Make an actual argument, explaining why men physically controlling women's sexuality is bad

Dim bulb detected.

Protip: "not an argument" is not an argument.

He didn't make an argument, "not an argument" is only not an argument if leveled against an argument. The dude didn't make a point he just listed things.

>that 16 year old boomer who started browsing mid-2016 and is now part of the debating club

Attached: 1529081013694.jpg (362x337, 39K)

Why should men have sexual autonomy? You cant say that they dont either. You could easily get railed by 15 gay ugly men if you chose to. You could easily hire a prostitue. You could easily fap. The point is you choose not to and it is that choice that defines your freedom.

Attached: A5E2F609-AEE4-42A9-8255-761D7D573CB3.jpg (346x352, 30K)

you haven't made a single argument, you moron.
>Women's sexuality is inherently violent against men, and must be controlled because of that.
before you prove this, none of your claims and questions have validity

>Why should men have sexual autonomy?
I never said they should, that's not what the debate is about.
>You could easily get railed by 15 gay ugly men if you chose to.
What does this have to do with anything? Are you trying to make a point about how it IS just as easy for men to get laid, if they have sex with ugly gay men? This has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about (and that argument is retarded).
>You could easily hire a prostitue. You could easily fap. The point is you choose not to and it is that choice that defines your freedom.
This has nothing to do with anything I'm saying.

Try again.

This.
With low SMV a completely free market is your best bet at having sex because at least you have a shot at manipulating/tricking someone into banging you. You just need to be smart. If things were controlled you would definitely not get laid.

And the idea that women would be pure, virtuous angels without sexual freedom is 100% meme. They are thots by nature and you can't change that, just try your best to take advantage of it.

>Why is personal freedom important?
Because centuries ago people realized that individual autonomy is essential to the pursuit of happiness and the growth of civilization as a whole. To revoke a female's sexual freedom would cause a slippery slope where any freedom deemed a threat to a certain group can be removed e.g. freedom of speech and press, freedom to a fair trial. The reality is, you can find a way to justify taking away every single right. You're saying sexual freedom is violent towards men, which I sorta agree with, but then so is freedom of speech (which is the reason why women even have sexual freedom today).

>you haven't made a single argument, you moron.
>before you prove this, none of your claims and questions have validity
Okay then:
Women's sexuality is innately violent against men, and men's sexuality is in some ways innately oppressive to women. Women's sexuality is relative, but men's sexuality is absolute. What I mean is, if we were to turn all women into smart monogamous loyal kind beautiful matriarchal women, all men on the planet would be satisfied and it would be a paradise. Everyone would pair up and have families etc. However, even if we were to turn all men into tall strong intelligent confident strong chin handsome men, women would STILL try to get the men to compete in some way and only want the top percent. Thus absolute vs relative. This is what I mean when I say "women's sexuality is violent against men". Women want and are attracted to men who dominate and hurt each other in some way, women force men to hurt themselves and other men in order to be selected for by women.

People having the freedom will be the end of western civilization, look at the birthrates. We might have sexual and personal freedom for the next 20-30 years but after that, its back to dictatorship and state power

>Women want and are attracted to men who dominate and hurt each other in some way, women force men to hurt themselves and other men in order to be selected for by women.
Prove this.

>Not an argument.
>Try again, dim bulb.

Isnt it obvious? The claim is not even controversial...

>Prove this.
Reality and history.

Yes it is. Women do not care about how dominant or le sociopathic you are. They care about your height, your face, your muscle mass, how big your dick is, etc. your appearance, essentially. faggot OP's argument would only work if we lived in a society in which we were all chads, but we are not all chads, only the top 10% of us can count themselves among the chads.

>Yes it is. Women do not care about how dominant or le sociopathic you are.
Yes they do
scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/The-Dark-Triad-Personality.pdf
Also, that's my point. EVEN IF all men were tall, handsome, big dicked, women would still want men to compete in some way and select the best. They can not be satisfied, and their preferences involve men hurting each other for their pleasure.
Because of this, they must be controlled.

>source: the depths of your anus.
give me statistics, studies, etc., anything to back your claim.

There is a litany of studies showing that women are attracted to dominant psychopaths, women are attracted to men of high value, who dominate etc. Plus it's common knowledge.

