Why do male authors slut-shame and "punish" their female characters for extramarital affairs (Emma Bovary, Anna Karenina etc) when science h...

Why do male authors bawd-shame and "punish" their female characters for extramarital affairs (Emma Bovary, Anna Karenina etc) when science has conclusively proven that some dicking on the side is good for them?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    If they're not having sex with me they're bad people. Simple as.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Is this a real article? Link?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        People with more than 15 sex partners have a 90% chance of divorce in any given marriage. The equivalent of playing Russian roulette with 10 chambers and 9 bullets

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          It's enforced social construct, people aren't monogamous naturally but women had to endure severe consequences for their natural behavior.

          If she doesn't have kids and you put one in her I guess that makes you the alpha male from a natural selection perspective so I'm probably fine with women fricking around, as long as you don't get cucked.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Source?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Destiny's stream

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/7n792Vj.jpg

        Why do male authors bawd-shame and "punish" their female characters for extramarital affairs (Emma Bovary, Anna Karenina etc) when science has conclusively proven that some dicking on the side is good for them?

        >daily mail
        OP STILL SUCKING wiener ON A DAILY BASIS, STUDY FINDS

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Study financed by the Yad Vashem Institute for israeli History and Cuckolding

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It's real but
      >Daily Mail
      Thier source is "Tillburg Uni". Idk if thats a reputable uni or not.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It's in the Netherlands, so yes.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        its in the netherlands, so no

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        And all written by the same Xantha Leatham thot

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        “A study says” isn’t reliable. A newsrag/blog reporting on studies is even less reliable. Scientists complain about journalists getting their material ass backwards and then consider most of these “studies” are p hacked bullshit deliberately spun for positive results with countless methodological problems that nobody actually peer reviews because of the perverse incentives of academia (leading to the reproducibility crisis).

        The more clickbait friendly the conclusion the more likely it is you can just dismiss it as horseshit. This is even more true the further from hard sciences you go.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          General rule is trust nothing in the psychological sciences unless it has been replicated >10 times.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I actually camped in the forest next to that university while hiking through the Netherlands lol. The uni didn't seem very impressive, it was rather ugly and small.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    your guys's wives are fricking other people lol

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Agreed

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Really the shaming occurs due to indiscretion, women aren't supposed to be as overt about their infidelity as men are due to its purported vulgarity.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It's biologically rooted.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Nobody cares as long as it done discreetly.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It's enforced social construct, people aren't monogamous naturally but women had to endure severe consequences for their natural behavior.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          everyone thinks that no longer enforcing these norms will lead to a collapse in society, but things are still trending up. so maybe we don't need them after all. we are even dealing with the surplus/useless males impotent rage surprisingly well.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >things are still trending up
            No they aren't, and the number of children raised by single parents growing to 50% in just a couple generations has been particularly disastrous.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah but that hasn't led to decling standards of living or higher crime or anything measurable like that. Just people saying well this is a sign of bad times to come. Well what if the bad times never come

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yes it has. You are very stupid anon.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            This is just patently false. Also the problem of single parent households, in America especially, is chiefly the lack of income and the inability of the parents to participate in the workforce.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >this is just patently false
            I'm not much of a soooourcer but it's well-documented that growing up in a single parent household is hugely negative. They try to hush it up a bit because they want the family unit to be destroyed and for single mothers to be seen as incredibly heroic. I'm sorry but you are probably one of the dumbest anons on IQfy.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not much of a soooourcer but it's well-documented that growing up in a single parent household is hugely negative.
            This is true in that children of single parent households generally have worse outcomes than those growing up in a nuclear family, but the original assertion here was that it has led to increased crime rates and declining living standards, which is untrue.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            How does worse outcomes for more people not constitute a decline in living standards in your mind? And yes, it very clearly correlates to more crime.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Because neither the statistical standard of living nor crime rate has increased in any appreciable amount following an increase in single parent households, in fact the statistical trend has been the opposite. It's just less optimal in comparison to two-parent households, primarily as a function of economic security.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Simply compare the rates of criminality between those who grew up with 2 parents vs 1.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I won't dispute that, but the fact remains that even though single-parent households have increased steadily over the past five decades, the crime rate has steadily declined within the same time period.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            And that's the result of other factors. All things being equal, more single parent households = more crime, provably.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            But then logically the same factors that reduce crime elsewhere would also apply to single parent households. I would also posit that the difference between a single and two-parent household would diminish when controlling for income and/or wealth, since of course single parent households are likely to also be at the very bottom of income and wealth distribution.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I dont think you should use the word logically when you have no idea what it means.
            >crime is overall decreasing (caused by many factors)
            >those raised by single parents are more likely to commit crime than those raised by two parents, statistically and provably
            >thus the prevelance of children being raised in single parent households means there is more crime than if they were being raised in 2 parent households

            As for your second point about how it would diminish when you account for income/wealth, that's a symptom of being raised in a single parent household and a contributing factor. It's not some different thing that you can wave away.

            I talk to stupid people a lot on IQfy but you're really dumb.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Then why has the crime rate declined simultaneously? The effect is there but it must not be very large if it is entirely erased by other factors. I also bring up the income/wealth aspect because it appears to have more explanatory power than simply the presence of an additional parent.

            >sedating the worker units with consumables and meaningless sex will counter the effects of destroying everything good and fulfilling
            Why are your plans always like this?

