@RamOfPeace
10 Years1,000+ Posts
Patriarchal or matriarchal society?
You are on page out of 2 | Reverse Order
Neither. Both can go fuck themselves. I believe in social hierarchy. Helluva a lot better and less retarded since anyone can advance. I don't want women running my life and I don't want Alpha men trying to run another Alpha's life.
Posted by SensitiveBlues
I think women are generally wiser then men
By biology it' says women are a lot more emotional than men. But that doesn't make em wiser.
Posted by SensitiveBlues
Matriarchal societies aren't anti men it's just that women get to make many of the decisions!This is healthy because women think of all men think of themselves
That is actually not true. I don't think you should make assumptions. Plenty of women who thought of themselves and did nothing but evil, for example- Queen Mary I of England, Magaret Thatcher (at least I think she was a bad leader), Empress Wu Zetian, Isabella I of Castile, Ranavalona I of Madagascar, Elizabeth Bathory. Must I go on?
Let's not forget. You need a man and a woman to make a baby. If men are nothing then there's no future except a mass population drop (which is great).
Posted by SensitiveBlues
Posted by HellDorado
saying "women are everything" means that "men are nothing."do the math.
Well the future will tell
click to expand
The future won't tell anything when there's no one left alive to enjoy it. The solution to the mathematical equation.
Posted by SensitiveBlues
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Let's not forget. You need a man and a woman to make a baby. If men are nothing then there's no future except a mass population drop (which is great).
Not in a decade or two!
Science
click to expand
Not going to do you any well when there's no sperm to use when it's all gone. Or better yet someone destroys it, or even better- someone decides hell no and rebels against it. no men, no children, no future, we all die, peace reigns, and the life goes on.
Posted by starlover
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Let's not forget. You need a man and a woman to make a baby. If men are nothing then there's no future except a mass population drop (which is great).
Who says men are nothing?
click to expand
If women are "everything". Where does that leave men to be a part of that "everything". Implying that we are nothing when there's no space to be a part of everything. So pushed off to the side and treated like third class citizens or we are nothing and have no part of the society that someone envisions. Sorry but power stays in the hands of whoever can use it fairly and it won't be limited to sex.
Posted by SensitiveBlues
Posted by HellDorado
Posted by SensitiveBlues
Posted by HellDorado
saying "women are everything" means that "men are nothing."do the math.
Well the future will tell
why wait for the future? the past and present already prove the irrationality of your statements.
men and women evolved alongside one another. women to protect the eggs. men to protect the women. the truth is that women cannot protect themselves. thats not sexism. think about the vulnerability of a pregnant woman. why does everyone give up seats for the pregnant woman?
because they are weak. and thats not a bad thing.
Ha-ha I love men but this is bs!
Seriously! Women don't need men we want men!
Get with it
click to expand
Well if you want a future with people still walking the planet then you need men. What part of that doesn't click with you? Just like how you need to live, you need men or women just to have a future.
Posted by SensitiveBlues
Posted by HellDorado
Posted by SensitiveBlues
Posted by HellDorado
saying "women are everything" means that "men are nothing."do the math.
Well the future will tell
why wait for the future? the past and present already prove the irrationality of your statements.
men and women evolved alongside one another. women to protect the eggs. men to protect the women. the truth is that women cannot protect themselves. thats not sexism. think about the vulnerability of a pregnant woman. why does everyone give up seats for the pregnant woman?
because they are weak. and thats not a bad thing.
Ha-ha I love men but this is bs!
Seriously! Women don't need men we want men!
Get with it
click to expand
Well if you want a future with people still walking the planet then you need men. What part of that doesn't click with you? Just like how you need water to live, you need men or women just to have a future.
Posted by SensitiveBlues
Men are no longer needed to create sperm. Unfortunately
Actually yes they are. What proof do you have? Waiting...
Posted by tiziani
Posted by Jahlia
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by SensitiveBlues
Matriarchal societies aren't anti men it's just that women get to make many of the decisions!This is healthy because women think of all men think of themselves
That is actually not true. I don't think you should make assumptions. Plenty of women who thought of themselves and did nothing but evil, for example- Queen Mary I of England, Magaret Thatcher (at least I think she was a bad leader), Empress Wu Zetian, Isabella I of Castile, Ranavalona I of Madagascar, Elizabeth Bathory. Must I go on?