Exactly, how would James Bond, Ted Bundy or other similar characters/people be so popular among women

>if we were to turn all women into smart monogamous loyal kind beautiful matriarchal women, all men on the planet would be satisfied and it would be a paradise
Beauty is subjective. Trends of beauty note recurring tropes. That doesnt mean trends define them. Every man would need to possess the same standards for your hypothetical to work which is far from absolute

Oh shut the fuck. Several studies show that beauty is not subjective and the same facial/body characteristics are popular among all cultures

You can't control wamen, not unless you are a god

Men's attraction is absolute. What I mean is, men do not think one woman is attractive because she is "more attractive" than another. Sure, a man may have his individual preferences, but in the end, all men can be satisfied if given a beautiful loyal woman.
Women are not like this. To a woman, a man is 'hot' because HE IS MORE HOT than the other guys around him.
You need to research the sexy son hypothesis and the fisherian runaway:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_son_hypothesis
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisherian_runaway

the women who are attracted to to Ted Bundy are attracted to him because he looks handsome, and are despite that seemingly in the minority.

No they are not, there are plenty of men better looking than him. Its not like he is so good looking that all that he did could be forgiven. He was popular among women because of what he did.

>there are plenty of men better looking than him
and? Those men are popular among women aswell.
>Its not like he is so good looking that all that he did could be forgiven
>some retarded women like him, which means that the majority forgives him, too.
>He was popular among women because of what he did.
prove he wasn't popular with them because of his looks.

Again tropes do not define a standard. They merely note that a trope exists
>men do not think one woman is attractive because she is more attractive
They absolutely do. What they are most attracted to they choose given that the possibility is open to them. You are taking issue with the fact that women are the gatekeepers of heterosexual sex

THATS THE POINT.
You're not understanding at all. MY WHOLE POINT is that women are attracted to men because they dominate and hurt other men, and that we could not engineer men to women's preferences and get a good results. Because of this, women's sexuality is inherently violent against men, they desire for men to hurt and dominate each other in some way, so they can put them into hierarchies and then as say "I like him he's the top male, I don't like him he's the bottom male".
Men do not do this. If every woman was attractive, kind, smart, and loyal, all men would just thing "man women are great, I love women, lets serve women!".
Because of this, women's sexuality is evil, and must be controlled.

see Women being the gatekeepers of heterosexual sex is just one aspect of this. That would be fine, for example, if the way they selected wasn't based on male dominance and men hurting each other. They abuse this position they are granted, and thus we have the moral imperative to control them.

how is that the point? how does what I said mean "they like men who dominate and kill and shit "

Domination does not necessarily mean violence, I just mean women want men to compete in some way, deny their own emotions, hurt and dominate other men so that women can put them into hierarchies. It's inherently violent against men, and men have the right to defend themselves by controlling women's sexuality. Looks are only important because they are a way in this world for men to dominate in some way. If all men were attractive, then they would just look to other things. The looks are not the source of it, and thus they do not matter.

Who would control the men?

>if the way they selected wasn't based on male dominance and men hurting each other
Its not. Historically it is based on quality of design. Exactly the way that male preference is. The same argument could be made that male preference is violent to women in that it requires them to be fit to use their bodies as incubators.

>right to defend themselves by controlling women's sexuality
they would not, if it is true.
you could just shun them? Remove yourself from civilization? just don't compete if you don't like the way you believe it to be, don't give them power.

We would have no civilization if every man wised up and did that

and?

462

No one, why is this relevant?
Yes, we are a tournament species. That means women select men based on that males dominance over other males.
You're saying that it is not true, and even if it were men wouldn't have the right to control women.
Well, it is true, and men do have the right to defend themselves by controlling women's sexuality.

Even asexual animals experience competition among genes. Why specifically do you take issue with this in the case of humans?

Youre making a naturalistic fallacy, and again you're assuming that tournament based strategies are the only ones. There are monogamous strategies, polygamous strategies, eusocial strategies, many strategies in nature. The tournament one we have now is violence against men and must be eliminated.

Women are the continuity of life.
Men are just drones and slaves who are good for two things:
Semen production and heavy brute labor.

>No one, why is this relevant?
because when we let animals run wild chaos and disarray ensues and hope for salvation is lost.

You could end up married to a woman who hates you, and it wouldn't be too much different then the world right now. Either she's going to lay like a fish in bed while refusing to look you in the eye, come up with every excuse to not have sex, or you're going to have to fight your wife to get some.

Again, not any different then it is now, and you'll just have a constant reminder that you can only have sex by taking it.

See, this is evil. Men and women are both equal in reproduction, and we're not slaves. this is why you need to be controlled.
Men aren't animals, its you women who act like animals.

By defending this behavior, youre saying that women have the right to hurt men. How is it then, that men shouldn't defend themselves against you?

Also, remember in societies like the one OP has posted, the men don't actually get to see their wives before they marry. You also don't see other people's wives. The exception is ISIL, but that's an entirely different story. If you can't see that another person's wife is prettier, you have nothing to be jealous of. However, again, you can get stuck with a wife that hates you.

