/dis/ - Discussion

>>1542
>it does not agree with your central argument, which is that high-value men do not want to fuck women. that is an interpretation you are fitting onto the article.

This is not my central argument, in the conversation about FGM my argument was that like in that article the main factor is not fidelity or virginity but *marigebility* aka How well a woman is suited to being wife. And the reason why women do is to indicate their suitability for that role and obtain a high value man who is especially interested in that role.


as for high value men not being interested in sex that is just logical and practical conclusion, because if you spend so much time working and your main goal is status and success then you just don't give that much importance to sex naturally. You will not become high value man if rather than working you will be spending time with women or jerking on porn. It is simply impossible.

In fct it often happens that regardless how low is sex drive of women, women will get frustrated by the absolute absence of their husband who does not even bother to have any contact with her but if something just throws money at her and leaves.

>perhaps my argument would be more clear if I had said "edging addiction."
yes it woud be but then your idea about dopamine "spike" is broken because addiction if not for reward but rather for process
In some way this is valid for drug addiction as well because people are addicted not so much to drugs as they are addicted to process of obtaining those drugs

and this can be also extended to sex as we can speculate that it may be just as easy to make woman addicted to sex as a guy if only she had decent sex drive initially to bootstrap that addiction and reconfigure all her live into sexual pleasure seeking.

This also explains why such a great lengths are went to prevent boys and girls from feeling that pleasure. Anyone who experienced that too much will be considered as "damaged" and unsuitable for marriage.

>>1543
You are amazing Onix, who could imagine that on a thread created by a retarded oerson and a debate with obtuse individual could bring out such excellent conclusions and perspective on facts of life!

>>1544
Oerson

>>1566
Really? I've made that post, just forgot to type my alias! I support Onix because if I would have bothered to invest time in this debate I would have said 99% the same thing! So you fail!
Again way to go Onix!

I've read the thread completely now and I think that beside the fact that it's meanwhile far away from the OP's question it became much more interesting than any answer to that question.

IMHO Onix and sage present a lot of good points. Unfortunately I must agree with sage that at this moment
>it's too much of a "who's right" contest.
There is no exact "right" or "wrong". Culture, education, experience and other influences form our thinking, behaviour, likes and dislikes - and of course our kinks. May I recommend to keep this in mind, while you continue your exchange of arguments?

One thing I'd like to add concerning the female genital mutilation. Please consider the fact that in most cases this cruelty is done by (old) women to little girls on behalf of the girls' mothers. These girls for sure have none of the intents you are talking of.

>>1584
Obviously any kind of argument between anonymous people has no other purpose than "who's right" contest. :)


>These girls for sure have none of the intents you are talking of.
Actually those girls do have those intents, because when they become mother themselves they mutilate their own daughters rather that rebelling against this tradition. They do not condemn what was done to them. And also sometimes even adult women agree on performing this operation if that is necessary for getting high value man.
By using analogy between US male genital mutilation I would bet that mothers who do if to their baby daughters actually do it because they are afraid that later those daughters will complain that they were not properly mutilated.

>>1585

>Obviously any kind of argument between anonymous people has no other purpose than "who's right" contest. :)
That may be very true and is not only a problem for strangers but for close people too. Its the cause of most divorces and leads often to hating women (and men OTOH). LOL.

In the German language (the one in the country of poets and philosophers) you find the word "Streitkultur" which means "culture of debate". It's remarkable that only the German and the Portuguese wikipedia hold an entry for this lemma. The first one is most likely the "original" (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streitkultur), the second is a slightly extended translation.

In a nutshell:
Having a culture of debate means being able to represent one's own point of view with words and media without denying the other that he too has and may have a different point of view.
The principle of a constructive culture of debate is: Conflicts between individuals and groups are normal. They are the natural, even necessary, consequence of living together as a human being. The problem is not so much whether there are conflicts as how they are carried out, i. e. how the conflict partners argue with each other: level-headed and cooperative or authoritarian and violent. A constructive culture of debate means speaking one's mind openly and fairly without hurting each other.
There are "Fair Dispute Rules" like "a dispute is no sporting competition" and "a good argument ends with a settlement and not with one side triumphing over the other".
(from the German Wikipedia - translated by Ggl with a little human help)

>Actually those girls do have those intents
Objection! You can't believe they have it at this age. Although children are not asexual they don't think in these dimensions. What you wrote about the grown-ups is sadly true. And it is unbelievable that this still happens.

