So, why the hate on NTR?

[Lupiscanis]

I just said that historically a lack of birth control forced this whole thing. And by birth control I mean the modern sense of safe, reliable birth control, not eating something toxic or damaging yourself. They resorted to controlling the woman. I do not agree with this, its just what was.

I said that I didn't agree with it (as in within this world today makes 0 sense), scroll up you will see.

We're going round in circles now. This all started because you replied to one of my comments with

There is a reason for that though, the ease of acquirement. Far more women have slept with 50 men than men have slept with 50 women. I am not picking a side, just stating the truth on that.

To be honest that may form another part of the NTR hate 'I finally got one, and this happens' - its a very real fear when getting into a relationship.

The entire point I've been trying to make is that women are disproportionately penalized for sexual agency, and that’s a social construct. There are many reasons for it throughout history but to basically say 'well that sucks' is pretty bad.

To use it as a justification for why people hate NTR is also just weak.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

100 years from now, what we consider "safe, reliable" and "not eating something toxic or damaging yourself" will be considered barbaric.

That all being said - what do you consider "modern"? Starting when - 2000? 1980? 1960? 1920?

You could simply say "The invention of the birth control pill in 1960 forced this whole thing" if that is what you really mean. Though, there are many women for whom the pill is not safe and it's not 100% effective. It's very close. But it's not "control" by your definition of being 100%.

There is a different between something that prevents you getting pregnant and something that gives you control over your reproductive cycle. The pill allows women to skip their period, if you don't understand the significance between these two things then go read some more. That is why it was such a milestone.

The entire point I've been trying to make is that women are disproportionately penalized for sexual agency, and that’s a social construct. There are many reasons for it throughout history but to basically say 'well that sucks' is pretty bad.

And my point was it is easier for women to achieve sexual agency than men. To repeat that earlier point over 1/10 men ADMIT hiring a prostitute vs 1/1000 women. That market exists because of a demand.

 

[Lupiscanis]

And my point was it is easier for women to achieve sexual agency than men. To repeat that earlier point over 1/10 men ADMIT hiring a prostitute vs 1/1000 women. That market exists because of a demand.

You’re confusing access with agency. Just because it’s easier for a woman to get laid doesn’t mean society grants her agency over her sexuality without judgment. That prostitution stat proves men are willing to pay for sex - not that women aren’t penalized for having it.

Also, you’re assuming that because there are female prostitutes, that means women are exercising full agency in choosing that work. That ignores the reality of coercion, poverty, trafficking, and survival sex. The fact that the market exists doesn’t mean women are empowered by it - it often means they’re exploited by it. So holding that up as proof of female sexual agency is, at best, a misread - and at worst, deeply naive.

 

[James8585]

The double standard exists because controlling female sexuality has historically been tied to power - inheritance (probably the biggest one, since if you can't produce offspring to carry on your line, you don't mean anything), patriarchy (which is tied in with inheritance obviously), religious dogma, and male insecurity. Women’s bodies were politicized for centuries, and that control didn’t just vanish with birth control - it just changed form. So today, instead of legal restrictions (although these still exist in some forms), we see social ones such as slut-shaming, double standards and purity culture.

I’m not saying you're wrong for fun. I’m rejecting a flimsy historical excuse for a modern phenomenon that benefits one group at the expense of another. If you want to talk causes, then we have to talk about power, not just condoms.

Bullshit. Control is any aspect of power all aspects of civilisation. Until today we have less rights than ever the more powerful humanity has become or the more control it seeks. Woke cancel culture telling everybody what to say and now with social media suppressing them more for thinking.

For the most part marriage was empowerment. Status. Protection. It wasn't considered rights when there were no rights. Human rights happened after WW2. The creation of the UN. Even after that there still weren't many if crime occurred.

No protection, or status, women are raped and killed. Especially in days of swords and human sacrifice and cannibalism.

Marriage was in the eyes of god, religion, and the community. Status. Not property. Elevation. Protection. Yes of course the man the strongest of the household retained status. Not as enslavement, but obviously there is corruption. And there were slaves. But as the head of the household. This of course is debatable because there were plenty of woman who had titles and were rulers, but any fraternity was different, no real mixing, because there was segregation, and status was harder grafted.

