Quote# 136920

Back when the fight for women to get the vote was underway, it was met with considerable hostility... as the caricatures above illustrate. Those for the women's vote had an ethical point: any person who bore the responsibilities of citizenship (paying taxes, serving jury duty, otherwise demonstrating civic responsibility) ought to also have the rights of citizenship (voting, etc.)
But those opposed to it had some arguments of their own. Firstly that women and men had different natural roles in society, and that it went poorly for society when women tried to take over a man's duties (and voting was seen as a man's duty.) Secondly they argued women would pursue irrational political behavior-- voting based not on objective national interests but on feminine, maternal and emotional desires, and would be unwilling to make the harder decisions often required of those in politics.
Not merely that they would make poor voting decisions, but that they would use the suffrage movement as a toe in the door... that once they had the vote, then the more radical elements that had already begun associating themselves with the Women's Rights movement in general would move in. The demands would come more frequently, more strident, and more onerous-- that men would be pushed aside from their role as providers, breadwinners and heads of their households, that women would use their political influence to henpeck and legally subjugate men, that the family unit would be turned amuck or even torn asunder as women "went off the rails."
Such arguments were finally overruled, and women in America were given the vote in 1920.

Now, though, comes the question none dare ask. Look around and ask yourself: Were they wrong?

From the moment feminists got the vote, the demands indeed have come hard and fast. Women in America have every single right that men do, **and more.** They enjoy legal protections and privileges that men would never dare dream of, and are excused from the obligatory responsibilities that men are still expected to bear-- for instance supporting and raising a child, or serving on average twice the sentence for the same crime, or being drafted and dying in a war... yet the demands never ceased. They only grow louder, and shriller, and more frequent, and more insane.

Not one year past we had an entire political movement built by feminists around getting one of the crookedest, dirtiest, most bigoted and reprehensible politicians in America elected to the highest office in the land, SOLELY BECAUSE IT WAS FEMALE. There are hundreds, maybe even thousands of men serving prison sentences right now for sex crimes they never committed, solely on the word of a woman--- every other week is a new story where a man has to be let out of jail after years or decades because they caught the woman out in a lie. Reproductive rights? A woman can flush the pills and poke a hole in the condom, get pregnant, and the courts will force him to pay either for child care or for the abortion-- and the decision of which is solely and entirely HERS. He gets no say. Prenuptuals? She can get those overthrown at the drop of a hat with a sympathetic divorce judge-- and they're all sympathetic. And still these feminists have the audacity to say, over and over, that they are OPPRESSED. We've had women-- teachers!-- going online and proclaiming that mathematics is inherently sexist. They're out there in the streets DRESSED AS VAGINAS, complaining that it's sexist that their women's studies doesn't get them jobs as astronauts. The feminist movement seems completely dedicated to proving beyond a shadow of a possible doubt that the men who passed the 19th amendment were out of their damned minds, and nothing I've read has even hinted that this is something NEW. The only difference is that what was the fringe element of the suffragettes in 1917 has become the entire body politic of the feminist movement 100 years later.

And to judge by feminist shenanigans in Canada, England, France, etc. it's not a uniquely American proposition either.

So let's ask the question that none dare ask, that none dare answer, and even if they did would not be overheard against the background of autistic women screeching: If the anti-suffragists were wrong about the feminist movement then why in every western country, did it end up like this?

RHJunior, Livejournal 8 Comments [2/27/2018 8:21:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 130836

hearing your mom get dicked by chad

this will never escape my mind, especially when the only female moans you've heard in real life are from your mom committing adultery

Jesus fucking Christ. One of the few positives of being middle eastern is not having a slut for a mom.

Hhahahah. here is a blackpill: i'm from a conservative middle eastern country


Holy shit are you serious? What country?

Iran I think, their women become complete trash sluts when they go to any western country

I can't imagine what you are going through

What the fuck. How can you still respect your mother?

that is the least of it

various incels, r/Incels 1 Comments [8/28/2017 9:33:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 127798

Why do men "vote" against their own interests?

Every single conversation I had since I was a teenager until now mid 20s, always resulted in the same outcome. It starts with me talking about how as guys we are the shit and we dont put up with shit because wtf is a female going to do about it? The guy always says something along the lines of "wait lol I can't believe you think men are better then women". Like...We are on the same fucking team! We are males! You should be happy I said that. If we were the same fans of a sports team you would be like hell yeah! So why doesn't the same apply to males?

Same thing with white knights...like...if there are 3 men....and 1 girl...and 1 man puts her in her place....it's counter inutitive to give her any power by helping her. If as a man you can't get respect from women...wouldn't it be to your advantage if you had the help of other men to join you in demanding respect? Wtf do blue pillers see that I don't?