>>1587
>Having a culture of debate
I think this is exactly the situation when the purpose is just to prove yourself right, in that situation it is more like a friendly competition with no intent to hurt each other or get other benefits.


>You can't believe they have it at this age.
Oh no, definitely, am not talking about any sexuality at the time when a girl is just a baby. But what I mean is that when she grows up she does not condemn what was done to her. And opposite is more likely that she will complain that she was not mutilated properly if her mother decides not to do it.
Yes sometimes some girls may be upset about what was done to them but this is very tiny minority.

And even from the perspective of parents it is a serious dilemma what to do. Let's assume that they are willing to give her daugher a choice to be a slut or a housewife. But how do they know what she will chose in the future?
This probably could be solved if that mutilation was postponed to the later time she girls becomes adult when she can make choice by herself. There is no guarantee that she will not get upset about it again 10 years later.

But how is that different from situation when parents decide that their daughter will be ballerina or pianist? When she becomes adult it is too late to make that choice.

>>1588

>in that situation it is more like a friendly competition
Oh, what a wonderful world it would be, if all disputs were like this. :))
But culture of debate can be helpful in all situations where different opinions clash together. Its a kind of Geneva Convention for talking.

>when she grows up
As I said, adults act like you describe it. When the time comes for their daughters, they are already shaped by the traditions of the "tribe". With that constant pressure they don't question it anymore.

>sexuality at the time when a girl is just a baby
A very common belief is, that children have no sexuality. And if they show some, they are bad, because they are not allowed to have some. This is often influenced by religion and it might be the reason, why the mutilation is done to kids and it is not waited until they can decide themself.

>choice to be a slut or a housewife
Hey, there are a lot more shades of grey! ;)
Feeling sexual pleasure does not mean you are a slut. Well, it should not. In some communities the border is very small and extremely shifted to one side. In this context you are right.

>different ... situation ... be ballerina or pianist
There is a big difference. In one case somthing is irreversibly destructed, in the other case something is build up. Yes, you will say the psyche of the kid is harmed. This can happen, but it also can be healed - admittedly, except for very extreme treatments. A circumcision can be reconstruced optically, but the tactile sensation is gone forever.

>In one case something is irreversibly destructed, in the other case something is build up.

well my point was that parents are deciding fate of their children without asking for their opinion or consent, often even forcing them onto certain path using threats and violence. And all that is considered proper way of parenting while giving your child a choice is considered wrong.

So in this situation same can be said: can parents decide for a girl if she will grow into slut or into housewife? (just theoretically speaking)

Like in my situation when I was at the age of 6 I was forced to learn how to read at that time I had no clue why do I need it at all and why those idiots are torturing me like that more or less entire school was worse than hell which I hated more than anything. My mother was also forced to go to the musical school and she received extracurricular torture there. :) But I did not notice anyone to complain and say that teaching your children to read is wrong. even opposite, refusing to torture then may be considered a child abuse or neglect.

>>1595

LOL, your example is terrific.
I think we agree that average parents usually want the best for their children. They protect them from danger and give them the requisite know-how to manage the challenges of life. Unfortunately, this requires force in different gradations. I skip the list of obvious examples save an extension of yours: You also were pressed to learn to write. ;)

The point is: Parents are predetermined to do this as part of the naturally reproduction. It ensures the passing on of genes. Humans are unlike other animals, eg. fishes, limited in the number of descendants. So its economically not justifiable to loose a single one.

To call education torture is possible, but overdone as long as it doesn't come to real violence. Of course kids feel sometimes different. :)
To start early with the training of certain skills makes sense, because to gain highest performance takes much time. You can learn to read (and write :p ) or to dance as an adult, but it is way more difficult. Parents need a sure instinct to keep the right balance between the necessary force and the respect for the kids wishes.

