Nobody is telling gay people to not have sex. But why is it so these people think having sex = two orgies back to back, drinking human piss? Like hell yes, I do think you should fucking burn in hell for that, gay, straight or whatever. That's fucking nasty.
This is the issue. Why should I give a shit about about absolute degens dying of AIDS when they refuse to even just have 1 millisecond of self-control? They try to shame us normies for not wanting to be near AIDS people? Oh, really?
There is also the part where this human toilet talks about "educated choices" and research. After drinking piss. I mean. Him and his ilk are way past the level of having common sense and all.
After this point, what's the meaning in talking about sex ed, by the way? We are continuously told that everything, from whores being pregnant to AIDS fags is because not enough education.
This fuck even admits it doesn't matter. THEY KNOW they will catch shit and still refuse to do anything. What education do people need above this? It's not like they will use said education (which is laughable lib shit anyway, so there is that).
Isn’t that what happens when there are selective pressures working against transmission? The gays are injecting it directly into each other’s assholes. Does viral spread get any more efficient than that?
They're using a body part made for excrement to exit. Yes the penis and vagina also expel waste but they're also the way we procreate so natural pleasure is found for both parties when engaged in heterosexual sex.
The sensation gay men feel in their ass is the stimulated feeling you get when shitting. That feeling exists to both encourage mammals to shit and make an unpleasant task at least slightly pleasurable.
So what they're feeling is the sensation of a hard shit going in and out of their colon, stimulating the part that encourages shitting.
Of course , human shit is a gigantic vector of disease so either pitcher or catcher, you're both putting yourselves at insane risk, especially with the tissue tears on both sides anal sex leads to.
Homosexual male sex is one of the most unclean practices you could imagine. No wonder since the 80s-90s they're usually Patient 0 for most horrifying diseases.
So want a healthier life? Don't have homosexual relations with men.
It's an actual public health issue, unlike the mild to moderate cold the Kung Flu turned out to be. If we went full China on this plague like we did with the last one it would already be gone. It's funny how civil liberties are all the sudden important again when it's not just little people being inconvenienced, isn't it?
Men with low sex drive have no problem being married to women. Dead bedrooms is also common in hetero relationships. As is cheating FWIW. Not equivocating straights and homos btw.
You know, I'm not enthusiastic about sodomy laws, because it could be used as an excuse to discriminate against normal homosexual men just living their lives like normal human beings - but at least they kept this sort of thing in the closet. Or possibly made it impossible.
They closed schools for 2 years, locked you up in your home, but asking a homosexual not to drink the piss of 30 random strangers every week, is too much. I mean, I'd be shocked if I did not already know how awful the regime is.
Sodomy laws work like weed laws. Weed is a regulated substance but people smoke regardless and they have been for ages, and as long as they don't flaunt it too much, noone cares. (No, gorillions of negroes aren't in prison for decades "for a little plant", it's always "a little plant oh and also a murder" because weed is like ghetto rat catnip and they always have some on them when they get busted.)
The real purpose of these laws is to make something relatively harmless "illegal" and therefore taboo, so that rebelious teenagers focus on that. Either they just smoke and move on, or they get caught, get a stern talking to at the police station, and it scares them straight. Most of the time anyway, obviously there are some who will just start using even if it's illegal and it'll fry their brains.
But when you legalize weed and remove the taboo, those same rebellious teenagers won't stop being rebellious, they'll just replace weed with something way more dangerous, like meth.
Same thing applies to sodomy. Noone gives a shit if two degenerates want to stick it up each others' poopers, but when it was taboo, a larger number than today stopped there. Now it's not taboo at all, it's even promoted, just like weed, and instead of just fucking in private they do it in the streets, and instead of fucking one dude they fuck dozens at a time.
Weed laws are basically the "how to find a to find a gun" law. If a guy is blatantly smoking it in his car while driving it gave cops reason to pull him over and usually the dude was breaking a more serious law at the same time or had open warrants for serious crimes.
The real purpose of these laws is to make something relatively harmless "illegal" and therefore taboo, so that rebelious teenagers focus on that
The problem with this idea is that those "rebellious teens" are now in contact with a guy willing to commit major crimes just to sell it to them.
Which isn't a problem in those uber white areas where its just a dreadlocked stoner running the operation from his little farm, but it is in places with diverse populations wherein the same potdealer also runs numerous other illegal operations. The "gateway drug" idea wasn't out of some pure slippery slope, but because the same black gangbanger will sell you pot, pot mixed with shit, and crack all on the same table in his living room. Which takes away taboos from harder drugs because you end up having to trust this guy who will absolutely try to sell you stuff. And you can't just "nah I'm good" him for long. Both the threat of physical violence and being cut off are always on the table.
I'm not pro-legalization, but the idea of trying to false bait them into "just pot" only works in a Leave it to Beaver type America. Not one with ghetto trash actively dragging those same teens into the pit.
Right, that's fair. I grew up in a homogenously white society so the pot dealers were just harmless stoners - it's probably different in, as you say, diverse ones.
But when you legalize weed and remove the taboo, those same rebellious teenagers won't stop being rebellious, they'll just replace weed with something way more dangerous, like meth.
Is this actually true? That would suggest that weed use would decline where it is regulated. And I think the meth problem came up long before weed was legalized.
Bear in mind that I in no way favor the legalization of weed.
Now it's not taboo at all, it's even promoted, just like weed, and instead of just fucking in private they do it in the streets, and instead of fucking one dude they fuck dozens at a time.
I think the problem is not as much what 'people' do, and what the left starts pushing. As long as the left has a legitimate cause to push, it'll do that. When it's fresh out of legitimate causes, it starts pushing something illegitimate to downright evil. It is always pushing the envelope.
So imagining for a moment that complete equality between homosexuals and normal people is desirable: the legitimate cause would be same-sex marriage. But when that happened, it became Drag Queen story hour, castrating your kids, and all sorts of other nonsense.
Same for blacks. It's unquestionably correct to not have people be disadvantaged based on their color and race. But when that happened, they started advocating for riots, special preferences, busing, and God knows what.
It seems that even in cases where we think the left is correct, we should stop just short of 'remedying' the situation completely, to make the leftists stuck on the thing that is actually just - rather than moving on to the truly heinous stuff.
Is this actually true? That would suggest that weed use would decline where it is regulated. And I think the meth problem came up long before weed was legalized.
Bear in mind that I in no way favor the legalization of weed.
Well, the point is really the taboo. It hasn't been taboo in western mainstream for decades.
I think the problem is not as much what 'people' do, and what the left starts pushing. As long as the left has a legitimate cause to push, it'll do that. When it's fresh out of legitimate causes, it starts pushing something illegitimate to downright evil. It is always pushing the envelope.
So imagining for a moment that complete equality between homosexuals and normal people is desirable: the legitimate cause would be same-sex marriage. But when that happened, it became Drag Queen story hour, castrating your kids, and all sorts of other nonsense.
Same for blacks. It's unquestionably correct to not have people be disadvantaged based on their color and race. But when that happened, they started advocating for riots, special preferences, busing, and God knows what.
It seems that even in cases where we think the left is correct, we should stop just short of 'remedying' the situation completely, to make the leftists stuck on the thing that is actually just - rather than moving on to the truly heinous stuff.
Yeah, that's why this shit needs to be nipped in the bud. Every time they were given a mile they took the entire planet, so it's time to go back.
Well, the point is really the taboo. It hasn't been taboo in western mainstream for decades.
That suggests that it being a crime wasn't doing much.
Every time they were given a mile they took the entire planet, so it's time to go back.
Since there is no logic nor limiting principle, they'll eventually just spin out of control with their quest for novelty, destroying themselves and possibly their country in the process.
Yes, but most of them will rebel a few times, realize it's just weed, and move on, so the harm is minimal. You can do that with weed, you can't do that with heroin. Or titty skittles.
I grew up in a place and time where it was more or less still taboo and this is exactly how it worked. Me and my friends got stoned a couple of times in high school, and now a decade and a half later we're all fairly normal, upstanding people, most with their own families and nearly all with stable careers.
Bear in mind that the original gay rights movement openly included pedo shit. See Harry Hay. They only dropped that stuff later on. As I've said before, I think AIDS forced them to drop the pedo shit because they needed help from the normies to deal with it.
Actually, I believe they were pushing pedophilia long after AIDS. In the 1990s, there was a homosexual organization called ILGA, which was a federation of different organizations, and they included... pro-pedophilia organizations.
I'm sure they pushed it still. They push it now, but they used to not care as much about PR nightmares. I'm just speculating that AIDS forced them to care more, though. It could have also just been impatience with their lack of achievements.
Thats literally every law that exists. Or are you a retarded anarchist who thinks "laws are oppressive man, if there weren't any laws there wouldn't be any criminals!"
Probably like 95% of sodomy laws were used to prosecute gay men who were doing bad shit like fucking in public restrooms, "rest stops" or other public "cruising" locations. Gay men were a plague with this shit, and it was still happening as of 10-15 years ago afaik based on what a prosecutor told me. Idk if it happens now but I don't see why it would have stopped. It's just harder to prosecute now.
Even in the case that got the laws all overturned, which was based on private sex, the only consequence was a fine:
In 1998, John Geddes Lawrence Jr., an older white man, was arrested along with Tyron Garner, a younger black man, at Lawrence's apartment in Harris County, Texas. Garner's former boyfriend had called the police, claiming that there was a man with a weapon in the apartment. Sheriff's deputies said they found the men engaging in sexual intercourse. Lawrence and Garner were charged with a misdemeanor under Texas' anti-sodomy law; both pleaded no contest and received a fine.
There are some public locations where faggotry is a serious nuisance that drives away families. Parents don't want to take their kids to a beach or a park if the kid is going to get exposed to seeing buttfucking. So what happens is faggots effectively take over these locations and turn them into "cruising" spots, and feel very proud of themselves for having taken the spot over. We need cops and laws to drive them out and force them to keep their shit behind closed doors where it belongs.
While lewd conduct complaints have dropped dramatically in recent years, Neiman said stings have been used to shut down persistent hotspots for gay cruising and lewd acts 11 times since 2014. Complaints often come from people concerned about sex acts in public places, namely libraries and residential streets, where children could stumble upon people engaged in a lewd act, Neiman said.
Last month, a Los Angeles County judge threw out the charges in one case stemming from Long Beach's 2014 operation, saying police were discriminating against gay men. Many law enforcement agencies have stopped in response to lawsuits or after political backlash. The Times contacted police officials in San Jose, Anaheim, Glendale, San Francisco, Bakersfield, Beverly Hills and Laguna Beach, among other agencies. Representatives for each said their departments had not used such undercover stings in years.
The focus on children is a mistake. Why should ANYONE have to see people having sex in public? I’m not a child, but that doesn’t magically make it okay for two dudes to buttfuck each other outside my local library. You can get fired for giving a female coworker a confused compliment. You can be arrested for offensive tweets in some western countries. But randomly encountering a literal gay piss orgy is just part and parcel?
Yeah I often point that out myself. I do not care to see you having sex. Just like I'll tell people irl life that I do not care to hear explicit details of their sex lives
I edited with an article explaining that gay takeovers of public places for sexual purposes is still going on. Police are just not enforcing the law anymore because of gay activism fighting for their "right" to fuck each other in public.