            This is meaningless. The distribution of income is important due to access to services, opportunity for education and of course the ability to actually spend time raising and caring for your child.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >then why has the crime rate declined simultaneously?
            Because of numerous different factors. The causal link between single parent households and more crime is well-documented. This is what I mean about not being able to use logic.
            >the income appears to have more explanatory power
            It appears this way to you because you are an idiot. But even if it were the case, I already explained to you that less money is a direct result of single parentage most of the time. In almost all cases in fact.

            I really hope you don't consider yourself intelligent. You can't think.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            all you do is insult people! You're the one who can't think!
            Have you considered that the excess production, or other beneficial factors from society being structured in this new way more than makes up for whatever isolated factor you are autisticly focused on??

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I'm insulting you because you're a moron.
            >Have you considered that the excess production, or other beneficial factors from society being structured in this new way more than makes up for whatever isolated factor you are autisticly focused on??
            More goytoys, goyslop, and goymeds are not beneficial to anyone, and technological progress could be used to enhance people's lives in a drastic manner far beyond the antihuman destructive course we're seeing. Have you considered that?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            yes i have but conveniently for me, all the numbers showing how people are doing are going up still. you on the other hand point to shit that leads to other shit that maybe causes this or that but never really gets reflected in the actual bottom line. isn't that crazy?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            homie a rising tide raises all boats. Despite beneficial factors improving everyone's lives the single parent households are still worse off and the children they raise are usually riddled with mental illnesses probably like you.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.brandonu.ca/research-connection/article/single-parent-families-economic-disadvantage-and-youth-crime/#:~:text=At%20the%20community%20level%2C%20the,support%20for%20single%2Dmother%20families.
            >At the community level, the concentration of single-mother families is one of the most powerful predictors of youth crime. An understanding of this relationship is important in devising crime control policies as well as community support for single-mother families.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I can't believe this is not second nature to this fricking moron. Let's hope his wife cucks him and he doesn't pass on the tard genes.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            you don't get it. maybe the rising tide that is lifting all boats would not happen without these societal changes

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >it would be impossible for crime to go down if not for 50% of kids being raised in single parent households
            >even though that in itself is one of the greatest risk factors (well-documented) for criminality
            You are a complete moron and I actually feel bad for you.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Are you implying that we should welfare queen single mothers because they got their roast beef pussy impregnated by some moron?

            no, but that stuff like women in the workplace, and greater women autonomy and power could lead to much more vibrant economies and also lead to more single parent households. it is not saying that the later is good, just that on net, this new societal structure is better. you dummies!

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why would those things lead to more single parent households? What leads to single parent households is divorce.
            >this new societal structure is better
            It isn't, and if economic prosperity had been keeping up with production we'd all be earning well over double what we do on average. Things are improving much less than they should be, and there's no substitute for being raised by two parents who love and respect each other when it comes to development of oneself and one's psyche.

            You are a complete fool.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            you're childish in that you think things in the world only produce good things. and why don't people just do the good things, the only things they cause are good. Everything must seem simple to you, why aren't you in charge?

            The reality is that everything has trade offs, nothing is purely good or bad. You have to factor both, consider 2nd and third order effects if you can. your stupid childlike mind would never understand. thinks are either good or evil like in harry potter or whatever you read

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Two parent households are strictly superior to single parent households for the well-being and development of the children except under certain circumstances where one parent may be very abusive.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            OK I will say I agree. I will also assert a society with empowered women is much more healthy and productive than one where they are oppressed. Now how do we reconcile these things? Do you think it is possible to weigh them? or do we just autisticly screech about single parent households like nothing else matters?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I will also assert that a society with empowered women is much more healthy and productive
            What does this have to do with anything? Divorce after children isn't empowerment.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >or do we just autisticly screech about single parent households like nothing else matters?
            Its one of the most meaningful problems in the world. There are plenty of other things to screech about which matter as well but wouldn't be so pertinent to this thread. What else do you have in mind?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            A bigger problem would be what if we removed 50% of the population out of the workforce. Are we so sure things would run just as smooth?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why would we remove 50% of people from the workforce? What are you even trying to say?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I'm trying to say our evolving social structure has caused the lifestyles of people to vastly improve. Despite the single parent households, which are certainly unfortunate, to address you concern specifically. And that all the benefits of our new values seem to outweigh the drawbacks. including the management of the impotent anger of surplus males

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What does anything you just said have to do with this comment:
            >A bigger problem would be what if we removed 50% of the population out of the workforce. Are we so sure things would run just as smooth?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            because posters are pointing to increased woman participation in the workforce as being an inflection point (which I agree with, just that perhaps it is a beneficial inflection point)

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Increased women in the workplace has nothing to do with whether or not they are or aren't single parents though. What I'm saying is destructive are single parent households becoming the norm and you said
            >but wouldn't it be worse if 50% of the labour force dropped out???
            Which has nothing at all to do with anything.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            ok single parent households are bad, will you stop posting now please

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I can almost guarantee that nothing said to you in this thread has stuck, and if the exact same conversation were to happen again you'd make the exact same arguments you've made ITT all over.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            yeah true

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I know anon. You're a very stupid person.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            no you're stupid

