The modern woman has a career and children, all without the help of any man...

[Marion Morrison]

I do fine. I just don't write them love notes. It's the massive penis that gets me where I need to go.

Yeah, funny, i've never seen anyone say, "Wow, you can't spell for shit and have a hard time expressing yourself, but I am totally impressed by your huge dick."

So are you out there with a trenchcoat?

View attachment 273513

That's because women have a 6th sense where they avoid you like The Plague.

 

[Bush92]

What is glaringly missing from this discussion is that women, like men, have interests outside of family and raising children. A man can still raise a family while pursuing his interests in medicine, astrophysics, the law, engineering, politics, the gamut of whatever they are interested in and floats their boat, while women are attacked for having family and pursuing their individual interests at the same time. Both men and women are entitled to the half-and-half between being family people and pursuing their own interests.

Who thinks they don’t? It’s 2019...what the ****! This is the result of “women’s studies “ indoctrination classes. ITS 2019...WHY ARE YOU WRITING LIKE ITS 1919? Do you have any understanding of what the real world is like?

I don't know, she goes on these tangents where she listens to herself talk in her own head or something. Having nothing to do what anyone is saying. It's weird.

Exactly. She acts like the last 70 years of social change never happened. I think it goes too far when I’m called “sexist” if I get the door for a lady or stand when she arrives and sits for the first time at dinner table when we’re out at a restaurant. Old school I guess. Most of these traditions go back to a man’s respect for his mother.

Please pay no attention to the harpies, and continue getting doors and standing (how nice!). That's not "sexist", it's just good manners and I always appreciate it!

You’re the sweetest Sue

 

[SweetSue92]

No. "Must" is actually just a personal desire, and beholden only to current written law, and ones location. There is no biological imperative that enforces this "must".

It has nothing to do with biological imperative. And yes, it must. That is not a personal desire, imho, but should be a requirement

You contradicted yourself at the word "should"...
And biological imperative is both inescapable, and self correcting. Always has been; and for as long as life itself continues to exist, always will be.

So have you told your wife you're gonna leave her as soon as she hits perimenopause? Cause you were the swiftie who said the "Biological imperative" is that men spread their seed everywhere. Right? Or what higher moral values are gonna keep you from doing that?

More lying from good ole “SweetSue”. Quite the virtuous one aren’t you? Is this pattern of behavior part of your ethics, or just habitual? Because you do it with alarming regularity.

Reread the thread you are referencing. The one where you were dismissed for lying, and now wish to continue on here. Only this time read what I actually wrote. Not what you would imagine to hear.

Unlike you, and many you’re used to dealing with; I say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say. You need not trouble yourself with attempts at interpretation.

But to recap for the cheap seats... It is every living organisms biological imperative to reproduce.

As you your distorted reference of spreading seed everywhere; that was in regard to successful behavior that increase the chances of a mans line continuing into the future. Your dislike of that reality doesn’t change the permanence of it.

I'm not lying and your fluffing on about it is not going to obfuscate what you said. You said men are biologically wired to impregnate as many women as possible, correct? To settle down with the woman JUST long enough to ensure the baby is okay, then go on to impregnate more. You know this is an accurate representation of what you said. Since you have a worldview like quicksand, you don't like it when I try to nail yours down. It's ethics when you want it to be, and biology when you want it to be.

That's why you're calling me a liar.

Here are your words exactly:

Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.

So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?

 

[Bush92]

What is glaringly missing from this discussion is that women, like men, have interests outside of family and raising children. A man can still raise a family while pursuing his interests in medicine, astrophysics, the law, engineering, politics, the gamut of whatever they are interested in and floats their boat, while women are attacked for having family and pursuing their individual interests at the same time. Both men and women are entitled to the half-and-half between being family people and pursuing their own interests.

Who thinks they don’t? It’s 2019...what the ****! This is the result of “women’s studies “ indoctrination classes. ITS 2019...WHY ARE YOU WRITING LIKE ITS 1919? Do you have any understanding of what the real world is like?

I have never taken any "women's studies" course. My courses were in history, political science, and law. I went to school before there was such a thing as "women's studies." I must point out that how women (over half of the population) got the vote was never mentioned during my schooling. My courses were incomplete. Why was this not taught to us? Half of the population attaining the blessings of democracy is not an important issue? The history of voting rights, not only of women, but also of African-Americans, is incredibly important in the history of our country and democracy. The "women's studies" courses are only meant to fill in the blanks left in the traditional teaching of history.

I do not mean to erase the lives of female people who already lived on this continent and I respect them, such as the women of the Iroquois Confederacy, but do you actually think that European (white) men arrived alone, no women among them, to establish the country you claim?

