http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f3...ps84056fb9.jpg
That one.
Printable View
hashtag sweatergate
It wasn't until I cropped and expanded aubrey's tit that I noticed how nice the pattern is on her top.
What tits?
Kind of looks like my other other bitch, pic: http://i.imgur.com/UH5WsIo.jpg
She's got a bit of a weird chin going on. Not like aubrey. Aubrey has a lovely chin.
Dick riding turnt up
That sweater lost big points for me when I figured out the cat wasn't part of the pattern.
Fuck the endless Breast Cancer Awareness Month campaigns, and fuck all that goofy pink shit. Know how much attention Prostate Cancer Awareness Month gets? Exactly. Eat a dick with your bullshit trying to feminize everything more masculine than a pack of Skittles.
When I saw that spoon had just posted in the commune, I thought to myself "what's the chance he's ranting about sexism".
No doubt he'll see that I've just posted and think "what's the chance ong is talking pointless drivel".
Boob cancer is popular because boob
All of that pink headband money must be getting used well.Quote:
Breast cancer incidence rates in the U.S. began decreasing in the year 2000, after increasing for the previous two decades. They dropped by 7% from 2002 to 2003 alone.
Or not.Quote:
One theory is that this decrease was partially due to the reduced use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) by women after the results of a large study called the Women’s Health Initiative were published in 2002. These results suggested a connection between HRT and increased breast cancer risk.
Hey you know what, fuck Susan G. Komen for the Cure.
Guess how much of their bullshit charity money actually goes to goddamn breast cancer research?Quote:
In 2012, a Komen attempt to withdraw funding to Planned Parenthood for mammograms drew controversy, leading to a significant decline in donations and event participation from which Komen has yet to fully recover.
LESS THAN 21 FUCKING PERCENT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MsjvsAX-Og
Guy gets the chance to experience something amazing and he's so busy snapping off a ton of photos I bet he could have watched it on video and got the same experience. Seriously, put down the fucking cameras and enjoy a moment.
Am I wrong here?
Spoon, here's a question for you... if you had two buttons, one removes 50% of the global male population, and the other removes 50% of the female global population, and if you don't press a button then you have to spend the rest of your life being buttraped by a Norwegian biker, which button do you press?
You definitely survive if you hit the men, just to be clear.
http://gifsound.com/?gif=i.imgur.com...L6n0FJZpk&s=33
quick cheap shoot air out of your nose.
omg spoon u radfem
Ong if you're trying to make the "only men have waged war" argument, I'm not sure that's the way to go about it. Women would be equally as capable of that in a male-less society.
What? How would women take control in the first place? There are still men. And still these shirts:
http://i.imgur.com/hVdEfTA.jpg
Vox has an article titled: "Marvel's fix for its sexist Spider-Woman cover? Put a logo over her butt."
Not clicking. The irony of wrongness in media is that the more attention it gets, the more it incentivizes the media to be wrong. Which, I suspect, is why the absolute last place you want to go to find factual and reasonable claims is the media. I had hope for Vox at one time. It's still way better than trash like Slate
So yeah, if you want to get rid of bullshit like the unreasonable claims of sexism, you have to either do what Spoon does by attacking it, or just ignore it entirely
I don't. I just like women more, and figure there's a population problem and I have a solution.
that's a great article.
sick soulread daven
I was gonna watch some lesbian porn and knock one out before I go to bed, but now I'm full of self pity thanks to you guys. I hope you're all happy, with your active sex lives.
Toxic is problematic. Wrong is more like it. They showed how wrongheaded they were when those guys invented date-rape-detecting nail polish and it was roundly rejected because no one is expected to use locks to protect against thieves, why should women need nail polish to protect against predators?
There was a time when feminism was a necessary force for change, and those feminists developed a very strong playbook for accomplishing that. Now the playbook is still open and half of those playing off it don't know where to stop.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...s-abusers.html
actually all men's lives are run by their women, and secretly they're all glad they do.
So the conversations in the randomness thread still sound exactly the same.. And.total no-brainer to kill half the guys!
I'd prob kill half of them now anyway, no nasty alternative option required.
so... we're killing the better-looking half right?
oh also society would have to become open to polygamy, obv.
that's the main problem with polygamy right now. with a roughly even male/female split the math just doesn't add up. unless you're allowed to be in multiple marriages at once.
I concur.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30119100
Polygamy is an option.
Become Islamic.
Plus the fact that some guys would be pushing 35+ wives ( http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/us...ives.html?_r=0 ) and some guys would struggle to find 1.
Well, it's an option for men. Any woman who wants more than one husband is a whore.
Monogamy is from a time when women needed men to survive and society needed men to work.