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Not that anon but. Anyone with a brain can figure out that single mother households have a negative inpact on childrens social development, and it simply has to do with the lack of a stable father figure in the home. Why has no one mentioned this? Boys get the male version of daddy issues which is substituting the role of the father with some other bullshit, like gangs or silly ideas on the internet. It's so painfully obvious that an essential piece is missing that is necessary for leading them onto the correct path in life. Being poorer just means that they probably are closer to criminality because they are more likely to live in low income neighbourhoods but I would bet my life that if the household has a stable fatherfigure the chance of the kid getting into criminality is thus way lower.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It's also inherent to single parent households that there will be more poverty.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Ofcourse. 1 income is probably less than 2 income

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You're mistakenly attributing improvement participation in the workforce to the increase in living standards which is fundamentally incorrect. It is correlated with various improvements in the fields of medicine, technology and just industrialization in general. Women don't have much to do with it other than being just cheap labour while they should've simply stayed housewives.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >kindergarten teachers
            Most teachers up to grade 12 are female, because I'm sure you can teach your child calculus while working to provide for your family. Also don't forget nursing and other medical professions. Soft and life sciences are saturated with women. A female was awarded the Nobel prize for co-discovering the CRISPR/Cas9 system, arguably one of the most important discoveries of our time. You're just a bitter dunce.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It isn't beneficial. It is a scam. You are acting like women working is a choice. It rarely is. The consumer-slave must have both parents work to pay for the $1M house made of particle board on a .1 acre lot thanks to the federal reserve lowering interest rates to .2% which drove the cost of the particle board house up from $100k to $1M. Now instead of making real food you buy bags and boxes of industrial slop because thanks to work you don't have time. This food is grossly overpriced per pound compared to the real food and is vastly more unhealthy. Instead of repairing jeans with a hole you buy another pair because you don't have the 15 minutes it takes to sew up a hole. Instead of raising your own kids you outsource it to the state because you don't have time to do it yourself and you can't afford to send them to private school thanks to the state robbing you of income tax- wow funny how well that works out with two incomes, and your artifically expensive $1M particle board ***house***. The whole thing is a fricking scam to make us consumer-slaves.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm trying to say our evolving social structure has caused the lifestyles of people to vastly improve.
            What social structures are you referring to? Are you sure you don't mean evolving technology?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            more permissive attitudes towards women socially, sexually, and otherwise, basically, globohomosexual values

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Do you mean things like diversity quotas?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            yes all of it. society is getting better despite all the concern trolling

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I think you are completely wrong. Technology progressing has improved comforts and many things, but it hasn't been utilized effectively to improve the lives of individuals, not even economically, if that's all you care about, as anons graph demonstrates very well

            Where do you get that assertion from? Since women entered the workforce it has driven down wages and caused more children to suffer in state indoctrination facilities to become more slave-consumers. Women working means less healthy home cooked meals and more goyslop. It means less clothing repair and more clothing waste which also means more plastic clothing due to the lower price which means more microplastic contamination.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Right god forbid we deny capital its worker drones so that we can have families again.
            >geeze guys it would be really bad if there was demand for labor and wages went up wouldn't it...? things might not be as smooth!
            You're either a shill, idiot, or both.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            A massive number of women would also love to be homemakers and simply raise their kids full-time who no longer have that option. For my generation it's more or less impossible and they don't even know what they're missing. It's a beautiful life though, and would be desirable for a huge %

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Protip: since going off the gold standard fiat money is backed by tax-slavery, not oil as they like to say. The capital is based on the debt. You are the capital, ownership of you. And the federal reserve hands it out to any bankers with access to the fed window.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Stop being so bombastic, when you say huge blanket statements like "MONEY IS BACKED BY SLAVERY" people just shut off. Money is backed by the sovereign. Nobody says money is 'backed' by oil, simply that oil is traded for in US dollars. Reel it in because you just come off as a kook.
            >DON'T YOU GET IT!?!?!?! THEY /OWN/ YOU
            Yeah I do buddy and it's through an elaborate system of incentives and debt structures, just cool off on the rhetoric.

            A massive number of women would also love to be homemakers and simply raise their kids full-time who no longer have that option. For my generation it's more or less impossible and they don't even know what they're missing. It's a beautiful life though, and would be desirable for a huge %

