So, why the hate on NTR?

[suprisedcrankyface]

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.

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.

The Pill gives CONTROL. That was my point. Now you are saying I am scrambling but I feel like im repeating myself. You said birth control existed since prehistory then gave an example of inserting an animals bladder, that if you read it, 'stopped the poison and allowed 8 children'.

 

[James8585]

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!

Not at all, it didn't exist to the notion or description and laws of today. When Russia raped Berlin was it a crime in WW2? What about American servicemen in WW2 in France. What about Vietnam.

When did Sexual Assault enter as a law, 80s?

Presto. Community. Status. What actually constituted as rape? A man's wife, your unmarried daughter, the where, the how specifically. Status offered protection otherwise there was none. Not until after human rights and the more laws and notions and descriptions of it.

It was virtually non existent, despite the word and a loose description being around for much much longer.

 

[Geigi]

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



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.



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.



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!

I watched one interview with a woman(i think it was a YouTube podcast) in which she said that after she stopped drinking birth control pills, her taste in men changed. She literally said she wasn't attractive to feminine men anymore but manly.

 

[MissCougar]

I watched one interview with a woman(i think it was a YouTube podcast) in which she said that after she stopped drinking birth control pills, her taste in men changed. She literally said she wasn't attractive to feminine men anymore but manly.

Chemical imbalance impacts women a ton more than it seems to impact men for some reason. I'm sure there are papers or stuff on this I can read but I just don't care to, I just experience feeling perfectly fine one day and then a total bitch three days later, and maybe cry somewhere in the middle because I saw something on TV.

I haven't noticed my pick in people be impacted, but my tastes change, my senses are different, and I am certainly in the mood or less in the mood depending on what I'm taking or point in my cycle.

For example I don't like milk any, but when I'm on the rag I can't get enough string cheese, ice cream, and milk tastes like fine cream.

 

[MissCougar]

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.

Sorry for missing this!

We treat women badly because women treat women badly. Men don't get treated badly by each other because they aren't nearly as socially vile and manipulative and unforgiving as women.

I think the reason the double standard exists is because overall men are incredibly kind and forgiving to each other and want to help each other succeed. Women want to be better, smarter, prettier and more wanted than other women. So if we can bash another one down and out of the pecking order it happens and if weakness is detected it is trounced upon.

Also men want pure too, and once a vagina has been filled up for some reason that purity is gone. The more it is filled by different men the less and less pure it becomes. mentally draining on the woman and she feels lesser too.

it's all social constructs so engaging is tough because there are a billion other reasons for and against it and experiences people had that can support or disprove what I said.

What if I told you the double standard only exists because you think it does?

 

[Count Morado]

Sorry for missing this!

We treat women badly because women treat women badly. Men don't get treated badly by each other because they aren't nearly as socially vile and manipulative and unforgiving as women.

I think the reason the double standard exists is because overall men are incredibly kind and forgiving to each other and want to help each other succeed. Women want to be better, smarter, prettier and more wanted than other women. So if we can bash another one down and out of the pecking order it happens and if weakness is detected it is trounced upon.

Also men want pure too, and once a vagina has been filled up for some reason that purity is gone. The more it is filled by different men the less and less pure it becomes. mentally draining on the woman and she feels lesser too.

it's all social constructs so engaging is tough because there are a billion other reasons for and against it and experiences people had that can support or disprove what I said.

What if I told you the double standard only exists because you think it does?

Ummm. Wow. You don't know men if you think we're more kind to each other than women are to each other.

Nearly everything you mention about how women trash women can be equally said about men finding fault in other men.

As for the purity thing... That is all passed down through society whose laws, customs, and rules were primarily laid out and enforced by one sex. As such, it is systemic, baked in, over generations of reinforcement through those same laws, etc and maintaining "social desirability."

Also, a fair share of the machinations we do see within women's interactions with each other and men are rooted in the historical fact that for centuries the only value given to a woman was her peity, purity, prettiness, and ability to procreate because she was denied any power and control of beyond that with wealth, land, leadership, etc. The only control she was allowed was slivers of herself which men defined as valuable. So, social interactions became the focus of her sphere of intended control.

I do agree with you that it is all social constructs.

As for the double standard, it doesn't exist simply because we think it does. Study after study, research after research, historical document after historical document shows that it is so. It's not a perspective thing, it is a demonstrated thing with evidence to prove it exists.

 

[Death Panda]

Also men want pure too, and once a vagina has been filled up for some reason that purity is gone.