[comment by reporter_for_FU2News]
They're 100% focused on trying to get laid. Nothing more. It's extreme nice guy syndrome.

ltjohnsmith and reporter_for_FU2News, /r/MGTOW 11 Comments [6/7/2017 1:32:11 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 129666

Then as I was leaving work, I turned my head to talk to a coworker, turned back, and I saw this group of 16 year old Chads cracking up. Then 10 seconds after I walked out of the door, one of them made a CU CAH! sound (like a crow or something).

THIS normies, right here, is why I fucking hate every fucking living soul. This is the shit I have to put up with every day. This is my god damn life. So when your retarded asses come in and say "HURR GOSH NO WUNDR UR INSEL1!!!!!" just stop and think how fucking stupid you look typing that shit. I always have to put up with people commenting on my appearance.

I always have to put up with people laughing, or having a stupid half-smile/smirk like they're trying to hide a laugh. I always have to put up with everybody staring. And you come here and blame my personality on the reason why I don't have a normal life? Fucking kill yourselves, stupid fucks.

BasedTruecel, r/incels 18 Comments [7/25/2017 7:20:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Katie
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 139747

[Splitting this into multiple submissions because it's long as fuck but all of it is fundie]

There is a lot of bad female behavior. It gets worse as they get older, but it starts very young indeed, typically around four years below fertile age, with a great deal of variance, much more variance than occurs in males.

People complain that when I notice sexual misbehavior in very young girls, that this is “bad optics”.

I say that there is severe and widespread female misconduct getting right in our faces, that we need to stop them, and that we need start stopping them very young.

People then claim I advocate raping little girls, and that this is “bad optics”.

I say that female consent is always unclear and ambiguous, and is usually foolish and given to very bad men with very bad consequences, and that therefore such decisions need to be made by the parent or guardian.

People then claim that I say that I should be allowed to have sex with other men’s children and they should not be allowed to stop me, even though that is exactly the opposite of what I am saying.

These claims make no logical or factual sense. But equally obviously, they make emotional sense if you are badly cucked.

Suppose someone genuinely fails to see women behaving badly. Then, if he disagrees with me, the natural response is

“No you are wrong, women are not behaving badly, they don’t need to be controlled”

But instead I hear

“horrible men need to be controlled and you are a horrible man, you rape other men’s daughters and seduce other men’s wives”

Which makes emotional sense if those making the accusation see what I see, but are frightened, weak, and impotent. It only makes emotional sense if one sees bad behavior, and, unable to address the bad behavior directly (because that would be domestic violence, hostile work environment, sexual harassment, mansplaining, and rape) displaces one’s rage. If one does not see what I see, if one does not see a great deal of very bad behavior, it makes neither logical nor emotional sense to accuse me of these absurd views. For someone to make these angry hostile denunciations is displacement of anger and pain, thus only makes emotional sense if female misbehavior is causing him anger and pain, thus only makes emotional sense if he sees what I see.

Blaming men for female misconduct is fear, weakness and white knighting. People say that speaking the truth about women is “bad optics”, but weakness is the worst optics. We are the strong horse.

I am indeed saying that women, starting at a horrifyingly young age, like sex, like rape, and rather like brutal rape. To conclude from this that I am arguing in favor of brutal rape, one has to attribute to me the white knight position that women should get what they want. But that is an implausible position to attribute to someone who is arguing that women want very bad things, wicked, foolish, and self destructive things, and who frequently says in the plainest possible words that women should not be allowed to get what they want. Chastity and monogamy are a plot by men against women and needs to be imposed on women with a stick. Monogamy and chastity were first invented when one band of ape men wiped out the ape men of another band, killed their mothers, killed their children, and divided up the women among themselves.

When I talk about nine year old girls finding an older male to fuck them, I say “but she does not want to fuck someone like you – she is going to fuck a heavily tattooed forty year old motorcycle gang leader and drug dealer.” When a heavily tattooed drug dealer is my example of youthful female hypergamy in action it is unreasonable to attribute to me the argument “This is what little girls want, and therefore giving it to them should be fine.” What I say is that this is indeed what little girls want, and therefore they need to be whacked with a stick and in some cases shotgun married. We need to deal with this problem with domestic discipline and the threat of early shotgun marriage, not by doubling down on prohibitions against men, prohibitions that are only effective against respectable men, and thus wind up reinforcing the little girl’s feeling that bad men are higher status.

Attributing to me outrageous and absurd positions only makes emotional sense as emotional displacement, and emotional displacement only makes sense if a problem is hurting one badly, and one is powerless and afraid to do anything about it.

Blaming men for the behavior of women is weakness and fear, and smells to everyone like weakness and fear. When people see the strong horse and the weak horse, naturally they will prefer the strong horse.