You can view homosexuality as abnormal, while also acknowledging that there are homosexuals who, in all other respects, are normal and live respectable lives.
What is there to refute about idiotic claims presented with no evidence? I'd point you to David Starkey, Glenn Greenwald and Dave Rubin who are none of those things that you claimed are applicable to every homosexual.
If you think any of the aforementioned news personalities have lived ‘normal’ sex lives up til now, I’d like to introduce you to my Thai houseboy Ping. Honest, I just let him clean up the place and make a few bucks. Sure is a hard worker for a fifteen year old! Did you check out his ass?
Basically all of it (I guess you could quibble on the 'normal' thing, but I had already addressed that), but he didn't seem like the kind who can engage in meaningful conversation.
It just further weakens your position. He may be pedantic and inflammatory , but you know inside he is correct on a fundamental level. Thats why you cant respond. Same reason why Alex Jones is ‘always right’.
Gays are a fraction of the population, and the "normal respectable" ones are likely a fraction of that. How are they supposed to just magically find each other? Every "gay meet" event is crawling with the worst types, as is every dating vector.
By sheer math, they will always be exposed constantly to the degenerate side and most will have to compromise on it simply to not be alone. Heck that's such a common thing Key and Peele were mocking it a decade ago.
The thing about sodomy laws is that they’ll still be able to have all the gay sex they want, but it will truly be only “in the privacy of our bedroom” like they claimed it was in the first place.
You know, when I was in college I, like no doubt many other red-blooded males here on this board, had a bit of a risqué phase where I thought myself a real Casanova. I would use tinder and bumble and go on dates with tons of different women. In my 31 years of life, I dated probably more than 30+ women before I met my wife in 2017.
I had sex with literally one person before my wife, and it was a girlfriend I had been dating for over a year at that point. This queer has had more sexual partners in a weekend THAN I HAVE HAD CAUSAL, SINGLE DATES WITH WOMEN.
Really, let that sink in. The average straight guy probably has a body count in the mid single digits, and we get shit on societally for being sex obsessed monsters. Why is this not the case for gay men?
Lol yeah I've had plenty of attention from women some very risqué. Dick has stayed in my pants with one exception. Meanwhile this dude is getting pissed on and jamming his dick in 30 assholes in a weekend
One conclusion I recently came to is that it would be beneficial for a society to be opposed to homosexual sex and anal sex in general. A traditional taboo against homosexuality likely served beneficial purposes.
AIDS almost never spreads to men through vaginal sex. This means that the entirety of the sexual spread outside of the homosexual male population was caused by bisexual men who fucked around in the gay pool and brought it back to the hetero pop. Yes, there was spread through needles as well, but this would be irrelevant for societies that didn't have drugs (traditional taboos).
Combine this with the extreme amount of different sexual partners many homosexual men will have, and you have an explosion of STDs which spread to the full population thanks to bisexual men. Some STDs may be deadly or cause infertility. Thus, there's an evolutionary incentive for a society to be opposed to male homosexuality, at least beyond a monogamous relationship (rare for the gays).
A possible corollary is that societies shouldn't have nearly as strong a taboo against female homosexuality as male homosexuality, as this disease spreading aspect doesn't exist there, although women not breeding is obviously bad for a society so such a taboo might still exist.
I think an instinctual reaction of "intriguing to hot" compared to "disgust to revulsion" has always been the case.
Plural women has always been the desire for the male of a species, in order to better spread his seed. Two women together presents the possibility of joining, which even in caveman days was a benefit.
I've seen full girl only lesbians. Most weren't attractive but also far less disgusting than most "oh I totally love girls! (except I date almost all guys) bisexual girls.
Regardless, point is that the idea of girl on girl is hot. While the idea of two guys even kissing makes most dudes get nauseous. Reality doesn't need to equal up for that to work.
it would be beneficial for a society to be opposed to homosexual sex and anal sex in general
The correct balance is what we had before the "sexual revolution".
Criminalize sodomy, homosexuality treated as the mental illness it is, severe social stigma against fornication, frowning on any public discourse around sex. Obscenity charged against any publication that breaks these norms.
Chastity is praised publicly and expressions of lust are shamed.
Complete prohibition of any use of public funding or other resources for 'research' into sexual 'psychology' or 'attitudes' (really all 'social science' needs to be treated like the subversive quackery it is).
Thats the thing. People interpret the reasons why some laws exist about as well as they interpret scripture, or the greeks. Of course no one expects sodomy laws to eliminate homosexuality or depravity. They exist to establish a precedent set by the cultural standards of the community.
Every faggot on earth knows that what they do is against nature. Thats why they invest so much in ‘pride’ and ‘discrimination’ efforts. They couldn’t function for long with the cognitive dissonance without offing or exiling themselves if they can’t point to some external justification for their abject depravity.
Two men shoving their cocks in each others assholes and mouths. Look at it for what it is. These are boys that upon learning the nature of men and the world knew that they couldn’t compete — but rather than foregoing a mate that they couldn’t win or fulfill and adjusting to reality, instead chose utter depravity as the winning solution to their neuroticisms.
I’ve lost all sympathy at this point. Every homosexual I’ve ever known, and there’s been an over representation in my life compared to many, has never been anything close to normal on so many levels.
Sure, they may caricaturize aspects of ‘Trad’ life but its always with a smirk of disdain — example: Brunch. Watch how fags have brunch.
They want to make a freakshow of everything decent and good. Thats why these laws have existed and continue to in some places. You don’t have the right to piss all over the societal norms that you disagree with. Most people are tolerant and will look the other way under those circumstances if you’re at least discreet about your perversion. But no, once they’re forced to accept that what they do is in fact harmful to themselves and the world that they live in, they cant accept responsibility, and adjust their behavior. Just attack society instead.
I used to be a lolbert down for the whole "married gays using m79s to defend their pot farm" thing.
World War T made me realize you can't just "live and let live" if the other side is constantly pushing. The only way to keep from losing ground is to constantly push back.
And since I'm turbohitler anyway for not believing a man can turn into a woman by wishing I've been freed to entertain all of those naughty outside-overton thoughts about race and sex and everything else.
I bought that sticker too, how could you not? I was all for pot too until it became legal and they ruined it. But adopt the philosophy? Sounds great and all, except fags are fags and we need MORE governance not less. The moral variety. There is a deep deep decay that has to be fixed.
This degenerate deserves every last STD he gets, as does everyone, come to think of it, but this is really twisted. I suspect it doesn't raise eyebrows among the gay orgy set, though. Another day, another 50 or so homosexual encounters.
Fuck this degenerate faggot. We completely destroyed the economy in response to the Kung Flu hoax but asking him not to take it in the shitter and drink others' piss for the few weeks that he's contagious is too much to ask? This fag disease would have been gone within a month if we had subjected the fags to the same crap the rest of the population was forced to go through.
Alternately: treat abominations as anathema, and permit them to live and die as they please; isolated from the healthy associations they (evidently, apparently, testimonially) despise. Make good choices; educational grooming aside.
Want to reduce the human population? The easiest way would be to simply swap out AIDS drugs for fake substitutes, and wait for them to orgy themselves into a fatal dose of the sniffles.
This was obviously a fucking troll. One which a lot of stupid people on here and on Twitter have bought. Gay orgies are extremely fucking rare, no they simply fuck multiple people over a short period of time. All it takes is a busy weekend for a slut to spread it to other sluts who then spread it to people who maybe hook up once or twice a month and boom pandemic.
Don’t tell me not to stick a fork in the outlet. Don’t tell me not to play with venomous snakes. Don’t tell me tigers don’t make good house cats….. same kind of thought process.
There was this guy on KiA named theone889, a young Indian living in the UK, who was on the left but opposed wokism. When another guy turned traitor (Wolphoenix), I had messaged him to remove him as a moderator from r-gawker, ass theone889 was the only one who outranked him. He did, and remarked that social justice is a disease.
Fast forward 4 years or so. Some guy shows up on KiA2, claiming to be an old Gamergater who now "realizes" that we are bad and whatever. He told me who he was and was able to answer some questions that I knew only he would know. I pointed out to him: you yourself said that it was a disease, and you yourself prove it. Then I had to perrmaban him because he posted in support of violence against the police.
Stupid comments like that are why a lot of people don't like the Right. My sex life is not your business. Nobody is ever going back to that puritanical bullshit where blowjobs and porn used to be illegal.
The woke so called "progress" did not depend on the consent of the people.
Why should a traditionalist counter-revolution?
Your sex life is everyone's business. Sex leads to offspring and diseases. Its abuse is not victimless. That is why every state, except for the failing modern states that are falling down like WTC-2, have regulated people's sexuality.
And no, I would not make banning extra-marital relations the first step (or perhaps even the last). Recognition of the social harms is the first step though.
Woke victories absolutely did come about through consent. Idiots voted for woke bullshit. While only a tiny fraction of society is woke activists, there is a huge percentage that went along with their shit and kept voting for Democrats knowing that the Democrats were pushing the woke agenda. A big part of why wokes kept winning was because the bulk of society hates social conservatives like you. That is why the new emergent Right in the United States is more libertarian-minded on sex issues.
Your logic here is identical to the authoritarians who wanted to force everyone to mask and vaxx, but even more tenuous. Why is THEIR authoritarianism bad, but YOUR authoritarianism good? The problem with authoritarians is that they never agree, and they never stop fighting until one side murders all its rivals, which is how communism happens. IMO authoritarians should form their own authoritarian communities based on consent where people who agree with those values can go live that way by choice, and leave if they change their minds.
While sex leads to offspring and diseases, that doesn't give anyone the right to regulate or control purely private sex. As far as I know, no society in human history has ever had a forced breeding program, so it is a universally recognized human right to decide for yourself whether to have children. This was even true with commies. So you can't use that as an excuse. And as for diseases, unlike with COVID, where I can infect you by mere proximity, you can't catch an STD from me unless you consent to unprotected sex with me, at which point you're fully consenting to the risk. If you don't want that risk, then don't have unprotected sex. Simple as. I was opposed to mask/vaxx mandates, and I thought you were as well.
Every argument the puritans have ever made has always been proven wrong. The simple and inescapable truth is that the sexual repressors do not base their policy preferences on logic or reason, but rather on an emotional sense that a "moral" society "ought" to ban people from having a good time, probably because the puritan is a jealous loser who can't compete in the sexual marketplace and doesn't get to enjoy its benefits. It's all about power, control, social conditioning, and repression to force people to live "your" lifestyle instead of the life they want to live.
Prohibition actually had very strong arguments in its favor. Alcohol indisputably does enormous harm and directly/indirectly kills a huge number of people every year. A sober society would clearly be "better" in a lot of metrics. Problem is, people simply liked alcohol too much to give it up, to the point where banning it became unsustainable. So if that act of authoritarianism failed, despite having compelling benefits and alcohol being admittedly a vice at the time, imagine how much more of a waste of time it would be trying to ban things like porn or premarital sex. This is done in communist countries sometimes, and it just results in a mess of a society with rampant prostitution. Just look at China and Vietnam.
The lion's share of sexual repression in the last 30 years or so (after the power of the religious right was essentially broken) have come from feminists. Feminists hate the fact that men get easy access to sexual satisfaction in the form of things like porn and prostitution. Feminists want vagina access to be as restricted as possible in order to maximize the leverage women have over men.