            They always lie and say "it's a choice" when in reality, that's not economies or humans work. I was talking to my gf once and remarked that cell phones should just be banned, we'd be better off. She got offended and said she agreed they're bad, but "it should be a choice!". Of course I pointed out to her that it's already technically a choice and if that she agreed then she should throw her phone away kek, obviously she just got mad at me. Point is, the idea of some 'neutral' position where you can just go either way on something with huge implications like that is totally false.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Stop being so bombastic, when you say huge blanket statements like "MONEY IS BACKED BY SLAVERY" people just shut off. Money is backed by the sovereign
            This is the power of public education.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It's not a choice because there's no real path to a single-income middle class life where one parent can stay home full-time for the majority of people. My ex is a doctor and she's taking multiple maternity leaves while complaining that she can't just be a housewife. Working a job isn't just objectively more fulfilling or empowering than raising children because it earns money. There are more important things but obviously we live in israelited to death shitland so they've done a number on the masses understanding if what is and isn't valuable or worthwhile or useful.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Women don't work real jobs. Do you think the truckers wouldn't keep driving, the engineers wouldn't keep engineering, the contractors wouldn't keep building, the firefighters wouldn't keep firefighting, the miners wouldn't keep mining, the fishermen wouldn't keep fishing, the ranchers wouldn't keep ranching, the farmers wouldn't keep farming? What would we lose? Daycare employees and kindergarten teachers? Holy shit so you mean like women could just raise their own children again? Hr department ladies? Administrative assistants?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >kindergarten teachers
            Most teachers up to grade 12 are female, because I'm sure you can teach your child calculus while working to provide for your family. Also don't forget nursing and other medical professions. Soft and life sciences are saturated with women. A female was awarded the Nobel prize for co-discovering the CRISPR/Cas9 system, arguably one of the most important discoveries of our time. You're just a bitter dunce.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >most teachers are female
            And how's that working out? Do you think it benefits boys who don't have fathers to also never interact with a male educator until they're out of elementary school? And there are no qualifications for public school teachers. They're among the stupidest people on the planet.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Sounds like your problems are with the public education system and not what's in the pants of the teachers who abide by a curriculum handed down to them from the administration/state.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I never said I had any problem with women, though when it comes to childcare, early childhood education, and public school teachers, I do think more should be male, just like I think more parenting should be done by men and fewer children grow up with divorced parents. I think that's that's important.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >and fewer children grow up with divorced parents
            I agree

            No, the actual qualities of the people teaching are just as important as the curriculum itself. I know you want the world to be this impersonal place where everything can be boiled down to a perfectable quantifiable system where nobody in particular is to blame, but that's not reality.

            >the actual qualities of the people teaching are just as important as the curriculum itself
            Wrong. The teachers don't decide state-mandated standards and grading schemes like common core, for example. If the state says the teachers have to teach AP Black person Studies, they teach APNS. Teacher quality only affects student retention of the material, which is then tested by exams delivered by the state. Poor student performance? Teacher gets canned or new grading schemes are drawn up.
            >blah blah blah
            Nice projection/strawman. I do think there are people to blame, but I also think the faculty of the teachers is grossly over estimated.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >the personal qualities of the individual teachers is important
            >wrong
            Holy shit lol

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You left out the rest of the sentence he quoted you fricking journalist

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            No I didn't. They wrote
            >Wrong (period)
            In response to the statement that individual qualities of the teacher matter quite a bit, and of course they do, even if they don't set the curriculum.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You left out the rest of the sentence he quoted you fricking journalist

            Oh sorry I see what you mean. It makes no difference. The initial anon was right. The qualities of the teacher matter as much as the curriculum.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Stupid idiot, I said HE* quoted. The original claim was
            >the actual qualities of the people teaching are just as important as the curriculum itself
            Not that the qualities aren't important full stop

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            That's true my bad. But I still agree that the teachers personal qualities are as important as the curriculum.

            Teachers generally have lousy personal qualities and very little intelligence, which is why they even tolerate teaching such bogus and evil curriculum. And again, nearly all of them nowadays are atheists, so, stupid.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >the actual qualities of the people teaching are just as important as the curriculum itself
            >Wrong. The teachers don't decide state-mandated standards and grading schemes like common core, for example. If the state says the teachers have to teach AP Black person Studies, they teach APNS. Teacher quality only affects student retention of the material, which is then tested by exams delivered by the state. Poor student performance? Teacher gets canned or new grading schemes are drawn up.
            >>blah blah blah
            >Nice projection/strawman. I do think there are people to blame, but I also think the faculty of the teachers is grossly over estimated.
            Solved by abolishing public education and then having full school choice.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Public education isn't the problem necessarily imo. The problem is the people who set the curriculum are insane and the teachers are insane because society is insane. If it were made sane and things that were true or important were mandated to be taught, the system could work fine.

            But we can't agree to ban infant circumcision as a society so my hopes are not high in this regard.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            And honestly the main issue is atheism. Atheists can't think clearly on any subject so they also can't teach. Nearly everyone now is an atheist and that's the biggest problem because all atheists are stupid by definition.

            Anon in school choice the state gives you the money they stole and were going to use to brainwash your kid to then either home or private school your kid as you choose to. Best case scenario is they don't steal your income and then use it to brainwash your child but at least being able to use what they stole as you would like is a step in the right direction.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Public education isn't the problem necessarily imo. The problem is the people who set the curriculum are insane and the teachers are insane because society is insane. If it were made sane and things that were true or important were mandated to be taught, the system could work fine.

            But we can't agree to ban infant circumcision as a society so my hopes are not high in this regard.

            And honestly the main issue is atheism. Atheists can't think clearly on any subject so they also can't teach. Nearly everyone now is an atheist and that's the biggest problem because all atheists are stupid by definition.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            No, the actual qualities of the people teaching are just as important as the curriculum itself. I know you want the world to be this impersonal place where everything can be boiled down to a perfectable quantifiable system where nobody in particular is to blame, but that's not reality.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The type of person who wants to be a teacher working for the government is the type of person who shouldn't be a teacher.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They really are just complete shit

