You can even find literature of Mormon men writing that their religion was making the newly born "white and delightsome"
Do some fucking research
No
Men in nearly every religion had a group of women for sex, and another for marriage. Even poor men would visit prostitutes
Also, when Mormons would start up mission colonies in areas where brown people lived, babies would be born lighter. You can even find literature of Mormon men writing that their religion was making the newly born "white and delightsome"
Do some fucking research
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 days ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,537
Feminists believe women should be able to sleep with whoever they want, and support ending any enforcement mechanisms of monogamy, for example feminists endorsed no-fault divorce.
Liberal attitudes towards sexual relations create an environment where one high-status man can monopolize multiple women, i.e. (informal) polygamy.
Ergo, feminists believes in allowing polygamy.
Liberal attitudes towards sexual relations create an environment where one high-status man can monopolize multiple women, i.e. (informal) polygamy.
Ergo, feminists believes in allowing polygamy.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 5 days ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,538
@previous (A)
Men have always used sex workers. Rich or poor. But they don't think that counts fot some reason
You sound stupid
Men have always used sex workers. Rich or poor. But they don't think that counts fot some reason
You sound stupid
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,539
@1,367,536 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Men in nearly every religion had a group of women for sex, and another for marriage. Even poor men would visit prostitutes
The religious groups I mentioned specifically punish everyone involved in prostitution.
It's secular liberal attitudes that allow this.
> Also, when Mormons would start up mission colonies in areas where brown people lived, babies would be born lighter. You can even find literature of Mormon men writing that their religion was making the newly born "white and delightsome"
This would be against the doctrine and get you excommunicated if you are caught. You can show a source if you have it, but Mormons are on e of the few groups that specifically punish and remove members for this.
Liberal secularists, and feminists are explicitly in favor of allowing it under the pretext of freedom or bodily autonomy.
> Do some fucking research
It's not my job to source your arguments.
> Men in nearly every religion had a group of women for sex, and another for marriage. Even poor men would visit prostitutes
The religious groups I mentioned specifically punish everyone involved in prostitution.
It's secular liberal attitudes that allow this.
> Also, when Mormons would start up mission colonies in areas where brown people lived, babies would be born lighter. You can even find literature of Mormon men writing that their religion was making the newly born "white and delightsome"
This would be against the doctrine and get you excommunicated if you are caught. You can show a source if you have it, but Mormons are on e of the few groups that specifically punish and remove members for this.
Liberal secularists, and feminists are explicitly in favor of allowing it under the pretext of freedom or bodily autonomy.
> Do some fucking research
It's not my job to source your arguments.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 5 days ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,540
@1,367,538 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Men have always used sex workers. Rich or poor. But they don't think that counts fot some reason
I said as much myself.
If you really find this to be negative, then why do you align with an ideology that allows it, and condemn the only ideologies that explicitly prohibit it?
> You sound stupid
Name calling, asking me to source your arguments, and bringing up liberal secular practices as if I endorsed them. Is any of that the behavior of a thoughtful intelligent person?
> Men have always used sex workers. Rich or poor. But they don't think that counts fot some reason
I said as much myself.
If you really find this to be negative, then why do you align with an ideology that allows it, and condemn the only ideologies that explicitly prohibit it?
> You sound stupid
Name calling, asking me to source your arguments, and bringing up liberal secular practices as if I endorsed them. Is any of that the behavior of a thoughtful intelligent person?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 5 days ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,541
What is your job?
Men, religious or not, rich or poor, visit prostitutes and still want a chaste wife
They jerk off to people fucking, and still want a chaste wife
They want a woman who is ready to fuck after three dates, but only for them
Men accuse women with one hand while jerking off with other
Women see what you do and its pathetic
Men, religious or not, rich or poor, visit prostitutes and still want a chaste wife
They jerk off to people fucking, and still want a chaste wife
They want a woman who is ready to fuck after three dates, but only for them
Men accuse women with one hand while jerking off with other
Women see what you do and its pathetic
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 days ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,542
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> What is your job?
To source my own claims, not yours.
> Men, religious or not, rich or poor, visit prostitutes and still want a chaste wife
I've already said multiple times that both secular societies, and most religious societies allow this type of behavior. Why do you keep acting like I said the opposite?
> They jerk off to people fucking, and still want a chaste wife
Mormons explicitly prohibit pornography, and secular liberals almost always defend the existence of pornography. The recent attempt to federally ban porn came from Republicans, not Democrats.
> They want a woman who is ready to fuck after three dates, but only for them
Sure, but how does this relate to what I said?
> Men accuse women with one hand while jerking off with other
Yes, and this would be something you could hear from a preacher in one of the small fringe groups I mentioned.
> Women see what you do and its pathetic
Women, by and large, adhere to ideologies and political systems that enable this and then condemn ideologies and political systems that would prohibit it.