There is an enormous epidemic of extremely bad female behavior right in front of your face. That this epidemic starts at a very early age is just a small part of what people are refusing to see, and this small part is no different from the rest of it. Mostly what we see is bad female behavior in college and in the workplace, and it is in the workplace that most of the economic damage from female sexual misconduct happens.


Now suppose instead the boss bulls his way through, and insists on talking about X, ignoring her gentle steering towards Y? Well, chances are that at first the interruptions become considerably less helpful, less respectful, less friendly and less supportive, more openly hostile and disruptive. But maybe, indeed very likely, her stiffening resistance will suddenly collapse, and she will accept the boss talking about X. In which case he has passed the shit test, and when he wins and when she capitulates to his verbal domination you will see her emit some subtle or not so subtle body language that signals that if he were to try some physical domination on her for size, maybe that might well go down similarly. Which was, of course the whole point of the exercise, the whole point of disrupting the bosses talk and attempting to silence him. The dance is pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender. To reproduce successfully, men and women have to form stable families, which means that men have to conquer, and women have to surrender. She is provoking him to aggress against her, so that he can conquer her. She never actually cared one way or the other whether the boss talked about X or Y.

Now you might suppose you can stay out of trouble by always capitulating, by losing to every shit test, by white knighting. Accepting defeat, accepting the higher status of your adversary, works in a conflict with a fellow male. It fails catastrophically in a conflict with a woman. Male conflicts are resolved by establishing hierarchy. Female conflicts ae resolve by eliminating the losers. If you submit to male dominance, he would like to keep you around. If you submit to female dominance, she will casually destroy you. Men reproduce most successfully by ruling, females reproduce most successfully by being ruled, thus are maladapted to rule. White knighting fails.

Jim, Jim's Blog 0 Comments [8/12/2018 9:27:25 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 137191

A healthy relationship between a male and a female :

1. Female acknowledges her place in society ( in the kitchen making a sandwich, doing the laundry, ironing,) This also means no listening to feminist bs, no following feminist bs, no hating or blaming men.

2. Female does not start drama (eg - faking having something for attention), harass or nag the male.

3. Female obeys the males commands, as he is the superior one ( as per title)

4. Female is loyal and never cheats.

5. No sex toys. Female must save all her sexual lust for when she has sex with the male.

6. Female stays with male till she dies.

7. Female asks for permission/ checks with male first before doing something.

PM_ME_STRIPPERS, incels.me 13 Comments [3/19/2018 4:20:08 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Katie
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 139991

[LifeFuel]JFL: Void sleepwalks off of a balcony after meeting up with 5 random chads to be gang sexed
final moments of British holidaymaker Kirsty Maxwell, 27, show her return from hen do then lie in bed... two hours before she fell to her death from Benidorm hotel balcony

• CCTV footage has captured the final moments of British woman Kirsty Maxwell
• She is filmed staggering along a corridor in the Payma Apartments in Benidorm
• The newly released footage was taken hours before she plunged to her death
• The chilling video has been aired on a BBC documentary called Killed Abroad

The real suicidefuel is that her husband is like a 6-7/10 and basically her inbred Anglo-gene looksmatch. And she was getting gangbanged to death and now her betabux husband has to stand up for her after her death. JFL at this existence. This is what ascension looks like boys.

please tell me theres footage somewhere of this cavernous roastie splattering on the pavement :feelskek:

Submitter's note: According to the article, the five men from whose balcony the woman fell do not seem to have interacted with her much. No mention of gangbangs. Yes, they are making juicy scandalous embellishments to the bloody Daily Mail!

Various incels, incels.me 3 Comments [8/22/2018 9:47:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 141524

Have you ever said “hi” to a female in passing just as a reflex and she says “I have a boyfriend” like he’s a f~~~ing PURSE?? Women talk about their boyfriends and husbands like he’s a goddam accessory. “Yeah he’s a moron… but he’s MY moron”. MY ring. MY dress. MY wedding. MY baby. MY boyfriend. ME ME ME ownership of property and people. Helen, honey. Just shut your mouth.

Being able to call someone “MINE” like property and slavery is a woman at her show-stopping BEST.

Keymaster, MGTOW 11 Comments [12/17/2018 11:11:28 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 139071

Feminism/Women Working/Hookup Culture has been an absolute nightmare. My 35yo oldcel observations on the state of Modern Women.

at the age now where I can see what is happening in these Nightmare Times, meaning I can see how life has ended up for the majority of my peers.

Some of my observations:

A ton of 40 something women going through midlife crisis and throwing their husbands out like fucking garbage.
Young 20 something women who are crazy liberal/sjw/pc freaks. They have colored hair and think that Donald Trump has "done" something to them on a personal level.
Women in their 40's who are childless and think that they can still have kids safely.
A shit ton of women in their 30's who are single mothers.