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Women teachers are dogshit and public education should be abolished. I do in fact know calculus. The soft sciences are completely worthless with the majority of studies being complete bunk and not being replecatable. My kids will get geds by age 14 and not waste their time in state indoctrination school. You can take the gene therapy because I won't be doing it.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >public education should be abolished
            Terrific idea.
            >I do in fact know calculus.
            Good for you. Did you learn it in school?
            >The soft sciences are completely worthless with the majority of studies being complete bunk and not being replecatable.
            Wow, on the literature board of all places.
            >My kids will get geds by age 14 and not waste their time in state indoctrination school.
            Private schools exist, anon. I hope for your children's sake they are at least socialized enough to not end up like their father.
            >You can take the gene therapy because I won't be doing it.
            ?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            education should be abolished
            >Terrific idea.
            Yes
            >>I do in fact know calculus.
            >Good for you. Did you learn it in school?
            I learned it mostly from somebody named patrickjmt
            >>The soft sciences are completely worthless with the majority of studies being complete bunk and not being replecatable.
            >Wow, on the literature board of all places.
            Not an argument. It is established fact that the soft sciences and university system are completely rotten to the core. Actually my wife is in a soft science phd program and has agreed with this.
            >>My kids will get geds by age 14 and not waste their time in state indoctrination school.
            >Private schools exist, anon. I hope for your children's sake they are at least socialized enough to not end up like their father.
            Actually the plan is ged by 14, bs by 18 then runspringa at a worthless public university. Socialization through sports, church, neighbors.
            >>You can take the gene therapy because I won't be doing it.
            >?
            Do you not actually know what crispr is? I'm not editing my genes.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I learned it mostly from somebody named patrickjmt
            No offense anon, but I wouldn't trust a bridge designed by somebody who learned calculus from YT videos.
            >It is established fact that the soft sciences and university system are completely rotten to the core. My wife agrees!
            How so? Care to enlighten us?
            >Actually the plan is ged by 14, bs by 18 then runspringa at a worthless public university. Socialization through sports, church, neighbors.
            You have 0 experience raising children to adulthood.
            >Do you not actually know what crispr is? I'm not editing my genes.
            No one is going to edit your genes. The technology is immensely significant for reasons beyond human genome editing. Why are you getting so worked up?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >It is established fact that the soft sciences and university system are completely rotten to the core. My wife agrees!
            >How so? Care to enlighten us?
            See

            This is correct. Graduate students are incentived to publish positive results at all costs which means they tease- essentially pivot table the shit out of data until something- anything can be shown positive to their hypothesis. Other than in hard sciences like materials engineering/chemistry that show mechanism and real spectroscopy proving it or other similar work it is probably useless bunk.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Publish-or-perish culture is pervasive in the sciences and not unique to the soft sciences. Also, it's less "rotting" than just an unhealthy set of expectations inherited from academicians of old. Im also interested why your belly aching singles out grad students? Hardly a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You're defending the social science programs that have been teaching everyone for a few decades now that gender doesn't exist. It's totally talmudic, corrupt, and insane.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Social science programs aren't all represented by the algorithmically suggested rage porn you consume alongside patrickjmt on YT, anon. It sounds like you spend too much time online and have very little experience with the institutions you're criticizing.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Nearly everyone I grew up with is humanities university grad and all of them have the exact same opinion on gender (that it's entirely elective). I'm not patrickjmt anon. More than one person disagrees with you.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Sounds like you should get new friends. Also not to pick nits but gender =/= sex.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Thank you, WHO approved curriculum, very cool
            >sounds like you should get new friends
            Most people have been educated to think this way. That was my point.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Thank you, WHO approved curriculum, very cool
            they're right about this. You look dumb if you think that just automatically thinking the opposite of someone no matter what they say is right. Hitler drank water, better not do that!

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >theyre right about this
            No they're not.
            >Hitler drank water
            Good. I love drinking water. Hitler also burned manuals for transgender research on SRS.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissenschaft

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >theyre right about this
            Theyre ~~*correcting the record*~~ on it, and have been for a few decades.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            How come you stopped responding?

            Thank you, WHO approved curriculum, very cool
            >sounds like you should get new friends
            Most people have been educated to think this way. That was my point.

            >theyre right about this
            Theyre ~~*correcting the record*~~ on it, and have been for a few decades.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >all of them have the exact same opinion on gender (that it's entirely elective)
            This isn't even what trans people believe lmao

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            So trans people don't believe that trans women are actually women? Because that's what they say all the time. It's something of a motto. It also isn't true, obviously.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Trans women do in fact not believe that they are the same as cis women, no, even though there are more similarities between the two than there are between them and cis men. However, the actual issue here was the notion that it's a choice.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They are more similar to men because they are men. Trans men are still women.
            >its not a choice
            It's something they can be groomed into from an impressionable age. It's something that will ruin their lives if they commit to chasing a goal that is unreachable and can only cause them misery in the attempt.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Trans women do in fact not believe that they are the same as cis women
            I've seen thousands of pieces of evidence to the contrary. But, whatever they believe, it's certainly what they say, and repeatedly.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            what is this weak gaslighting attempt

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >gaslighting
            What? Are you telling me that the mantra "trans women are women" is something you've never seen?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't mean that trannies think they're biologically indistinguishable from women, just that they want you to go along with the meme treat them like they are women. Only a tiny minority of twitter activists tries to push 'sex is a social construct' in all seriousness, and even those people are mostly grifters. Just like basically noone really believed in the planned economy in the USSR.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >just like noone really believed in the planned economy in the ussr
            And yet it really happened and people really suffered and critics were really killed or exiled.
            >noooooo only a tiny minority of partisan party insiders really believed in it so it doesn't matter
            ???

