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.
It was heavily blocked by religious retards who had a business interest in keeping women's value high, to the point that they literally joined up with (((Andrea Dworkin))) (see what I did there), a prominent advocate for the complete eradication of males.
And that's the real reason you like porn other than OF. You perceive it as men taking money from men while women just act as performers. For some reason, you think OF allows women to keep too much of their earnings, despite it being founded and owned by men, as porn companies and platforms typically are. Exploiting men's urges for greed is fine as long as other men are making off with the loot.
This is such an absurd argument, but you did hit something I didn't mention.
Yes, women keep far too much from OF. There's also no cap on how many of them can do it. The porn industry has both set wages and a cap on the amount of performers.
"This is an absurd argument, but you're correct" isn't the own you think it is.
The absurdity is thinking I oppose it just because women are making money.