It's great if you want a warm hole to stick it in. It wouldn't help people who want a wife who loves them.

You don't know what society I want.
The society I want, would have genetically re engineered the human species to not be a tournament based sexual selection species at all. I'm not talking about forcing women into relationships, I'm talking about replacing humans with a better modern version.

I didnt assume anything thing and I didnt say that the human method of genetic competition was optimal or desirable. So I didnt make any fallacy.
>the tournament one we have now is violence against men
Provide a modern example of this and the standards by which you define it as violence. Also why do you opt for revoking female autonomy rather than creating artificial wombs?

There is nothing in OP's post which states he wants a genetically re-engineered human based off perfection to eliminate tournament selection while providing perfect women to everyone.

All you stated was women's sexuality should be controlled with a picture of women in burqa.

Controlling female sexuality could mean many things.

humans are animals and man actually caused the distortion of the modern human female's psyche by grouping them up with children for so long. Out of necessity, of course, in the event of an ambush you need to protect whats is actually important. But we conquered nature, we can relax now. So more repression will actually set us all back, yes even males.

The same way a burqa could mean many things?

Are you misunderstanding my posts? I'm not talking about relaxing, and yes im aware that males are less valuable than you so you don't need to rub it in. My point is that your sexual strategy is still a tournament one when that's not needed anymore, your sexuality is violent against men. It's not "repression" to defend ourselves against you.

We need to relax to evolve. Things need to even out, men get a taste of their own medicine so they can learn and eventually evolve.

violates the basic human right of self determination.
not compatible with the civilized world.
qed

But it's women who need to learn and evolve, you are the ones who's sexuality is violent. Men don't have to do anything. And evolution doesnt work like that
There is no basic human right of self determination.
It would be easilly compatible with the modern world. (civilized doesn't mean anything).

>But it's women who need to learn and evolve, you are the ones who's sexuality is violent. Men don't have to do anything.
Women today behave more like men than ever before.
>And evolution doesnt work like that
It doesn't in the wild, but there might be other areas to go with their own ways of getting there.

I don't understand what you're saying. could you please just write concisely what your overall point is? I will do mine out of fairness:
1) we are a tournament based species that evolved in a savannah
2) women are a tournament selectors who desire males who are best relative to other males, they want males to dominate each other in some way and they pick the 'best'
3) this is violence against men, women hold reproduction hostage while forcing men to dance for them like pets and hurt each other for their pleasure and reward them with mating
4) this is not the only form of reproduction and sexual strategies so we need to genetically engineer women to not be like this anymore, or control their sexuality, because it is violence against men.
What is it you're saying?

>It doesn't in the wild, but there might be other areas to go with their own ways of getting there.
like, what the fuck does this mean?

Because at some point men will demand polygamy.
The Chads will have three to four wifes while two out of three men will stay incel for life or just become gay (see bathhouses in saudi arabia).
At some point there will be a war in which at least half the Chad will die in combat, so the women to men ratio goes drastically up. The incels then see their chances to finally get laid and start to whiteknight the shit out of each others. In the end the supressed women see their chances to form a resistance against the weakend patriachat and feminism is born.

>inherently violent against men

What does that make men's sexuality?The way you stage the argument itself is retarded and thus does not require serious attention.

Men have been conditioning women to behave a certain way for a long time. I don't think it is not a stretch to say the guys at the very top wanted things the way they are. They get their harem of slutty teens and those at the bottom get the scraps.
In the wild evolution happens out of neccesity, but we beat nature. There could be other areas we can evolve in and it might happen differently than how we evolve in nature.

Actually, in nature is where the tournament based selection strategies happen. It's when men have control that things even out. It's women who choose to have things the way they are, not men.

Men have always been in control. Men even control the feminist movement. Just because you are a loser doesn't mean all men are losing this tournament. Some men won a long time ago and rewrote the rules of the game to favor them and theirs and they created the trophies they want, women didn't do that.

Because the government can fuck off with it's retarded laws.

>Make an actual argument, explaining why men physically controlling women's sexuality is bad
I can't. Women's suffrage was unironically a mistake.

Attached: Women ruin civilization.jpg (590x824, 238K)

>inherently
I hate this stupid meme word so much. It basically means "I got nothing to back my argument up with so I'm just going to state something as a solid face with no evidence what so ever.".

>It basically means "I got nothing to back my argument up with so I'm just going to state something as a solid face with no evidence what so ever.".
No it doesn't. Women are inherently inferior to men both physically and mentally. No amount of social engineering will change that.

Attached: 1527047268012.jpg (1334x694, 530K)

No, it's women who set up that hierarchy. It's called "tournament species", I don't get why you're denying this.