What started the woman vote was industrialisation where more and more women worked alongside men in the factory and into modernization. They had been in certain extents on property where the male was head of the household, sometimes in battle, but not until industrialisation had them alongside each other in the factory did it then lead to equality, suffrage, and their vote. Until today it has become a cancer. We simply cannot turn on any movie or series without being pummelled with fantasy. Almost every single show has become bullshit. Rewind a decade, what changed when we have had strong women throughout history and on TV, but today they had to go and shit everywhere. On every single thing. Until there are less rights. Birth rates have massively declined. Marriage lasts on average 3 years. Children are born without parents. Kids not working are educated in stabbing each other to death or shooting each other. The family unit, property and heritage passed down for generations has been destroyed into individualism.

Abortion has a link into the exploding rates of breast cancer. Like the pill another cause of growing health concerns. Then any answer is simple, with population there are far more problems. More rape happened yesterday than at any other point in history. There are that many more people. Etc. Nothing changes except for ignorance. Less rights. Often into a dysfunctional society of idiots. It's not religious or patriotic, now it's in far more debt, hyperinflation. Skills have faster become typing crap into a computer and rewriting history.

Who really cares? Off topic.

It was NTR into a porn game. Simple. More or less porn.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

You’re confusing access with agency. Just because it’s easier for a woman to get laid doesn’t mean society grants her agency over her sexuality without judgment. That prostitution stat proves men are willing to pay for sex - not that women aren’t penalized for having it.

Also, you’re assuming that because there are female prostitutes, that means women are exercising full agency in choosing that work. That ignores the reality of coercion, poverty, trafficking, and survival sex. The fact that the market exists doesn’t mean women are empowered by it - it often means they’re exploited by it. So holding that up as proof of female sexual agency is, at best, a misread - and at worst, deeply naive.

This is not what I was saying- just highlighting the supply vs demand aspect. You can call it access if you want, but the fact is that if a woman wants to go out and get some they can, a guy will often have to resort to paying.

And that is the other aspect of why it is judged - gold is rarer than dirt & held to a higher value. A guy who goes out and returns with gold will be applauded, a girl who returns with dirt wont be.

 

[Count Morado]

There is a different between something that prevents you getting pregnant and something that gives you control over your reproductive cycle. The pill allows women to skip their period, if you don't understand the significance between these two things then go read some more. That is why it was such a milestone.

Okay, so you don't mean "birth control" - you truly do mean "the birth control pill"

Also, only certain packs of pills cause "women to skip their period" and even then, they may get breakthrough bleeding. The birth control pill works through controlling the ovulation, making it difficult for sperm to entering their uterus, and altering the uterus composition to reduce the chance of a fertilized egg that does get release AND receive a sperm from attaching to the endometrium. Women usually still have their periods - they are typically lighter than without using the birth control pill, and the pill can make the periods more predictable.

Take it from a guy who would go to the store to buy tampons for his sexual partners when they were on their period while taking the pill... the blood is still there.

I feel like you've never had sex with a woman. Or if you have, you haven't had a lasting relationship with one. Or if you have, you haven't cared or been bothered to understand.

And again, do not lecture me. You're the one who is failing to make a case for any of your claims. Not me.

And instead of admitting your errors and mistakes, you simply move your goal posts or hedge - instead of standing by your word or admitting when you word is not the case.

And, women in the past attempted to control their period in other ways before for the pill

 

[Lupiscanis]

This is not what I was saying- just highlighting the supply vs demand aspect. You can call it access if you want, but the fact is that if a woman wants to go out and get some they can, a guy will often have to resort to paying.

And that is the other aspect of why it is judged - gold is rarer than dirt & held to a higher value. A guy who goes out and returns with gold will be applauded, a girl who returns with dirt wont be.

So let me get this straight - you’re saying men are applauded for acquiring sex because it's ‘harder’ for them, while women are devalued for the same act because it's easier? That’s not a neutral observation - that's the cultural bias that we've literally been talking about for four pages.

You're describing a system that rewards men for conquest and shames women for choice and then phrasing it as 'agency for women'.