And as for my peers from HS/College(35yo):

I see a bunch of women who do have husbands but have 0 kids. Why did they even bother getting married. These are the so called "Career Women". They think some stupid fucking job is more rewarding/satisfying/gratifying than being a mother to a bunch of beautiful kids.

I also see a bunch of women that have only 1 fucking kid. 35yo and only 1 fucking kid. Back in the 1950's these chicks would of had 4-6 kids. And of course all of em did the alpha bucks and married some beta schmuck.

And then the rest of em are single Roasties who have jumped from cock to cock. 35yo: no husband, no kids, living in a shitty apartment but they have "Muh Career".

As for the men:

A lot of guys who have bastard kids. These dudes are paying Child Support.

Guys who have married below their level. A 4-5 guy marrying a 3-4 chick. They would of had looks-matched women in the past.

And a lot of the guys are single. The majority of the single guys are working shitty jobs. They aren't ugly or anything but they have limited money. I'm guessing these guys LDAR with their hobbies.

bluecollarCEL, incels.me 2 Comments [7/22/2018 9:13:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 141791

The Unknowability of Beta Turd

An Alpha Asshole is a stone. His shape and properties are easily determined and do not change depending on his surroundings. You might not like a particular stone. It might not fit your particular stone criteria. However your assessment will in no way impact the stone. You can yell at, bite or kick the stone. The stone will remain unchanged.

In contrast, a Beta Nice Guy is a moist turd. Beta Turds take the shape of whatever stepped on them last. Their entire existence is contextual. When a woman goes on a date with a Beta Turd all of her questions will be met with attempts to conform to her expectations. At no point will she be able to get a solid definitive response from mushy turd man because Beta Turds are conformists.

This dynamic creates a crisis of authenticity. Not only is it difficult for people to definitively know Beta Turd but Beta Turds don't even know who they are themselves. Let's use Paul Elam a man who I personally believe to be the Creme De La Creme of Beta Turd as an example. Paul Elam spent years writing articles discussing masculinity and the uncaring manipulative nature of women. Then one day a pretty blond girl named Cassie Jay gave Paul Elam a call about a Red Pill Movie. Next thing you know, Paul Elam has thrown masculinity out the window and is crying on camera begging women to sympathize with his problems. So the question is: Who really is Paul Elam? What does he really believe? Does he think that women are manipulative whores incapable of empathy? Or does he believe that women should empathize with men's issues? He's taken both positions. Which one does he actually believe? Does he even know? All we can say conclusively is that Paul Elam is a mushy turd.

There is something inherently unpleasant and disconcerting about mushy Turd Men. The unnerving feeling is felt strongest by women who are naturally more suspicious then men due to their biological aversion to risk. Imagine you are a woman and your Beta husband hands you a dozen roses while telling you he loves you. Now did he really do it out of love or did he do it to manipulate you into sex? Is he apologizing for something? Is he going to ask for something in return? The inherent anxiety of unknowability destroys the feeling those roses could have created. Now imagine that you are a woman and that your uncaring Alpha jerkboy boyfriend just gave you a dozen roses. He isn't manipulating you into sex because he can cock blast your ladyhole whenever he wants. He isn't trying to influence your emotions because he doesn't give a fuck how you feel. He did it because he wanted to. When an Alpha gives roses they are roses. When a Beta gives roses they are a pretext.

The Manosphere mythos is that Alpha Jerkboys give women tingles. Discussion of the female perspective usually ends there, before the pity party starts playing it's greatest hits. The truth is far darker and more interesting. Women know themselves to be emotional impulsive and a danger to themselves. They know that without a man holding them accountable they are capable of anything from binging uncontrollably like a wild dog to giving themselves a Britney Spears haircut. The problem is that a Beta Turd can't tell a woman no. Like a child he is powerless to stop a woman from doing anything that she wants because he needs her approval to function. A Beta can't stop a woman from becoming her worst version of herself. Women know this and hate them for it.

Beta males are unreliable, undependable and unknowable. They'll tell you all about their fitness and diet regimen to gain your approval then they'll skip the gym and eat a burrito when you are safely out of sight. They'll let their wives and daughters slide deeper and deeper into degeneracy without saying a word. For a Beta it's easier to watch wifey choke on strange dick and daughter cam-whore herself then protect the dignity of the family with a firm No!

There is nothing noble or enviable about Beta Turds. They are not men. Men have thoughts, convictions and values that are held fast and only change for good reason. Betas are nothing more then what their environment tells them to be. Beta Turds deserve only suffering. Only suffering can teach a Beta to stand up for himself and say: No! Until you learn that lesson the stomping will go on indefinetly.