>>1597
Yes all that is correct but that means that it is Ok to torture and even harm your child if that improves reproductive success.

>>1598

This depends on the point of view and the resulting definition.

As a human I condemn torture as an educational method. Though I don't consider situationally adjusted use of "means of coercion" as torture. Shouting at children will be better than let them get harmed, for example by falling down from the railway platform. You'll say that one shouldn't let the children come close to the edge, but that is using force too, because the kids aren't allowed to go where they want. As told before children are to precious to let them gather experience on their own under any circumstances. The problem is that experience is the worst of all teachers. It quizzes first and then teaches the subject matter. Do you still insist in the term "torture"?

From the sight of Mother Nature torture is perfectly normal. She allows even snuff. Ask predators if they think about torture while hunting. Their main goal is to feed the kittens, chicks and puppies to keep them and the species alive. May be the prey feels tortured. However, the most danger applies to the young ones due to their lack of experience (see above) - and probably because they taste best. ;)

>>1599
You talk about a bit different issues because what I say is that the child is forced to do what he does not want to do and get skill he does not even want to get. (Of course that depends on the character of specific child how obits they will be as girls in my class were always super obedient and they did all in their power to do assigned task as well as they can without any visible attempt to rebel)

The school is like nazi concentration camp where they force you to do completely pointless work under threat of punishment if you refuse. this is why I use term torture. as all your motivation is just how you avoid the punishment rather than how you do the task.
It has nothing to do with protecting children from danger but all about turning them into what adults want them to be.

Also in my opinion pain and even snuff is not torture, torture is when you live your life in the way you don't want it to be doing stuff you don't want to do.
Cat feels pleasure while hunting and feeding kittens while a man suffers while working and feeding his children. It is a lot of fun for predator to get the food even if you provide food to the predator he will still continue hunting but for the human even getting the food task is nothing more than a torture and the food he gets is also usually plain shit.

The analogy would be as if you take a lion, force him to be vegetarian and then use it as a horse to plow fields. that will be the ultimate torture.

>>1601

As I understand the child were you and in your personal perception school was something very extreme. But this does not change the fact that for an average child it is beneficially. Even you should take into account that it was not "completely pointless work". Otherwise you would have problems to complain here. ;)

>>1598
Agreed!

>>1605
No, you just don't get what I am trying to say: as children, I and my mother were forced to do and learn things we absolutely did not want or need. But later we sort of changed our opinion about the usefulness of that. Yes it was not always completely pointless work but it was torture.

Same as about that FGM where woman to whom it was done eventually does not complain about what was done to her because it happens to be useful after all.

Yes in my situation I am still angry about what I was forced to do but my mother is totally fine with all that and does not complain that she was forced to go to musical school and even say that the punishments she received from her mother were right.

As for ability to complain here I actually learned english language pretty much all by myself, what I was told in school was absolutely worthless.

>>1608
Ok, you experienced it as torture though it was none in the common meaning. At least it did not matter if was real or you and your mother "only" felt like it was - the impact was the same. I see. So it was a terrible shortcoming on side of your teachers.
However, there are differences between your situation and FGM (as I mentioned before):
- You got something build up (knowledge/skills) versus FGM destroys something (pleasure).
- Your "torture" benefitted you versus FGM benefits the girls future husbands.
- Your (mental) pain ended (more or less) someday versus mutilated girls suffer from their (physical and mental) pain a life long.

I agree with you in regard to the teaching content of schools. A lot of what I learned at school I never needed again. Fundamental knowledge and skills (read/write/calculate) and some "add-ons" (eg. local history, foreign languages, geography, political education) are surely reasonable. All of it is still helpful for me. Beside these subjects it should be teached how one can aquire further knowledge and skills on its own. This unfortunately happens seldom.