If women are really against this behavior, why do they defend the systems that enable it?
> What is your job?
To source my own claims, not yours.
> Men, religious or not, rich or poor, visit prostitutes and still want a chaste wife
I've already said multiple times that both secular societies, and most religious societies allow this type of behavior. Why do you keep acting like I said the opposite?
> They jerk off to people fucking, and still want a chaste wife
Mormons explicitly prohibit pornography, and secular liberals almost always defend the existence of pornography. The recent attempt to federally ban porn came from Republicans, not Democrats.
> They want a woman who is ready to fuck after three dates, but only for them
Sure, but how does this relate to what I said?
> Men accuse women with one hand while jerking off with other
Yes, and this would be something you could hear from a preacher in one of the small fringe groups I mentioned.
> Women see what you do and its pathetic
Women, by and large, adhere to ideologies and political systems that enable this and then condemn ideologies and political systems that would prohibit it.
If women are really against this behavior, why do they defend the systems that enable it?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 5 days ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,543
@previous (A)
Men love polygamy
They jerk off to women and go to sex workers
They love it. All religions, all
income levels
Religious men are just as lustful and hypocritical
Women see you. They see all of you. That's why they don't care about your hypocritical complaints
Men love polygamy
They jerk off to women and go to sex workers
They love it. All religions, all
income levels
Religious men are just as lustful and hypocritical
Women see you. They see all of you. That's why they don't care about your hypocritical complaints
(Edited 38 seconds later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 5 days ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,544
Men of all religions and income levels say that they dont want slutty women, but they act like they do
Actions mean more than words
Actions mean more than words
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 days ago, 47 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,545
@1,367,543 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Men love polygamy
I agree that men (and all people) have lust and greed, and desire things like this. I have a question for you:
Do you agree with the Mormons, that it should be strictly banned with enforcement mechanisms?
Or do you agree with the secular liberals that want a society that allows for it?
> They jerk off to women and go to sex workers
> They love it. All religions, all
> income levels
> Religious men are just as lustful and hypocritical
All people are tempted into harmful, indulgent activities.
But a few religions actually prohibit in a serious way. Do you think these religions got it right, or that there should be no consequences from society?
> Women see you. They see all of you. That's why they don't care about your hypocritical complaints
It seems to me that the majority of women don't want to put rules in place to stop it, because they are very vocal about that.
There are exceptions, but whenever I hear a woman speak against these practices and advocate rules to prevent it, those women tend to be devoutly religious.
I have to go for now, but I'll come back later to respond.
> Men love polygamy
I agree that men (and all people) have lust and greed, and desire things like this. I have a question for you:
Do you agree with the Mormons, that it should be strictly banned with enforcement mechanisms?
Or do you agree with the secular liberals that want a society that allows for it?
> They jerk off to women and go to sex workers
> They love it. All religions, all
> income levels
> Religious men are just as lustful and hypocritical
All people are tempted into harmful, indulgent activities.
But a few religions actually prohibit in a serious way. Do you think these religions got it right, or that there should be no consequences from society?
> Women see you. They see all of you. That's why they don't care about your hypocritical complaints
It seems to me that the majority of women don't want to put rules in place to stop it, because they are very vocal about that.
There are exceptions, but whenever I hear a woman speak against these practices and advocate rules to prevent it, those women tend to be devoutly religious.
I have to go for now, but I'll come back later to respond.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 5 days ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,546
@1,367,544 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
One last comment before I go.
> Actions mean more than words
I agree, which is why feminist diatribes against porn/polygamy/lust mean nothing when those same people support laws that promote those activities, and are vehemently against conservative societies that punish these activities.
It's hard to believe feminists are genuinely against these things when their main priorities are focused on allowing exactly that type of behavior. Actions speak louder than words.
One last comment before I go.
> Actions mean more than words
I agree, which is why feminist diatribes against porn/polygamy/lust mean nothing when those same people support laws that promote those activities, and are vehemently against conservative societies that punish these activities.
It's hard to believe feminists are genuinely against these things when their main priorities are focused on allowing exactly that type of behavior. Actions speak louder than words.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 5 days ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,547
@1,367,544 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Men of all religions and income levels say that they dont want slutty women, but they act like they do
>
> Actions mean more than words
You're confused. Our actions could not be clearer. The kinds of women we like to fuck are not the same as the kinds of women we like to marry. That's why virtuous women get rewarded with a good husband when they reach 30 whereas sluts end up dying drunk and alone.