Woke victories absolutely did come about through consent. Idiots voted for woke bullshit. While only a tiny fraction of society is woke activists, there is a huge percentage that went along with their shit and kept voting for Democrats knowing that the Democrats were pushing the woke agenda.
They by no means 'knew' that. That is why the woke agenda is always advanced clandestinely. Furthermore, it continues on advancing even when Republicans are nominally in charge.
Your logic here is identical to the authoritarians who wanted to force everyone to mask and vaxx, but even more tenuous. Why is THEIR authoritarianism bad, but YOUR authoritarianism good?
What has existed for all of human history is presumably good, what was thought up 5 minutes ago and forced on the entire population is not.
The problem with authoritarians is that they never agree
So called 'authoritarians' have agreed for all of human history, that you cannot run a society with no sexual morals. It's only five minutes ago that some people disagreed, and you can see the results: total societal collapse.
As far as I know, no society in human history has ever had a forced breeding program
I know of not one Roman who 'chose' not to have kids. And when social mores changed in such a way to make children less likely Augustus introduced the lex Iulia.
it is a universally recognized human right to decide for yourself whether to have children.
There are no human rights. It's unfortunate, but they do not exist. You have no right to anything, it's just where governments have not yet deemed it expedient to interfere. It's like a habitual bank robber saying that Bank X has a right to its monkey, or the farmer who tells the turkey that it has a right to live.
The simple and inescapable truth is that the sexual repressors do not base their policy preferences on logic or reason, but rather on an emotional sense that a "moral" society "ought" to ban people from having a good time
I don't care about you having a 'good time'. I do care about the negative social consequences that result from the sexual libertinism that you advocate. It's not an individual matter. For as long as no one else behaves properly, there is little cost to you not doing either.
imagine how much more of a waste of time it would be trying to ban things like porn or premarital sex. This is done in communist countries sometimes, and it just results in a mess of a society with rampant prostitution. Just look at China and Vietnam.
Noted that you did not mention the USSR, where it was the Yeltsin libertinism that resulted in rampant prostitution. Also, I thought you said that prostitution was perfectly fine? So why are you now citing it as an example for why banning porn is bad?
For all of human history, premarital sex was banned. 'Porn' is a bit more complicated. Like I said, I don't think it's practical to go around banning things immediately, or to even not engage in such things, but to simply recognize the negative effects when they are widely practiced and socially acceptable. That is all.
They hated social conservatives because they told the truth.
The lion's share of sexual repression in the last 30 years or so (after the power of the religious right was essentially broken) have come from feminists.
Now, has society improved or worsened with the power of the religious right broken?
And the vast majority of feminists are fanatically pro-porn and pro-prostitution.
Feminists want vagina access to be as restricted as possible in order to maximize the leverage women have over men.
And if we look at the example of the black community, where women have zero leverage over men and are pumped and dumped on the regular, I'd say that it's a pretty bad thing to destroy the leverage that women have. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free, as they said?
The woke did use lies to advance their agenda, just like social conservatives do the same thing, such as by claiming all prostitutes are human trafficking victims instead of just whores who want money, or saying that internet porn will cause sex crimes (when sex crimes actually fell). I could go on, but authoritarians constantly lie to push their agendas.
Premarital sex, whores, and porn have existed for all of human history. That doesn't stop puritans from trying to ban them. You can't really invoke sexual traditionalism when marrying 12 year olds was totally fine until the 1800s. While Christianity did reduce a lot of the default sexual degeneracy that dominated throughout human history, modern American society is still pretty puritanical in a lot of ways, with a special privileged carveout being made for the LGBTs.
Sexual morality largely did not exist, or the bar was so low that it might as well not have existed, all throughout classical times, ancient greece, rome, and thousands of years prior. The major shift came with the rise of Christianity in Europe. Muhammad married a 6 year old and fucked her when she was 9. Muslims could have 4 wives, and had stuff like sex slaves. Even the Catholic Spaniards in the New World routinely raped and sexually enslaved extremely young girls during the time of Columbus. Mormons practiced polygamy officially until pressured out of it. It's not like there was this former golden age of sexual morality in the past. I can't think of any society that would satisfy your standards for sexual morality other than the Puritan colonists, who were some crazy witch-burning motherfuckers. To a lesser extent the United States had a period of peak sexual authoritarianism in the earlier part of the 1900s. All this did was cause a massive backlash by the 1960s, which massively fueled the Left and RESULTED IN the wokeness you see today. It was the very force of the pendulum of repression before the 60s that gave the Left its sexual momentum in the last 50 years, resulting in that pendulum swinging into depravity now. Instead of perpetuating this cycle of oppression alternative between puritans and then depravity, society should break the cycle and shut down both sides by adopting a libertarian, freedom-based anti-authoritarian attitude towards sex.
I'm sure plenty of people in Roman times chose to not have kids and used the pull-out method to prevent pregnancy. Just because you can't name them doesn't mean they didn't exist. Obviously the social dynamics of those times were very different from now, such that there was far more of an incentive to have kids back then vs now. The reason fertility drops so much in modern times is that people see having kids as an expensive drag on their lives. Until modern times something like over 90% of people were farmers, so kids were free labor.
"Human rights" are simply the norms of rights that all or nearly all people agree on. They exist because we collectively will them into existence. They are enforced through consensus. Good luck trying to impose laws that are antithetical to the human condition. Communists have partially managed it, but only through mass murder and prolonged terror. Even then, they fell far short of their goals.
I don't advocate sexual libertinism. I just don't think the government should be in the business of enforcing pure "morality" through the barrel of a gun.
I'm sure prostitutes existed in the USSR, if anything they just came out more into the open in the 90s. This whole idea that the USSR used to be a paragon of moral purity is a total crock of shit used as propaganda. It simply isn't true. My point re: prostitution is that your methods and goals are doomed to failure. Humans get horny and want to fuck. You can't just tell them "no" and expect them to listen. Trying to enforce puritanical sexual mores that are utterly incompatible with the vast majority of personalities and physiologies is just going to get you subversion and corruption. Prohibition was only allowed to exist as long as it was ineffective. As soon as it started to actually work and alcohol consumption started to drop, which most people don't even know about, people were so pissed off that they rebelled and overturned it.
Premarital sex was the norm for all of human history until very recently thanks to the rise of puritanical Christianity in the 1800s specifically. This was mostly driven by the Industrial Revolution and the rise in education of women. Parents suddenly wanted their daughters to avoid pregnancy in order to finish school. This led to the lie/contrivance of claiming that premarital sex is a sin, when there is absolutely no verse anywhere in the Bible that says premarital sex is a sin. It's a pure invention, a pure fabrication, designed to keep young women's legs closed so they stay in school.
No, the vast majority of feminists are very much against things like porn, prostitution, and even things like breast implants. I would know better than you since I grew up in Los Angeles and have had a lot more exposure to feminists than you have. The voices you see very recently advocating for "sex workers" are a small minority that only exist in extremely deep blue safe spaces dominated by LGBTs. Their advocacy mostly falls on deaf ears because mainstream feminism rejects it.
The black community is a perfect example of how socialism can destroy cultural values. The black community used to be a lot better before the 1960s. Then libtards opened up a massive welfare expansion to single mothers while at the same time pushing hard that blacks ought to reject "white" social norms because a lot of these libtards were cultural marxists who deeply wanted to overthrow white culture. So the result was that single mothers were subsidized and incentivized to the point where their numbers grew, and the natural protectant against this was torn away as black cultural values were torn down by marxists and their trained black mouthpieces. This all only could have happened thanks to socialist welfare expansion and "big government" policies which caused a feedback loop of government dependency, which is exactly what the marxists wanted. If you simply took away that socialism, the whole cycle is broken because single black mothers don't get rewarded for their bad choices, and so get looked down upon instead of emulated.
Government policy should encourage family values. Government policy should dis-incentivize, and never subsidize, behaviors which are deleterious to the values which strengthen a society. I think we agree on all that. The difference is that I do NOT agree on using heavy handed big government socialism like criminal laws to try to coerce society into obedience. Instead, I think we let free speech and free markets get as far as they can, and use the government in a limited way to ensure that the incentive structure favors making good decisions. For example, I would 100% support the government discriminating against single mothers and children born out of wedlock in terms of provisioning welfare. I would uphold the institution of marriage and LGBTs would get chinese-brand civil unions. Policy in this area is difficult, but you can get the result you want with intelligence and a light touch, instead of stupid, crude socialism that has been generally historically proven to fail. Freedom + a favorable incentive structure is the best way to guide and channel society in a positive direction.
No, I mean that woke has zero democratic legitimacy, and in fact, it proves that Western countries are not democracies. No one wanted this. But what's good for the goose...
Premarital sex, whores, and porn have existed for all of human history.
There's more of it now, because 'Puritans' stopped resisting it.
You can't really invoke sexual traditionalism when marrying 12 year olds was totally fine until the 1800s.
Not sure wheree you're getting 12, but yes, people married younger because of low life expectancy - even for people who had reached their teenager years.
Sexual morality largely did not exist, or the bar was so low that it might as well not have existed, all throughout classical times, ancient greece, rome, and thousands of years prior.
Wut? What would happen if a Greek or Roman man found his wife with a stranger? That would be the end of that stranger.
I can't think of any society that would satisfy your standards for sexual morality other than the Puritan colonists
Victorian Enngland, where Charles Dickens had to secretly separate from his wife. And frankly, it worked rather well. That is my only criterion: whether it works well. It is a matter of indifference to me whether people have premarital sex, or if they divorce. But it's clear that it does not work well, and that a return to traditional norms is called for.
I'm sure plenty of people in Roman times chose to not have kids and used the pull-out method to prevent pregnancy. Just because you can't name them doesn't mean they didn't exist.
There would be no point in marrying at all, if you did not want kids. And "I'm sure" is not exactly the best argument. It would be rather curious and remarked on by people - which is exactly my point.
Of course, as you say, the poor could use them for farmhands, and the wealthy needed kids for alliances and to pass on property.
"Human rights" are simply the norms of rights that all or nearly all people agree on. They exist because we collectively will them into existence. They are enforced through consensus.
They're not enforced though. Whenever they are inconvenieint, the ruling class defines them out of existence. You really think people like Biden or Trudeau (or Romney) think that you have rights? Don't be silly. It's about what they can do, and what they can't do.
I don't advocate sexual libertinism. I just don't think the government should be in the business of enforcing pure "morality" through the barrel of a gun.
That's fine, yours is the more popular position at the moment. But this is what the state has done for literally all of history.
I'm sure prostitutes existed in the USSR,
There you go again with your "I'm sure". Yeah sure, I bet there was that one woman in Nizhni Novgorod. But was it common? No. When did it become common? With Western influences. Same for drug use. Just how much drug use was there in the USSR? Or homosexuality? Nixon himself remarked on that fact...
This led to the lie/contrivance of claiming that premarital sex is a sin, when there is absolutely no verse anywhere in the Bible that says premarital sex is a sin. It's a pure invention, a pure fabrication, designed to keep young women's legs closed so they stay in school.
Quite an absurd suggestion, as Deuteronomy prescribes stoning for women who are not virgins at marriage, but let us assume that you are correct. Does it have social utility to say that it is a sin, or does it not? Suppose that I accept that people having sex before marriage is good because they like it. How does that stack up against the myriad of social problems created in that manner?
No, the vast majority of feminists are very much against things like porn, prostitution, and even things like breast implants.
