Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Talk:Blackpill: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Whitewashing & propaganda
| Line 153: | Line 153: | ||
: I wasn't whitewashing at all. Just read the comment in the edit history, I was merely streamlining it as few of your additions actually provided additional information. I did not even remove the part about rape. The lede already mentioned enforced monogamy and borrowed concepts from the redpill, so that the blackpill is not only about lookism is self-evident and thus unnecessary bloat. I also did not delete the part about female inflexibility, but restored the paragraph below where it came from. I agree now that rape is worth mentioning with the evidence you have provided. Still, the lede is unnecessarily bloated now. [[User:Bibipi|Bibipi]] ([[User talk:Bibipi|talk]]) 15:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC) | : I wasn't whitewashing at all. Just read the comment in the edit history, I was merely streamlining it as few of your additions actually provided additional information. I did not even remove the part about rape. The lede already mentioned enforced monogamy and borrowed concepts from the redpill, so that the blackpill is not only about lookism is self-evident and thus unnecessary bloat. I also did not delete the part about female inflexibility, but restored the paragraph below where it came from. I agree now that rape is worth mentioning with the evidence you have provided. Still, the lede is unnecessarily bloated now. [[User:Bibipi|Bibipi]] ([[User talk:Bibipi|talk]]) 15:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC) | ||
: What is funny about all this is that ''you'' have your own obvious agenda and propaganda. You declare arranged marriage as rape and claim to know for certain that the best state can be achieved with some kind of mutual, loving and equal relationships. Though what is the data you base this assumption on? Historically, most marriages were arranged, which does not necessarily mean they involved rape. Though, evidently many women, do seem to desire to be manned around and coerced into sex as prevalences of rape fantasies and rape kinks suggest. How do you explain that some people are absolutely convinced that sexual relationships are best when treating the woman as a child,<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK357A7ELBY</ref> while others say the [[bluepill|opposite]]. At least three not necessarily mutually exclusive possibilities come to mind: (1) It's all feminist propaganda seeking to weaken and domesticate men for the mere purpose of making them controllable and docile, while at the same time maximizing economic exploitation of the females. (2) The domestication actually has economic benefits as it results in a more stable environment. AFAIK there are many results that do suggest so. (Though it might be detrimental in the extreme, i.e. domesticating the male too much resulting in inhibition and demotivation and ultimately destruction.) (3) There is high variance on the female hypergamy spectrum, resulting in people making very different experiences, i.e. some women may desire being manned around and subordinated, but others function well in a more equal setting. Evidently, many marriages are very mutual and last a long time, so that certainly seems plausible (though of the N=5 of long-lasting marriages, the woman often still does shit tests). Humans are only moderately polygynous with around 35% of women living in harems, or so, also suggesting that many women should be adapted for the monogamous/equal setting. However, | : What is funny about all this is that ''you'' have your own obvious agenda and propaganda. You declare arranged marriage as rape and claim to know for certain that the best state can be achieved with some kind of mutual, loving and equal relationships. Though what is the data you base this assumption on? Historically, most marriages were arranged, which does not necessarily mean they involved rape. Though, evidently many women, do seem to desire to be manned around and coerced into sex as prevalences of rape fantasies and rape kinks suggest. How do you explain that some people are absolutely convinced that sexual relationships are best when treating the woman as a child,<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK357A7ELBY</ref> while others say the [[bluepill|opposite]]. At least three not necessarily mutually exclusive possibilities come to mind: (1) It's all feminist propaganda seeking to weaken and domesticate men for the mere purpose of making them controllable and docile, while at the same time maximizing economic exploitation of the females. (2) The domestication actually has economic benefits as it results in a more stable environment. AFAIK there are many results that do suggest so. (Though it might be detrimental in the extreme, i.e. domesticating the male too much resulting in inhibition and demotivation and ultimately destruction.) (3) There is high variance on the female hypergamy spectrum, resulting in people making very different experiences, i.e. some women may desire being manned around and subordinated, but others function well in a more equal setting. Evidently, many marriages are very mutual and last a long time, so that certainly seems plausible (though of the N=5 of long-lasting marriages, the woman often still does shit tests). Humans are only moderately polygynous with around 35% of women living in harems, or so, also suggesting that many women should be adapted for the monogamous/equal setting. However, harem wives presumably had offspring with the highest survival rates due to a wealthy and high status father/family, so one should expect substantial harem adaptations in women imo, which actually often involved them living separately and well in a group of women being sort of slaves. Then there is also overwhelming historical evidence of female subordination. It seems like a stretch to explain this as arbitrary oppression, since maybe it actually has some benefits. [[User:Bibipi|Bibipi]] ([[User talk:Bibipi|talk]]) 23:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC) | ||