I cover the Iroquois Confederacy and role of women within it during my first unit of study. In fact getting ready to go there in about 72 hours. Also trace continuity through time of women in our history from Era of Republican Motherhood all the way to Title IX.

What is "republican motherhood"? What is "republican fatherhood"? You conflate so much that you are incomprehensible.

Post Constitutional Convention during our early Federalists Period. Women had a role to play in our society by finding good suitors of high moral character and raising boys (who would eventually go into politics) that would later push for higher education for women and a larger role for them in public policy. You do know that the official title of our country is “The Constitutional Democratic Republic of the United States of America.” We are a “Republic.” That’s a type of political system. You should look it-up.

 

[Bush92]

It has nothing to do with biological imperative. And yes, it must. That is not a personal desire, imho, but should be a requirement

You contradicted yourself at the word "should"...
And biological imperative is both inescapable, and self correcting. Always has been; and for as long as life itself continues to exist, always will be.

So have you told your wife you're gonna leave her as soon as she hits perimenopause? Cause you were the swiftie who said the "Biological imperative" is that men spread their seed everywhere. Right? Or what higher moral values are gonna keep you from doing that?

More lying from good ole “SweetSue”. Quite the virtuous one aren’t you? Is this pattern of behavior part of your ethics, or just habitual? Because you do it with alarming regularity.

Reread the thread you are referencing. The one where you were dismissed for lying, and now wish to continue on here. Only this time read what I actually wrote. Not what you would imagine to hear.

Unlike you, and many you’re used to dealing with; I say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say. You need not trouble yourself with attempts at interpretation.

But to recap for the cheap seats... It is every living organisms biological imperative to reproduce.

As you your distorted reference of spreading seed everywhere; that was in regard to successful behavior that increase the chances of a mans line continuing into the future. Your dislike of that reality doesn’t change the permanence of it.

I'm not lying and your fluffing on about it is not going to obfuscate what you said. You said men are biologically wired to impregnate as many women as possible, correct? To settle down with the woman JUST long enough to ensure the baby is okay, then go on to impregnate more. You know this is an accurate representation of what you said. Since you have a worldview like quicksand, you don't like it when I try to nail yours down. It's ethics when you want it to be, and biology when you want it to be.

That's why you're calling me a liar.

Here are your words exactly:

Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.

So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?

Goes all the way back to men being “hunters” and women being “gatherers” and caring for the children. God has simply set such things into play. Look at mammals across the animal world. In every circumstance there are male and female roles and the females care for offspring and males provide security. Why should human race be different?

 

[SweetSue92]

You contradicted yourself at the word "should"...
And biological imperative is both inescapable, and self correcting. Always has been; and for as long as life itself continues to exist, always will be.

So have you told your wife you're gonna leave her as soon as she hits perimenopause? Cause you were the swiftie who said the "Biological imperative" is that men spread their seed everywhere. Right? Or what higher moral values are gonna keep you from doing that?

More lying from good ole “SweetSue”. Quite the virtuous one aren’t you? Is this pattern of behavior part of your ethics, or just habitual? Because you do it with alarming regularity.

Reread the thread you are referencing. The one where you were dismissed for lying, and now wish to continue on here. Only this time read what I actually wrote. Not what you would imagine to hear.

Unlike you, and many you’re used to dealing with; I say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say. You need not trouble yourself with attempts at interpretation.

But to recap for the cheap seats... It is every living organisms biological imperative to reproduce.

As you your distorted reference of spreading seed everywhere; that was in regard to successful behavior that increase the chances of a mans line continuing into the future. Your dislike of that reality doesn’t change the permanence of it.

I'm not lying and your fluffing on about it is not going to obfuscate what you said. You said men are biologically wired to impregnate as many women as possible, correct? To settle down with the woman JUST long enough to ensure the baby is okay, then go on to impregnate more. You know this is an accurate representation of what you said. Since you have a worldview like quicksand, you don't like it when I try to nail yours down. It's ethics when you want it to be, and biology when you want it to be.

That's why you're calling me a liar.

Here are your words exactly:

Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.

So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?

Goes all the way back to men being “hunters” and women being “gatherers” and caring for the children. God has simply set such things into play. Look at mammals across the animal world. In every circumstance there are male and female roles and the females care for offspring and males provide security. Why should human race be different?

That poster is not Christian however and I'm not sure even believes in God. So here he is making an "argument from biology". At other times he attempts to smuggle in ethics/morality however.