In a polygamous society, hotties would make out like thieves.
In that regard I'm pretty damn happy and healthy, so I don't need to have artificial constructions about what's moral in love and sex dismantled for me.
Yeah, I'm willing to bet people would be just as healthy and just as happy. That's kind of how happy works.
Then I did.
admittedly what I said wasn't super clear, i don't have the time to clarify but i hope at least some of you can figure it out :)
Fuck yesss
Girl in the center holds it down.
Inequality is the wrong framing. Problems do not get solved by trying to create equality, and equality isn't necessarily a product of solving problems and improving standards across the board.
It is a destructive idea with no natural or theoretical backing. It's really just something people like the sound of, to our own detriment
The problem with open polygamy is that the vast majority of women become paired up with a minority of men. This leaves a large number of men who are not able to gain sex, and this leads to civil unrest.
Note: When this option is left open, it always leads to a situation where the majority of polygamous relationships are with one man and a number of women instead of the other way around.
I think that people who want equality (along these lines) tend to not realize that they have it a lot better than the average person on the planet. Instead, they see themselves as being on the bottom half of some unfair scenario and think that achieving a higher level of equality will improve their own situation.
Bullseye. In a world of perfectly equal opportunities and options for everyone, with a rich history of successful men and women in every field and endeavor, there will still be apparent inequalities - more men in engineering and women in caretaking, for example. And for obvious reasons. That Y chromosome, it changes things.
On a related note, allowing polygamous relationships to be accepted as a social norm helps women as a whole and hurts men as a whole. It helps women because it puts them in a situation where they are able to gain access to much better men (including better resources, opportunities, safety, health care, etc.) than they would have been able to access before. It hurts men because the majority of them stop having access to sexual partners who are on an equal or lesser footing.
A man who is a 6 would normally not have a problem getting a female who is a 4. But if females who are a 4 can pull men who are 7s without a problem, then the men who are a 6 are going to be in trouble.
True. It applies to more than just gender. In economics, for example, it is important to have wealth inequality. It takes a tremendous amount of capital, controlled by a small number of people, to create a lot of new products and services. Elon Musk and Gabe Newell are my favorite examples, but Steve Jobs is probably the best example
Very true
But on the flip side, this would be excellent for society since it would create huge incentives of self-improvement and it would vastly improve mobility for both sexes even if that incentive is non-existent. An example of the latter: women would be more capable of improving status by marrying, and men would be more capable of improving their status by not being bogged down by being poor and married with kids
My personal belief is that people should date/marry outside of their class. This would help optimize value that each party brings to the relationship, since the wealthy person could better improve their position by selecting for other things they value like looks and personality, while the poor person could improve their position by using their looks and personality to gain wealth
Is there a problem that remains unsolved when people embrace markets? Sure, but not that many
Any time you have people engaging in any transaction, it's a market. There's huge incentive for self improvement with how things are already.
True, but there is also a substantive, virtually immeasurable, institution that deters that. Start listing all the transactions people would like to willingly make that they're not allowed to, and you'll hit a thousand different ones and not even have gotten started.
Not to mention the indirect problems created by that system, which too are immeasurable. You can't put a value on stymie
Imagine what Thaddeus Russell would have to say if it was illegal to pay black people to play music. He would say that one law stopped jazz from being created. Which in turn would have had a colossally negative impact on the rest of the future
Well, today it's illegal to pay people for sex. What reason do we have to believe that this policy isn't causing just as many problems as making paying black musicians illegal would be?
It's gonna be funny (or not) if the 2016 election is Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush, and after Bush wins (if), sexism-crymongers claim she lost because of misogyny or male privilege
^^^I forgot to add the second part to that:
It's particularly Clinton vs Bush since everybody would believe that Bill Clinton would beat Jeb Bush, but if Hillary loses to Jeb, the sexism claims will be ripe for the pickings
The further you let your imagination run, the farther it will drift. It's entropy. If you don't have a reality check mechanism, you're just strolling through la-la land.
You said you imagine that people in a polygamous society would self-improve based on incentives. I pointed out that incentives still exist for self improvement and the world is chalked full of fat, lazy, slobs. I suspect that the problem is that in your mind people act rationally and would be moved by the incentives of the system, whereas I recognize people are dumb. Or rather, we don't understand the true incentive structure.
I'm a big believer in the power of incentives to move people, just not a believer in people's ability to predict the future. I understand the power of the marketplace, because so much of human interaction can be described as one, not because it solves anything. And yes, laws change how people act in the market place because they levy punishment against actions and so change the incentives. You may be right, but you wouldn't know it from the times you're wrong.
polyamory -//- polygamy btw I wasn't opining on the latter