The Girls Who Broke Your Heart Thread

Don't you know? We've already established that a feminist SJW said behavior is all based on culture. Men and women are the same because our feelz say so.

Antarius_sl said:

Yes, there is a difference between men and women, and women are pretty much "broken" by the time they've had 10 dicks inside them.

Click to expand...

At once or in a row? Does it have to be within a certain time period or are ten dicks over a period of twenty years ok? What if its one dick for nine and a half years then nine dicks in six months?

Yours is too small.

Tough truth.

What if I am the eleventh dick? Is she able to bond with me or do I have to be equal to or lesser than tenth?

You're bonding just as much as the first bro. First dick or the hundredth, it doesn't matter. So you shouldn't ask her about her past!

She's just going to lie if I do ask!

Famm_sl said:

She's just going to lie if I do ask!

Click to expand...

How dare thee! You must take the fair maiden at her word! It's called trust!

Phazael_sl said:

First of all, I already said you have a double standard about this. I am fairly certain when you grow up and settle down with some nice jewish girl that you are going to leave Mahootma the hairy armed falafel cook out of your personal history when you date her. Second of all, if you are in love with someone _ACTUALLY_ in love with them, you don't care about the mile of dicks they rode before you came along, just the last six inches. This isn't the fucking 50s where you expect to be busting that crystalized cherry on your wedding night; everyone gets to fuck around in their youth. If your partner's priors bother you to the point that you would end a relationship over them, then you have more in common with Dumar and Ant Man than the rest of humanity.

Second, the only reason I would ever care would be STDs and maybe kids (who are arguably STDs themselves). Your wife is more than just your dick holster. When you grow up, you are going to realize that really fast.

Click to expand...

Actually, RP is pretty much based on the assumption that Victorian era norms are correct and that women are happiest when treated as dick holsters.

Under RP philosophy, women should not even be educated at all, as it's actively detrimental to them. This is because RP says women cannot derive happiness from educational or career success and men don't care about how smart their partners are, only how attractive they are and how few other partners they've had. By going to college, women sabotage themselves because they're both increasing their partner count and wasting their most attractive years on a fruitless pursuit that will never make them happy.

RP literally says that locking down a high status male is both a necessary and sufficient condition for female happiness and that she will "love" him as long as he remains high status, even if he outright beats the shit out of her every day.

That was the moral of An Officer and a Gentleman right?

RP philosophy is actually 100% identical to that of hardcore conservative antifeminists likePhyllis Schlafly, it's just not immediately obvious because RPers focus on telling men how to act while the antifeminists focus on telling women how to act.

Xequecal_sl said:

RP philosophy is actually 100% identical to that of hardcore conservative antifeminists likePhyllis Schlafly, it's just not immediately obvious because RPers focus on telling men how to act while the antifeminists focus on telling women how to act.

Click to expand...

Well, Phyllis Schlafly was/is kind of correct in pretty much all of her beliefs of what would happen in the future, based on briefly going over her wikipedia page (hadn't really heard of her before).

Women have lost / are losing many of their traditional security blankets such as guaranteed alimony and rights to custody in divorce proceedings (even though they do, of course, win the vast majority of the time, it's not a forgone conclusion now).

Women aren't in any danger of being drafted any time soon, but then again, neither are men anymore.

The courts did cave-in now on same-sex marriages (in most states), and it has become "socially acceptable" to be "out" in the u.s.

Since the 1960s, traditional gender roles HAVE eroded. A woman is now expected/required to work a full 40 hour workweek just to be able to survive, the same as men. Marriage rates are declining rapidly, not only are women not happy with what feminism has produced in men (men are not "measuring up" to the standards expected of hypergamy, meaning higher status than her), but men are not as happy with the available "marriageable" women either (single mothers abound).Log In - The New York Times

In 2013, the economist David H. Autor and Melanie Wasserman, a graduate student at M.I.T., found that, "Sharp declines in the earning power of non-college males combined with the economic self-sufficiency of women - rising educational attainment, falling gender gap and greater female control over fertility choices - have reduced the economic value of marriage for women."

Click to expand...

Basically we fell from about 70% of households being "nuclear families" to less than 50% in the span of 50 years. In some cities, 75% of children are being raised by single mothers (such as my own). She spoke like it was a bad thing, personally, as a red pill aware man, I think I can use my knowledge to further myself, so I don't really see a problem with it. I'm "enjoying the decline" as redpillers tend to say.

Marriage is about as good a predictor of economic success as are education, race and ethnicity, according to a 2014 study by Robert Lerman at the Urban Institute, and W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia.

In their analysis of census and Bureau of Labor Statistics data, they concluded that if married households today equaled the numbers seen in 1980, "the growth in median income of families with children would be 44 percent higher."

Click to expand...

Men work harder to provide for a family, IF they have one. Women do not save unless there is a strong man forcing her to reign spending on frivolous material goods. The two combine to create a great combo.

Unisex bathrooms did come about, although generally at smaller venues. It doesn't mean much, but she was right about it.

Is her mom hot? You could go another way with this. Just sayin.

Pee in the mom's butt.

Jane Fonda is 77, I'd probably bang her. Just saying.

Eomer_sl said:

Jane Fonda is 77, I'd probably bang her. Just saying.

Click to expand...

You would need to check if shes on the pill or would have to double bag it anyway.