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Trans women do in fact not believe that they are the same as cis women

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Trans women do in fact not believe that they are the same as cis women
            Holy cope

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Where do you get that assertion from? Since women entered the workforce it has driven down wages and caused more children to suffer in state indoctrination facilities to become more slave-consumers. Women working means less healthy home cooked meals and more goyslop. It means less clothing repair and more clothing waste which also means more plastic clothing due to the lower price which means more microplastic contamination.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I agree everyone should ask for more money

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The graph shows when we went off the gold standard + when women entered the workforce. It doesn't fricking matter if you ask for more money. They will just debase it faster than you get more purchasing power.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >this governmental mafia is bad
            >lol if it's so easy to know it's bad why aren't you in charge
            Because it's a mafia. They do evil things and kill people who try to change that.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Anon you are a mentally ill troll and are all over the place. I pray in God faith you die in traffic tommorow but you probably don't leave the house.

            Yeah we don't need any more HR roasties in the workforce, thanks. Also you're still wrong about the whole single mother parenting thing as the children they raise are more likely to be mentally ill, thank God you're a genetic deadend tho and don't leave the house so you won't be sperging your shitty opinion anywhere but here.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >this new societal structure is better
            Prove it

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Are you implying that we should welfare queen single mothers because they got their roast beef pussy impregnated by some moron?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Hes either incapable of reasoning at a basic level or he's here in bad-faith and probably wearing a yamaka while he posts. I made this anon's point at least 3 times already

            homie a rising tide raises all boats. Despite beneficial factors improving everyone's lives the single parent households are still worse off and the children they raise are usually riddled with mental illnesses probably like you.

            And he still won't understand.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Calm down sweaty. Perhaps maybe eating more doritos and playing more videogames is worse than having better relationships and community. The standard of living only shows air conditioning and calories. It is a shitty metric in terms of actual quality of life.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The problem is that you are acting as if the causal link is mechanistic rather than probabilistic, and as can be seen from the trend of a declining crime rate the association is not convincingly strong.
            >I already explained to you that less money is a direct result of single parentage most of the time
            Resulting from the position of women in the workplace, which could be mitigated by parental leave and subsidized or free childcare.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >as can be seen from the trend of declining crime rates
            But single parent households still produce more crime, so it could be reduced further if more parents stuck together.
            >low income could be alleviated by parental leave and childcare
            Or by individuals making better informed choices on who they marry and then sticking it out for the benefit of their children. Encouraging this would be of great benefit to everyone.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Resulting from the position of women in the workplace
            Single parents include men
            >muh wage gap
            Please

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >sedating the worker units with consumables and meaningless sex will counter the effects of destroying everything good and fulfilling
            Why are your plans always like this?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >but violent crime is decreeeeeasing
            >so nothing can be wrooooooong

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Do you know the statistics behind single-parent children?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Anon are you mentally moronic?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >useless males
            Funny how it's 100% alright to use nazi eugenicist lingo if you're one who follows the narrative

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Women and their male feminist lackeys are unaware of personal introspection and are high on anima

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >people aren't monogamous naturally
          A women can only procreate with one man. They are monogamous. It's men who are not since they can impregnate multiple women at once.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            so once you pop one out youre locked down forever?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Essentially. Since you have to rely on the father to protect and feed the child so it's impractical to move on to a different man at that point.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yes. Or you can be a prostitute or begger.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            this is moronic. if a woman pops out a kid she can still have another kid with someone else.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Essentially. Since you have to rely on the father to protect and feed the child so it's impractical to move on to a different man at that point.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >what are step-parents
            shit even if we go way-way back to frickin caveman times the tribe would still work together to help raise the children. this shit is nonsense.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Does the tribe step in to help raise the children of single parents today?
            >Uh ya the state subsidizes
            No I mean like taking an active role in the child's development where they're lacking in male influence? Oh no?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            families do, men who become step-fathers do. this isn't like some hidden fact anon this shit is pretty common

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            But if there is no step-father then what?
            >families do
            Families rarely live in close enough proximity and for the most part they do not.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            No you moron. The point is that the women would be bonded to the man as he is primary the care giver of her child. Even if the tribe does help, in every society the children are the responsibility of their own father. Thus it is simply far more practical the woman to just stay with the man.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Monogamy isn’t infrequent in more intelligent animals. Many birds and primates are monogamous their entire lives.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I hate people like you who say “natural.” This or that is or isn’t natural in humans. It betrays your infernal subversive view of humans, that always trends downward. But you’re lying. If humans are animals, every single trait exhibited in them is natural. The widowed twenty year old mother who wears black every day til her death and never takes another lover is as equally natural as the bar-prostitute who likes to walk the edge of rape and consensuality in her drinking mannerisms. You can’t have it one or the other

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Women are monogamous if possible for resource allocation but will cheat for superior genetics. Men are naturally polygamous and only restricted by available resources.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Seems weird that its the natural default.

          Considering the male response, and that you would imagine in a natural world of competition it would be disadvantageous to willingly lose your shot at spreading your gene line forward, it seems just as hardwired for men to hate this.

          How could not wanting to be genetically usurped be a learned social construct? To successfully spread genes is the driver of this whole madness, but this male primate is somehow immune to having preference towards his goal?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          That's not true. Monogamy provides for the most security of resources. Polygamy is what causes this natural behavior to pervert itself.