Evidently, you are not familiar with the new breed of feminist, which regards transgenders and 'sex workers' as two of the most holiest classes known to man.
And not sure why you think you have more exposure to feminists because you lived in LA. You do know Western Europe is more 'progressive' on sexual matters than LA, right?
The black community is a perfect example of how socialism can destroy cultural values.
Shocker, you see a social problem, and you blame it on 'libtards' and 'Democrats'.
If you simply took away that socialism, the whole cycle is broken because single black mothers don't get rewarded for their bad choices
How good do you think single mothers have it? You think they drive Cadillacs? I'm sure this is part of the problem, but not nearly the extent to which you want to conveniently blame it all on the 'libtards'. Part of the problem is that because so many black men are in prison (and because they have better options than black women, who are generally not regarded as the most attractive of women), women cannot enforce things like commitment, marriage and child support in relationshiips. Result is that they are pumped and dumped.
The difference is that I do NOT agree on using heavy handed big government socialism like criminal laws to try to coerce society into obedience.
I guess all of history was just 'socialism'.
Policy in this area is difficult, but you can get the result you want with intelligence and a light touch, instead of stupid, crude socialism that has been generally historically proven to fail.
I actually completely agree. Society has to be made ready for Victorianism first. It may never work. Previous attempts to put genies back into bottles never did. But it's without question superior than what we have now.
I guess all of history was just 'socialism'. Society has to be made ready for Victorianism first.
Victorianism was enforced bottom-up through social shaming, instead of top-down through socialism. Throughout history governments were usually very weak and did not interfere much in day to day society. Governments really only cared about collecting taxes, keeping some minimal law and order, and being able to raise money/troops for whatever project/war the current king/emperor was working on.
Ultimately things like this are controlled through cultural norms, not the law. When the two conflict, the social forces are only held back temporarily, and then you get the Stonewall Riots and 50 years of LGBTs trying to rise up to dominate society and the culture because not enough people are willing to stop them (which is thankfully changing now).
That is why it is critical, if you want to win, that you CONVINCE the majority of society to follow your values and SELL them on it. Just like with a military occupation and insurgency, it comes down to winning hearts and minds. [I maintain the US lost in Afghanistan because in 20 years, we could not convince muslim men to suddenly adopt liberal western values, which was never going to happen. Had we just been like "yeah sharia law is fine, we don't care about women's rights" the war would have been over in a couple years and Afghanistan would have stabilized.]
If the LGBTs had stopped short of their current lunacy, they would have kept a lot of cultural power pretty much forever. Since they pushed too far and have been creating a backlash against them, they are going to end up with a society where the unthinkable happens: people are actually "allowed" to be anti-LGBT to a considerable degree. The same will eventually be true with blacks. Every business BLM burns brings society one step closer to calling them niggers again. Now, I doubt we will see things go that far, but you get the point:
Once your side is winning, the smart move is to bunker down once you get most of your goals met without pushing too far, so that you keep the culture just a little bit skewed in your favor, but not enough to fuel a backlash. Any movement that goals all gas no brakes is inevitably going to create a backlash and eventual equilibrium against it. I'd like to see that stop with the coming Red Wave. If the Right can be responsible with its power, it will actually get to keep power and we can keep the wokes away for that much longer.
Victorianism was enforced bottom-up through social shaming, instead of top-down through socialism. Throughout history governments were usually very weak and did not interfere much in day to day society. Governments really only cared about collecting taxes, keeping some minimal law and order, and being able to raise money/troops for whatever project/war the current king/emperor was working on.
Correct. But these norms were enforced by government, and no one questioned the right of the state to interfere in people's sex lives.
Ultimately things like this are controlled through cultural norms, not the law. When the two conflict, the social forces are only held back temporarily, and then you get the Stonewall Riots and 50 years of LGBTs trying to rise up to dominate society and the culture because not enough people are willing to stop them (which is thankfully changing now).
But the law did not conflict with cultural norms at the time. Most people were still conservative on these matters through the 1960s and 70s. In this case, culture was downstream from politics, and technology (birth control).
That is why it is critical, if you want to win, that you CONVINCE the majority of society to follow your values and SELL them on it. Just like with a military occupation and insurgency, it comes down to winning hearts and minds.
The woke do not bother to do that. They just use power to impose everything on society. The problem is that we don't have power, but that is the only problem.
If the LGBTs had stopped short of their current lunacy, they would have kept a lot of cultural power pretty much forever.
I doubt it. What would happen is that they would be assimilated into mainstream society, and they would lose their distinctiveness - which is what permits them 'cultural power'. Same for the 'civil rights' establishment. I'm sure they'd be more popular if they were not pushing crazy things, but they would not be as powerful as they are now.
The same will eventually be true with blacks. Every business BLM burns brings society one step closer to calling them niggers again. Now, I doubt we will see things go that far, but you get the point:
That's what I thought, that there would be a ferocious backlash, not against blacks but against this id grievance politics. Turns out, there wasn't, because their advocates are in power.
When adherents of the powerful riot, they get what they want. When opponents of the powerful riot, they get show trials and go to isolation for a year over nothing.
Once your side is winning, the smart move is to bunker down once you get most of your goals met without pushing too far, so that you keep the culture just a little bit skewed in your favor, but not enough to fuel a backlash.
Clausewitz fan?
I do agree. The law should impose some basic norms, but then social norms should be used to move things ever closer in a desirable direction. After a while, the law can catch up.
If the Right can be responsible with its power, it will actually get to keep power and we can keep the wokes away for that much longer.
The 'Right' is more than responsible with its power, it does absolutely nothing with power. Probably because it does not actually disagree with the things that it pretends to oppose in order to get into office.
I find it hilarious that you are worried about rightist overreach, when decades of election victories have achieved precisely nothing.
Young women absolutely knew that. It's just that they vote on autopilot for whoever promises to harm men more.
Marriage hasn't existed for all of human history, it's a religious thing that's existed for about as long as Christianity.
You can run a society without forcing marriage, but the state doesn't want the burden of millions of whiny genocide fantasists, so into the meat grinder you go. Of course, ruining lives for them is a preferable choice to...gasp making them act like human beings instead of being ruled by their biological impulses.
Can you imagine if every decision based on risk management couldn't be made, because "it's better for society"? The likes of JPM buying massive portfolios of Bitcoin because taking dumb risks is the "right thing to do"?
What happened after the bachelor tax? The young men of Rome let the empire fall for its treachery towards them and taking women's side.
feminists are pro-porn
Only when they control every part of the industry to move it in lockstep with their dehumanization campaign. When they don't control something, lawsuits, market manipulation and false rape claims abound.
It's a pretty bad thing to destroy the leverage women have
No it isn't. It's a good thing. What it shows is that their leverage on society needs to be destroyed, they need to be allowed to fall on their lack of merit.
You can't expect people to fight for you who you've openly stated your hatred towards. Every nation that instituted bachelor taxes has fallen in the following years. Romania's Communist implementation lasted three years before being overthrown.
You want an insurrection, tell young men they have to marry the people campaigning for them to be exterminated or pay a ridiculously high tax. You'll get one. It'll make the BLM summer of love look like actual peaceful protest.
I'm surprised Ukrainian men haven't turned on their feminist masters who are eagerly saying they'll fight to the last man because it makes them all excited seeing us die.
You can't expect people to fight for you who you've openly stated your hatred towards. Every nation that instituted bachelor taxes has fallen in the following years. Romania's Communist implementation lasted three years before being overthrown.
And it was the last communist satellite state to fall. Looks like it worked well to prolong the life of the regime. Other states should follow suit.
You want an insurrection, tell young men they have to marry the people campaigning for them to be exterminated
ROFL. Is it just me, or are you crazier than usual?
You’re right. Until you get your filth all over the place and become a social health risk. After that? Society should have the right to take you down like a dog with rabies.
It's easy to denigrate women though. All the slippery slope talk is denigrating women, because the reality is, once gay marriage happened, all of their organizations went under women's control, in near unison, and rebranded to LGBT.
That's what happens when you gain a lot of power and don't keep them out.
You do realize what is going on now is related to them no longer being illegal. If blowjobs and porn are illegal do you think drag queen story hour has a chance? Do you think buttsex parades and buttsex crosswalks would be in every city?
We HAVE to go back. Its either that or we collapse or Islam takes over because they don't put up with that bullshit.
Listen, no one is saying that wives can’t blow their husbands you imbecile. The presence of illegality is there to be used as a deterrent so that it’s not seen in public, or depicted in films, etc.
Less sexual degeneracy is good not only for the individual’s soul, but also the fate of the community in which the individual lives. Sodom wasn’t destroyed because a bunch of guys liked fucking each other behind closed doors, but because they insisted on forcing their degeneracy on others. These laws would limit that.
Sorry you’re defending degeneracy by saying stopping it is censorship, and your brain is too small to understand censorship is useful (and the founders not only agreed with me, they advocated for it as well).
Is not letting faggots fuck in public censorship? Is removal of the depictions of deviant sexual actions from media censorship? What about editing books aimed at children to remove references to faggotry, underaged sex etc?
You would agree that it is, because you see freedom as an end in and of itself. You feel that these things are art, or should be depicted, or at least someone should have the freedom to do these things. You don’t understand that sexual ethics echo out to the rest of society, and lead to an erosion of our central mores. Do you think what we see now has no connection to the sexual revolution? Do you think returning to a state befor that would be bad?
In the absence of social disapproval of sexual degeneracy, punitive laws are really unlikely.
I'd be happy with some prosecution of public perversion of the sort you see in gay pride public orgies. Go ahead and blow the whole neighborhood, have them all shit on your chest or whatever, prance around in a dog mask with a dildo hanging out of your ass, but do it in private where normal people don't have to see it and won't be forced by the gay/tranny lobby to praise it as somehow liberating.
do it in private where normal people don't have to see it and won't be forced by the gay/tranny lobby to praise it
They literally can't. Part of their mental illness is a sadism they get off on grossing out people who don't want to see it. And forcing people who just want to be left alone into "participating".
Why do you think IT'S MA'AM got so mad? Because he was cockblocked by the clerk not playing his game the way he wanted. The unreasonable aggression was caused by the dopamine crash of foiled anticipation.
Thats why trannies belong in a nuthouse, not because they wank while playing dressup but because the ones you see in public are all Buffalo Bill.
It’s not enough for evil to be left alone. It must be continuously praised as “the good”. The darkness must be all consuming, lest the good, like a candle, become lit and chase it away.
I think that "gay pride public orgies" actually hurt their cause and motivate their opponents. It's just like AOC. The very existence of AOC is hugely harmful to the Left and a big boost to the Right, because people just listen to her for 30 seconds and decide to vote republican.
100%. I almost feel pity for homos who aren't pedophiles and who just want to keep their private sex lives private, but their self-appointed political spokescreatures won't let me.
Every time I see AOC's bug-eyed mug I want to smash it in. It's like a Pavlovian response.
Stupid comments like that are why a lot of people don't like the Right
And "trying to be liked" has gotten the Right how far with their constant compromises and "no no, I don't actually hate X I just...uh" ?
Whereas the Left is happily dragging us wherever they want even if people don't like or want it anyway. And they still have people like them anyway while ignoring it!
Like all other activists, they only cared about getting theirs and not a damn about the consequences of those changes. Just give it to me right now, fuck the haters.