But there is a conflict here, especially as pertains to marriage. If you marry you are presumably (hopefully) not going to leave your wife as soon as her fertility declines. But in this "argument from biology" there is no rational standpoint for that.

In Christianity, of course, there is PLENTY of argument for staying with your wife for life. IOW, we understand our biology but, because we choose to life godly lives, (or try to), we override biology; we can "rise above" our animal instincts. We can do this because we were "made in the image of God".

 

[Bush92]

So have you told your wife you're gonna leave her as soon as she hits perimenopause? Cause you were the swiftie who said the "Biological imperative" is that men spread their seed everywhere. Right? Or what higher moral values are gonna keep you from doing that?

More lying from good ole “SweetSue”. Quite the virtuous one aren’t you? Is this pattern of behavior part of your ethics, or just habitual? Because you do it with alarming regularity.

Reread the thread you are referencing. The one where you were dismissed for lying, and now wish to continue on here. Only this time read what I actually wrote. Not what you would imagine to hear.

Unlike you, and many you’re used to dealing with; I say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say. You need not trouble yourself with attempts at interpretation.

But to recap for the cheap seats... It is every living organisms biological imperative to reproduce.

As you your distorted reference of spreading seed everywhere; that was in regard to successful behavior that increase the chances of a mans line continuing into the future. Your dislike of that reality doesn’t change the permanence of it.

I'm not lying and your fluffing on about it is not going to obfuscate what you said. You said men are biologically wired to impregnate as many women as possible, correct? To settle down with the woman JUST long enough to ensure the baby is okay, then go on to impregnate more. You know this is an accurate representation of what you said. Since you have a worldview like quicksand, you don't like it when I try to nail yours down. It's ethics when you want it to be, and biology when you want it to be.

That's why you're calling me a liar.

Here are your words exactly:

Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.

So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?

Goes all the way back to men being “hunters” and women being “gatherers” and caring for the children. God has simply set such things into play. Look at mammals across the animal world. In every circumstance there are male and female roles and the females care for offspring and males provide security. Why should human race be different?

That poster is not Christian however and I'm not sure even believes in God. So here he is making an "argument from biology". At other times he attempts to smuggle in ethics/morality however.

But there is a conflict here, especially as pertains to marriage. If you marry you are presumably (hopefully) not going to leave your wife as soon as her fertility declines. But in this "argument from biology" there is no rational standpoint for that.

In Christianity, of course, there is PLENTY of argument for staying with your wife for life. IOW, we understand our biology but, because we choose to life godly lives, (or try to), we override biology; we can "rise above" our animal instincts. We can do this because we were "made in the image of God".

Love of family is the greatest survival tool and gift God instilled in mankind. This goes all the way back to the first human beings. In our culture we talk of “love triangles” but the real “love triangle” we should focus on is a husbands love for his wife...her love for him...and their love for their children. This unit is a natural cornerstone of survival and again you can track this through mammals in nature.

 

[Vastator]

No. "Must" is actually just a personal desire, and beholden only to current written law, and ones location. There is no biological imperative that enforces this "must".

It has nothing to do with biological imperative. And yes, it must. That is not a personal desire, imho, but should be a requirement

You contradicted yourself at the word "should"...
And biological imperative is both inescapable, and self correcting. Always has been; and for as long as life itself continues to exist, always will be.

So have you told your wife you're gonna leave her as soon as she hits perimenopause? Cause you were the swiftie who said the "Biological imperative" is that men spread their seed everywhere. Right? Or what higher moral values are gonna keep you from doing that?

More lying from good ole “SweetSue”. Quite the virtuous one aren’t you? Is this pattern of behavior part of your ethics, or just habitual? Because you do it with alarming regularity.

Reread the thread you are referencing. The one where you were dismissed for lying, and now wish to continue on here. Only this time read what I actually wrote. Not what you would imagine to hear.

Unlike you, and many you’re used to dealing with; I say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say. You need not trouble yourself with attempts at interpretation.

But to recap for the cheap seats... It is every living organisms biological imperative to reproduce.

As you your distorted reference of spreading seed everywhere; that was in regard to successful behavior that increase the chances of a mans line continuing into the future. Your dislike of that reality doesn’t change the permanence of it.

I'm not lying and your fluffing on about it is not going to obfuscate what you said. You said men are biologically wired to impregnate as many women as possible, correct? To settle down with the woman JUST long enough to ensure the baby is okay, then go on to impregnate more. You know this is an accurate representation of what you said. Since you have a worldview like quicksand, you don't like it when I try to nail yours down. It's ethics when you want it to be, and biology when you want it to be.

That's why you're calling me a liar.

Yes, you are still lying. That’s why you won’t directly quote, and link what I actually said.

Here’s what I actually said. “Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us.” So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?
As for the settling down just long enough to make sure the baby is okay? It was a fabrication of your own design the first time you wrote it; and it reamains a fabrication of yours.

But feel free to provide an actual quote, with a link so we may verify; if you feel you can find a post of mine offering what you claim.

As for your lying..? Looks habitual. Or consequential. After all.. every lie requires two more to prop it up.

 

[SweetSue92]

It has nothing to do with biological imperative. And yes, it must. That is not a personal desire, imho, but should be a requirement

You contradicted yourself at the word "should"...
And biological imperative is both inescapable, and self correcting. Always has been; and for as long as life itself continues to exist, always will be.

So have you told your wife you're gonna leave her as soon as she hits perimenopause? Cause you were the swiftie who said the "Biological imperative" is that men spread their seed everywhere. Right? Or what higher moral values are gonna keep you from doing that?

More lying from good ole “SweetSue”. Quite the virtuous one aren’t you? Is this pattern of behavior part of your ethics, or just habitual? Because you do it with alarming regularity.

Reread the thread you are referencing. The one where you were dismissed for lying, and now wish to continue on here. Only this time read what I actually wrote. Not what you would imagine to hear.

Unlike you, and many you’re used to dealing with; I say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say. You need not trouble yourself with attempts at interpretation.

But to recap for the cheap seats... It is every living organisms biological imperative to reproduce.

As you your distorted reference of spreading seed everywhere; that was in regard to successful behavior that increase the chances of a mans line continuing into the future. Your dislike of that reality doesn’t change the permanence of it.

I'm not lying and your fluffing on about it is not going to obfuscate what you said. You said men are biologically wired to impregnate as many women as possible, correct? To settle down with the woman JUST long enough to ensure the baby is okay, then go on to impregnate more. You know this is an accurate representation of what you said. Since you have a worldview like quicksand, you don't like it when I try to nail yours down. It's ethics when you want it to be, and biology when you want it to be.

That's why you're calling me a liar.

Yes, you are still lying. That’s why you won’t directly quote, and link what I actually said.

Here’s what I actually said. “Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us.” So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?
As for the settling down just long enough to make sure the baby is okay? It was a fabrication of your own design the first time you wrote it; and it reamains a fabrication of yours.

But feel free to provide an actual quote, with a link so we may verify; if you feel you can find a post of mine offering what you claim.

As for your lying..? Looks habitual. Or consequential. After all.. every lie requires two more to prop it up.

I did provide the quote. And the link.

 

[WinterBorn]

You contradicted yourself at the word "should"...
And biological imperative is both inescapable, and self correcting. Always has been; and for as long as life itself continues to exist, always will be.

So have you told your wife you're gonna leave her as soon as she hits perimenopause? Cause you were the swiftie who said the "Biological imperative" is that men spread their seed everywhere. Right? Or what higher moral values are gonna keep you from doing that?

More lying from good ole “SweetSue”. Quite the virtuous one aren’t you? Is this pattern of behavior part of your ethics, or just habitual? Because you do it with alarming regularity.

Reread the thread you are referencing. The one where you were dismissed for lying, and now wish to continue on here. Only this time read what I actually wrote. Not what you would imagine to hear.

Unlike you, and many you’re used to dealing with; I say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say. You need not trouble yourself with attempts at interpretation.

But to recap for the cheap seats... It is every living organisms biological imperative to reproduce.

As you your distorted reference of spreading seed everywhere; that was in regard to successful behavior that increase the chances of a mans line continuing into the future. Your dislike of that reality doesn’t change the permanence of it.

I'm not lying and your fluffing on about it is not going to obfuscate what you said. You said men are biologically wired to impregnate as many women as possible, correct? To settle down with the woman JUST long enough to ensure the baby is okay, then go on to impregnate more. You know this is an accurate representation of what you said. Since you have a worldview like quicksand, you don't like it when I try to nail yours down. It's ethics when you want it to be, and biology when you want it to be.

That's why you're calling me a liar.

Here are your words exactly:

Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.

So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?

Goes all the way back to men being “hunters” and women being “gatherers” and caring for the children. God has simply set such things into play. Look at mammals across the animal world. In every circumstance there are male and female roles and the females care for offspring and males provide security. Why should human race be different?

Because we are civilized? Virtually nothing we do on a daily basis is based on nature. We live in climate controlled houses, work at jobs that are isolated from nature, ride in cars that seal out nature and enjoy a diet that is no longer seasonal or based on hunting & gathering.

I am not against anyone wanting to live a life where the husband is the bread winner and the wife is a stay-at-home mom and homemaker. It is the expectation that all women do so that is what I am against.

 

[SweetSue92]

It has nothing to do with biological imperative. And yes, it must. That is not a personal desire, imho, but should be a requirement

You contradicted yourself at the word "should"...
And biological imperative is both inescapable, and self correcting. Always has been; and for as long as life itself continues to exist, always will be.

So have you told your wife you're gonna leave her as soon as she hits perimenopause? Cause you were the swiftie who said the "Biological imperative" is that men spread their seed everywhere. Right? Or what higher moral values are gonna keep you from doing that?

More lying from good ole “SweetSue”. Quite the virtuous one aren’t you? Is this pattern of behavior part of your ethics, or just habitual? Because you do it with alarming regularity.

Reread the thread you are referencing. The one where you were dismissed for lying, and now wish to continue on here. Only this time read what I actually wrote. Not what you would imagine to hear.

Unlike you, and many you’re used to dealing with; I say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say. You need not trouble yourself with attempts at interpretation.

But to recap for the cheap seats... It is every living organisms biological imperative to reproduce.

As you your distorted reference of spreading seed everywhere; that was in regard to successful behavior that increase the chances of a mans line continuing into the future. Your dislike of that reality doesn’t change the permanence of it.

I'm not lying and your fluffing on about it is not going to obfuscate what you said. You said men are biologically wired to impregnate as many women as possible, correct? To settle down with the woman JUST long enough to ensure the baby is okay, then go on to impregnate more. You know this is an accurate representation of what you said. Since you have a worldview like quicksand, you don't like it when I try to nail yours down. It's ethics when you want it to be, and biology when you want it to be.

That's why you're calling me a liar.

Yes, you are still lying. That’s why you won’t directly quote, and link what I actually said.

Here’s what I actually said. “Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us.” So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?
As for the settling down just long enough to make sure the baby is okay? It was a fabrication of your own design the first time you wrote it; and it reamains a fabrication of yours.

But feel free to provide an actual quote, with a link so we may verify; if you feel you can find a post of mine offering what you claim.

As for your lying..? Looks habitual. Or consequential. After all.. every lie requires two more to prop it up.

Also you did not provide the full quote and I did. You clearly stated the man should stay with the woman while she is "pregnant, birthing, and rearing children". So that means when her fertility declines--as when she is no longer fertile and the children are college-age--he should leave her so he can "cast it far, and wide". That is the VERY CLEAR implication in your post here; that is not a "lie". That is called inference.

Do you want to correct this or do you stand by it?

 

[Vastator]

You contradicted yourself at the word "should"...
And biological imperative is both inescapable, and self correcting. Always has been; and for as long as life itself continues to exist, always will be.

So have you told your wife you're gonna leave her as soon as she hits perimenopause? Cause you were the swiftie who said the "Biological imperative" is that men spread their seed everywhere. Right? Or what higher moral values are gonna keep you from doing that?

More lying from good ole “SweetSue”. Quite the virtuous one aren’t you? Is this pattern of behavior part of your ethics, or just habitual? Because you do it with alarming regularity.

Reread the thread you are referencing. The one where you were dismissed for lying, and now wish to continue on here. Only this time read what I actually wrote. Not what you would imagine to hear.

Unlike you, and many you’re used to dealing with; I say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say. You need not trouble yourself with attempts at interpretation.

But to recap for the cheap seats... It is every living organisms biological imperative to reproduce.

As you your distorted reference of spreading seed everywhere; that was in regard to successful behavior that increase the chances of a mans line continuing into the future. Your dislike of that reality doesn’t change the permanence of it.

I'm not lying and your fluffing on about it is not going to obfuscate what you said. You said men are biologically wired to impregnate as many women as possible, correct? To settle down with the woman JUST long enough to ensure the baby is okay, then go on to impregnate more. You know this is an accurate representation of what you said. Since you have a worldview like quicksand, you don't like it when I try to nail yours down. It's ethics when you want it to be, and biology when you want it to be.

That's why you're calling me a liar.

Yes, you are still lying. That’s why you won’t directly quote, and link what I actually said.

Here’s what I actually said. “Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us.” So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?
As for the settling down just long enough to make sure the baby is okay? It was a fabrication of your own design the first time you wrote it; and it reamains a fabrication of yours.

But feel free to provide an actual quote, with a link so we may verify; if you feel you can find a post of mine offering what you claim.

As for your lying..? Looks habitual. Or consequential. After all.. every lie requires two more to prop it up.

Also you did not provide the full quote and I did. You clearly stated the man should stay with the woman while she is "pregnant, birthing, and rearing children". So that means when her fertility declines--as when she is no longer fertile and the children are college-age--he should leave her so he can "cast it far, and wide". That is the VERY CLEAR implication in your post here; that is not a "lie". That is called inference.

Do you want to correct this or do you stand by it?

Quote, with link, or waste someone else’s time. I already told you once I won’t waste time on proven liars. And I have proven you a liar. And you alone, are solely responsible for your inferences.

 

[initforme]

Our country was created based on judeo Christian values. At least in many of our founding fathers eyes. Up until the 80s, it was feasible for the woman to stay home as many middle class males made a good wage and it was possible for the woman to stay home and the with the kids, etc. Along came the early 80s and the erosion of the middle class began. Corporations got their way and women were forced to enter the workplace big time and here we are today where in most cases it takes two full time people just to scrape by. In many cases they feel they have to forego having kids so they can have some extras like a vacation, etc. This country is making it harder on young people to get a start.

 

[Bush92]

So have you told your wife you're gonna leave her as soon as she hits perimenopause? Cause you were the swiftie who said the "Biological imperative" is that men spread their seed everywhere. Right? Or what higher moral values are gonna keep you from doing that?

More lying from good ole “SweetSue”. Quite the virtuous one aren’t you? Is this pattern of behavior part of your ethics, or just habitual? Because you do it with alarming regularity.

Reread the thread you are referencing. The one where you were dismissed for lying, and now wish to continue on here. Only this time read what I actually wrote. Not what you would imagine to hear.

Unlike you, and many you’re used to dealing with; I say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say. You need not trouble yourself with attempts at interpretation.

But to recap for the cheap seats... It is every living organisms biological imperative to reproduce.

As you your distorted reference of spreading seed everywhere; that was in regard to successful behavior that increase the chances of a mans line continuing into the future. Your dislike of that reality doesn’t change the permanence of it.

I'm not lying and your fluffing on about it is not going to obfuscate what you said. You said men are biologically wired to impregnate as many women as possible, correct? To settle down with the woman JUST long enough to ensure the baby is okay, then go on to impregnate more. You know this is an accurate representation of what you said. Since you have a worldview like quicksand, you don't like it when I try to nail yours down. It's ethics when you want it to be, and biology when you want it to be.

That's why you're calling me a liar.

Here are your words exactly:

Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.

So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?

Goes all the way back to men being “hunters” and women being “gatherers” and caring for the children. God has simply set such things into play. Look at mammals across the animal world. In every circumstance there are male and female roles and the females care for offspring and males provide security. Why should human race be different?

Because we are civilized? Virtually nothing we do on a daily basis is based on nature. We live in climate controlled houses, work at jobs that are isolated from nature, ride in cars that seal out nature and enjoy a diet that is no longer seasonal or based on hunting & gathering.

I am not against anyone wanting to live a life where the husband is the bread winner and the wife is a stay-at-home mom and homemaker. It is the expectation that all women do so that is what I am against.

It’s instinct that is ingrained within us. We always are in a state of nature. Environment changes. You can live in the woods or in a rural area and certain things need to be done in order to survive. You might live in a metro area and commute into a concrete jungle. Different survival techniques there too. You have to beat rush hour traffic to get to work on time because if you’re late too many times you can get fired and not be able to provide for the family unit. So you drive aggressively and cuss other drivers when your primal instincts come out. If you live in an area and a hurricane is coming you stock-up on supplies because you might not have power or fresh water for awhile. Primal instinct kicks-in when you’re in competition for food, water, and gas with every other family out there doing the same. Male/female roles are primal as well. I have no problem with career women, just don’t put a negative label on men when they are following instincts that were developed over thousands and thousands of years based on how God created mankind.

 

[SweetSue92]

Our country was created based on judeo Christian values. At least in many of our founding fathers eyes. Up until the 80s, it was feasible for the woman to stay home as many middle class males made a good wage and it was possible for the woman to stay home and the with the kids, etc. Along came the early 80s and the erosion of the middle class began. Corporations got their way and women were forced to enter the workplace big time and here we are today where in most cases it takes two full time people just to scrape by. In many cases they feel they have to forego having kids so they can have some extras like a vacation, etc. This country is making it harder on young people to get a start.

Okay well I posted the full quote with a link. Anyone is free to see if I am in fact a liar. I am totally at ease about that.

 

[Capri]

,,,the modern man remains boy-like, perpetually playing video games and hopping from woman to woman but never settling down.