 

[Count Morado]

So let me get this straight - you’re saying men are applauded for acquiring sex because it's ‘harder’ for them, while women are devalued for the same act because it's easier? That’s not a neutral observation - that's the cultural bias that we've literally been talking about for four pages.

You're describing a system that rewards men for conquest and shames women for choice and then phrasing it as 'agency for women'.

At least we're getting a deeper anecdotal understanding on why some people have such a visceral response to netorare in adult video games.

 

[Lupiscanis]

Bullshit. Control is any aspect of power all aspects of civilisation. Until today we have less rights than ever the more powerful humanity has become or the more control it seeks. Woke cancel culture telling everybody what to say and now with social media suppressing them more for thinking.

For the most part marriage was empowerment. Status. Protection. It wasn't considered rights when there were no rights. Human rights happened after WW2. The creation of the UN. Even after that there still weren't many if crime occurred.

No protection, or status, women are raped and killed. Especially in days of swords and human sacrifice and cannibalism.

Marriage was in the eyes of god, religion, and the community. Status. Not property. Elevation. Protection. Yes of course the man the strongest of the household retained status. Not as enslavement, but obviously there is corruption. And there were slaves. But as the head of the household. This of course is debatable because there were plenty of woman who had titles and were rulers, but any fraternity was different, no real mixing, because there was segregation, and status was harder grafted.

What started the woman vote was industrialisation where more and more women worked alongside men in the factory and into modernization. They had been in certain extents on property where the male was head of the household, sometimes in battle, but not until industrialisation had them alongside each other in the factory did it then lead to equality, suffrage, and their vote. Until today it has become a cancer. We simply cannot turn on any movie or series without being pummelled with fantasy. Almost every single show has become bullshit. Rewind a decade, what changed when we have had strong women throughout history and on TV, but today they had to go and shit everywhere. On every single thing. Until there are less rights. Birth rates have massively declined. Marriage lasts on average 3 years. Children are born without parents. Kids not working are educated in stabbing each other to death or shooting each other. The family unit, property and heritage passed down for generations has been destroyed into individualism.

Abortion has a link into the exploding rates of breast cancer. Like the pill another cause of growing health concerns. Then any answer is simple, with population there are far more problems. More rape happened yesterday than at any other point in history. There are that many more people. Etc. Nothing changes except for ignorance. Less rights. Often into a dysfunctional society of idiots. It's not religious or patriotic, now it's in far more debt, hyperinflation. Skills have faster become typing crap into a computer and rewriting history.

Who really cares? Off topic.

It was NTR into a porn game. Simple. More or less porn.

Yes, power dynamics pervade Civilization, well done, but it doesn't refute my points - the issue is who had the power and how they exercised it. Just saying "control exists everywhere" doesn’t refute the point - it actually supports it. Status and protection sounds nice until you realise that leaving wasn't usually an option.

Marriage being empowerment? And you call my post bullshit? For the majority of history, marriage was a legal structure under which women lost all their autonomy. Limited (if any) property rights, couldn't vote and were often legally subordinate (see coverture laws). Empowerment, lol.

Industrialisation was a catalyst, but it didn't suddenly invent women's activism. Women had long been organising and protesting - if you need an example, see Mary Wollstonecraft in the 1790s.

And then the rest of your reply veers into cultural collapse panic - abortion myths, media hysteria, and vague rage about "woke" modernity. It's not a coherent counterpoint - it's a backlash. You're upset the old hierarchies are being challenged, so you frame progress as decay.

You're right though, this is very offtopic and I have no interest in engaging further with someone who wants to rant about conspiracy garbage.

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

Okay, so you don't mean "birth control" - you truly do mean "the birth control pill"

Also, only certain packs of pills cause "women to skip their period" and even then, they may get breakthrough bleeding. The birth control pill works through controlling the ovulation, making it difficult for sperm to entering their uterus, and altering the uterus composition to reduce the chance of a fertilized egg that does get release AND receive a sperm from attaching to the endometrium. Women usually still have their periods - they are typically lighter than without using the birth control pill, and the pill can make the periods more predictable.

