when did ntr became so popular?

[doktor kuhm]

The original poster NTRd you all and the thread. That's peak NTR.

was it the original poster that delivered the ntr or was it he that received it? his account is defunct, whereas ours are not. perchance a reprobate has gotten the better of him?

 

[Insomnimaniac Games]

was it the original poster that delivered the ntr or was it he that received it? his account is defunct, whereas ours are not. perchance a reprobate has gotten the better of him?

Nah it's just, like, one guy who does it every couple of months. Same pattern and everything.

 

[balitz Method]

This particular explosion comes off like people noticed that NTR games got big support because they were fairly scarce, so as soon as it was viable to put out formulaic AI shovelware grifters flooded the market with nearly identical NTR games.

 

[doktor kuhm]

Nah it's just, like, one guy who does it every couple of months. Same pattern and everything.

i thank you cordially for the information, sir or madam, a few posts allowed the inference that the original poster was a known, perhaps notorious, quantity with a distinct link to cuckolding but i did not know that his behaviour was so repetitive and compulsive.

 

[doktor kuhm]

This particular explosion comes off like people noticed that NTR games got big support because they were fairly scarce, so as soon as it was viable to put out formulaic AI shovelware grifters flooded the market with nearly identical NTR games.

i must concur, several recurrent pornographic game concepts have been criticised as formulaic, seldom has it been as appropriate as for these phone games illustrated by diffusion-based generative models however.

there also appears a whiff of fragile masculinity in the assertion, put forward by some others without a valid epistemic foundation, that femininity be significantly involved in the proliferation of netorare. it is almost like a cleansing ritual wherethrough some men must go after they have witnessed an emasculating scene.

 

[8TB]

there also appears a whiff of fragile masculinity in the assertion, put forward by some others without a valid epistemic foundation, that femininity be significantly involved in the proliferation of netorare. it is almost like a cleansing ritual wherethrough some men must go after they have witnessed an emasculating scene.

Haven't you just provided the valid epistemic foundation to the assertion in the very last two terms of your statement? That is, the obvious question of registering one's own gratification with emasculation? What service does emasculation serve to a masculine hetero-psychosexual framework unless it's to subvert or remove it? In other words, wouldn't that necessarily suggest a subconscious feminine sexual blueprint--i.e. absence of the masculine?

 

[doktor kuhm]

Haven't you just provided the valid epistemic foundation to the assertion in the very last two terms of your statement? That is, the obvious question of registering one's own gratification with emasculation? What service does emasculation serve to a masculine hetero-psychosexual framework unless it's to subvert or remove it? In other words, wouldn't that necessarily suggest a subconscious feminine sexual blueprint--i.e. absence of the masculine?

if read rhetorically, no to all except the third question, whereto i do not presume to know the answer. these are excellent questions to pose to a sexologist, which i am not, and they might be good research questions as well, as long as one maintains a critical scientific method and one does not pursue the implied answer dogmatically.

 

[8TB]

no to all except the third question, whereto i do not presume to know the answer. these are excellent questions to pose to a sexologist, which i am not, and they might be good research questions as well, as long as one maintains a critical scientific method.

This presumes that psychology is "observant," which it most certainly is not, as opposed to "intuitive." The scientific method wouldn't qualify anything other than one's willingness to accept what ultimately reduces to abstract reasoning. Case in point: I don't think it would matter how much research, or how many control experiments are conducted, to infer that most people would prefer to be happy.

 

[doktor kuhm]

really?
I am simply pointing out the fault in your logic not even bothering pointing out this fake formulation you use makeing me wonder wether I talk to an AI bot or an actual person useing AI to seem soffociated.

Point is your critique is exactly the same as what you critisice... you can't see that yourself or chose to ignore it I don't know.
As I pointed out this structural critique was also completly build on Sand or rather your missinterpretation of what was said, I offered an alternative point of view based on the exact same source... proofing your interpretation to be faulty.

We already established that statistics and surveys are made to only proof what the one creating them wanted them to say.
Personal and professional experience in case you wondered.
Still you only, when challenged, put out with statistics and surveys while originally only stated your own opinion calling them facts.
By nature most people skip surveys and statistics, even more so if the content is considered embarresing or harming to them.