          There's a reason why entire wars were fought for another man who's wife was stolen from him. For men it's to secure a bloodline knowing who and where his offspring comes from. For a woman it's knowing where her food source comes from.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Cheating isnt natural at all

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Why do male authors bawd-shame and "punish" their female characters for extramarital affairs
    Because they come from the same school of thought YA authors who make the pretty popular girls the villains so their self-inserts can frick the love interest who's a stand-in for the Chad they pined for in high school.
    >If I can't be happy, no one can.
    All this bullshit about men this and women that is so lame when you can just reduce it to what Mencken said years ago:
    >Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This. For women cheating is okay and healthy. Cucks need to stfu.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        For male dolphins rape is natural and healthy. Hell, most dolphins reproduce by rape .
        I think the same thing should be true for humans.
        I'm going to rape your pussy, nona.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Xantha
    I that a real name?

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Why do male authors bawd-shame and "punish" their female characters for extramarital affairs

    Because women expect men as a group to pay for their indiscretions and their bastard children through taxation. I wouldn't care about female promiscuity if it did nothing to my wallet.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Based. My gf can cheat all she wants just don't make me pay for it.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        ITT one guy spamming his weird ntr fetish

        that isn't what he was saying.
        If your girlfriend cheats and gets pregnant, the state will force you to pay for the bastard child, thereby locking you into a relationship with the prostitute.
        If the state didn't do that, you could just leave the b***h.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The state is the root of all problems in life.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        What about when she catches a std from whoring herself out then comes to sit on your willy?

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    everyone thinks that no longer enforcing these norms will lead to a collapse in society, but things are still trending up. so maybe we don't need them after all. we are even dealing with the surplus/useless males impotent rage surprisingly well.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    That doesnt sound like a self serving bias at all

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because men think sex for women is easy, because they're idiots.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      what does that even mean?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It is easier. Perhaps not so easy for a trans woman like you

        Proving my point.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Your point is not the gotcha you think it is.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It is easier. Perhaps not so easy for a trans woman like you

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because it's disgusting. Cope as much as you want, if you cheat, you're trash.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The discord trannies are out in full force tonight. This thread is an offspring of that other Flaubert thread where that cuckold projects it's cuckoldry onto other man justifying prostitute's actions. Sage.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Discord trannies will win in the end because they are relentless and having absolutely nothing else in their life. You sleep, discord trannies don't. To quote Hezbollah " we love death more than you love life". It's over and and it will always be over.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yep, it's pretty obvious by the way the formulate their phrases.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      These trooners are millenials right? I can tell from their talking points and demeanor

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >when science has conclusively proven
    Science hasn't proven anything.

    For every study "proving" something there's a hundred proving the opposite. Anyone can post a study that manipulates data for their political or ideological goals, and they can do it about anything. Science has never been more worthless than it is today.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This is correct. Graduate students are incentived to publish positive results at all costs which means they tease- essentially pivot table the shit out of data until something- anything can be shown positive to their hypothesis. Other than in hard sciences like materials engineering/chemistry that show mechanism and real spectroscopy proving it or other similar work it is probably useless bunk.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >tfw recognize that girl
      >tfw hate that I recognize that girl
      >tfw still coom to her facialabuse video sometimes even though it's disgusting

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Spoken like someone who has no idea what their talking about.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        seething troon
        the replication crisis is real
        your frankenstein vegana is not

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >male authors
    Women bawd-shame far more than men.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, I've never understood this. Men will bawd-shame their female relatives, sure, but outside that why would a man give a shit?
      Logically, women are the ones that have something to gane by ostracizing a prostitute.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    books?

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    this thread is bait, and the article is bait as well. it literally exists solely to create controversy and drive site traffic. stop falling for this shit you absolute wankers.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    My wife gets dick on the side and to even it up she brings me girls. It’s all compensation in the end

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Usually that's not the case and even then it's harder to get laid if you're a man. That's why rape should be legal if women are gonna be promiscuous. Some women even get orgasms from being raped. Its like they're a meme or something I dunno.

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It is precisely because the masses (of which you are a part) do not understand even the very smallest thing about science that worthless pseudoscience like that study can be passed off as having any value.

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Actually you're wrong, women shouldn't even have basic autonomy. That means no eating or sleeping unless I tell her she can

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Monogamy is literally rape

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    manbros... it’s over

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Women are getting too smart now...
      We can't bs them with "love" anymore...
      They only take high-achieving and/or hard-fricking dick...
      It's over.

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    nice try, moloch

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    why is this blatant bait still up? modBlack folk, do your god-damned non-paying job.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      it's a book thread tho?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        raping you would be just about as book-related as this, and you don't read.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Stfu incel, even if you were athletic enough to overpower an average woman (you aren't), you'd still have to leave your cum-stained incel hovel (you won't).

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The Daily Mail exists solely to extort seethe out of you, and it has become exceedingly efficient at it. Every single time you let it shit in your head it makes money from it. Today, it has chosen a study which it misrepresents, that makes you hate women. You take the bait, you are now angry with women. You remain lonely, the Daily Mail makes their money.
    Finding the original study, they use the term well-being as a metric. Their result is that women cheat when their well-being in a relationship has been gradually declining for a long time, and that cheating pumps it up to near-baseline, momentarily.
    The natural way to read this data is that women who cheat are miserable and getting dicked by strangers makes them forget it momentarily, not that women's eudaimoniac essence is getting fricked by strangers while betraying the man they profess to love.
    But the Daily Mail does not make money by reporting that, because it does not feed the seething of their readers. They live off of your seethe and will stop at nothing to make you seethe.