Depends on the pill, its no longer 'the' pill, science marched forwards. But generally there's a sheet and within the final row is period time (they are even colored differently), if instead of taking the final row a new pack is started, then this can change the cycle, yes there may be 'spotting' but if that new pack is then changed after say a week to the final row, period will start. This allows a woman to change when it will happen moving forwards.... i.e. control.

I feel like you've never had sex with a woman. Or if you have, you haven't had a lasting relationship with one. Or if you have, you haven't cared or been bothered to understand.

Feel what you want, I have held hands during the doctor visit.

And, women in the past attempted to control their period in other ways before for the pill

again - 'attempted' is not 'controlled'.

You're describing a system that rewards men for conquest and shames women for choice

Dont shoot the messenger

 

[Count Morado]

I have held hands during the doctor visit.

During WHAT doctor visit?

A person's normal annual gyno exam? There is no need for holding hands during one.
During a person's consultation with their doctor to discuss reproductive planning? Again, no need for holding hands during one.

Your entire post made no sense:

• you essentially paraphrased what I already stated in your first paragraph - but with some weird flex additions.
• you offered an awkward attempt at a one-up for measuring your dick against mine. Instead of simply stating "been there, done that" you talk of holding hands in a normal doctor visit.
• The pill is still an attempt. It is not 100% effective. You holding on with a deathgrip is hilarious.
• And you agreeing with Lupiscanis when you denied this previously is also ridiculous.

Make sure you stay away from any stray bulls.

 

[Lupiscanis]

Dont shoot the messenger

Funny how people only say 'don’t shoot the messenger' when the message sucks and they don’t want to defend it.

 

[James8585]

Yes, power dynamics pervade Civilization, well done, but it doesn't refute my points - the issue is who had the power and how they exercised it. Just saying "control exists everywhere" doesn’t refute the point - it actually supports it. Status and protection sounds nice until you realise that leaving wasn't usually an option.

Marriage being empowerment? And you call my post bullshit? For the majority of history, marriage was a legal structure under which women lost all their autonomy. Limited (if any) property rights, couldn't vote and were often legally subordinate (see coverture laws). Empowerment, lol.

Industrialisation was a catalyst, but it didn't suddenly invent women's activism. Women had long been organising and protesting - if you need an example, see Mary Wollstonecraft in the 1790s.

And then the rest of your reply veers into cultural collapse panic - abortion myths, media hysteria, and vague rage about "woke" modernity. It's not a coherent counterpoint - it's a backlash. You're upset the old hierarchies are being challenged, so you frame progress as decay.

You're right though, this is very offtopic and I have no interest in engaging further with someone who wants to rant about conspiracy garbage.

In your modern. No offense. But any comparison of today is not how humanity has existed. How did humanity exist. How did settlers found America? How much more war and death was there? Simple things you take for granted. Like cutting yourself, sepsis, the fridge, the vacuum. Etc.

Brain fog, autism, there is simply no comparison. Now and then. Writing crap won't change that.

No, it wasn't slavery, or property, there was no such fucking thing as human rights. They didn't exist until after WW2. The creation of the UN.

Marriage was status, protection. The strongest of the household had status. Primal. Above no protection rape murder occurs. Status. Marriage gave and provided status and protection. The household had rights. Land and property passed down for generations. Obviously there was abuse. No doubt about it. There were also slaves. Except it wasn't for that notion. It was in the eyes of god and community, that matrimony became a bond, a bond cherished for protection and status. Somebody else defiling that bond was a crime.

Otherwise rape didn't really exist. Do you understand or are you going to argue dumb idealism at me. Comparing now and then and stating nonsense.

The strongest retained status. Status was harder grafted. There were plenty of woman who had it because they were respect by the community. Not as property except by the property they maintained. Undoubtedly it was harder for them to gain equality. Because they're weaker. When society is fighting with swords, settling America, who had that strength? It weren't the Indians in any event.

 

[Lupiscanis]

Otherwise rape didn't really exist.

I wasn't going to reply, but this genuinely disturbed me. Do you really think that rape only started existing when marriage started existing?

 

[MissCougar]

What's up over here... oh my.

This is not what I was saying- just highlighting the supply vs demand aspect. You can call it access if you want, but the fact is that if a woman wants to go out and get some they can, a guy will often have to resort to paying.