And now you go with "me smarter than you, me bigger E-Cock"?
That's really weak man... even more useing such headache of a formulation might I suggest you drop the AI and talk human for once?

i should suppose that it is most typical that you dismiss the fact that men view pornographic material at higher rates, which is a consistent finding in the literature (

You must be registered to see the links

,

You must be registered to see the links

,

You must be registered to see the links

,

You must be registered to see the links

), which relies not only on surveys but on web-tracking data as well, as if it were on the same footing as your pet theories and fancies. that you put little stock in the validity and objectivity of market research, this i can accept in moderation, nor would i abjure that methodological limitations apply to surveys and web tracking alike, wherefore i appropriately use the testimony of such data as approximate and tentative, such scepticism does not generalise however, indubitably not to the gradation of faithless and uncritical nihilism which relies on blanket dismissal. with regard to your self-congratulatory contention that you have established their inutility, this is delusional of you as you have done no such thing, one may not tyrannically suppose that one's idiosyncratic intellectual fancies and prejudices can freely be foisted on interlocutors, nor that contingent statements whereto earlier disputants committed shall bind newer ones. parenthetically, you ought to read

You must be registered to see the links

, it describes you perfectly.

there are good foundations to question your logical proficiency or uprightness as well, as that phantasmagoria of allegations which you have expressed shews. in your section containing your accusation concerning my use of data, you have truncated "the closest i approached a positive thesis, was when i judged that it is implausible that women constitute an absolute majority of netorarists, which is indeed not a statement of fact" out of the quotation, leaving it in the previous, whereafter you claim "you only, when challenged, put out with statistics and surveys while originally only stated your own opinion calling them facts", which is refuted directly by the preceding quote: "it is implausible", "indeed not a statement of fact"; and it is also falsified when one recalls that in my response to gamenerd9000 i simply called the same state of affairs implausible, reason permits therefore the conclusion that to mischaracterise my position there as asserting facts is abjectly incompetent or mendacious. in equal measure, i have not called myself smarter than you nor did i imply any "e-cock", which is what your mind seems to have conjured up, rather i noted your defective simulation of an elevated style ("hencefor concur"), which invited an ornithological simile involving the popinjay. as for your fabled logical criticism, one observes that you have displayed extraordinary reluctance in formulating it, which can be contrasted with my superabundant structural critique here, wherein i have detailed the shortcomings explicitly and extensively, yours however is entirely implicit, whereas your metaphors and analogies are logically invalid, for your inapt allusions to the paradox of schrödinger's cat, which describes the persistence of multiple mutually exclusive simultaneous states in a quantum system, yet such quantum superpositions apply not to the matter whereupon i elaborated, which is macroscopic far above the quantum scale where there is no wave equation to collapse, however also as a metaphor it founders because i never asserted the actual existence of any mutually exclusive simultaneous states within the relevant classes, nor was there anything in my argument analogous to quantum superposition. one ought to call to mind that critiquing a flawed inference does not equal proposing a counter-inference and that to prove equivalence, structural similarity must be shewn, if validity is to be established, whereas your central point is concealed behind a shroud of mystification as if it were cut from the weave of the quantum mystics, furthermore if my analytical logical critique would indeed be self-defeating, which is most dubious, it can be logically supposed that your attempt at criticism suffers the same destiny, unless you finally endeavour to clarify. also one may observe that all of this phantasmagoric illogic, which is ill-argued and ill-supported, comports well with your earlier incompetence in regards statistics.

i shall not change my long-form disputational writing style, which is not produced by a large language model, because it is habitual to me and closely approaches my native language structurally, also being the natural product of my inclination towards thinking while typing. you are at liberty to find displeasances therein, to find it difficult or to ignore it, but no more, while you would be well-advised to read my postings better henceforth should you opine thereon. perhaps you ought to take your own suggestion of letting a large language model write posts to heart, it can endow them by artifice with that wherewith their natural author cannot by nature, nor will you need a spell checker any longer. as for me, i shall deprioritise responding to your fallacious postings, little popinjay, regards.

 

[doktor kuhm]

This presumes that psychology is "observant," which it most certainly is not, as opposed to "intuitive." The scientific method wouldn't qualify anything other than one's willingness to accept what ultimately reduces to abstract reasoning. Case in point: I don't think it would matter how much research, or how many control experiments are conducted, to infer that most people would prefer to be happy.

personally i contend that "most people would prefer to be happy" is an inference on a different order than "a majority of netorarists possess a subconscious feminine sexual blueprint in their psyche", although views might differ, and that the latter is speculative although potentially hypothetically useful if one submits it to scientific testing. this does not alter the fact that i am neither a sexologist nor a psychologist, i suspect that you are not one of those either.

 

[8TB]

and one does not pursue the implied answer dogmatically.