>>1635
You still got the wrong idea, as you think that I am complaining that I was told how to read and write and rather stay illiterate.
but my point is exactly that it turned out to be useful after all and i don't complain about what was done to me even if that was horrible torture for me (while other things were useless and probably even that reading stuff could be done in some better way but we can ignore those details here)

So in comparison to FGM I use same logic that because woman was properly mutilated she got better value husband and she does not complain about the sacrifice which she was forced to make. furthermore she will even mutilate her daughters because she knows that it turned out pretty well and probably it will work just as good for her daughters.

FGM benefits women and it has no benefit for their husbands, because by getting mutilated woman gets better quality husband just like by learning how to read and write you get better job and you don't say that education benefits employers. Uncircumcised woman will still be able to marry but her husband will be some low value loser who does not work as much as the proper good quality husband.

Destroying pleasure is precisely the main intent because if a woman gets taste of that pleasure she may get distracted from her primary task.
Here we can draw analogy with drugs that parents want to prevent their children from even trying. If you try drugs you will not become addicted but you will get taste of the pleasure which you will be willing to repeat again and again
Same as masturbation which when you learn how to do you do it when you can.

So I wonder how it woud turn out if FGM was performed at the later age when girl can make a conscious decision if she wants to give up the pleasure for the perspectives of better husband and more wealth or she rather keeps the pleasure and foreuts ability to get high value husband?
and also whether getting mutilated at the later age woud not even be considered cheating because girl probably experienced the pleasure already so she will be mentally ruined as she will be trying to repeat it. just like a drug used will never get rid of the desire to repeat their drugs.

>>1636

Au contraire, monsieur! I got your idea completely - with the exception that I thought you were still complaining, because you are "still angry" (>>1608).

I even understand your plot with the analogy of addiction to drugs. But I disagree with your opinion on the matter of benefit. You are confusing cause and effect. The men want submissive women, hence they set this cruel rules. And in communities where this can happen women have no other choice than to follow, because also other restrictions are enforced. It is a take it or leave it situation.

And this is my main point: Your "torment" was reasonable, FGM is absolutely not. To say women benefit from circumcision is the same as to say a rape victim is at fault.

>>1636

I find this debate pointless but for what is worth I think you are right! The counter-arguments I've read are null, void and laughable!

>>1641

>And this is my main point: Your "torment" was reasonable, FGM is absolutely not.
And you did nothing to prove your point.
It is not that I support FGM procedure either but my idea is that this is no different from what we consider completely valid and acceptable things.

>women have no other choice than to follow,
No, women do have choice. Nobody enforces this procedure it is done purely because of future benefit. It is not even some kind of rule, you can read the article provided by sage above where it is all well described.
Not even all men want submissive women but men whom women want to marry usually do want submissive women. This is even valid in western world where carrier women are complaining that men don't want them conveniently omitting that "rich successful" men don't want them.

So there is no reason to sympathise with those "poor" women. If you want to be successful then be ready to suffer create your personal hell for yourself if you want. Want a good husband then make sacrifice, give up on pleasure forever and become his slave living in the golden cage.

Yes of course woman can't make that choice herself at the time when she is being cut just like a child can't make a choice to learn how to read or not, but I think we discussed issue of consent above.

In general all human life is never ending self torture where you make yourself suffer expecting future benefits that never really come. If people choose to do that to themselves then it is their own problem.

>>1644
Sorry for the delay.

>And you did nothing to prove your point.
There is no need to proof an opinion. Apart from this, I mentioned my reasons in >>1635.

>my idea is [...]
I'm not sure I get this. Do you mean that in "their" culture it is valid and acceptable and "we" are not entitled to criticize it? I would agree with this, especially as this would be a sign of respect, which in turn raises credibility.

>you can read the article provided by sage above where it is all well described.
I did - and I think there are a number of interesting aspects, of which I find three particularly remarkable. (weblink in sage's post >>1538)

[b]--[b] Most important is knowlegde. Most people who perform Female Genital Cutting (FGC) not only don't know the origins of it, they also are very often overall less educated. While participating in a credible nondirective basic education program they can additional be provided with the information that an unmutilated alternative is possible and already exists in other communities. This is suitable to initiate a reconsideration.

