Pretty sure the average OnlyFans thot is not even aware of this alleged 'psychological damage' you keep screaming about.
I mean, your argument doesn't even make sense. Assuming arguendo that this 'psychological damage' exists (which is self-inflicted in your case, by the way), you suggest that they are only allowed to 'profit' off of those who were damaged by men, and not women.
No, that's even more of a mess. A proper comparison would be to claim that the 'patriarchy' teaches girls to hate themselves, so... they pay you to shove objects in your anus and film it with your OnlyFans account.
What I'm trying to say is that OnlyFans is just women profiting off the fact that other women put in a lot of work to break the self-esteem of little boys for them to exploit.
You see those little boys who act like girls because their mom wanted them to, right? You must understand the concept of conditioning that they are using to make this work. It's the same one as transgenderism but a different outcome.
What I'm trying to say is that OnlyFans is just women profiting off the fact that other women put in a lot of work to break the self-esteem of little boys for them to exploit.
Yes, I know that part, but it makes little sense. So it would be OK with you if it was men who were doing that, but because - you claim - it's women, it's bad?
Also, the self-esteem movement is cringe, as are you.
You see those little boys who act like girls because their mom wanted them to,
No, they just believed your stories of female privilege. I'm sure of it. Also, the boys aren't nearly as damaged as the girls as they usually don't amputate body parts.
You must understand the concept of conditioning that they are using to make this work.
Yes, all the girls who want to have a masectomy because their dad wanted a son.
Pretty sure the average OnlyFans thot is not even aware of this alleged 'psychological damage' you keep screaming about.
I mean, your argument doesn't even make sense. Assuming arguendo that this 'psychological damage' exists (which is self-inflicted in your case, by the way), you suggest that they are only allowed to 'profit' off of those who were damaged by men, and not women.
I'll make this argument as simple as I possibly can so that you can understand where I'm coming from.
I somehow become President and declare feminists subhuman and deserving of all that happens to them.
After a while of this, I then issue a statement that if they donate to my re-election campaign, I will stop considering them subhuman.
Do you understand now?
No, that's even more of a mess. A proper comparison would be to claim that the 'patriarchy' teaches girls to hate themselves, so... they pay you to shove objects in your anus and film it with your OnlyFans account.
Makes little sense.
What I'm trying to say is that OnlyFans is just women profiting off the fact that other women put in a lot of work to break the self-esteem of little boys for them to exploit.
You see those little boys who act like girls because their mom wanted them to, right? You must understand the concept of conditioning that they are using to make this work. It's the same one as transgenderism but a different outcome.
Yes, I know that part, but it makes little sense. So it would be OK with you if it was men who were doing that, but because - you claim - it's women, it's bad?
Also, the self-esteem movement is cringe, as are you.
No, they just believed your stories of female privilege. I'm sure of it. Also, the boys aren't nearly as damaged as the girls as they usually don't amputate body parts.
Yes, all the girls who want to have a masectomy because their dad wanted a son.
So you're an unprincipled realpolitiking hypocrite?
No, I'd always consider them subhuman.
So as I said, you're an unprincipled realpolitiking hypocrite.
Says one thing, does another.