This is wrong. A woman in a committed relationship is far more pure than any virgin, which is why even utter degenerates like myself are unable to tolerate ntr.

 

[Count Morado]

This is wrong. A woman in a committed relationship is far more pure than any virgin, which is why even utter degenerates like myself are unable to tolerate ntr.

Saint Jerome would disagree. Timely due to the conclave.

You must be registered to see the links

 

[That other person]

Sorry for missing this!

We treat women badly because women treat women badly. Men don't get treated badly by each other because they aren't nearly as socially vile and manipulative and unforgiving as women.

I think the reason the double standard exists is because overall men are incredibly kind and forgiving to each other and want to help each other succeed. Women want to be better, smarter, prettier and more wanted than other women. So if we can bash another one down and out of the pecking order it happens and if weakness is detected it is trounced upon.

Also men want pure too, and once a vagina has been filled up for some reason that purity is gone. The more it is filled by different men the less and less pure it becomes. mentally draining on the woman and she feels lesser too.

it's all social constructs so engaging is tough because there are a billion other reasons for and against it and experiences people had that can support or disprove what I said.

What if I told you the double standard only exists because you think it does?

I don't think we men are nicer to each to each other, we are just... uhm... hardened? We keep things to ourselves, we learn to cope more. When you see a real group of friends they will be complete assholes to each other and laugh about it. I guess the difference is there's a little more honesty in being an ass to someone's face. Weirdly enough, men do get along somehow. There are so many examples of that. But most men will get destroyed at the smallest sign of weakness, both by men and women. It's something men have to accept early on, unless they do have someone (lucky them) that offers them that kind of respite, so that gives a certain ability to take shit from friends, who also take it from us.

Women don't lose value either because they have sex, at least not for me. But there's a difference between "I'll fuck anything that moves because why the fuck no" and "I've tried real relationships, had sex, but these failed and I'm still looking." You might think people would understand that, but no. Also, using the excuse of "if men do it, I will too" is dumb as hell. Do the good things, not the bad things!

I myself don't go out there looking for the next girl to get in bed. I take relationships seriously, I want it to matter, so I expect the same level of commitment. Someone who wants that, man or woman, doesn't go around humping every available person. You might have a few moments because yeah sex is great, but still. You are allowed room to have fun, or at least everyone should have that kind of room, but no... women are expected to be virgins or they are sluts, and men are expected to be drunk, smell of wood or gasoline and hump everything because otherwise you're super gay! Also, god forbid a man is shy and a woman enjoys "male" entertainment... like skating or videogames (according to idiot people). Society will chew you out.

The double standard is there, as a stupid mechanism to justify stupid actions and opinions or sandbag real things that matter, like men's mental health or women's sexual needs. We just like to pretend some things are not the way they are.

 

[James8585]

Ummm. Wow. You don't know men if you think we're more kind to each other than women are to each other.

Nearly everything you mention about how women trash women can be equally said about men finding fault in other men.

As for the purity thing... That is all passed down through society whose laws, customs, and rules were primarily laid out and enforced by one sex. As such, it is systemic, baked in, over generations of reinforcement through those same laws, etc and maintaining "social desirability."

Also, a fair share of the machinations we do see within women's interactions with each other and men are rooted in the historical fact that for centuries the only value given to a woman was her peity, purity, prettiness, and ability to procreate because she was denied any power and control of beyond that with wealth, land, leadership, etc. The only control she was allowed was slivers of herself which men defined as valuable. So, social interactions became the focus of her sphere of intended control.

I do agree with you that it is all social constructs.

As for the double standard, it doesn't exist simply because we think it does. Study after study, research after research, historical document after historical document shows that it is so. It's not a perspective thing, it is a demonstrated thing with evidence to prove it exists.

That's a load of tosh. Where do you get your ideas from? A feminism journal? purity prettiness ability to procreate? Autists everywhere today every time gen z speaks they say shit, they have the most nonsensical versions of history, and spew nothing but lies.

When men went to war frequently what did the women do? Perhaps they raised a family? By chance. Is it a distinct possibility. In fact birth rates prior to WW2 averaged around 5 kids a family for most Europeans and Americans. Like a lot of the Global South today, it has far more religion. Is it oppression. In whose eyes. Some because there might be some improvement. But not to Western madness today. Religion shaping community and in keeping purity, laws, virtue, oaths, and providing status. If we go back in time, there were perhaps more or less kids per family. Because pregnancy was a killer. But the family unit throughout history is how society formed and it wasn't a curse until today. Where it has been decimated into the least home ownership per family in history in the Western World. The least matrimony longevity, marriage lasts on average 3 years today, families have on average 1, or less, or slightly more than 1 kid per family in the Western World.