    For people who rant and rave about psyops all the time, Chuds really are remarkably easy victims for the dumbest and most transparent of them.

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Women are sex addicts who live on the privilege of having the upper hand on the sex market, but also they hate to see that their lavish life full of gifts and attention from their orbiters cannot be separated from the occasional harassment stemming from the despair of the rejected men who are indoctrinated into thinking that competing for women, with sex seen as the highest reward in a man's life, is the pinnacle of the male life.

    It gets worse because a woman will always feel outraged when she thinks that a man who does not merit her is actually trying to court her, to talk to her, to amuse her. This kind of man is the usual poor, ugly, outcast man who have nothing of value to offer to the woman and the woman does not understand why such a man would even orbit her in the first place.
    A woman always thinks she deserves better orbiters than whatever men are currently around her.

    Then there is the huge female delusion that women are actually not sex addicts and have a harsh life, that they live from predicaments to predicaments and are all subjugated by men. Women need this delusion in order to created a narrative where they are good people and all their problems stems from evil people, in this case men.

    Then you combine this delusion with the infatuation of the dogmas of the Human rights replacing the judeo christian god which creates a society of commentaries, of entertainment, of a merger of politics, entertainment and education and you get a humongous resonance box where the narcissists will never ever shut up about the tiniest annoyance in their hedonistic life.

    this stems from the bourgeois valuation of women: women were always seen as giving meaning to men's life, by men competing for them and since women spread their legs, they get pregnant. But women never were considered for politics. Women were living with their parents, then with the beta cuck who craved providing for them and then the bawds cheating on the provider with other beta orbiters craving to give sex to women. Then both the bawds and the providers died and the next generation took over, doing exactly the same thing.

    Now that women are deemed relevant thanks the bourgeois Human rights, as a competition sorting out men for sex AND relevant for politics, the prostitutes are no longer kept under the father household, women spread their legs around age 15 and they keep doing so until well after the menopause. women cannot stop fricking thanks to all the orbiters dying to serve them. The novelty is that they are prostitutes on their own.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Also now the humanist parents want to keep being hedonist. All the american sitcoms are about prostitutes and providers saying having kids is the worst and has a deep negative impact on their pleasures. So they boot the kids out of the house sooner, telling them to have casual sex because that's all the parents now.

      Do this for a 40 years and you have the millenials who whines that they cannot get all the same pleasures and comfort as the baby boomers, because housing prices are too high.

      Fortunately the men have created dating apps, so the prostitutes and the coomers can still have casual sex and the prostitutes still have a comfy life thanks to all the men competing for them.

      Conclusion: So basically sex addicts crave to de-sacralize sex in order to make it more popular, but they have to sacralise it again in order to not feel degenerate between 2 sex parties.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      spittin fax

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Also now the humanist parents want to keep being hedonist. All the american sitcoms are about prostitutes and providers saying having kids is the worst and has a deep negative impact on their pleasures. So they boot the kids out of the house sooner, telling them to have casual sex because that's all the parents now.

      Do this for a 40 years and you have the millenials who whines that they cannot get all the same pleasures and comfort as the baby boomers, because housing prices are too high.

      Fortunately the men have created dating apps, so the prostitutes and the coomers can still have casual sex and the prostitutes still have a comfy life thanks to all the men competing for them.

      Conclusion: So basically sex addicts crave to de-sacralize sex in order to make it more popular, but they have to sacralise it again in order to not feel degenerate between 2 sex parties.

      >t. has written an entire (purely theoretical) metaphysics of women, based on years of study of PuA forums, redpill threads, manosphere blogs, ragebait and mass-shooter manifestos
      Mate, did you know that if you open your eyes offline, you can see that there are like hundreds of millions of women living happy monogamous lives with completely ordinary men who they start regular families with?

      Just a quick question, and be honest: discounting family members or service industry workers, has it been more or less than 6 months since you last spoke a 3+ sentence conversation with a woman?

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >study finds
    >science has conclusively proven
    Why do you support inept, overhyping journalism? Both you and the author of these piecies know absolutely nothing about how research works. Most statistical studies "conclusively prove" very little, but scientists and universities need journalists to overhype any (likely non reproduceable) "finding" of useless research, and journalists use these papers they read and often poorly understand to generate an endless shit-stream of useless information. Are you happy to gobble down shit and regurgitate it on others? Does it feel good to fill your mind with absolute worthless trash researched by worthless people and processed into even filthier trash by people who are even more worthless for you to gobble down? Why do you allow them to turn your thinking process into a reverse digestive sistem? To transform your eyes and ears into reverse anuses that swallow the intellectual equivalent of excrements on a daily basis? Why do you allow them to turn you into a shit processing machine, a shit-grinder, in which shit is poured through the most sacred of holes just to be minced and splurted out on the faces of unknown people on the internet and, I guess, your friends and loved ones in real life? Why do you do this when all it would take to avoid this would be to pick up a good book and read that instead?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Cope

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        are you even a real person?

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Link to the discord please.

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I hate women so much it's unreal

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I hate women but I also hate Flaubert and the French and French literature

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *