feminist?
Out of context: Reply #493
- Started
- Last post
- 682 Responses
- drgs0
http://www.breitbart.com/big-gov…
^Funny article about that women soon will no be needed.
The author argues that sex with women will soon be a thing of the past and everyone will be having sex with robots -- and he blames it on feminists.
Also the author, who himself is gay, is arguing that feminism is the cause of homosexuality.
Personally I think that the reason for this is not feminism, but evolutionary psychology. Evolution has rendered men to bring food on the table in exchange for sex, but sex is not particularly needed by women, or at least they need substantially less of it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc…In reality women have pleasure not from sex itself, but when they get paid for it materially and from its social aspects (to be seen by others in company of powerful males). In individual cases this may not be so, but the evolutionary design of women is exactly like this.
Nowadays there is plenty of food and women require significantly higher pay for sexual requests from men. This is the essence of feminism.
On the other hand, with easily accessible pornography and accessories for masturbation, you can just stop "paying" anything to them at all, and instead constantly masturbate and engage in homosexuality. In a society of universal welfare males turn out to be bankrupt and in principle cannot satisfy a woman, because there is nothing they can offer that women do not have, although many are trying.
It all will end with no men and women having sex altogether. To meet their needs men will masturbate, have sex with robots and with each other. What women are going to do in this situation -- I have no idea.
Discuss
- 7.125 billion (2013) on Earth, humanz could uses some weeding out.
I'm OK with this.bklyndroobeki - It's an interesting thought. I think that what we'll see over time is a redifining of 'sex' to be a purly recreational activity with reproduction a more...Morning_star
- ...clinical process detached from 'sx' as an activity.Morning_star
- "I mean, look, I don’t mean to be rude, but most of the reason I went gay is so I didn’t have to deal with nutty broads."
Bahaha. Nobody "goes gay" like that.i_monk - this rant sounds a lot what that turd ian bolton or whatever was saying. by the way, women can reproduce without men, not the other way around. women will be jugilgamush
- just fine no matter how many men are gay for whatever reason or causegilgamush
- Lulz at blaming a rising trend of "sex w/ robots" on feminists.nb
- "Nowadays there is plenty of food and women require significantly higher pay for sexual requests from men. This is the essence of feminism." - moronnb
- How are women gonna reproduce with out men? Vagina trap men then milk em?pango
- Until the robots start demanding to be paid. This is the essence of artificial intelligence.sarahfailin
- Nothing on Breitbart is interesting. It's a circle-jerk for infantile, women-hating goons masquerading as journalism.face_melter
- ^ says the pc brainwashed conformist from .seyurimon
- Stupendous retort, sir!face_melter
- 7.125 billion (2013) on Earth, humanz could uses some weeding out.