And that is the other aspect of why it is judged - gold is rarer than dirt & held to a higher value. A guy who goes out and returns with gold will be applauded, a girl who returns with dirt wont be.

For every guy who wants to buy sex, there is some STD riddled slut they can pay to get it. Goes both ways. Which is better? I dunno.

Okay, so you don't mean "birth control" - you truly do mean "the birth control pill"

Also, only certain packs of pills cause "women to skip their period" and even then, they may get breakthrough bleeding. The birth control pill works through controlling the ovulation, making it difficult for sperm to entering their uterus, and altering the uterus composition to reduce the chance of a fertilized egg that does get release AND receive a sperm from attaching to the endometrium. Women usually still have their periods - they are typically lighter than without using the birth control pill, and the pill can make the periods more predictable.

Take it from a guy who would go to the store to buy tampons for his sexual partners when they were on their period while taking the pill... the blood is still there.

I feel like you've never had sex with a woman. Or if you have, you haven't had a lasting relationship with one. Or if you have, you haven't cared or been bothered to understand.

And again, do not lecture me. You're the one who is failing to make a case for any of your claims. Not me.

And instead of admitting your errors and mistakes, you simply move your goal posts or hedge - instead of standing by your word or admitting when you word is not the case.

And, women in the past attempted to control their period in other ways before for the pill

Different chemicals react differently to different women. I take the Hailey 1.5/30's and they work well. For me they suppress my menstrual cycle for a few months and then I either notice a trickle or I start to feel a little off and know it's time to bleed the fuck out for a week or so.

These have sometimes messed up my estrogen levels or other imbalances and I dont stop bleeding, or never feel good, so I have to go through reset periods or visit a ob/gyn for some next steps or make sure I didn't break anything up in there.

Despite those issues, they have been 100% successful at preventing pregnancy. So that's a plus! They are also not nearly as uncomfortable as the IUD I had before many years ago. I did not like the IUD any.

So let me get this straight - you’re saying men are applauded for acquiring sex because it's ‘harder’ for them, while women are devalued for the same act because it's easier? That’s not a neutral observation - that's the cultural bias that we've literally been talking about for four pages.

You're describing a system that rewards men for conquest and shames women for choice and then phrasing it as 'agency for women'.

I think everyone overall is devalued.

I think there is this wrong perspective that women can get fucked easier, in that yea maybe they don't have to pay for it but they are not going to get a high class man. Chances are they're hooking up with drunk men, and also those same guys are hooking up with other drunk women. It's not exactly a match made in heaven.

I also feel like this assumption is made by people who may not be the most social people in the world. If you go outside and participate in life, there's both women and men you can have sex with.

It's up to all of them to get something of good quality, or just get pregnant in drunken one night stands and wreck everyone's life. whatever works!

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

During WHAT doctor visit?

A person's normal annual gyno exam? There is no need for holding hands during one.
During a person's consultation with their doctor to discuss reproductive planning? Again, no need for holding hands during one.

There is never a 'need' to hold hands other than to physically hoist someone. Need and want are different things.

Your entire post made no sense:

• you essentially paraphrased what I already stated in your first paragraph - but with some weird flex additions.
• you offered an awkward attempt at a one-up for measuring your dick against mine. Instead of simply stating "been there, done that" you talk of holding hands in a normal doctor visit.
• The pill is still an attempt. It is not 100% effective. You holding on with a deathgrip is hilarious.
• And you agreeing with Lupiscanis when you denied this previously is also ridiculous.

So paraphrasing you doesn't make sense... yeah that makes sense. Spotting aint a period - what you said was wrong. I learned this because i cared

At the end of the day WTF you on about, you really trying to argue that you dont think the pill was a milestone in womens liberation?

Funny how people only say 'don’t shoot the messenger' when the message sucks and they don’t want to defend it.

That is the point of the saying - if you don't like the message but are delivering it.

What's up over here... oh my.

Yes, somehow we got here haha

Edit:

For every guy who wants to buy sex, there is some STD riddled slut they can pay to get it. Goes both ways. Which is better? I dunno.

What about one who gives it away for free in the disabled bathroom at a club?