> Men of all religions and income levels say that they dont want slutty women, but they act like they do
>
> Actions mean more than words
You're confused. Our actions could not be clearer. The kinds of women we like to fuck are not the same as the kinds of women we like to marry. That's why virtuous women get rewarded with a good husband when they reach 30 whereas sluts end up dying drunk and alone.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 5 days ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,548
@1,367,545 (A)
@1,367,546 (A)
"Banning" them does nothing
If these things have always happened in religious societies and always will happen in religious societies, than religion doesnt work with decreasing said actions
We actually had MORE prostitution before feminism
You've definitely never researched this and you live in a little baby, fantasy world
Grow up and read a fucking book
@1,367,546 (A)
"Banning" them does nothing
If these things have always happened in religious societies and always will happen in religious societies, than religion doesnt work with decreasing said actions
We actually had MORE prostitution before feminism
You've definitely never researched this and you live in a little baby, fantasy world
Grow up and read a fucking book
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 5 days ago, 45 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,549
Women see you
They see you more than you can imagine and they judge what they see
They see you more than you can imagine and they judge what they see
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 5 days ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,550
@1,367,543 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Men love polygamy
One Vagina and a set of breasts for a lifetime is simply going to become boring long term.
> Men love polygamy
One Vagina and a set of breasts for a lifetime is simply going to become boring long term.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 5 days ago, 36 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,553
Anonymous D replied with this 5 days ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,554
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Clearly any intelligent man wants to solve this kind of problem.
I have multiple times.
Clearly any intelligent man wants to solve this kind of problem.
I have multiple times.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 5 days ago, 18 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,557
Anonymous D replied with this 5 days ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,559
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 5 days ago, 28 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,563
Too many agendas with religion and politics, I say they both suck. I'm not interested in using dogma to get what I need or want.
The bonus is that the argument FOR marriage falls apart in a post feminist world - women can work and get equal pay so I don't HAVE to marry them anymore. That and progressives have been championing broken families like it's something to aspire to.
The bonus is that the argument FOR marriage falls apart in a post feminist world - women can work and get equal pay so I don't HAVE to marry them anymore. That and progressives have been championing broken families like it's something to aspire to.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 5 days ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,564
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 5 days ago, 19 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,565
Anonymous C replied with this 5 days ago, 18 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,567
@1,367,549 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Women see you
>
> They see you more than you can imagine and they judge what they see
It's irrelevant what women see and judge. It only matters what they do. And what they do is compete with each other to win the approval of men. Your pathological hatred of men and masculinity is just silly noise.
> Women see you
>
> They see you more than you can imagine and they judge what they see
It's irrelevant what women see and judge. It only matters what they do. And what they do is compete with each other to win the approval of men. Your pathological hatred of men and masculinity is just silly noise.
Anon replied with this 5 days ago, 23 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,570
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 5 days ago, 9 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,571
Anonymous C replied with this 5 days ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,572
@1,367,570 (Anon)
> She is married to a man.
That's just it. She's married a man who has neutered his masculinity and made himself absurd. She could never marry a proper man because she has a visceral loathing of men and masculinity.
> She is married to a man.
That's just it. She's married a man who has neutered his masculinity and made himself absurd. She could never marry a proper man because she has a visceral loathing of men and masculinity.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 5 days ago, 16 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,573
@1,367,548 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Just to be clear, you're saying that there's no difference between a society that kicks out polygamists and a society that allows them to stay?
You don't think those two societies would have different levels of polygamy?
Just to be clear, you're saying that there's no difference between a society that kicks out polygamists and a society that allows them to stay?
You don't think those two societies would have different levels of polygamy?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 5 days ago, 57 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,574
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 5 days ago, 32 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,575
@1,367,573 (F)
I see no difference when the same amount of men are fucking women on the side, anyway
I see no difference when the same amount of men are fucking women on the side, anyway
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU joined in and replied with this 5 days ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,576
@1,367,544 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
This isn't true. Of course men want slutty women, just not in their home.
This isn't true. Of course men want slutty women, just not in their home.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 5 days ago, 52 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,580
I’m not even that religious or anything, but as a Catholic, Mormons are weird and we might need a 9th crusade to fix this Protestant nonsense.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 5 days ago, 12 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,593
Anonymous F replied with this 5 days ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,616
@1,367,575 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Those men wouldn't be in the polygamy-banned society for long, because the first time they get caught they are out.
The society that tolerates polygamy would have many more, because those men would stay in even if they were caught.
Those men wouldn't be in the polygamy-banned society for long, because the first time they get caught they are out.
The society that tolerates polygamy would have many more, because those men would stay in even if they were caught.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 4 days ago, 9 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,619
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 4 days ago, 26 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,623
"Mormons are monogamous"
Comedy gold.
Comedy gold.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 days ago, 5 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,675
@previous (I)
They haven't been for over 100 years, and because they have the reputation it's been the most strict about excommunicating people over breaking rules on adultery and chastity.
Polygamy is accepted and boasted about in secular liberal society.
They haven't been for over 100 years, and because they have the reputation it's been the most strict about excommunicating people over breaking rules on adultery and chastity.
