@hydroacetylene's banner p

hydroacetylene


				

				

				
8 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 04 20:00:27 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 128

hydroacetylene


				
				
				

				
8 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 04 20:00:27 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 128

Verified Email

If anything it is the opposite: a literal hairy pigwoman can get laid

Women generally don’t want to get laid, they want commitment from a good man who treats them well. Kudos to circus freaks who find that, but ‘had sex’ does not necessarily indicate it.

There is a figure you sometimes see, the ‘abortion bro’. He is strongly pro-choice because, although he doesn’t care overmuch about women’s freedom or health, he definitely does not want to wind up a dad by accident. He’ll make arguments along the lines of ‘what if your girlfriend got pregnant- see that’s why it’s important to protect women’s reproductive rights’. Some of them will talk about the need to firmly tell partners interested in keeping the baby that paying for an abortion will be the last help they ever get, and they’re going no contact afterwards regardless of her decision.

For obvious reasons, this figure is not allowed to headline pro-choice rallies. But you find them on Reddit, sometimes IRL, and occasionally in op-Ed’s in lowbrow newspapers. But they definitely exist. I suspect they’re much more common than women who actually want low commitment relationships.

Men have identical happiness whether married or cohabiting- women are far happier married. Women are nearly four times as likely to say they want to save sex for marriage as men are- and by relationship progression, men get their way. The median woman has socially-conservative-in-practice preferences for relationships and sex; in fact feminists generally do too. They’re just unable to advocate for themselves effectively in the face of men’s preferences. And that is the reason for patriarchy. We don’t tell children to stick up for themselves against adults and expect them to do it, at least not well. There are frameworks for dealing with relationships between adults and children- teachers have extensive rules governing how they relate to students, for example. Likewise you can’t reasonably expect an unprotected woman to be at the mercy of whatever man is around.

Yes, the people most offended by this are women. I have no doubt that the feminist will answer with ‘that’s NOT true’ or some variant thereof and the abortion bro will answer with ‘not my problem they’re like that’. But a typical woman flourishes better with couverture than as femme sole.

And this is why ‘consent based sexual morality’ is full of obvious rule patches tack-welded on in the most awkward possible way.

Sitting senators have generally not run a competitive race in quite a while.

Probably, yes. Particularly if the popular legitimacy answer(a hardline member of the same party succeeds) conflicts with the technical legal line of succession(which has never even gotten to Secretary of State).

See, as someone who is actually quite fond of women- but not delusional- this is quite sad. Getting taken advantage of happens whenever women aren’t protected, either because no one cares or because of recognizing their ‘autonomy’ or whatever.

The answer is to conduct congressional hearings and hold them in contempt for some stupid bullshit- pardons can’t be preemptive.

Uh, you kill Trump, you get president Vance(and while it’s an interesting legal question who technically assumes the presidency if you knock him off too, in practice the principle of party rule is too strong to be overcome, so it would be a Republican with a tough-as-nails reputation). I’m not sure the people who have an interest in averting a Trump presidency would find that preferable.

Might they be covering their asses with, not foreigners, not the public, but a possible Trump appointee?

Not today, but off the top of my head I do know that the medieval church took for granted that urban men would not be virgins at marriage, although it deplored this, but considered it achievable to prevent fornication during courting/engagement. This points to most single men visiting prostitutes.

Conversely, when I see Turks or balkan Muslims not drink when everyone else is, I become concerned in a way that I’m not when I see a white Christian turn down a beer.

Ok- Trump is somewhat less corrupt but much less tasteful about it than Biden. This does not make it more concerning. And it seems like the case that Trump is more corrupt than a typical presidential-level politician isn’t being made- instead the case being made is that his corruption is executed in ways different from the usual.

Access to your own children, full time or near full time companionship, having two adults in the house, and all the little things that tend to be improved downstream of having a woman in the house. Most people prefer a woman’s touch for their dwelling, and most men cannot replicate it for themselves.

If you’re saying ‘well men don’t need to marry for all that’- you’re talking about cohabitation, not prostitution. Those are meaningfully different arrangements.

I mean, there may be a platonic ideal of non-exploitative prostitution, but that’s certainly not what it looks like in practice. Centrists care more about that than they do lofty ideals.

You are of course leaving out all the benefits of traditional marriage which are not ‘access to sex on demand’.

Politicians are corrupt. In the same way it’s not concerning behavior in a dog to fear the vacuum cleaner but it would be in a person, this kind of stuff just comes with the territory.

Trump is less tasteful, that’s it.

Mail order brides and incels long predate the sexual revolution, though. There were men unable to get married(and resorting to prostitution- when they could afford it- for their entire lives). And brides shipped in were extremely common.

These are environments with essentially meritocratic back and forth between unskilled and semi-skilled labor.

Community college would become much more expensive.

United Russia would take a strong pro-life stance if their ties to Orthodox Christianity(which has identical views about abortion to the RCC) were genuine; their rhetoric on race/ethnicity is 'woke' and they have enacted strong hate speech laws. This isn't some kind of consistently conservative country even before you get to commie nostalgia.

Well, there's also the process for getting them kicked off of disability, there's the necessary evidentiary standards for each claim(which vary from claim to claim), etc. All this changes the calculus.

Remind me, how much additional revenue have those 87,000 IRS agents brought in?

Uh, Russia has the world’s highest abortion rate and IIRC there is no mainstream political party which sees it as different from normal birth control. The American religious right by and large actually practices their Christianity; Russia has a church attendance rate which is lower end of average for Europe. It’s true that Russia is homophobic and transphobic, but a bunch of that is the probably-accurate view that LGBT advocacy groups are vectors of American influence.

I’m not going to claim Russia is progressive, but it’s not a based conservative country either. United Russia may have slightly more in common with the GOP than with the democrats, but at the end of the day this is a corrupt imperialist power giving special rights to minority groups to keep the peace and operating off extreme centralization, state owned companies, and militarism.

If you want to see actual social conservatism in europe, look at certain Celtic regions(Hebrides, northern Irish Protestant bastions), Georgia, and the byzantine Catholic belt in the Carpathians(mostly western Ukraine, but also parts of Poland and Slovakia).

Gold is the default alternative right now; it’s not hard to imagine a role for bitcoin as well.

Either way, we’ve seen inflation in reserve currencies before. It’s survivable.

‘Chinese expats or their children being granted a security clearance or background checked for sensitive work are asked to provide a list of relatives who will immediately be granted visas upon completion of the process’ seems to solve the process- presumably the CCP isn’t preemptively taking hostages. It’s just when they need something. And these kinds of security checks already ask to disclose ties to foreign nationals and discriminate in otherwise unconstitutional ways- it’s not a huge stretch.

In any case, orientals in general seem to love America even before you get to the ‘totalitarian polluted and poor’ aspect of red China; I have a hard time imagining grandma and brother in law are passing up an opportunity to move and massively increase their standard of living.

You get cliques of gentiles that are nearly as successful. They’re just smaller.