This is the world liberal Democrats have created.

There were no good old days.

Bullshit. United States roared after WW2.

For a select group of people. Yep, girls who were pregnant still went to the country to visit relatives. Whole lot of stuff you are ignoring.

Yes, things were a lot closer to idyllic if you were White and straight, but every American benefited from the post-WWII boom.

That women who put out & got pregnant "went to the country to visit relatives" instead of unabashedly having children out of wedlock or unashamedly having the children's lives terminated was, overall, a good thing sociologically.

Please explain how that was a good thing sociologically.

The increase in fatherless homes correlates directly with an increase in social ills, primarily crime.
Abortion has more and more become thought of as a medical procedure of no more significance that having a wart removed. This, among other thing, has led to a devaluing of life, as well as a diminished of personal responsibility.
There was a time when pregnancy outside of marriage was considered shameful. Then, crime was far less rampant and life was much more valued. These things are connected. Single-motherhood being accepted and celebrated and the significance of abortion being minimized are net negatives for society.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Our country was created based on judeo Christian values. At least in many of our founding fathers eyes. Up until the 80s, it was feasible for the woman to stay home as many middle class males made a good wage and it was possible for the woman to stay home and the with the kids, etc. Along came the early 80s and the erosion of the middle class began. Corporations got their way and women were forced to enter the workplace big time and here we are today where in most cases it takes two full time people just to scrape by. In many cases they feel they have to forego having kids so they can have some extras like a vacation, etc. This country is making it harder on young people to get a start.

Okay well I posted the full quote with a link. Anyone is free to see if I am in fact a liar. I am totally at ease about that.

I don't think you're a liar, and I have a good bullshit detector.

 

[initforme]

I get a kick out of those drips who cry about kids living at home at the age of 25. Would they rather the kid is drowning in debt because of wages being stuck where they are at? My granddaughter is working her first real job now. She is 27, lives at home, and makes a good wage. She does not actively date now as she states there is no time for dating for at least five years as she wants to buy a nice car, house of her own, and be able to save. Having a family isn't even on the back burner yet.

 

[Vastator]

So have you told your wife you're gonna leave her as soon as she hits perimenopause? Cause you were the swiftie who said the "Biological imperative" is that men spread their seed everywhere. Right? Or what higher moral values are gonna keep you from doing that?

More lying from good ole “SweetSue”. Quite the virtuous one aren’t you? Is this pattern of behavior part of your ethics, or just habitual? Because you do it with alarming regularity.

Reread the thread you are referencing. The one where you were dismissed for lying, and now wish to continue on here. Only this time read what I actually wrote. Not what you would imagine to hear.

Unlike you, and many you’re used to dealing with; I say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say. You need not trouble yourself with attempts at interpretation.

But to recap for the cheap seats... It is every living organisms biological imperative to reproduce.

As you your distorted reference of spreading seed everywhere; that was in regard to successful behavior that increase the chances of a mans line continuing into the future. Your dislike of that reality doesn’t change the permanence of it.

I'm not lying and your fluffing on about it is not going to obfuscate what you said. You said men are biologically wired to impregnate as many women as possible, correct? To settle down with the woman JUST long enough to ensure the baby is okay, then go on to impregnate more. You know this is an accurate representation of what you said. Since you have a worldview like quicksand, you don't like it when I try to nail yours down. It's ethics when you want it to be, and biology when you want it to be.

That's why you're calling me a liar.

Yes, you are still lying. That’s why you won’t directly quote, and link what I actually said.

Here’s what I actually said. “Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us.” So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?
As for the settling down just long enough to make sure the baby is okay? It was a fabrication of your own design the first time you wrote it; and it reamains a fabrication of yours.

But feel free to provide an actual quote, with a link so we may verify; if you feel you can find a post of mine offering what you claim.

As for your lying..? Looks habitual. Or consequential. After all.. every lie requires two more to prop it up.

Also you did not provide the full quote and I did. You clearly stated the man should stay with the woman while she is "pregnant, birthing, and rearing children". So that means when her fertility declines--as when she is no longer fertile and the children are college-age--he should leave her so he can "cast it far, and wide". That is the VERY CLEAR implication in your post here; that is not a "lie". That is called inference.

Do you want to correct this or do you stand by it?

Quote, with link, or waste someone else’s time. I already told you once I won’t waste time on proven liars. And I have proven you a liar.

You contradicted yourself at the word "should"...
And biological imperative is both inescapable, and self correcting. Always has been; and for as long as life itself continues to exist, always will be.