Now blacks are welfare dependent and ghetto living, women can barely make it to 30 without depression, and gays are sucking tranny dick and dying of STDs all over again.
Nobody is telling gay people to not have sex. But why is it so these people think having sex = two orgies back to back, drinking human piss? Like hell yes, I do think you should fucking burn in hell for that, gay, straight or whatever. That's fucking nasty.
This is the issue. Why should I give a shit about about absolute degens dying of AIDS when they refuse to even just have 1 millisecond of self-control? They try to shame us normies for not wanting to be near AIDS people? Oh, really?
There is also the part where this human toilet talks about "educated choices" and research. After drinking piss. I mean. Him and his ilk are way past the level of having common sense and all.
After this point, what's the meaning in talking about sex ed, by the way? We are continuously told that everything, from whores being pregnant to AIDS fags is because not enough education.
This fuck even admits it doesn't matter. THEY KNOW they will catch shit and still refuse to do anything. What education do people need above this? It's not like they will use said education (which is laughable lib shit anyway, so there is that).
The only issue is how low the mortality rate of monkey pox is.
rookie numbers
Don't worry the bug chasers will facilitate its transition into a more deadly form.
sadly thats not how viruses work, they tend to get more infectious but less harmful over time
Isn’t that what happens when there are selective pressures working against transmission? The gays are injecting it directly into each other’s assholes. Does viral spread get any more efficient than that?
Yes and when Pfizers newest cocktail gets into them, said selection pressure will appear.
GODDAMN IT!
They're using a body part made for excrement to exit. Yes the penis and vagina also expel waste but they're also the way we procreate so natural pleasure is found for both parties when engaged in heterosexual sex.
The sensation gay men feel in their ass is the stimulated feeling you get when shitting. That feeling exists to both encourage mammals to shit and make an unpleasant task at least slightly pleasurable.
So what they're feeling is the sensation of a hard shit going in and out of their colon, stimulating the part that encourages shitting.
Of course , human shit is a gigantic vector of disease so either pitcher or catcher, you're both putting yourselves at insane risk, especially with the tissue tears on both sides anal sex leads to.
Homosexual male sex is one of the most unclean practices you could imagine. No wonder since the 80s-90s they're usually Patient 0 for most horrifying diseases.
So want a healthier life? Don't have homosexual relations with men.
:'The More You Know::
It's an actual public health issue, unlike the mild to moderate cold the Kung Flu turned out to be. If we went full China on this plague like we did with the last one it would already be gone. It's funny how civil liberties are all the sudden important again when it's not just little people being inconvenienced, isn't it?
They aren't having sex, whatever it is these fags are doing isn't sex
By the poster's own admission, he had more sexual partners in a single day than most people have had in their entire life.
Men with low sex drive have no problem being married to women. Dead bedrooms is also common in hetero relationships. As is cheating FWIW. Not equivocating straights and homos btw.
You know, I'm not enthusiastic about sodomy laws, because it could be used as an excuse to discriminate against normal homosexual men just living their lives like normal human beings - but at least they kept this sort of thing in the closet. Or possibly made it impossible.
They closed schools for 2 years, locked you up in your home, but asking a homosexual not to drink the piss of 30 random strangers every week, is too much. I mean, I'd be shocked if I did not already know how awful the regime is.
"Going to church during the weekend is nasty and yucky and lets unpack that, sweaty.
Piss drinking gay orgies? Lovely people to meet, UWU."
I swear to god.
Sodomy laws work like weed laws. Weed is a regulated substance but people smoke regardless and they have been for ages, and as long as they don't flaunt it too much, noone cares. (No, gorillions of negroes aren't in prison for decades "for a little plant", it's always "a little plant oh and also a murder" because weed is like ghetto rat catnip and they always have some on them when they get busted.)
The real purpose of these laws is to make something relatively harmless "illegal" and therefore taboo, so that rebelious teenagers focus on that. Either they just smoke and move on, or they get caught, get a stern talking to at the police station, and it scares them straight. Most of the time anyway, obviously there are some who will just start using even if it's illegal and it'll fry their brains.
But when you legalize weed and remove the taboo, those same rebellious teenagers won't stop being rebellious, they'll just replace weed with something way more dangerous, like meth.
Same thing applies to sodomy. Noone gives a shit if two degenerates want to stick it up each others' poopers, but when it was taboo, a larger number than today stopped there. Now it's not taboo at all, it's even promoted, just like weed, and instead of just fucking in private they do it in the streets, and instead of fucking one dude they fuck dozens at a time.
So yeah, bring back sodomy laws.
Weed laws are basically the "how to find a to find a gun" law. If a guy is blatantly smoking it in his car while driving it gave cops reason to pull him over and usually the dude was breaking a more serious law at the same time or had open warrants for serious crimes.
The problem with this idea is that those "rebellious teens" are now in contact with a guy willing to commit major crimes just to sell it to them.
Which isn't a problem in those uber white areas where its just a dreadlocked stoner running the operation from his little farm, but it is in places with diverse populations wherein the same potdealer also runs numerous other illegal operations. The "gateway drug" idea wasn't out of some pure slippery slope, but because the same black gangbanger will sell you pot, pot mixed with shit, and crack all on the same table in his living room. Which takes away taboos from harder drugs because you end up having to trust this guy who will absolutely try to sell you stuff. And you can't just "nah I'm good" him for long. Both the threat of physical violence and being cut off are always on the table.
I'm not pro-legalization, but the idea of trying to false bait them into "just pot" only works in a Leave it to Beaver type America. Not one with ghetto trash actively dragging those same teens into the pit.
Right, that's fair. I grew up in a homogenously white society so the pot dealers were just harmless stoners - it's probably different in, as you say, diverse ones.
Is this actually true? That would suggest that weed use would decline where it is regulated. And I think the meth problem came up long before weed was legalized.
Bear in mind that I in no way favor the legalization of weed.
I think the problem is not as much what 'people' do, and what the left starts pushing. As long as the left has a legitimate cause to push, it'll do that. When it's fresh out of legitimate causes, it starts pushing something illegitimate to downright evil. It is always pushing the envelope.
So imagining for a moment that complete equality between homosexuals and normal people is desirable: the legitimate cause would be same-sex marriage. But when that happened, it became Drag Queen story hour, castrating your kids, and all sorts of other nonsense.
Same for blacks. It's unquestionably correct to not have people be disadvantaged based on their color and race. But when that happened, they started advocating for riots, special preferences, busing, and God knows what.
It seems that even in cases where we think the left is correct, we should stop just short of 'remedying' the situation completely, to make the leftists stuck on the thing that is actually just - rather than moving on to the truly heinous stuff.
Well, the point is really the taboo. It hasn't been taboo in western mainstream for decades.
Yeah, that's why this shit needs to be nipped in the bud. Every time they were given a mile they took the entire planet, so it's time to go back.
That suggests that it being a crime wasn't doing much.
Since there is no logic nor limiting principle, they'll eventually just spin out of control with their quest for novelty, destroying themselves and possibly their country in the process.
Pot is not harmless especially to teenagers. Smoking is bad for your lungs weed is bad for under developed brains. It's also bad for motivation
Yes, but most of them will rebel a few times, realize it's just weed, and move on, so the harm is minimal. You can do that with weed, you can't do that with heroin. Or titty skittles.
I grew up in a place and time where it was more or less still taboo and this is exactly how it worked. Me and my friends got stoned a couple of times in high school, and now a decade and a half later we're all fairly normal, upstanding people, most with their own families and nearly all with stable careers.
Bear in mind that the original gay rights movement openly included pedo shit. See Harry Hay. They only dropped that stuff later on. As I've said before, I think AIDS forced them to drop the pedo shit because they needed help from the normies to deal with it.
Actually, I believe they were pushing pedophilia long after AIDS. In the 1990s, there was a homosexual organization called ILGA, which was a federation of different organizations, and they included... pro-pedophilia organizations.
Only dropped it when it became a PR nightmare.
I'm sure they pushed it still. They push it now, but they used to not care as much about PR nightmares. I'm just speculating that AIDS forced them to care more, though. It could have also just been impatience with their lack of achievements.
According to Nerdrotic he saw nambla at a LA priest parade still in the early 2000s
It's still subjective enforcement. You're always gonna have a lunatic that tries to wield that as cudgel against anyone they don't like.
Thats literally every law that exists. Or are you a retarded anarchist who thinks "laws are oppressive man, if there weren't any laws there wouldn't be any criminals!"
While sharing a border with Canada, where the coke is legal, and the trans are in charge.
Trans-legal, Trans-sexual, Trans-judicial, Trans-Canadian, Trans-responsible.
Probably like 95% of sodomy laws were used to prosecute gay men who were doing bad shit like fucking in public restrooms, "rest stops" or other public "cruising" locations. Gay men were a plague with this shit, and it was still happening as of 10-15 years ago afaik based on what a prosecutor told me. Idk if it happens now but I don't see why it would have stopped. It's just harder to prosecute now.
Even in the case that got the laws all overturned, which was based on private sex, the only consequence was a fine:
There are some public locations where faggotry is a serious nuisance that drives away families. Parents don't want to take their kids to a beach or a park if the kid is going to get exposed to seeing buttfucking. So what happens is faggots effectively take over these locations and turn them into "cruising" spots, and feel very proud of themselves for having taken the spot over. We need cops and laws to drive them out and force them to keep their shit behind closed doors where it belongs.
Yeah I looked it up, 2016 article: https://archive.ph/LBR60
The focus on children is a mistake. Why should ANYONE have to see people having sex in public? I’m not a child, but that doesn’t magically make it okay for two dudes to buttfuck each other outside my local library. You can get fired for giving a female coworker a confused compliment. You can be arrested for offensive tweets in some western countries. But randomly encountering a literal gay piss orgy is just part and parcel?
Yeah I often point that out myself. I do not care to see you having sex. Just like I'll tell people irl life that I do not care to hear explicit details of their sex lives
Other states had more severe punishments, like Georgia's law which was correctly upheld in Bowers vs. Hardwick:
But the consequence is also a criminal record, possible loss of jobs, housing, etc.
Preferably keep not just the sexual activity, but also the talk, promotion and recrutiing of it.
I edited with an article explaining that gay takeovers of public places for sexual purposes is still going on. Police are just not enforcing the law anymore because of gay activism fighting for their "right" to fuck each other in public.
You can view homosexuality as abnormal, while also acknowledging that there are homosexuals who, in all other respects, are normal and live respectable lives.
Huh, didn't know you were a crazy person.
What is there to refute about idiotic claims presented with no evidence? I'd point you to David Starkey, Glenn Greenwald and Dave Rubin who are none of those things that you claimed are applicable to every homosexual.
If you think any of the aforementioned news personalities have lived ‘normal’ sex lives up til now, I’d like to introduce you to my Thai houseboy Ping. Honest, I just let him clean up the place and make a few bucks. Sure is a hard worker for a fifteen year old! Did you check out his ass?
You want to disagree on a specific point, or just generally?
Basically all of it (I guess you could quibble on the 'normal' thing, but I had already addressed that), but he didn't seem like the kind who can engage in meaningful conversation.
It just further weakens your position. He may be pedantic and inflammatory , but you know inside he is correct on a fundamental level. Thats why you cant respond. Same reason why Alex Jones is ‘always right’.