You sit there spewing it was because women were oppressed, they were property? They sat on their ass dulling on make up and playing with dolls farting out children getting traded like slaves? What? No. They had a huge hand in civilisation. Civilisation didn't have the same rights as today no. People fought with swords and what not. But it wasn't the nonsense I am hearing in this topic.

When I speak about the family home then it was all farms. Literally farms. Until industrialisation factories. Worked to eat to live or you were conscripted, obviously in towns there was more opportunity for trades. Again managed by family., shop and store. Becoming guilds., leading to education. Any education when did the law become kids have to go to school. When was this exactly, 80s, punishing for truancy after 2000? Communities centred around the church. Marriage wasn't a punishment, it was life. Yes woman were often married with dowry and arranged by their family into any status.

 

[Lupiscanis]

Sorry for missing this!

We treat women badly because women treat women badly. Men don't get treated badly by each other because they aren't nearly as socially vile and manipulative and unforgiving as women.

I think the reason the double standard exists is because overall men are incredibly kind and forgiving to each other and want to help each other succeed. Women want to be better, smarter, prettier and more wanted than other women. So if we can bash another one down and out of the pecking order it happens and if weakness is detected it is trounced upon.

Also men want pure too, and once a vagina has been filled up for some reason that purity is gone. The more it is filled by different men the less and less pure it becomes. mentally draining on the woman and she feels lesser too.

it's all social constructs so engaging is tough because there are a billion other reasons for and against it and experiences people had that can support or disprove what I said.

What if I told you the double standard only exists because you think it does?

Morado mostly covered this, but just to emphasise - if you think men aren't mean to other men, we have vast amounts of evidence of bullying, hazing and toxic masculinity. If you think it still doesn't happen, I'm sorry but that's laughably naive. I'm not going to pretend that I understand how women treat each other with any level of detail other than the evidence that I can find online or witness in person but for every case of a woman being mean to another woman I can find evidence of a man being mean to a man in equal measure.

As to the "once a vagina has been filled" - you're only reinforcing the tropes that we've been discussing. That's just... sad honestly.

"What if I told you the double standard only exists because you think it does?" - is just straight up gaslighting. Why not just say "What if I told you racism only exists because you think it does?" or "What if I told you wage gaps only exist because you believe they do?"

 

[Lupiscanis]

Well this thread is ridiculously off-topic now (no, I'm not blameless) and honestly the level of self-reporting going on is kind of insane.

 

[Count Morado]

That's a load of tosh. Where do you get your ideas from? A feminism journal? purity prettiness ability to procreate? Autists everywhere today every time gen z speaks they say shit, they have the most nonsensical versions of history, and spew nothing but lies.

When men went to war frequently what did the women do? Perhaps they raised a family? By chance. Is it a distinct possibility. In fact birth rates prior to WW2 averaged around 5 kids a family for most Europeans and Americans. Like a lot of the Global South today, it has far more religion. Is it oppression. In whose eyes. Some because there might be some improvement. But not to Western madness today. Religion shaping community and in keeping purity, laws, virtue, oaths, and providing status. If we go back in time, there were perhaps more or less kids per family. Because pregnancy was a killer. But the family unit throughout history is how society formed and it wasn't a curse until today. Where it has been decimated into the least home ownership per family in history in the Western World. The least matrimony longevity, marriage lasts on average 3 years today, families have on average 1, or less, or slightly more than 1 kid per family in the Western World.

You sit there spewing it was because women were oppressed, they were property? They sat on their ass dulling on make up and playing with dolls farting out children getting traded like slaves? What? No. They had a huge hand in civilisation. Civilisation didn't have the same rights as today no. People fought with swords and what not. But it wasn't the nonsense I am hearing in this topic.

When I speak about the family home then it was all farms. Literally farms. Until industrialisation factories. Worked to eat to live or you were conscripted, obviously in towns there was more opportunity for trades. Again managed by family., shop and store. Becoming guilds., leading to education. Any education when did the law become kids have to go to school. When was this exactly, 80s, punishing for truancy after 2000? Communities centred around the church. Marriage wasn't a punishment, it was life. Yes woman were often married with dowry and arranged by their family into any status.