GayLubeOil, r/TheRedPill 4 Comments [1/1/2019 10:57:43 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 132752

men’s loyalty to violence is disturbing. when women want a life free of abuse, assault, threat, & coercion, men’s first suggestion is “learn to fight back. learn to defend yourself”. i don’t want my life to be a fight. i don’t want to “prove myself” through inflicting pain & fear. i don’t find violence and physical conflict fulfilling or self-actualising. they’re exhausting & dehumanizing

fyxan, Tumblr 10 Comments [10/8/2017 12:22:08 PM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: The Reptilian Jew
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 138045

The Redistribution of Sex

One lesson to be drawn from recent Western history might be this: Sometimes the extremists and radicals and weirdos see the world more clearly than the respectable and moderate and sane. All kinds of phenomena, starting as far back as the Iraq War and the crisis of the euro but accelerating in the age of populism, have made more sense in the light of analysis by reactionaries and radicals than as portrayed in the organs of establishment opinion.

This is part of why there’s been so much recent agitation over universities and op-ed pages and other forums for debate. There’s a general understanding that the ideological mainstream isn’t adequate to the moment, but nobody can decide whether that means we need purges or pluralism, a spirit of curiosity and conversation or a furious war against whichever side you think is evil.

For those more curious than martial, one useful path through this thicket is to look at areas where extremists and eccentrics from very different worlds are talking about the same subject. Such overlap is no guarantee of wisdom, but it’s often a sign that there’s something interesting going on.

Which brings me to the sex robots.

Well, actually, first it brings me to the case of Robin Hanson, a George Mason economist, libertarian and noted brilliant weirdo. Commenting on the recent terrorist violence in Toronto, in which a self-identified “incel” — that is, involuntary celibate — man sought retribution against women and society for denying him the fornication he felt that he deserved, Hanson offered this provocation: If we are concerned about the just distribution of property and money, why do we assume that the desire for some sort of sexual redistribution is inherently ridiculous?

After all, he wrote, “one might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met.”

This argument was not well received by people closer to the mainstream than Professor Hanson, to put it mildly. A representative response from Slate’s Jordan Weissmann, “Is Robin Hanson the Creepiest Economist in America?”, cited the post along with some previous creepy forays to dismiss Hanson as a misogynist weirdo not that far removed from the franker misogyny of toxic online males.

But Hanson’s post made me immediately think of a recent essay in The London Review of Books by Amia Srinivasan, “Does Anyone Have the Right To Sex?” Srinivasan, an Oxford philosophy professor, covered similar ground (starting with an earlier “incel” killer) but expanded the argument well beyond the realm of male chauvinists to consider groups with whom The London Review’s left-leaning and feminist readers would have more natural sympathy — the overweight and disabled, minority groups treated as unattractive by the majority, trans women unable to find partners and other victims, in her narrative, of a society that still makes us prisoners of patriarchal and also racist-sexist-homophobic rules of sexual desire.

Srinivasan ultimately answered her title question in the negative: “There is no entitlement to sex, and everyone is entitled to want what they want.” But her negative answer was a qualified one. While “no one has a right to be desired,” at the same time “who is desired and who isn’t is a political question,” which left-wing and feminist politics might help society answer differently someday. This wouldn’t instantiate a formal right to sex, exactly, but if the new order worked as its revolutionary architects intended, sex would be more justly distributed than it is today.

A number of the critics I saw engaging with Srinivasan’s essay tended to respond the way a normal center-left writer like Weissmann engaged with Hanson’s thought experiment — by commenting on its weirdness or ideological extremity rather than engaging fully with its substance. But to me, reading Hanson and Srinivasan together offers a good case study in how intellectual eccentrics — like socialists and populists in politics — can surface issues and problems that lurk beneath the surface of more mainstream debates.

By this I mean that as offensive or utopian the redistribution of sex might sound, the idea is entirely responsive to the logic of late-modern sexual life, and its pursuit would be entirely characteristic of a recurring pattern in liberal societies.

First, because like other forms of neoliberal deregulation the sexual revolution created new winners and losers, new hierarchies to replace the old ones, privileging the beautiful and rich and socially adept in new ways and relegating others to new forms of loneliness and frustration.

Second, because in this new landscape, and amid other economic and technological transformations, the sexes seem to be struggling generally to relate to one another, with social and political chasms opening between them and not only marriage and family but also sexual activity itself in recent decline.

Third, because the culture’s dominant message about sex is still essentially Hefnerian, despite certain revisions attempted by feminists since the heyday of the Playboy philosophy — a message that frequency and variety in sexual experience is as close to a summum bonum as the human condition has to offer, that the greatest possible diversity in sexual desires and tastes and identities should be not only accepted but cultivated, and that virginity and celibacy are at best strange and at worst pitiable states. And this master narrative, inevitably, makes both the new inequalities and the decline of actual relationships that much more difficult to bear …

… which in turn encourages people, as ever under modernity, to place their hope for escape from the costs of one revolution in a further one yet to come, be it political, social or technological, which will supply if not the promised utopia at least some form of redress for the many people that progress has obviously left behind.