Gays are a fraction of the population, and the "normal respectable" ones are likely a fraction of that. How are they supposed to just magically find each other? Every "gay meet" event is crawling with the worst types, as is every dating vector.
By sheer math, they will always be exposed constantly to the degenerate side and most will have to compromise on it simply to not be alone. Heck that's such a common thing Key and Peele were mocking it a decade ago.
The thing about sodomy laws is that they’ll still be able to have all the gay sex they want, but it will truly be only “in the privacy of our bedroom” like they claimed it was in the first place.
It's considered evil to want to shield your children from this culture and lifestyle.
Thats what a culturist would say. What did society ever do to you?
Hilariously, the piss he drank was probably more sterile than everything else.
Hello my fellow autist. Now explain that ‘ignorant’ and ‘retarded’ are not insults.
Damn son.
Yeah piss drinking is safe compared to what I presume are his other activities.
You know, when I was in college I, like no doubt many other red-blooded males here on this board, had a bit of a risqué phase where I thought myself a real Casanova. I would use tinder and bumble and go on dates with tons of different women. In my 31 years of life, I dated probably more than 30+ women before I met my wife in 2017.
I had sex with literally one person before my wife, and it was a girlfriend I had been dating for over a year at that point. This queer has had more sexual partners in a weekend THAN I HAVE HAD CAUSAL, SINGLE DATES WITH WOMEN.
Really, let that sink in. The average straight guy probably has a body count in the mid single digits, and we get shit on societally for being sex obsessed monsters. Why is this not the case for gay men?
Because their targets are other men who are equally sex-obsessed.
Very true, AoV.
Don’t tell Imp, he’d somehow find a way to blame women on this.
Remember that dipshit you banned me from reddit over. He's their target
Lol yeah I've had plenty of attention from women some very risqué. Dick has stayed in my pants with one exception. Meanwhile this dude is getting pissed on and jamming his dick in 30 assholes in a weekend
One conclusion I recently came to is that it would be beneficial for a society to be opposed to homosexual sex and anal sex in general. A traditional taboo against homosexuality likely served beneficial purposes.
AIDS almost never spreads to men through vaginal sex. This means that the entirety of the sexual spread outside of the homosexual male population was caused by bisexual men who fucked around in the gay pool and brought it back to the hetero pop. Yes, there was spread through needles as well, but this would be irrelevant for societies that didn't have drugs (traditional taboos).
Combine this with the extreme amount of different sexual partners many homosexual men will have, and you have an explosion of STDs which spread to the full population thanks to bisexual men. Some STDs may be deadly or cause infertility. Thus, there's an evolutionary incentive for a society to be opposed to male homosexuality, at least beyond a monogamous relationship (rare for the gays).
A possible corollary is that societies shouldn't have nearly as strong a taboo against female homosexuality as male homosexuality, as this disease spreading aspect doesn't exist there, although women not breeding is obviously bad for a society so such a taboo might still exist.
You reverse engineered traditional attitudes towards homosexuality, which indeed frowned on male homosexuality but less so on female homosexuality.
Because tradcucks are scared of criticizing women.
From the guy who said that marriage came into existence with Christianity.
Is that why he hated Christians so much lol
Or maybe, and this might be too simple for you to understand. Men see two women fuck and find it hot, so they didn't hate it as much.
Though it is amusing to think "all of human history in every corner of the world are just tradcucks."
This may be the reason today, but I am pretty sure it was not the reason in, say, the Middle Ages.
I think an instinctual reaction of "intriguing to hot" compared to "disgust to revulsion" has always been the case.
Plural women has always been the desire for the male of a species, in order to better spread his seed. Two women together presents the possibility of joining, which even in caveman days was a benefit.
Actual lesbians don't look like they do on porn sites.
Doesn't matter. The slightest tingle of the boner is enough to soften one on it, compared to the immediate revulsion when one sees dudes together.
if you were to watch actual lesbians attempt to do it you would get an innie
think hairy armpits and legs and lots of fupa adjustment
I've seen full girl only lesbians. Most weren't attractive but also far less disgusting than most "oh I totally love girls! (except I date almost all guys) bisexual girls.
Regardless, point is that the idea of girl on girl is hot. While the idea of two guys even kissing makes most dudes get nauseous. Reality doesn't need to equal up for that to work.
Thanks for that mental image.
The correct balance is what we had before the "sexual revolution".
Criminalize sodomy, homosexuality treated as the mental illness it is, severe social stigma against fornication, frowning on any public discourse around sex. Obscenity charged against any publication that breaks these norms.
Chastity is praised publicly and expressions of lust are shamed.
Complete prohibition of any use of public funding or other resources for 'research' into sexual 'psychology' or 'attitudes' (really all 'social science' needs to be treated like the subversive quackery it is).
Thats the thing. People interpret the reasons why some laws exist about as well as they interpret scripture, or the greeks. Of course no one expects sodomy laws to eliminate homosexuality or depravity. They exist to establish a precedent set by the cultural standards of the community.
Every faggot on earth knows that what they do is against nature. Thats why they invest so much in ‘pride’ and ‘discrimination’ efforts. They couldn’t function for long with the cognitive dissonance without offing or exiling themselves if they can’t point to some external justification for their abject depravity.
Two men shoving their cocks in each others assholes and mouths. Look at it for what it is. These are boys that upon learning the nature of men and the world knew that they couldn’t compete — but rather than foregoing a mate that they couldn’t win or fulfill and adjusting to reality, instead chose utter depravity as the winning solution to their neuroticisms.
I’ve lost all sympathy at this point. Every homosexual I’ve ever known, and there’s been an over representation in my life compared to many, has never been anything close to normal on so many levels.
Sure, they may caricaturize aspects of ‘Trad’ life but its always with a smirk of disdain — example: Brunch. Watch how fags have brunch.
They want to make a freakshow of everything decent and good. Thats why these laws have existed and continue to in some places. You don’t have the right to piss all over the societal norms that you disagree with. Most people are tolerant and will look the other way under those circumstances if you’re at least discreet about your perversion. But no, once they’re forced to accept that what they do is in fact harmful to themselves and the world that they live in, they cant accept responsibility, and adjust their behavior. Just attack society instead.
I used to be a lolbert down for the whole "married gays using m79s to defend their pot farm" thing.
World War T made me realize you can't just "live and let live" if the other side is constantly pushing. The only way to keep from losing ground is to constantly push back.
And since I'm turbohitler anyway for not believing a man can turn into a woman by wishing I've been freed to entertain all of those naughty outside-overton thoughts about race and sex and everything else.
I bought that sticker too, how could you not? I was all for pot too until it became legal and they ruined it. But adopt the philosophy? Sounds great and all, except fags are fags and we need MORE governance not less. The moral variety. There is a deep deep decay that has to be fixed.
Tell me. Now you've piqued our curiosity.
"Extramarital relations" doesn't exactly cut it for a man having sex with nearly 100 men in a two week period.
I read the entire thread last night, and was blown away how the author (ahem) thought nothing about being covered in other's piss & sh*t for fun.
There is a come-to-Jesus moment coming for many in the near future.
Coach
Exibit 3827 as to why I never want to have anything to do with "The Community".
Over a dozen partner in a day. "Lol stop telling gays to abstain if they don't want atrocious STDS, we will have orgies no matter what".
Ewww.
This degenerate deserves every last STD he gets, as does everyone, come to think of it, but this is really twisted. I suspect it doesn't raise eyebrows among the gay orgy set, though. Another day, another 50 or so homosexual encounters.
Fuck this degenerate faggot. We completely destroyed the economy in response to the Kung Flu hoax but asking him not to take it in the shitter and drink others' piss for the few weeks that he's contagious is too much to ask? This fag disease would have been gone within a month if we had subjected the fags to the same crap the rest of the population was forced to go through.
No, just degenerate homosexuality.
but you repeat yourself
100% chance this guy also advocates for free healthcare.
Alternately: treat abominations as anathema, and permit them to live and die as they please; isolated from the healthy associations they (evidently, apparently, testimonially) despise. Make good choices; educational grooming aside.
Want to reduce the human population? The easiest way would be to simply swap out AIDS drugs for fake substitutes, and wait for them to orgy themselves into a fatal dose of the sniffles.
If only they would be allowed to pay the price of their 'freedom', without it coming from the givernment robbery of us working hos.
This was obviously a fucking troll. One which a lot of stupid people on here and on Twitter have bought. Gay orgies are extremely fucking rare, no they simply fuck multiple people over a short period of time. All it takes is a busy weekend for a slut to spread it to other sluts who then spread it to people who maybe hook up once or twice a month and boom pandemic.
Don’t tell me not to stick a fork in the outlet. Don’t tell me not to play with venomous snakes. Don’t tell me tigers don’t make good house cats….. same kind of thought process.
KIA so based now lol
It's KiA2, and the Win to boot. It was always more "based".
The original KiA had a homosexual marriage celebration thread, posted by a guy who later turned traitor.
Story time?
More of a sad tale really.
There was this guy on KiA named theone889, a young Indian living in the UK, who was on the left but opposed wokism. When another guy turned traitor (Wolphoenix), I had messaged him to remove him as a moderator from r-gawker, ass theone889 was the only one who outranked him. He did, and remarked that social justice is a disease.
Fast forward 4 years or so. Some guy shows up on KiA2, claiming to be an old Gamergater who now "realizes" that we are bad and whatever. He told me who he was and was able to answer some questions that I knew only he would know. I pointed out to him: you yourself said that it was a disease, and you yourself prove it. Then I had to perrmaban him because he posted in support of violence against the police.
Later on he posted a thread accusing KiA2 of racism while trying to cast doubts on my ethnicity, despite being NYS himself.
One wonders what gets into these people. I guess human beings are just very suggestible.
Noah... Summon the planet wide reset asteroid.
What's going on with the dudes left arm?
looks up from waving a censer over his bolter
So, this heretic likes purging, eh?
Everyone has to be chained to a woman because gay porn people get diseases?
In your case, literally chained.
Like that one really old episode of the Simpsons where Homer was tethered to Bart?
I'd just cut my hand off.
Judge: Impossible1, for your incel terrorism, I sentence you to ...
A SHOPPING TRIP TO THE MALL WITH MY WIFE
Impy: swallows arsenic
I am reminded of the gom jabbar.
What's that?
Stupid comments like that are why a lot of people don't like the Right. My sex life is not your business. Nobody is ever going back to that puritanical bullshit where blowjobs and porn used to be illegal.
The woke so called "progress" did not depend on the consent of the people.
Why should a traditionalist counter-revolution?
Your sex life is everyone's business. Sex leads to offspring and diseases. Its abuse is not victimless. That is why every state, except for the failing modern states that are falling down like WTC-2, have regulated people's sexuality.
And no, I would not make banning extra-marital relations the first step (or perhaps even the last). Recognition of the social harms is the first step though.
Based, and tradpilled
Try and chain us to them, I fucking dare you.
I'll be the best man at your marriage. This will happen.
It will not.
First, I'll never reveal my true identity here because I'm not retarded.
Second, if I wanted to be slowly pushed towards dying by uncaring women, I'd get vaccinated.
The funniest thing is that you actually took the first part of that comment seriously.
However, that you will marry is written in the stars. It will happen.
Imp, don’t worry we won’t for you.
Also what’s this “us” business? You have a turd in your pocket?
I'm pretty sure I could fold you in half
Woke victories absolutely did come about through consent. Idiots voted for woke bullshit. While only a tiny fraction of society is woke activists, there is a huge percentage that went along with their shit and kept voting for Democrats knowing that the Democrats were pushing the woke agenda. A big part of why wokes kept winning was because the bulk of society hates social conservatives like you. That is why the new emergent Right in the United States is more libertarian-minded on sex issues.
Your logic here is identical to the authoritarians who wanted to force everyone to mask and vaxx, but even more tenuous. Why is THEIR authoritarianism bad, but YOUR authoritarianism good? The problem with authoritarians is that they never agree, and they never stop fighting until one side murders all its rivals, which is how communism happens. IMO authoritarians should form their own authoritarian communities based on consent where people who agree with those values can go live that way by choice, and leave if they change their minds.
While sex leads to offspring and diseases, that doesn't give anyone the right to regulate or control purely private sex. As far as I know, no society in human history has ever had a forced breeding program, so it is a universally recognized human right to decide for yourself whether to have children. This was even true with commies. So you can't use that as an excuse. And as for diseases, unlike with COVID, where I can infect you by mere proximity, you can't catch an STD from me unless you consent to unprotected sex with me, at which point you're fully consenting to the risk. If you don't want that risk, then don't have unprotected sex. Simple as. I was opposed to mask/vaxx mandates, and I thought you were as well.
Every argument the puritans have ever made has always been proven wrong. The simple and inescapable truth is that the sexual repressors do not base their policy preferences on logic or reason, but rather on an emotional sense that a "moral" society "ought" to ban people from having a good time, probably because the puritan is a jealous loser who can't compete in the sexual marketplace and doesn't get to enjoy its benefits. It's all about power, control, social conditioning, and repression to force people to live "your" lifestyle instead of the life they want to live.
Prohibition actually had very strong arguments in its favor. Alcohol indisputably does enormous harm and directly/indirectly kills a huge number of people every year. A sober society would clearly be "better" in a lot of metrics. Problem is, people simply liked alcohol too much to give it up, to the point where banning it became unsustainable. So if that act of authoritarianism failed, despite having compelling benefits and alcohol being admittedly a vice at the time, imagine how much more of a waste of time it would be trying to ban things like porn or premarital sex. This is done in communist countries sometimes, and it just results in a mess of a society with rampant prostitution. Just look at China and Vietnam.
The lion's share of sexual repression in the last 30 years or so (after the power of the religious right was essentially broken) have come from feminists. Feminists hate the fact that men get easy access to sexual satisfaction in the form of things like porn and prostitution. Feminists want vagina access to be as restricted as possible in order to maximize the leverage women have over men.
They by no means 'knew' that. That is why the woke agenda is always advanced clandestinely. Furthermore, it continues on advancing even when Republicans are nominally in charge.
What has existed for all of human history is presumably good, what was thought up 5 minutes ago and forced on the entire population is not.
So called 'authoritarians' have agreed for all of human history, that you cannot run a society with no sexual morals. It's only five minutes ago that some people disagreed, and you can see the results: total societal collapse.
I know of not one Roman who 'chose' not to have kids. And when social mores changed in such a way to make children less likely Augustus introduced the lex Iulia.
There are no human rights. It's unfortunate, but they do not exist. You have no right to anything, it's just where governments have not yet deemed it expedient to interfere. It's like a habitual bank robber saying that Bank X has a right to its monkey, or the farmer who tells the turkey that it has a right to live.
I don't care about you having a 'good time'. I do care about the negative social consequences that result from the sexual libertinism that you advocate. It's not an individual matter. For as long as no one else behaves properly, there is little cost to you not doing either.
Noted that you did not mention the USSR, where it was the Yeltsin libertinism that resulted in rampant prostitution. Also, I thought you said that prostitution was perfectly fine? So why are you now citing it as an example for why banning porn is bad?
For all of human history, premarital sex was banned. 'Porn' is a bit more complicated. Like I said, I don't think it's practical to go around banning things immediately, or to even not engage in such things, but to simply recognize the negative effects when they are widely practiced and socially acceptable. That is all.
They hated social conservatives because they told the truth.
Now, has society improved or worsened with the power of the religious right broken?
And the vast majority of feminists are fanatically pro-porn and pro-prostitution.
And if we look at the example of the black community, where women have zero leverage over men and are pumped and dumped on the regular, I'd say that it's a pretty bad thing to destroy the leverage that women have. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free, as they said?
The woke did use lies to advance their agenda, just like social conservatives do the same thing, such as by claiming all prostitutes are human trafficking victims instead of just whores who want money, or saying that internet porn will cause sex crimes (when sex crimes actually fell). I could go on, but authoritarians constantly lie to push their agendas.
Premarital sex, whores, and porn have existed for all of human history. That doesn't stop puritans from trying to ban them. You can't really invoke sexual traditionalism when marrying 12 year olds was totally fine until the 1800s. While Christianity did reduce a lot of the default sexual degeneracy that dominated throughout human history, modern American society is still pretty puritanical in a lot of ways, with a special privileged carveout being made for the LGBTs.
Sexual morality largely did not exist, or the bar was so low that it might as well not have existed, all throughout classical times, ancient greece, rome, and thousands of years prior. The major shift came with the rise of Christianity in Europe. Muhammad married a 6 year old and fucked her when she was 9. Muslims could have 4 wives, and had stuff like sex slaves. Even the Catholic Spaniards in the New World routinely raped and sexually enslaved extremely young girls during the time of Columbus. Mormons practiced polygamy officially until pressured out of it. It's not like there was this former golden age of sexual morality in the past. I can't think of any society that would satisfy your standards for sexual morality other than the Puritan colonists, who were some crazy witch-burning motherfuckers. To a lesser extent the United States had a period of peak sexual authoritarianism in the earlier part of the 1900s. All this did was cause a massive backlash by the 1960s, which massively fueled the Left and RESULTED IN the wokeness you see today. It was the very force of the pendulum of repression before the 60s that gave the Left its sexual momentum in the last 50 years, resulting in that pendulum swinging into depravity now. Instead of perpetuating this cycle of oppression alternative between puritans and then depravity, society should break the cycle and shut down both sides by adopting a libertarian, freedom-based anti-authoritarian attitude towards sex.
I'm sure plenty of people in Roman times chose to not have kids and used the pull-out method to prevent pregnancy. Just because you can't name them doesn't mean they didn't exist. Obviously the social dynamics of those times were very different from now, such that there was far more of an incentive to have kids back then vs now. The reason fertility drops so much in modern times is that people see having kids as an expensive drag on their lives. Until modern times something like over 90% of people were farmers, so kids were free labor.
"Human rights" are simply the norms of rights that all or nearly all people agree on. They exist because we collectively will them into existence. They are enforced through consensus. Good luck trying to impose laws that are antithetical to the human condition. Communists have partially managed it, but only through mass murder and prolonged terror. Even then, they fell far short of their goals.
I don't advocate sexual libertinism. I just don't think the government should be in the business of enforcing pure "morality" through the barrel of a gun.
I'm sure prostitutes existed in the USSR, if anything they just came out more into the open in the 90s. This whole idea that the USSR used to be a paragon of moral purity is a total crock of shit used as propaganda. It simply isn't true. My point re: prostitution is that your methods and goals are doomed to failure. Humans get horny and want to fuck. You can't just tell them "no" and expect them to listen. Trying to enforce puritanical sexual mores that are utterly incompatible with the vast majority of personalities and physiologies is just going to get you subversion and corruption. Prohibition was only allowed to exist as long as it was ineffective. As soon as it started to actually work and alcohol consumption started to drop, which most people don't even know about, people were so pissed off that they rebelled and overturned it.
Premarital sex was the norm for all of human history until very recently thanks to the rise of puritanical Christianity in the 1800s specifically. This was mostly driven by the Industrial Revolution and the rise in education of women. Parents suddenly wanted their daughters to avoid pregnancy in order to finish school. This led to the lie/contrivance of claiming that premarital sex is a sin, when there is absolutely no verse anywhere in the Bible that says premarital sex is a sin. It's a pure invention, a pure fabrication, designed to keep young women's legs closed so they stay in school.
No, the vast majority of feminists are very much against things like porn, prostitution, and even things like breast implants. I would know better than you since I grew up in Los Angeles and have had a lot more exposure to feminists than you have. The voices you see very recently advocating for "sex workers" are a small minority that only exist in extremely deep blue safe spaces dominated by LGBTs. Their advocacy mostly falls on deaf ears because mainstream feminism rejects it.
The black community is a perfect example of how socialism can destroy cultural values. The black community used to be a lot better before the 1960s. Then libtards opened up a massive welfare expansion to single mothers while at the same time pushing hard that blacks ought to reject "white" social norms because a lot of these libtards were cultural marxists who deeply wanted to overthrow white culture. So the result was that single mothers were subsidized and incentivized to the point where their numbers grew, and the natural protectant against this was torn away as black cultural values were torn down by marxists and their trained black mouthpieces. This all only could have happened thanks to socialist welfare expansion and "big government" policies which caused a feedback loop of government dependency, which is exactly what the marxists wanted. If you simply took away that socialism, the whole cycle is broken because single black mothers don't get rewarded for their bad choices, and so get looked down upon instead of emulated.
Government policy should encourage family values. Government policy should dis-incentivize, and never subsidize, behaviors which are deleterious to the values which strengthen a society. I think we agree on all that. The difference is that I do NOT agree on using heavy handed big government socialism like criminal laws to try to coerce society into obedience. Instead, I think we let free speech and free markets get as far as they can, and use the government in a limited way to ensure that the incentive structure favors making good decisions. For example, I would 100% support the government discriminating against single mothers and children born out of wedlock in terms of provisioning welfare. I would uphold the institution of marriage and LGBTs would get chinese-brand civil unions. Policy in this area is difficult, but you can get the result you want with intelligence and a light touch, instead of stupid, crude socialism that has been generally historically proven to fail. Freedom + a favorable incentive structure is the best way to guide and channel society in a positive direction.
No, I mean that woke has zero democratic legitimacy, and in fact, it proves that Western countries are not democracies. No one wanted this. But what's good for the goose...
There's more of it now, because 'Puritans' stopped resisting it.
Not sure wheree you're getting 12, but yes, people married younger because of low life expectancy - even for people who had reached their teenager years.
Wut? What would happen if a Greek or Roman man found his wife with a stranger? That would be the end of that stranger.
Victorian Enngland, where Charles Dickens had to secretly separate from his wife. And frankly, it worked rather well. That is my only criterion: whether it works well. It is a matter of indifference to me whether people have premarital sex, or if they divorce. But it's clear that it does not work well, and that a return to traditional norms is called for.
There would be no point in marrying at all, if you did not want kids. And "I'm sure" is not exactly the best argument. It would be rather curious and remarked on by people - which is exactly my point.
Of course, as you say, the poor could use them for farmhands, and the wealthy needed kids for alliances and to pass on property.
They're not enforced though. Whenever they are inconvenieint, the ruling class defines them out of existence. You really think people like Biden or Trudeau (or Romney) think that you have rights? Don't be silly. It's about what they can do, and what they can't do.
That's fine, yours is the more popular position at the moment. But this is what the state has done for literally all of history.
There you go again with your "I'm sure". Yeah sure, I bet there was that one woman in Nizhni Novgorod. But was it common? No. When did it become common? With Western influences. Same for drug use. Just how much drug use was there in the USSR? Or homosexuality? Nixon himself remarked on that fact...