I haven't been dogmatic. When first posting on this matter, I provided three reasonable propositions, one which included an overly feminized "male" psychosexual framework. If you seek to have this be devoid of opinion, and the scientific method merely veils one's opinion, how do you suppose one should express one's thoughts on the matter?

personally i contend that "most people would prefer to be happy" is an inference on a different order than "a majority of netorarists possess a subconscious feminine sexual blueprint in their psyche", although views might differ, and that the latter is speculative although potentially hypothetically useful if one submits it to scientific testing. this does not alter the fact that i am neither a sexologist nor a psychologist, i suspect that you are not one of those either.

How are they on a "different order"? How is one more "testable" than the other? Or more to the point, how is one more qualified by its "testability"?

And we need neither be a "sexologist" nor a "psychologist." We need only be rational subjects capable of evaluation. If you wish to question my ethos, and invoke it as a criticism of my proposition(s) then you are more than welcome to try.

 

[obibobi]

Its some combination of the microplastics, painkillers, the pill, porn addiction, Israeli psy-ops and diet coke.

 

[doktor kuhm]

concerning the antecedent exchange involving morphnet and obibobi, which through unfortunate happenstance culminated in contentious miscommunication and lamentable discord perhaps owing more to the form of disputation, wherein postings are dissected, sundered and analysed into progressively diminutive fragments and supervision slips away easily, than any other cause, which culmination is however regrettable for their contributions contained considerable merit and they may profitably be synthesised together, i have a handful of observations to add into the equation.

morphnet contradicted an optimistic appraisal of netorare's fortunes under a stricter western regimen of censorship by hoochimama, morphnet observing that a great number of netorare games would indeed violate restrictions regarding non-consensual content, which developed into a subsequent exchange wherein morphnet produced a list wherein the overlap between netorare and sundry other tags were explored, although i shall not deign to conclude whether hoochimama initial statement was refuted. one must concede that sexual intercourse under blackmail or under the influence of forcibly administered drugs, to name two examples, cannot be regarded as consent, nor is it to be supposed that the companies involves would look favourably upon or assume a liberal stance regarding such potential violations, for their natural inclination in such matters is to minimise their liabilities.

obibobi interjected and contributed a valid and judicious methodological objection that a number of tags cited did not ipso facto prove that non-consensual sexual intercourse be present in a game, shewing eternum as an example, which morphnet interpreted as an off-topic allusion rather than as a relevant counter-argument. the game in question, eternum, i have not played, although one can ascertain with facility by the search function that it contains no prurient, exploitative non-consent indeed, therefore it appears a valid instance of the objective that obibobi has raised.

however, i contend that morphnet's original argument may yet be salvaged and that his essential insight has been sound, if we contend that the narratives in netorare games incline towards a certain simplicity, which appears more reasonable if we consider that netorare villains are habitually the most underhanded characters in their narrative and seldom forsake the most surreptitious and deceptive means to other characters. i would indeed maintain that one may validly suppose that the tags adduced by morphnet are more indicative of non-consent in netorare than they would be in vanilla narratives, in view of the intrinsic tendencies within the genre, so that his list consequently preserves a measure of its argumentative force, herewith obibobi's observation that "whether they get removed or not depends on how they are handled" is vindicated. nor does it negate morphnet's original proposition that "MANY, MANY, MANY, netorare games involve rape and or non con" in any discernable way, although its scale may be reduced, it would surely appear that many of the games mentioned would not fare well under the prevailing western restrictions.

i hope that this synthesis may be agreeable to morphnet and obibobi alike.

 

[Icarus Media]

 

[Count Morado]

 

[Zakharova]

i should suppose that it is most typical that you dismiss the fact that men view pornographic material at higher rates, which is a consistent finding in the literature (

You must be registered to see the links

,

You must be registered to see the links

,

You must be registered to see the links

,

You must be registered to see the links

), which relies not only on surveys but on web-tracking data as well, as if it were on the same footing as your pet theories and fancies. that you put little stock in the validity and objectivity of market research, this i can accept in moderation, nor would i abjure that methodological limitations apply to surveys and web tracking alike, wherefore i appropriately use the testimony of such data as approximate and tentative, such scepticism does not generalise however, indubitably not to the gradation of faithless and uncritical nihilism which relies on blanket dismissal. with regard to your self-congratulatory contention that you have established their inutility, this is delusional of you as you have done no such thing, one may not tyrannically suppose that one's idiosyncratic intellectual fancies and prejudices can freely be foisted on interlocutors, nor that contingent statements whereto earlier disputants committed shall bind newer ones. parenthetically, you ought to read

You must be registered to see the links

, it describes you perfectly.

there are good foundations to question your logical proficiency or uprightness as well, as that phantasmagoria of allegations which you have expressed shews. in your section containing your accusation concerning my use of data, you have truncated "the closest i approached a positive thesis, was when i judged that it is implausible that women constitute an absolute majority of netorarists, which is indeed not a statement of fact" out of the quotation, leaving it in the previous, whereafter you claim "you only, when challenged, put out with statistics and surveys while originally only stated your own opinion calling them facts", which is refuted directly by the preceding quote: "it is implausible", "indeed not a statement of fact"; and it is also falsified when one recalls that in my response to gamenerd9000 i simply called the same state of affairs implausible, reason permits therefore the conclusion that to mischaracterise my position there as asserting facts is abjectly incompetent or mendacious. in equal measure, i have not called myself smarter than you nor did i imply any "e-cock", which is what your mind seems to have conjured up, rather i noted your defective simulation of an elevated style ("hencefor concur"), which invited an ornithological simile involving the popinjay. as for your fabled logical criticism, one observes that you have displayed extraordinary reluctance in formulating it, which can be contrasted with my superabundant structural critique here, wherein i have detailed the shortcomings explicitly and extensively, yours however is entirely implicit, whereas your metaphors and analogies are logically invalid, for your inapt allusions to the paradox of schrödinger's cat, which describes the persistence of multiple mutually exclusive simultaneous states in a quantum system, yet such quantum superpositions apply not to the matter whereupon i elaborated, which is macroscopic far above the quantum scale where there is no wave equation to collapse, however also as a metaphor it founders because i never asserted the actual existence of any mutually exclusive simultaneous states within the relevant classes, nor was there anything in my argument analogous to quantum superposition. one ought to call to mind that critiquing a flawed inference does not equal proposing a counter-inference and that to prove equivalence, structural similarity must be shewn, if validity is to be established, whereas your central point is concealed behind a shroud of mystification as if it were cut from the weave of the quantum mystics, furthermore if my analytical logical critique would indeed be self-defeating, which is most dubious, it can be logically supposed that your attempt at criticism suffers the same destiny, unless you finally endeavour to clarify. also one may observe that all of this phantasmagoric illogic, which is ill-argued and ill-supported, comports well with your earlier incompetence in regards statistics.

i shall not change my long-form disputational writing style, which is not produced by a large language model, because it is habitual to me and closely approaches my native language structurally, also being the natural product of my inclination towards thinking while typing. you are at liberty to find displeasances therein, to find it difficult or to ignore it, but no more, while you would be well-advised to read my postings better henceforth should you opine thereon. perhaps you ought to take your own suggestion of letting a large language model write posts to heart, it can endow them by artifice with that wherewith their natural author cannot by nature, nor will you need a spell checker any longer. as for me, i shall deprioritise responding to your fallacious postings, little popinjay, regards.

As I said before in a post from a long, long time ago, in the future there will be scientific papers about NTR, world leaders will debate the cultural phenomenon of netorare at UN summits, millions will be poured into research to define the possibility of the Schrödinger cuck—simultaneously a Chad and a cuck—and public unrest will erupt from the clash between anti-NTR crusaders and the perverted supporters and promoters of NTR...

 

[Icarus Media]

As I said before in a post from a long, long time ago, in the future there will be scientific papers about NTR, world leaders will debate the cultural phenomenon of netorare at UN summits, millions will be poured into research to define the possibility of the Schrödinger cuck—simultaneously a Chad and a cuck—and public unrest will erupt from the clash between anti-NTR crusaders and the perverted supporters and promoters of NTR...

 

[ksasso]

ntr is just harem for females. so once more women became gamers of course ntr exploded in popularity. ntr is the perfect fantasy for a woman. a weakling guy who loves you no matter what wants you to be with as many other men as possible. perfection

 

[Saerwen]

As I said before in a post from a long, long time ago, in the future there will be scientific papers about NTR, world leaders will debate the cultural phenomenon of netorare at UN summits, millions will be poured into research to define the possibility of the Schrödinger cuck—simultaneously a Chad and a cuck—and public unrest will erupt from the clash between anti-NTR crusaders and the perverted supporters and promoters of NTR...

Especially in Japan, NTR origin.

 

[Zakharova]

Especially in Japan, NTR origin.

I believe the origin of NTR goes back to ancient Greece, in one of that people's mythological stories, where Paris seduces, fucks, and kidnaps the wife of Menelaus, Helen.