There is an alternative, conservative response, of course — namely, that our widespread isolation and unhappiness and sterility might be dealt with by reviving or adapting older ideas about the virtues of monogamy and chastity and permanence and the special respect owed to the celibate.

But this is not the natural response for a society like ours. Instead we tend to look for fixes that seem to build on previous revolutions, rather than reverse them.

In the case of sexual liberation and its discontents, that’s unlikely to mean the kind of thoroughgoingly utopian reimagining of sexual desire that writers like Srinivasan think we should aspire toward, or anything quite so formal as the pro-redistribution political lobby of Hanson’s thought experiment.

But I expect the logic of commerce and technology will be consciously harnessed, as already in pornography, to address the unhappiness of incels, be they angry and dangerous or simply depressed and despairing. The left’s increasing zeal to transform prostitution into legalized and regulated “sex work” will have this end implicitly in mind, the libertarian (and general male) fascination with virtual-reality porn and sex robots will increase as those technologies improve — and at a certain point, without anyone formally debating the idea of a right to sex, right-thinking people will simply come to agree that some such right exists, and that it makes sense to look to some combination of changed laws, new technologies and evolved mores to fulfill it.

Whether sex workers and sex robots can actually deliver real fulfillment is another matter. But that they will eventually be asked to do it, in service to a redistributive goal that for now still seems creepy or misogynist or radical, feels pretty much inevitable.

Ross Douthat, New York Times 6 Comments [6/13/2018 7:43:16 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 141093

I DO NOT HATE. But i do not allow some homo to attack me and just lay down and not attack back.

And there are two fake trans i have caught And one of my friends well she was here to see one of them show himself.

You see there is something women know men do when more than one of us are around and talking.

You males can not take us talking and you have a word for it. and you act up so badly.

So we can tell who is whom. it is easy get a trans in a room full of born females and watch. it will go two ways. she is a female and fits in or they are a fake and can not take it and shows they are male.

It is that easy.

Dee Price, Kiwi Farms 6 Comments [10/27/2018 4:04:29 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 129076

Question for the lurking females plaguing this sub. Why do you give compliments to Incels when you wouldn't give that same Incel the time of day in real life? Do you get pleasure raising the hopes of depressed virgins and sexually inadequate men and stomping it to the ground, laughing at our humiliation with your Chad BF/ husband? Even when you're married you still want to torment us.

You see us as sexually undesirable and therefore subhuman. We've stopped approaching and left you alone. We just wanted to relate and share experiences with other undesirables but you have to come here and treat this place like a fucking zoo. If you had any sense compassion in that black void you call a soul, you'd leave us alone and take your cucked whiteknights too.

dontcryimalreadydead, r/incels 7 Comments [7/10/2017 2:10:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Katie
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 130721

Though really, anybody who complains about masculinity being toxic is a soft cuck babied by the 21st century's Political Correctness.

Ntwadumela, Kiwi Farms 3 Comments [8/18/2017 9:20:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 126500

(Just out of curiosity, why do you feel the need to differentiate between lesbians and gold star lesbians? Why does it make you so angry that women who have had sex with men have the same right as a "gold star" like you to identify as a lesbian? Is it a superiority thing? Do you think you're better than those women? I really want to know why you put so much energy into something as trivial as this. )