Quite an absurd suggestion, as Deuteronomy prescribes stoning for women who are not virgins at marriage, but let us assume that you are correct. Does it have social utility to say that it is a sin, or does it not? Suppose that I accept that people having sex before marriage is good because they like it. How does that stack up against the myriad of social problems created in that manner?
Evidently, you are not familiar with the new breed of feminist, which regards transgenders and 'sex workers' as two of the most holiest classes known to man.
And not sure why you think you have more exposure to feminists because you lived in LA. You do know Western Europe is more 'progressive' on sexual matters than LA, right?
Shocker, you see a social problem, and you blame it on 'libtards' and 'Democrats'.
How good do you think single mothers have it? You think they drive Cadillacs? I'm sure this is part of the problem, but not nearly the extent to which you want to conveniently blame it all on the 'libtards'. Part of the problem is that because so many black men are in prison (and because they have better options than black women, who are generally not regarded as the most attractive of women), women cannot enforce things like commitment, marriage and child support in relationshiips. Result is that they are pumped and dumped.
I guess all of history was just 'socialism'.
I actually completely agree. Society has to be made ready for Victorianism first. It may never work. Previous attempts to put genies back into bottles never did. But it's without question superior than what we have now.
Victorianism was enforced bottom-up through social shaming, instead of top-down through socialism. Throughout history governments were usually very weak and did not interfere much in day to day society. Governments really only cared about collecting taxes, keeping some minimal law and order, and being able to raise money/troops for whatever project/war the current king/emperor was working on.
Ultimately things like this are controlled through cultural norms, not the law. When the two conflict, the social forces are only held back temporarily, and then you get the Stonewall Riots and 50 years of LGBTs trying to rise up to dominate society and the culture because not enough people are willing to stop them (which is thankfully changing now).
That is why it is critical, if you want to win, that you CONVINCE the majority of society to follow your values and SELL them on it. Just like with a military occupation and insurgency, it comes down to winning hearts and minds. [I maintain the US lost in Afghanistan because in 20 years, we could not convince muslim men to suddenly adopt liberal western values, which was never going to happen. Had we just been like "yeah sharia law is fine, we don't care about women's rights" the war would have been over in a couple years and Afghanistan would have stabilized.]
If the LGBTs had stopped short of their current lunacy, they would have kept a lot of cultural power pretty much forever. Since they pushed too far and have been creating a backlash against them, they are going to end up with a society where the unthinkable happens: people are actually "allowed" to be anti-LGBT to a considerable degree. The same will eventually be true with blacks. Every business BLM burns brings society one step closer to calling them niggers again. Now, I doubt we will see things go that far, but you get the point:
Once your side is winning, the smart move is to bunker down once you get most of your goals met without pushing too far, so that you keep the culture just a little bit skewed in your favor, but not enough to fuel a backlash. Any movement that goals all gas no brakes is inevitably going to create a backlash and eventual equilibrium against it. I'd like to see that stop with the coming Red Wave. If the Right can be responsible with its power, it will actually get to keep power and we can keep the wokes away for that much longer.
Correct. But these norms were enforced by government, and no one questioned the right of the state to interfere in people's sex lives.
But the law did not conflict with cultural norms at the time. Most people were still conservative on these matters through the 1960s and 70s. In this case, culture was downstream from politics, and technology (birth control).
The woke do not bother to do that. They just use power to impose everything on society. The problem is that we don't have power, but that is the only problem.
I doubt it. What would happen is that they would be assimilated into mainstream society, and they would lose their distinctiveness - which is what permits them 'cultural power'. Same for the 'civil rights' establishment. I'm sure they'd be more popular if they were not pushing crazy things, but they would not be as powerful as they are now.
That's what I thought, that there would be a ferocious backlash, not against blacks but against this id grievance politics. Turns out, there wasn't, because their advocates are in power.
When adherents of the powerful riot, they get what they want. When opponents of the powerful riot, they get show trials and go to isolation for a year over nothing.
Clausewitz fan?
I do agree. The law should impose some basic norms, but then social norms should be used to move things ever closer in a desirable direction. After a while, the law can catch up.
The 'Right' is more than responsible with its power, it does absolutely nothing with power. Probably because it does not actually disagree with the things that it pretends to oppose in order to get into office.
I find it hilarious that you are worried about rightist overreach, when decades of election victories have achieved precisely nothing.
Young women absolutely knew that. It's just that they vote on autopilot for whoever promises to harm men more.
Marriage hasn't existed for all of human history, it's a religious thing that's existed for about as long as Christianity.
You can run a society without forcing marriage, but the state doesn't want the burden of millions of whiny genocide fantasists, so into the meat grinder you go. Of course, ruining lives for them is a preferable choice to...gasp making them act like human beings instead of being ruled by their biological impulses.
Can you imagine if every decision based on risk management couldn't be made, because "it's better for society"? The likes of JPM buying massive portfolios of Bitcoin because taking dumb risks is the "right thing to do"?
What happened after the bachelor tax? The young men of Rome let the empire fall for its treachery towards them and taking women's side.
Only when they control every part of the industry to move it in lockstep with their dehumanization campaign. When they don't control something, lawsuits, market manipulation and false rape claims abound.
No it isn't. It's a good thing. What it shows is that their leverage on society needs to be destroyed, they need to be allowed to fall on their lack of merit.
LOL
LOL x 2.
You cannot not be a parody. This is impossible.
I've long given up on expecting you to get anything right about the future. But can you at least get the past right?
You can't expect people to fight for you who you've openly stated your hatred towards. Every nation that instituted bachelor taxes has fallen in the following years. Romania's Communist implementation lasted three years before being overthrown.
You want an insurrection, tell young men they have to marry the people campaigning for them to be exterminated or pay a ridiculously high tax. You'll get one. It'll make the BLM summer of love look like actual peaceful protest.
I'm surprised Ukrainian men haven't turned on their feminist masters who are eagerly saying they'll fight to the last man because it makes them all excited seeing us die.
And it was the last communist satellite state to fall. Looks like it worked well to prolong the life of the regime. Other states should follow suit.
ROFL. Is it just me, or are you crazier than usual?
You will marry.
Libertarianism is a dead end fantasy delusion. It is incompatible with our Darwinian reality.
Damn son. I'm impressed by the amount of wrong you managed to cram into a single comment.
You’re right. Until you get your filth all over the place and become a social health risk. After that? Society should have the right to take you down like a dog with rabies.
Also, fuck your porn.
So if women became the majority of STD carriers, you would have them put down?
Because I'm pretty sure that's already happened.
Stop playing games to defend degeneracy and denigrate women.
It's easy to denigrate women though. All the slippery slope talk is denigrating women, because the reality is, once gay marriage happened, all of their organizations went under women's control, in near unison, and rebranded to LGBT.
That's what happens when you gain a lot of power and don't keep them out.
I'm not playing games, I asked a simple question.
go be gay somewhere else
You do realize what is going on now is related to them no longer being illegal. If blowjobs and porn are illegal do you think drag queen story hour has a chance? Do you think buttsex parades and buttsex crosswalks would be in every city?
We HAVE to go back. Its either that or we collapse or Islam takes over because they don't put up with that bullshit.
slippery slope fallacy. legal blow jobs did not cause drag queen story hour.
sorry, I didn't realize you were retarded
the guy who thinks we need to criminalize a wife sucking her husband's dick to stop drag queens is calling ME a retard. riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Listen, no one is saying that wives can’t blow their husbands you imbecile. The presence of illegality is there to be used as a deterrent so that it’s not seen in public, or depicted in films, etc.
Less sexual degeneracy is good not only for the individual’s soul, but also the fate of the community in which the individual lives. Sodom wasn’t destroyed because a bunch of guys liked fucking each other behind closed doors, but because they insisted on forcing their degeneracy on others. These laws would limit that.
Sorry you’re defending degeneracy by saying stopping it is censorship, and your brain is too small to understand censorship is useful (and the founders not only agreed with me, they advocated for it as well).
Is not letting faggots fuck in public censorship? Is removal of the depictions of deviant sexual actions from media censorship? What about editing books aimed at children to remove references to faggotry, underaged sex etc?
You would agree that it is, because you see freedom as an end in and of itself. You feel that these things are art, or should be depicted, or at least someone should have the freedom to do these things. You don’t understand that sexual ethics echo out to the rest of society, and lead to an erosion of our central mores. Do you think what we see now has no connection to the sexual revolution? Do you think returning to a state befor that would be bad?
you imbecile
No u
Slippery slope has been proving itself to be very real rather than a fallacy for at least a decade at this point.
In the absence of social disapproval of sexual degeneracy, punitive laws are really unlikely.
I'd be happy with some prosecution of public perversion of the sort you see in gay pride public orgies. Go ahead and blow the whole neighborhood, have them all shit on your chest or whatever, prance around in a dog mask with a dildo hanging out of your ass, but do it in private where normal people don't have to see it and won't be forced by the gay/tranny lobby to praise it as somehow liberating.
That doesn't seem like much to ask.
They literally can't. Part of their mental illness is a sadism they get off on grossing out people who don't want to see it. And forcing people who just want to be left alone into "participating".
Why do you think IT'S MA'AM got so mad? Because he was cockblocked by the clerk not playing his game the way he wanted. The unreasonable aggression was caused by the dopamine crash of foiled anticipation.
Thats why trannies belong in a nuthouse, not because they wank while playing dressup but because the ones you see in public are all Buffalo Bill.
It’s not enough for evil to be left alone. It must be continuously praised as “the good”. The darkness must be all consuming, lest the good, like a candle, become lit and chase it away.
Well, that would explain their zeal for public orgies.
I think that "gay pride public orgies" actually hurt their cause and motivate their opponents. It's just like AOC. The very existence of AOC is hugely harmful to the Left and a big boost to the Right, because people just listen to her for 30 seconds and decide to vote republican.
100%. I almost feel pity for homos who aren't pedophiles and who just want to keep their private sex lives private, but their self-appointed political spokescreatures won't let me.
Every time I see AOC's bug-eyed mug I want to smash it in. It's like a Pavlovian response.
And "trying to be liked" has gotten the Right how far with their constant compromises and "no no, I don't actually hate X I just...uh" ?
Whereas the Left is happily dragging us wherever they want even if people don't like or want it anyway. And they still have people like them anyway while ignoring it!
Hey man, we got butt-fucking legalized in Botswana. Charlie Kirk says that's heckin' wholesome. How dare you?
no such thing
I think that falls squarely within the bounds of degeneracy.
Like all other activists, they only cared about getting theirs and not a damn about the consequences of those changes. Just give it to me right now, fuck the haters.
Now blacks are welfare dependent and ghetto living, women can barely make it to 30 without depression, and gays are sucking tranny dick and dying of STDs all over again.
You of all people should know they're fucking lying.
Yeah they are lying when they pretend like anything is remotely working out for them and they are happy in the slightest.
Antidepressants are propping up feminism.
Lying about misery is better for them than lying about happiness.
Women say they're depressed and their tradcon puppies will rush to take more rights from us, barking at us for their owner.
Who's the 'we' you use in every post?
Are you under the impression that anyone is on your side?
Silent majority. If nobody agreed with me, there wouldn't be such a push to censor "misogyny".