[b]--[b] In order to start an abandonment of FGC a critical mass of participants is needed. A single family is not enough. Even if they oppose the mutilation, they may stick to it under the pressure of marriageability. If there is a certain number of uncut families - not necessarily the majority - their children can marry one another and it is possible to escape that convention trap.

[b]--[b] The next is my personal favorite, because it supports my proposition of who benefits (>>1641).
"A practice such as FGC is the best alternative only for a male who is attempting to control sexually a large number of females. It is not best for the controlled female, but under the circumstances, it is better for her than the alternative of nonmarriage."
>from: Gerry Mackie, Female Genital Cutting: The Beginning of the End; Page 269;
>in: Female "Circumcision" in Africa: Culture, Controversy, and Change (Directions in Applied Anthropology);
>by: Bettina Shell-Duncan (Editor), Ylva Hernlund (Editor);
>Published by: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc; Hardcover – July 1, 2000; ISBN-13: 978-1555878719.
>The weblink in sage's post (>>1538) points to a PDF-File with Mackie's text in the thirteenth chapter of that book.

>>1681

>The next is my personal favorite, because it supports my proposition of who benefits
"A practice such as FGC is the best alternative only for a male who is attempting to control sexually a large number of females. It is not best for the controlled female, but under the circumstances, *it is better for her* than the alternative of nonmarriage."

well that's exactly my point as well, but I wonder why do you claim that it benefits men rather than women. It even clearly said there being cut is better than not being cut.
first it was said that it is beneficial for men who control *large number of females* while that's applicable only to ultrawelathy. poor/average men do not benefit from that as they only have one woman at best.
Next, it was mentioned several times in the whole article that there is no social pressure of any kind besides desire to get married.
And we can also make a guess that if woman is willing to marry poor man there will be no problem because there are plenty of undesirable men available if rich men are allowed to have multiple wives.
So logically mutilation benefits woman because the choice is not even between marriage and being single but between desirable and undesirable man.
Poor undesirable men have no standards and they do not(or even can't) require woman to be cut they are happy to get any woman at all. I guess that many of them even prefer uncut women because by design poor man is not hardworking or controlling or else he woud not be poor.

So by this logic how can you say that FGM does not benefit women? if it clearly improves female "carrier" perspectives but it has no benefit for majority of men. Yes maybe if does benefit ultrarich men, just like education benefits employers, by giving them wider choice of candidates but that is female logic where undesirable men simply do not exist in the world at all. And whatever is necessary to get that rich man or at least to be eligible to enter the competition is considered absolute necessity.


>I'm not sure I get this. Do you mean that in "their" culture it is valid and acceptable and "we" are not entitled to criticize it?

Not exactly that as I do not have any respect for any culture. I even consider myself as outsider of society and loot at it as anthropologist so I do not criticize anything but just analyze it and try to find out how it works. All cultures are acceptable because they are result of evolution and if they exist they are valid in aspect of survival.

The main issue here is that the top priority goal for women in their culture(and also partially in our culture) is marriage with high value man and whatever is done in name of marriage is absolutely justified.

If you want to eliminate FGM rather than complaining about how barbaric or destructive it is you have to complain about the end goals. Or else you sound like feminist who wants to retain all privileges of traditional women but also gain all benefits of traditional men.

>>1685

>I wonder why do you claim that it benefits men rather than women.
May I draw your attention to some details of these two sentences:
1) "[...] best [...] only for a male [...] to control [...] females."
2) "[...] not best for the controlled female, [...]"

It does not matter how wealthy a man is. The article points out, that the cutting was passed through from the highest social levels to the lowest. So its not done to marry a rich man or to climb the social ladder, the reason is to get a marriage at all. Women don't have a real choice. They can replace one disease with another, just like casting out Satan through Beelzebub. I can't see this as a benefit.

>retain all privileges of traditional women but also gain all benefits of traditional men.
Why not? Remember, “[...] that all men are created equal [...]” (American Declaration of Independence), “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (First article of the UN Declaration of Human Rights) and - not to forget - "All animals are equal [...]” (George Orwell's Animal Farm). These are heroic goals, "[...] but some animals are more equal than others", as we all know. Nevertheless, gender shouldn't make a difference. So why not get the best out of both "worlds"?