Polygamy is accepted and boasted about in secular liberal society.
GrandsonsPee joined in and replied with this 4 days ago, 53 seconds later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,676
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 days ago, 6 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,732
Just a reminder that kook continues to claim that women couldn't have bank accounts until the '70s, despite zero evidence to support this claim.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 4 days ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,742
@previous (A)
Doesn't surprise me. Kook believes a whole lot of other nonsense about history that just didn't happen.
Doesn't surprise me. Kook believes a whole lot of other nonsense about history that just didn't happen.
Anon replied with this 4 days ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,746
@1,367,675 (A)
> They haven't been for over 100 years, and because they have the reputation it's been the most strict about excommunicating people over breaking rules on adultery and chastity.
>
> Polygamy is accepted and boasted about in secular liberal society.
Nonsense. There are two or more branches of Mormons. Even mainstream TV channels with programs about Mormon in Polygamy.
> They haven't been for over 100 years, and because they have the reputation it's been the most strict about excommunicating people over breaking rules on adultery and chastity.
>
> Polygamy is accepted and boasted about in secular liberal society.
Nonsense. There are two or more branches of Mormons. Even mainstream TV channels with programs about Mormon in Polygamy.
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU replied with this 4 days ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,754
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 days ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,849
@previous (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
Heard it, but the person you heard it from didn't have a source for that claim.
If it existed you could find it yourself quicker than ever with the tools available online, but you won't be able to, because it's a lie feminists made up to exaggerate events of the past.
Heard it, but the person you heard it from didn't have a source for that claim.
If it existed you could find it yourself quicker than ever with the tools available online, but you won't be able to, because it's a lie feminists made up to exaggerate events of the past.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,850
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU replied with this 3 days ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,877
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,921
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 3 days ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,367,946
Cato draad
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 days ago, 20 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,368,089
@1,367,877 (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
So you can't find any law or bank policy banning women from getting bank accounts. You can only find a law passed to bar credit discrimination for women.
Stay at home moms with no job couldn't borrow money because they were a credit risk. This law encouraged banks to be more clear that the denial reason was their income, and that getting a spouse to cosign had to do with the fact that they had a job than their gender. It also fixed a problem where credit agencies had to ensure martial name changes didn't disrupt a woman's credit report because that had happened in the past.
There is a world of difference between "women can't open bank accounts" and "the unemployed can't borrow money".
If you can actually find a law banning women from getting bank accounts, share it, but the law you cited does not ban or legalize that.
So you can't find any law or bank policy banning women from getting bank accounts. You can only find a law passed to bar credit discrimination for women.
Stay at home moms with no job couldn't borrow money because they were a credit risk. This law encouraged banks to be more clear that the denial reason was their income, and that getting a spouse to cosign had to do with the fact that they had a job than their gender. It also fixed a problem where credit agencies had to ensure martial name changes didn't disrupt a woman's credit report because that had happened in the past.
There is a world of difference between "women can't open bank accounts" and "the unemployed can't borrow money".
If you can actually find a law banning women from getting bank accounts, share it, but the law you cited does not ban or legalize that.
!tr.t4dJfuU replied with this 2 days ago, 25 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,368,091
@1,367,572 (C)
> > She is married to a man.
>
> That's just it. She's married a man who has neutered his masculinity and made himself absurd. She could never marry a proper man because she has a visceral loathing of men and masculinity.
She role plays as a lesbian.
> > She is married to a man.
>
> That's just it. She's married a man who has neutered his masculinity and made himself absurd. She could never marry a proper man because she has a visceral loathing of men and masculinity.
She role plays as a lesbian.
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU replied with this 2 days ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,368,098
@1,368,089 (A)
Yeah it's just coincidence unemployed layabout men could open bank accounts but unmarried women couldn't
Yeah it's just coincidence unemployed layabout men could open bank accounts but unmarried women couldn't
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 2 days ago, 40 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,368,102
Mormons are monogamous? lol
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 hours ago, 1 day later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,368,408
@1,368,098 (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
> men could open bank accounts but unmarried women couldn't
You have no sources for this, just like every other feminist that parrots it.
> men could open bank accounts but unmarried women couldn't
You have no sources for this, just like every other feminist that parrots it.
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU replied with this 13 hours ago, 6 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,368,409
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 hours ago, 35 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,368,412
@previous (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
Give 1 link, to any bank, saying women couldn't open bank accounts.
Give 1 link, to any bank, saying women couldn't open bank accounts.
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU replied with this 12 hours ago, 14 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,368,413
@previous (A)
No bank would say that, because you've just made up that I said women couldn't open bank accounts, that's not what I said
Dirty little goalpost mover
No bank would say that, because you've just made up that I said women couldn't open bank accounts, that's not what I said
Dirty little goalpost mover