Seems you are well-versed in tosh, because nothing seems to radiate from your fingertips but its toxicity.

We realize as we become more civilized that much of the ways of the past were not only wrong, but barbaric and we turn to a better way. To strive toward a society of equity and equal rights for all humans no matter who they are at birth, no matter who they are today.

Who would argue that all people must receive equal treatment under the law, rules, customs of a society? That concept is not hogwash, it's humanity.

Have a good day.

Well this thread is ridiculously off-topic now (no, I'm not blameless) and honestly the level of self-reporting going on is kind of insane.

 

[anne O'nymous]

Then why would

You must be registered to see the links

call what we have been talking about "birth control"? Why wouldn't they use other terms?

Other terms among which "birth prevention" would be way more accurate if the methods were actually intended to fully prevent birth.

By your definition of birth control, there is no such thing that is birth control except one: Abstinence.

There's three others: Full ablation of the uterus, of the Fallopian tubes, or of the gonads.
Anything else, including vasectomy and Fallopian tubes ligation, aren't 100% effective. It's exceptional, but there's cases where those two have been witnessed as naturally reversed.

Effectiveness is not a requirement.

And it's a good thing since there's none that are 100% effective.

Condom is 85% effective when used correctly, diaphragm 87% effective, once again when used correctly, while hormonal methods are 99% effective, still when used correctly. Even IUD is just "close to 100%" effectiveness. Yet it's mostly because it should be removed quickly if the fertilization happened, what is almost never the case; therefore, it wasn't effective, but you didn't noticed it and a, hmm, "natural abortion", happened.
[

You must be registered to see the links

]

 

[anne O'nymous]

[Sorry for the double post]

Autists everywhere today every time gen z speaks they say shit, they have the most nonsensical versions of history, and spew nothing but lies.

Count Morado a gen Z...

You sir, are an idiot, who say a lot of bullshit, but thanks for the laugh.

 

[Count Morado]

[Sorry for the double post]



Count Morado a gen Z...

You sir, are an idiot, who say a lot of bullshit, but thanks for the laugh.

I have underwear that is old enough to be GenZ.

 

[tanstaafl]

Men don't get treated badly by each other because they aren't nearly as socially vile and manipulative and unforgiving as women.

Less this, more because of the chance to get punched in the face. Men are just as socially vile though maybe not as manipulative as women, we're just not as sneaky about it.

 

[Count Morado]

Females are easily manipulated, i mean you give them the right to hop on someone else dick whenever they want without legal repercussions, make concessions for them at work places and overall raise sensibility in society towards them. Why would women even vote for something that goes against all of this? lol

and I replied:

Your belief (pathos)
Why would there be legal repercussions? Now, I don’t believe people should cheat on their partners, no matter their sex or gender. You blame the women for cheating, but most of the time they are cheating with men who – most likely – are cheating. The song “Me and Mrs. Jones” is a song about two married people – man and woman – getting it on with each other. The movie “Same Time Next Year” is another example. You seem to forgive one and blame the other. Again, us vs. them (pathos)
You mean, create and enforce laws making it illegal to discriminate them due to them not being men? Chauvinism much? Us vs. them. (pathos)
The horrors, raising sensibility in society. How dare people raise sensibility?! (what the fuck is this argument?)
Why would anyone vote for something against everything [you list]? Unless they see women as inferior to men and that they should be subordinate, perhaps even property of men? (pathos)

Emphasis added.

You are the one who then synthesized what I said:

Also, a fair share of the machinations we do see within women's interactions with each other and men are rooted in the historical fact that for centuries the only value given to a woman was her peity, purity, prettiness, and ability to procreate because she was denied any power and control of beyond that with wealth, land, leadership, etc. The only control she was allowed was slivers of herself which men defined as valuable. So, social interactions became the focus of her sphere of intended control.

Into:

they were property?

So let us be clear about that.

At the same time, you said the silent part out loud. I am not going to disagree with you. But it was you who stated property regarding what I said. Not me.

Here is the word of the day: "coverture."

You may now return to tossing off to your tosh.

 

[Duke Greene]

the fuck happened in this thread

i came here with popcorn expecting drama (hey, it's a NTR thread with lots of posts), not... whatever this is

 

[c3p0]

Just asking any groundbreaking new information or theory in the 369 post before this, that I should be aware or just the regular stuff you already see in the dozen of others "NTR blah blah" threads?