>>1687
>May I draw your attention to some details of these two sentences:
the devil is in the details that you skipped :) "a *large* number of females " In the societies where you are allowed to have large number of females you need to be ultra wealthy to be able to do so.
And of course the best for female woud be to marry some local oligarch who preferably never even gets home from his work then have parties using his money and raise children on his money as well. Or even better like in the western world mary Jeff Bezos divorce him next day and get half of his money(or even better all his money LOL). Too bad you never get what is the best for you :)

>The article points out, that the cutting was passed through from the highest social levels to the lowest. So its not done to marry a rich man or to climb the social ladder, the reason is to get a marriage at all. Women don't have a real choice.

And what is your reason to believe so? I did not notice anything in the article that woud imply "not done to climb the social ladder" in my opinion it is much more logical that it was passed to down precisely in attempt of those lower class women to climb up the social ladder not because some pisspoor homeless guy is demanding properly cicumcised wife to marry him. While to even get a chance to be considered as possible wife by high class man she has to be cut. he has almost limitless choice of candidates to be super picky.
And this is how culture of rich people gets passed down in general.

The basic universal principle is that poor people just can't make any demands they take what they can get while rich people choose best from the best.
If you want to marry someone who is better than yourself you will have to follow their demands and if you marry someone below yourself you can make your own demands.
That is the price of female hypergamy.


>So why not get the best out of both "worlds"?
Because it does not work that way, there is no such thing as "equality" everyone gets different set of privileges and obligations, if you are lucky you may get only privileges if you are unlucky you only get obligations or stay somewhere in between but on average you trade obligations to privileges.
If you want privileges of traditional woman you have to take obligations of traditional woman and if you want privileges of traditional man you take obligations of traditional man.
if woman wants to be a man she can: find a good job, make good money them find a pisspoor man who never worked in his live and keep him at home on the leash where he will take care of your children I am sure she will even find someone who will be willing to get completely castrated to prove his fidelity or whatever else she wants. You will work like slave and he will live like a slave.

But so far we see that women prefer to stay at home and be fully supported by a man rather than working super hard and providing for the family. That comes at a cost of losing freedom.
Don't you think it woud be stupid to expect that you get all that easy life for free?
In general if your partner is suffering in hell he or she will not allow you to have fun either.

>like in the western world mary Jeff Bezos divorce him next day and get half of his money
Instead of only one day it took her nearly 26 years (1993-2019), but MacKenzie Scott (former Bezos) did exactly this. And she got only 25%, which seems a little too less to me in regard of her help in building the company. According to Forbes shes at this moment number four of the world's most wealthiest women.

>the reason is to get a marriage at all.
>And what is your reason to believe so?
Its the part on pages 262 to 264 of Gerry Mackie's text (source citation see >>1681).
TL;DR:
>People prefer to support closely related children rather than unrelated children. Women seldom question the relation, but men never can be 100& sure. OTOH women often doubt a man's promise to support her and the children. Both want assurance. Hence, marriage is prefered to nonmarriage, because it "is intended to exchange and to enforce these assurances."

>Stratification diagrams of inegalitarian societies would be represented by a pyramid. It would show a few rich starting at the top going down to a mass of poor at the bottom. The rich men can each support a lot of women and their children, so they are more attractive to women. Unfortunately each woman gets less time with the man, the more women he has. Therefore they might "seek insemination from men more available than he". In return the man will "inflict costly methods of fidelity control: enclosure, guarding by eunuchs, hobbling, the honor and modesty code, and so on." In order to get to the pyramid's top the people on lower stratums will "imitate and exaggerate fidelity-control practices so as to gain economic, social, and reproductive access to the" higher stratums. Women are marrying up, conjugal practices flow down.

>"However the custom originated, as soon as women believed that men would not marry an unmutilated woman, and men believed that an unmutilated woman would not be a faithful partner in marriage, the convention was locked in place. A woman would not choose nonmarriage and not to have her own children; a man would not choose an unfaithful partner and not to have his own children."