First of all, it is not a trivial thing. Maybe to you non gold stars but to most gold star lesbians it is not trivial. Gold Star lesbian means a lesbian who has never willingly slept with a man or boy. Where in the definition does it say that gold star lesbians think they are superior to other lesbians? Rape victims can be gold stars lesbians because it implies consensual sex not rape. The term gold star used to be a slur. “Lesbians” who had or are sleeping with men made fun of and insulted lesbians who have never and will never sleep with men willingly by saying something like this, “oh, so you have never slept with a man? So now what do you want? A gold star!?” So these lesbians eventually got sick of it and decided to reclaim the word for themselves thus the gold star lesbian. The “lesbians” and their supporters who made fun of them and future supporters who will hate the term and/or definition of the term or/and the actual gold star lesbians are forever pissed of and will do anything to silence us and make us look bad. I think it was never about the term, it was and is about the definition of the term because they are other offensive terms such as pillow princess and dyke and slut that no one is making a fuss over and even if they do people ignore it. I think these people who are antigold stars just can’t stand and comprehend how a woman has not and will not willingly have sex with men and they are pissed of because they and everyone expect every woman to sleep with a man at least once in her lifetime. I view antigold stars to be mysoginistic and homophobic. I care because it puts a really bad reputation on real lesbians. Gold star lesbians have face the same compulsory heterosexuality just like the “lesbians” who have slept with men. There is only one type of lesbian and it is a biological woman who is sexually, emotionally, romantically, and physically attracted to ONLY other biological women. By that definition lesbians don’t willingly have sex with men. Also, they are many ways to avoid having sex with men when you are faced with expectations to sleep with them unless you live in a country like Afghanistan where who are basically raped and force to do things. The only excuse that I hear of why a “lesbian” slept with a man willingly is because compulsorary heterosexuality but there excuse is not valid because gold star lesbians face the same challenges as they do. Actually they have more of a challenge and are at more of a risk because they have never and will never sleep with men willingly and society expects women to have sex with men. Gold Star lesbians are not “lucky” they are just following their lesbianism. These “lesbians” who have slept and/or are sleeping with men make lesbians a huge joke to the mayority, the straight people. Those “lesbians” reinforce the stereotype that lesbians can have sex with men willingly, it is just a phase, they will end up with men, they can be “turn”, etc. The word lesbian has been changed (not by the dictionary but by what people connote it to) to mean a woman who had sex with men but now has sex with women. I don’t even like to call myself lesbian because people especially the LGBTQ will assume that I have slept with men which is not true. So I call myself gold star lesbian and this clearly states that I have never and will never sleep with men. The term lesbian has been changed to be ambiguous meaning that it can mean anything even the bisexuals claim the word lesbians. The point is to distinguish the “lesbians” who had and/or have sex with men from the lesbians who has never and will never willingly sleep with a man. After all, who do you think a person who wants to learn about lesbians will take more seriously, a “lesbian” who has slept or/and is sleeping with men or a lesbian who has never and will never sleep with men? I care because you antigold star lesbians are silencing us and expect us to be viewed as manfuckers like every other “lesbian”. It is just a term and because antigold stars are making a huge fuss over it I assume you all are homophobic. Plus, why do the “lesbians” who have had sex with men get a voice while lesbians who never slept with men need to shut the fuck up by the antigold star lesbians? It is antigold stars who make a huge fuss about the term and put bullshit lies in our mouths such as we don’t let rape victims be gold stars (most gold stars would agree that they can be gold stars). We gold stars are just defending ourselves from your homophobic bullshit.

(Hi, so there are many issues with your argument:

1) I think it’s funny how you assumed that I am a “non gold star” lesbian just because I have a problem with your perspective. To use your language, I am in fact a “platinum gold star” lesbian. My current girlfriend was my first kiss :)

2) The term “gold star” lesbian is not a slur. The response “oh, so you have never slept with a man? So now what do you want? A gold star!?” probably came after your insufferable and needless bragging about never having been with a “biological male”, which by the way, is transphobic. I’m not surprised that you’re a terf. A sarcastic comeback is not the same as a slur. The term “dyke” is used when I’m being threatened from across the street by a group of men for holding my girlfriend’s hand. No one cares if I’m a gold star or not.

3) You assume IMMENSE amounts of privilege when talking about being a gold star lesbian. I come from a country where there was absolutely NO LGBT representation. On top of that, my family was very religious and conservative. Heterosexual sex wasn’t even discussed or represented without religious warnings and limitations, i.e. only when you’re married, etc. I have had feelings for women for as long as I could remember, but due to my young inability to comprehend what I was feeling, I continued to identify as straight. After all, I had no point of reference, so how could I identify as something I didn’t even know was an option? You don’t have to be in Afghanistan being murdered or raped to deal with compulsory heterosexuality. If I had remained in my country, I would have probably ended up in a casually arranged marriage courtesy of my parents, distant relatives, and family friends. I know for a fact that I would also have just accepted and went along with the marriage, as I would have wanted to please my family. It would have probably been a close childhood friend of mine and we could just continue to be best friends after the marriage, just with occasional sex thrown in. Would I have been enthusiastic about the sex? Maybe not, but since I would have had no point of reference, chances are that I would have just went along with it to please my husband. No big deal, right? Except that in this scenario, I’m gay and I just don’t know it.

P.S. this situation isn’t completely hypothetical, I know a few of my parents’ friends that had me lined up as an option for their sons.

What I’m trying to show you is that there is nuance to being a lesbian. Nothing is just black and white. A lesbian is a woman (cis or trans) that is attracted solely to women. Therefore, I am a lesbian, just as much as my girlfriend, @tinylesbian, who has been involved with men for means of safety and survival.

4) The differentiation of platinum/gold star lesbians vs lesbians who have been involved with men in the past creates a hierarchy and is not helpful nor conducive to a supportive lesbian community. Bragging about never having been with a “biological male” (still transphobic) should not be a point of pride as it insinuates that you are somehow more of a lesbian than women who have and honestly, it’s just unnecessary information. We don’t care. No one does.)

