The reason this comes up is because I was reading Imp1 comments and replies to them and he’s mentioned multiple times before that he believes that the actual answer to a lot of this is making artificial wombs so that you can cut out women from making kids and relationships with women have to be about something else. That would mean that since women can't use their wombs as a bargaining tool, their intellect and personalities have to be what keeps a man interested, at least imo, and I can see why it would appeal to him, but are they even reasonable?
I haven't done the research myself and thought it would be more fun to have a discussion over it, but still, I’m just curious as to how the tech works if at all. I've seen things where the tech is being “suppressed” (hidden from the public like a lot of current tech we use today was during the Cold War, ala the internet), but is that true, or not? It's just genuinely an interesting topic to me.
By your logic, because I can meet Ariana Grande backstage at a concert, I could fuck her. (Not like I'd want to. Creep looks like a child.)
You're not getting the difference - are you really telling me porn stars pretend to be in a relationship with individual fans?
No, but that line is arbitrary. Also, I take it you also don't have a problem with findom, either.
I don't see how.
Of course I do. It's the apex of women's exploitation of broken men, where the exploitation is actually the fetish.
How is it exploitive within your view of porn? The men who are flushing their money down their toilet are getting exactly what is advertised. It's no different than other pornography which constantly solicits money from its customers.
Because that whole fetish is the product of learned inferiority instilled in them by the feminist school system.
Nobody was into that before women ran the schools.