IMHO, climbing the social ladder is the effect and the seeking for guarantees is the cause - not vice versa. As long as it takes to saturate all stratum levels it might even be the primary urge, but later it is no more than a pleasant concomitant.

>So why not get the best out of both "worlds"?
>Because [...] there is no such thing as "equality" everyone gets different set of privileges and obligations
Yes, some are "more equal" and your description includes many truths. But those ideas are not about reality. They just grant options. TBH, I did't mean it that serious. ;D

>>1697
>Instead of only one day it took her nearly 26 years
Now you took it too serious :)
But what I described was the best case scenario since we were talking about what best not about what real :)
and the best woud be if you could marry and divorce the next day or your rich husband just chokes on peanut and you inherit all his wealth :)


>"However the custom originated, as soon as women believed that men would not marry an unmutilated woman, and men believed that an unmutilated woman would not be a faithful partner in marriage, the convention was locked in place. A woman would not choose nonmarriage and not to have her own children; a man would not choose an unfaithful partner and not to have his own children."

This is pretty obviously wrong because if you want to marry you will marry. Situation when you want to marry and can't is almost impossible. The only question is the quality of your mate which you can marry.
Both men and women can only choose from what is available. if you are on the top you chose from the best if you are at the bottom you chose from the worst. your status will allow you to access higher quality partners.

And this mutilation thing simply increases perceived quality of the woman giving her access to higher quality men.

>In order to get to the pyramid's top the people on lower stratums will "imitate and exaggerate fidelity-control practices so as to gain economic, social, and reproductive access to the" higher stratums.

Yes exactly what I was saying all the time. although this mostly applies to women, men do not really care that much about those things. and they dont mind even go to the lower stratums to reduce effort required.

>>1704

>Now you took it too serious
Not really. *g*
I just tried to show, that whatever weired scenario people can come up with, somebody else already did it. Even the aftermaths of your "peanut idea" is not new enough. Round about one half of the most wealthiest women made it into the list by heritage. LOL.

>"However the custom originated, [...]"
>This is pretty obviously wrong [...]
You realized, that I literally cited a paragraph from Gerry Mackie's article? I ask, because you contradict him, although you recommended his text. This is basically ok, I only want to make sure, that I understand it right.

I think his description is correct:
A man does not accept an unmutilated women, because he thinks she could cheat on him; and a woman accepts mutilation, because she thinks a man could think she could cheat on him, if she is not mutilated. As soon as this continued reflection is established, the same applies to the convention - no matter from where it originated.
That is what the paragraph says.

Its a "vicious circle" or a "self-fulfilling prophecy" which cannot be broken easily. Even if you want to marry you can't without a partner, who accepts you. And this is, where the critical mass comes into play. But this was already mentioned.

(My) Conclusion:
Except for your three sentences concerning "obviously wrong", "almost impossible" and "only question" I can more or less agree with your post. Well, may be more "more" and less "less". :D

>>1721
>I just tried to show, that whatever weird scenario people can come up with, somebody else already did it.

oh ok, but that's not exactly what matters, as I was just parodying the term of "what is the best for a woman". Because expecting what best for anyone is unrealistic and almost never happen in real world. It only happens in the fantasy. :)

>I ask, because you contradict him, although you recommended his text.
no, I do not contradict him I agree with what he and you say here, but my remark is that this only applies to high value men who have ability to chose.

It was my main idea all the time that by getting mutilated woman gets a chance to marry *high value* man. But the author of that article did not emphasize it enough(even if it was loosely mentioned) and you decided as if woman cannot marry at all.

So what is said in that article is right but you need to do proper interpretation.

Surprised noone archived this thread yet just in case something happens to GC again. Discussion here is looks too precious to lose to time so I did it https://web.archive.org/web/20220515174712/https://dis.guro.cx/dis/koko.php?res=202

>>1722

>So what is said in that article is right but you need to do proper interpretation.
Thats true and our interpretations differ slightly. The contents themself don't fall too far apart, its just the weighting that varys.

I'd like to say, we can call it a good conversation and look forward to the next one. :))

>>219
Don't be silly. It is always okay to molest children. They cry so sexy.

im not interested in sex, im interested in killing women just because i need to cool off.

has anyone of you ever considered watching humans go extinct?
i mean, being the last person alive is the best feeling ever.
life is too rare and once you kill it, you know that you're now diamond crusher.

>>1838
Someone pls kill this piece of shit

>>2010
You responded to obvious bait set up by straitjackit or someone else, you dumb sack of protoplasm.

>>1991
Don't you think it will be pretty boring to wander around all alone?
Internet would stop working as well.

You reasoning works only if you consider life something rare and valuable in the first place. But who cares if humans go extinct? Universe ceases to exist when you die anyway and turns back into sea of meaningless quantum interactions.

>>2012
You're on a board with people who like the suffering of other human beings. Is it really that surprising that some people here like the suffering of children?

Fucking hell you're all edgelords

>>2019
This is a website for expressing violent fantasies, go away.

I hate then becuase they are sin. Femoids ARE sin. Asking why I hate them is like asking why someone hates cancer, or a plague. Or demons. Cunts are literal demons. Literally.

Women deserve to be punished for being the gender they were born as. Period.

>>13834

Do you know what world you're in?

I don't hate women. And nobody else should either. (I only give bold statements)

Sure, some are absolutely stupid bitches and could use a good slap, and others are just straight up terrible human beings.

But not all women are terrible. If anything, the bad ones make the good ones more valuable. It may seem that everyone today is that bitch from Twitter that hates all men but still has an OnlyFans, but that's the internet being the internet.

The internet is the biggest soap box on the planet that anyone can jump on and yell whatever they think of.

It's where all the bitches with daddy issues and shitty exes in the far and wide world can unite into a seemingly infinite congregation of insufferable hoes that can, will and strive to make anyone without the patience of a saint and backbone of a doormat seem like a hateful incel. And incels are just what they want and need to gather more mass and attention. They don't want them eradicated, they need more of them to satisfy their endless hunger for attention and feelings of importance.

If we stopped reacting to their bullshit, they'd stop and die out as a phenomenon, but sadly they are too good at pushing everyone's buttons, including me. Because of this grand war, their influence has managed spread from niche text battles on forums into everything we love. Movies, TV shows, videogames and even into the real world.

I almost became an incel because of the fucking Tumblr whale movement of the early 2010's. Their cringy shit infuriated me and I came close to just shutting down the very idea of ever liking women.

But the thanks goes to all the kind and sensible women who didn't have a fucking clue about any of this shit. They were normal. Focused on the real and important things in life.

This is an overused unfunny joke, but honestly, go outside and touch grass. Or in this case, snow? You can't fester in that much hate for over half the population of the world because of a few fat, jealous and ugly bitches online who had mean fathers.

Don't let them win. Don't let them trick you into hating all women. It's what they want you to do. They either want you as their and society's #1 enemy, or they want you as their slave. Don't be either of those. Be your own man.

Go find that beautiful girl who doesn't conform to all the "new norms."

Make every single one of those bright haired lard balls seethe in their unwashed fat folds as you marry your truly beautiful queen.

Do not spring the mousetrap. Just push it aside and walk off without even mentioning it.

>>12256
No, I dont hate women, real or fictional. I like hentai because I get turned on by watching characters I love, not because I hate them.

>>16994
Same

>>16993

“Marry your beautiful queen, go meet your dream girl”

In this day and age? Good luck when these overdemanding retards think onlyfans is a job but expect a man to make six figures and be a muscular, smart college grad.

I don't hate women per se. They just have the misfortune that their pain and death is the most exquisitely beautiful thing in the world. It's like I don't hate trees, but love a good book and think it's worth the tree for paper. I don't hate cows, I just think it's worth the cost of the cow for a really good stake. True art is worth paying a price for, and there is no greater art I've found than a woman's suffering.

>>12256
Fuck you.