There are gold stars and platinum lesbians who disagree with the label and I know that but most of them that complain about the label are the ones who sleep or have slept with men. Personally, I don’t like the term because it implies something better but no one including the haters have tried to come up with a new neutral term. Transexuals can’t be lesbians because I follow science. I suppose I am a TERF but I don’t call myself that because I find it offensive. The term may not have been a slur but it obviously was used to offend the gold star lesbians. I do agree that Afghanistan is not the only place that you can get raped and murdered for being LGBTQ. Unfortunately, even the U.S. has problems with murder and rape. However, as a society you can get help if you are raped and the rapist will get punished if he or she is reported but unfortunately some countries don’t have that. I in fact am a platinum lesbian. Despite that I had tried to be straight and tried to like boys in my teenaged years but it didn’t work and never got a boyfriend or any fuckboys coming after me (probably because of my social issues). Plus, I just couldn’t bring myself to have sex with males because to me it felt like I was going to sleep with an animal. It just wasn’t for me and my extincts just said no. I also tried commiting suicide a couple of times. But just because I am a platinum lesbian doesnt means that I had an easy life and that I and other gold star and platinum lesbians should be ignored and silenced. Most of us gold star and platinum lesbians have not had an easy life and we didn’t go have sex with men to make it easier and plus it is not in our nature. I totally disagree that lesbianism is nuanced. If lesbianism is nuanced, what about straight people are they nuanced and not black and white? The lesbian community is a huge joke (at least the ones I have been to) and it is not because of gold star and platinum lesbians. It is because of “lesbians” and bisexuals who can’t shut the hell up about men whether how it was good or bad having sex with them, how to unlearn liking men, divorces, marriages, children with men, etc. I expected a community of lesbians who talked only about women and not a thing about men (relating to sexual or romantic). Plus, the hate and bullying towards and silencing of lesbians who have never slept with men by the antigold stars and antiplatinums is unbelievable. Sometimes they even ban you from the place if you have never slept with men. I don’t involve myself in the lesbian community or LGBTQ community anymore and only seek other gold star or platinum lesbians to date. You and only people with your mentality may not care about the term but why the hell do you and others think you have the right to tell us what we can and cannot call ourselves and judge us when they are many bisexuals who mislabel themselves as lesbians and make a joke out of us? One of the reasons why we are loud and vocal is because people like you want to silence us and most people don’t want to be silenced. Also, we want to be role models to young lesbians to show them that they don’t have to sleep with a men to make sure they are lesbians or to be proper lesbians. I will respect your opinions despite that I disagree with them and I hope you respect mine despite you disagreeing with me. And then we call it quits.

platinumgoldstarlesbians, Tumblr 17 Comments [4/20/2017 1:40:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Thanos6
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 138267

Why MGTOWs are right and you are just coping.
You will never be a 6' white ripped Chad model.

Let's get that out of the way up front.

Women will also only continue to change for the worse with hypergamy escalating annually.

If you can accept those two points are factually correct, then MGTOWs are correct.

The only type of "relationships" you might ever get will involve you paying the girl, spending 20-30 hours a week emotionally supporting her and doing activities she wants with her to keep her happy, "dead bedrooms", or will involve her being a gross landwhale.

The idea that most of us can ever do better is a lie. If you can't accept that and move on that's your failure and your weakness.

This is why MGTOWs are right.

RageAgainstTDL, incels.me 1 Comments [6/21/2018 6:22:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 128117

[Thread "White Women are clearly the most priveleged group to exist in the history of the human race." - OP by screwaroundaccount]

But they act like they're an oppressed minority. I have nothing to elaborate on this, just felt like saying it.


Well they are probably going to go from most priveleged to most raped in the not too distant future. If the pendulum goes to one extreme like we are seeing with western women at the moment than it will naturally overcompensate to the other extreme in order to find balance again... so women and girls got something coming.

They're getting their just desserts.

screwaroundaccount, hiper4 and MRALawyer, Reddit - r/MGTOW 4 Comments [6/14/2017 2:47:43 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: JeanP
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 127454

Dating a stripper should be a requirement for any aspiring alpha. It’s definitely not a long term thing, but you will learn a great deal about women, but even more about other men. Because strippers have stories, and when you’re her man, she’ll tell you all about the rest of the tools in the world

kleyau, https://kleyau.wordpress.com/ 6 Comments [5/25/2017 9:46:35 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: X
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 128088

Muslims teach and genuinely believe that if you die for Islam you will get seventy two 13 year old girls for eternity (not to mention the daughters and wives of conquered enemies in this life). Christianity teaches that if you so much as fap once, you’ll spend eternity with a pitchfork up your arse. In the meantime, stay chained to your hag wife or else. You have to spend eternity with her in ‘heaven’ too.

If I was a testosterone fuelled angry young man I know which one I’d choose.

theantifeminist, Resisting the Rape of the Male – Sex Positive Men's Rights 8 Comments [6/13/2017 1:19:49 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: X
WTF?! || meh