Thankyou for turning up, I was starting to feel like I was taking crazy pills

 

[Lupiscanis]

I think everyone overall is devalued.

I think there is this wrong perspective that women can get fucked easier, in that yea maybe they don't have to pay for it but they are not going to get a high class man. Chances are they're hooking up with drunk men, and also those same guys are hooking up with other drunk women. It's not exactly a match made in heaven.

I also feel like this assumption is made by people who may not be the most social people in the world. If you go outside and participate in life, there's both women and men you can have sex with.

It's up to all of them to get something of good quality, or just get pregnant in drunken one night stands and wreck everyone's life. whatever works!

So the answer to "Why do we treat women like trash for being sexually active?" is "Well, men also feel bad sometimes, and anyway, if you just got out more you'd get laid too."

That’s not a rebuttal. If you don’t want to engage with the actual double standard, just say that.

 

[James8585]

I wasn't going to reply, but this genuinely disturbed me. Do you really think that rape only started existing when marriage started existing?

Rape really didn't exist. It's a modern notion.

Another man having sex with your wife was a crime. A man having sex with your daughter outside of marriage was a crime. Again debatable that extent the further back we go in time. Again the status of it.

I speak to idiots every day. They're gen z. Most have autism. They assume civilisation was the same then and now.

Yes of course rape existed. The notion of rape is however far different today. Today you can cause sexual assault by looking at somebody.

Instead of understanding this you fart out platitudes and modern idealism. This is where I entered. You lack concept. You're keener to dispute instead of listen. Instead of listening you pull out a Google description or fact checker. No practical experience. Not unless you were propagated by Google.

 

[MissCougar]

In your modern. No offense. But any comparison of today is not how humanity has existed. How did humanity exist. How did settlers found America? How much more war and death was there? Simple things you take for granted. Like cutting yourself, sepsis, the fridge, the vacuum. Etc.

Brain fog, autism, there is simply no comparison. Now and then. Writing crap won't change that.

No, it wasn't slavery, or property, there was no such fucking thing as human rights. They didn't exist until after WW2. The creation of the UN.

Marriage was status, protection. The strongest of the household had status. Primal. Above no protection rape murder occurs. Status. Marriage gave and provided status and protection. The household had rights. Land and property passed down for generations. Obviously there was abuse. No doubt about it. There were also slaves. Except it wasn't for that notion. It was in the eyes of god and community, that matrimony became a bond, a bond cherished for protection and status. Somebody else defiling that bond was a crime.

Otherwise rape didn't really exist. Do you understand or are you going to argue dumb idealism at me. Comparing now and then and stating nonsense.

The strongest retained status. Status was harder grafted. There were plenty of woman who had it because they were respect by the community. Not as property except by the property they maintained. Undoubtedly it was harder for them to gain equality. Because they're weaker. When society is fighting with swords, settling America, who had that strength? It weren't the Indians in any event.

I kind of get you and kind of don't.

I think your view on rape may be off though.

Im not a historian or anything, but in most of time it seems like women kind of got the short end of every straw. Our main job was to pump out babies and clean houses and make food. Like that was our chief expectations. If you were rich and had a daughter, you leveraged her to make yourself better, not her to be better. If you had a son, you leveraged him to make yourself better and your lineage last longer and be stronger.

Even today we don't keep our maiden names and it is forgotten. We don't carry on lineages for our families. We are married and we help that man become better.

I feel like a lot of modern liberalism across the globe has done some fixing in some of these regards, but it's also messed things up too.

This is a touchy topic though so navigate wisely!

 

[Count Morado]

There is never a 'need' to hold hands other than to physically hoist someone. Need and want are different things.

You completely missed the point.

Do you know how RARE it is to allow a non family member to sit in on someone else's gyno?

Again, you failed at attempting to one up... And for no reason except you felt threatened.

what you said was wrong.

No. It wasn't. Reread.

At the end of the day WTF you on about, you really trying to argue that you dont think the pill was a milestone in womens liberation?

I never said nor implied anything in regard to this.
What I said was you have been found in error and mistaken multiple times and instead of admitting it, you have moved the goal posts every single time.

Different chemicals react differently to different women

Yup.