I already did back up my point with the argument later on in the thread.
Tournament based sexual selection IS violence against men.

No, women aren't stupid or less intelligent than men. They just have an evil sexual selection strategy that's violent against men. That image is bullshit.

Religious argument: God created Man free, and let him take their own decisions so that they shall answer for their actions. So I think restraining women like Saudis do is retarded, they should let them be, but only make stuff that encourages degeneracy illegal. Both extremes, whether it's Saudi Arabia or Japan, are wrong imo.

So men shouldn't defend themselves against female sexual selection violence?
Also, what's Japan's extreme?

How do you think women set up that hierarchy? It's existed before women even had the freedom to choose their husband.

The sexual selection strategy existed for 2 million years, before civilization or anything like that. It's innate in women, it was only when we started farming that men realized it was unfair and began to control women to defend themselves. Then feminism came and women are trying to hurt men again. So you must be stopped.

Oh I see, I'm being shilled to right now. Shouldn't you be modifying some ancient books or destroying evidence of non-human intelligence right now?

What the fuck are you talking about? What I'm saying is common in species that have tournament based sexual selection. Look at "tournament species":
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection
Look at how in the past only 1 male bred for 17:
psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success
I have no idea what you're talking about in terms of ancient books or destroying evidence of non human intelligence. The fuck does that mean?
What I'm saying is really simple:
>we are a tournament species
>women innately desire for males to hurt each other so they can pick the best one, as it works in tournament species
>this is evil, and violence against men, so we must defend ourselves.
What about this is hard to understand?

There's things your brain is unwilling to understand.

Like what? Stop speaking cryptically and just say what it is you want to say. If it's just going to be another form of "it's actually men who are setting up the hierarchy", well that's provably false, as we were a tournament species were women controlled sexuality UNTIL men took over and started enforcing monogamy, and now feminism is coming and trying to eliminate monogamy, so it's clear that it's women who desire for men to compete and hurt each other.

>Also, what's Japan's extreme?
Degeneracy ?

Also I don't think female sexual selection is violence, seems like a stupid idea to me. No man is entitled to pussy, just like women aren't entitled to money. It's a trade, and you get what people are willing to give in order to get what you can offer.
I think one way females can be """"violent"""" (I'd rather say "bothersome" because it's not really violent) is when they use their beauty to manipulate and disturb. That's why nudity shouldn't be allowed in public imo.

Because we have motherfucking rights and are human beings. This isn't the handmaiden's tale you can go fuck yourself if you think I'm letting anybody ESPECIALLY a man tell me who or what I have to do sexually.

Society functions better with monogamy. That way every guy gets to have sex.

>Why is personal freedom important?
Is this nigger serious?

Personal freedom is the first and the most important pillar that civilization was built upon, you filthy illiterate.

without it your life would be no different than just a big boot camp.

imagine government throwing you in a jail because they don't like what kind of entertainment you consume or sport you play or religion you practice, despite that your practices does not get in the way of anyone else's right? that's literally what you're advocating for right now.

You're also opening a road to a colossal slippery slope, you fascist/commie scum.

remove yourself.

Attached: 1522572054779.jpg (758x698, 96K)

Did you not read the thread? Your sexuality is innately violent against men. We have the right to defend ourselves. If that means stopping you from doing what you want sexually, it's just defending against you.

Not every guy gets to have sex in monogamy, you astronomical idiot.

if you're ugly as sin no girl would touch you unless she's equally ugly, not even with a rented clit.

>sexual freedom is considered part of personal freedom which is basically a given right in the west.
We could revisit tha idea since it doesn't work well.
We could make that personal freedom exclusive to men. Then we would make the decision on how to deploy female sexuality, in other words, the father would choose who the daughter marries.

That system existed before women could choose a partner and no women werent the ones deciding which man was the best man. You are a blind fucking sheep. I will pray for you.

That would be just step one of a series of reforms that need to be made.

Well then, you just don't know what you're talking about.
Learn about the sexy son hypothesis:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_son_hypothesis
Learn about how tournament species work, and understand that it IS women who select the best man, and even if it wasn't your essentially saying that women have the right to do that (so you're just trying to defend this violence against men).

>please instate an oppressive government for me so i can get my dick wet
top
fucking
kek

go pay for some pussy, you pathetic nigger.

Attached: 1519308815507.jpg (192x171, 15K)

No you moron, see

>without it your life would be no different than just a big boot camp
You don't understand, I WANT society to run like a well oiled machine. I don't give a shit about your 'freedom', it's inherently violent against men. I want to minimize that for all men and women, I want to change the species entirely to fix this fundamental problem, it is the biggest problem and the source of all other societies ails.