So have you told your wife you're gonna leave her as soon as she hits perimenopause? Cause you were the swiftie who said the "Biological imperative" is that men spread their seed everywhere. Right? Or what higher moral values are gonna keep you from doing that?

More lying from good ole “SweetSue”. Quite the virtuous one aren’t you? Is this pattern of behavior part of your ethics, or just habitual? Because you do it with alarming regularity.

Reread the thread you are referencing. The one where you were dismissed for lying, and now wish to continue on here. Only this time read what I actually wrote. Not what you would imagine to hear.

Unlike you, and many you’re used to dealing with; I say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say. You need not trouble yourself with attempts at interpretation.

But to recap for the cheap seats... It is every living organisms biological imperative to reproduce.

As you your distorted reference of spreading seed everywhere; that was in regard to successful behavior that increase the chances of a mans line continuing into the future. Your dislike of that reality doesn’t change the permanence of it.

I'm not lying and your fluffing on about it is not going to obfuscate what you said. You said men are biologically wired to impregnate as many women as possible, correct? To settle down with the woman JUST long enough to ensure the baby is okay, then go on to impregnate more. You know this is an accurate representation of what you said. Since you have a worldview like quicksand, you don't like it when I try to nail yours down. It's ethics when you want it to be, and biology when you want it to be.

That's why you're calling me a liar.

Yes, you are still lying. That’s why you won’t directly quote, and link what I actually said.

Here’s what I actually said. “Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us.” So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?
As for the settling down just long enough to make sure the baby is okay? It was a fabrication of your own design the first time you wrote it; and it reamains a fabrication of yours.

But feel free to provide an actual quote, with a link so we may verify; if you feel you can find a post of mine offering what you claim.

As for your lying..? Looks habitual. Or consequential. After all.. every lie requires two more to prop it up.

I did provide the quote. And the link.

Actually you just went back amended a previous post you made. But I’ll take it. After all, what I actually said is much more correct, than what you have claimed that I have said.

 

[WinterBorn]

More lying from good ole “SweetSue”. Quite the virtuous one aren’t you? Is this pattern of behavior part of your ethics, or just habitual? Because you do it with alarming regularity.

Reread the thread you are referencing. The one where you were dismissed for lying, and now wish to continue on here. Only this time read what I actually wrote. Not what you would imagine to hear.

Unlike you, and many you’re used to dealing with; I say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say. You need not trouble yourself with attempts at interpretation.

But to recap for the cheap seats... It is every living organisms biological imperative to reproduce.

As you your distorted reference of spreading seed everywhere; that was in regard to successful behavior that increase the chances of a mans line continuing into the future. Your dislike of that reality doesn’t change the permanence of it.

I'm not lying and your fluffing on about it is not going to obfuscate what you said. You said men are biologically wired to impregnate as many women as possible, correct? To settle down with the woman JUST long enough to ensure the baby is okay, then go on to impregnate more. You know this is an accurate representation of what you said. Since you have a worldview like quicksand, you don't like it when I try to nail yours down. It's ethics when you want it to be, and biology when you want it to be.

That's why you're calling me a liar.

Here are your words exactly:

Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.

So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?

Goes all the way back to men being “hunters” and women being “gatherers” and caring for the children. God has simply set such things into play. Look at mammals across the animal world. In every circumstance there are male and female roles and the females care for offspring and males provide security. Why should human race be different?

Because we are civilized? Virtually nothing we do on a daily basis is based on nature. We live in climate controlled houses, work at jobs that are isolated from nature, ride in cars that seal out nature and enjoy a diet that is no longer seasonal or based on hunting & gathering.

I am not against anyone wanting to live a life where the husband is the bread winner and the wife is a stay-at-home mom and homemaker. It is the expectation that all women do so that is what I am against.

It’s instinct that is ingrained within us. We always are in a state of nature. Environment changes. You can live in the woods or in a rural area and certain things need to be done in order to survive. You might live in a metro area and commute into a concrete jungle. Different survival techniques there too. You have to beat rush hour traffic to get to work on time because if you’re late too many times you can get fired and not be able to provide for the family unit. So you drive aggressively and cuss other drivers when your primal instincts come out. If you live in an area and a hurricane is coming you stock-up on supplies because you might not have power or fresh water for awhile. Primal instinct kicks-in when you’re in competition for food, water, and gas with every other family out there doing the same. Male/female roles are primal as well. I have no problem with career women, just don’t put a negative label on men when they are following instincts that were developed over thousands and thousands of years based on how God created mankind.

The only time I put a negative label on men is when they demand that a woman be subservient to them, when the woman does not want to be an underling.