Agreed. I'm really sick the selfless stereotype of women. It's just not true.
And we have patriarchy to blame for that
click to expand
How can we blame a patriarchy for that? If anything is to blame it's royalty and no limitation of their powers at the time and what they could do.
That and the selfish decision to carry upon themselves that they could do whatever they want with their power because their royalty and you have to agree. Same behavior noted in men, the only thing that stopped them were armed uprisings, people stabbing them in the back, and the senate/congress/council removing them of their power.
Posted by HellDorado
Posted by SensitiveBlues
Posted by HellDorado
Posted by SensitiveBlues
Posted by HellDorado
Posted by SensitiveBlues
Posted by HellDorado
saying "women are everything" means that "men are nothing."do the math.
Well the future will tell
why wait for the future? the past and present already prove the irrationality of your statements.
men and women evolved alongside one another. women to protect the eggs. men to protect the women. the truth is that women cannot protect themselves. thats not sexism. think about the vulnerability of a pregnant woman. why does everyone give up seats for the pregnant woman?
because they are weak. and thats not a bad thing.
Ha-ha I love men but this is bs!
Seriously! Women don't need men we want men!
Get with it
you dont love men, you love dick.
if you loved men, you would never suggest that women dont need men.
Looooool that's kind of true! But men are needed to change the lightbulb.
Calm down.
Y'all be OK for a few more decades you're safe
dont tell me to calm down. you're the one who is thinking with her emotions, not me.
click to expand
I don't think we should worry. I think this is just Magenta's troll account. Considering they have Blue in their name and they both follow the same idiotic principles.
Posted by Jahlia
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by tiziani
Posted by Jahlia
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by SensitiveBlues
Matriarchal societies aren't anti men it's just that women get to make many of the decisions!This is healthy because women think of all men think of themselves
That is actually not true. I don't think you should make assumptions. Plenty of women who thought of themselves and did nothing but evil, for example- Queen Mary I of England, Magaret Thatcher (at least I think she was a bad leader), Empress Wu Zetian, Isabella I of Castile, Ranavalona I of Madagascar, Elizabeth Bathory. Must I go on?
Agreed. I'm really sick the selfless stereotype of women. It's just not true.
And we have patriarchy to blame for that
How can we blame a patriarchy for that? If anything is to blame it's royalty and no limitation of their powers at the time and what they could do.
Elaborate?
click to expand
Going on from the abuse of powers of other people over time. Those who are suddenly given a position of power don't exactly know what to do with said power especially when you're given the power of millions lives in your hand. Most of them get their poor examples from the people who led before them or from a ruler who happened to do poorly and they sought to correct and right the wrongs, bring something new to the table, or do exactly as I said above and go crazy with the amount of power they have or have the potential to gain. Some even do it out of restoration of dominant ideas or religious faith in the case of Queen Mary I of England so they follow their own example on how they should be handled or do what everyone else does and kill them. A patriarchy isn't to blame. It's simple ill will, good intentions gone bad, or a simply having so much power they don't know what to do with it and in the end the power controls them. It's comes down to nature vs nurture. Not patriarchy
Posted by tiziani
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by tiziani
Posted by Jahlia
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by SensitiveBlues
Matriarchal societies aren't anti men it's just that women get to make many of the decisions!This is healthy because women think of all men think of themselves
That is actually not true. I don't think you should make assumptions. Plenty of women who thought of themselves and did nothing but evil, for example- Queen Mary I of England, Magaret Thatcher (at least I think she was a bad leader), Empress Wu Zetian, Isabella I of Castile, Ranavalona I of Madagascar, Elizabeth Bathory. Must I go on?
Agreed. I'm really sick the selfless stereotype of women. It's just not true.
And we have patriarchy to blame for that
How can we blame a patriarchy for that? If anything is to blame it's royalty and no limitation of their powers at the time and what they could do.
That still takes place in a world where royalty is given power to rule by God, and in that narrative the ultimate expression of power and femininity is sacrifice and selflessness like Christ. Same thing in Hollywood scripts.
click to expand
If that was truly the case then I guess God gave Queen Mary I and Queen Elizabeth I and the current queen power not caring about sex because they had all those qualities?
Emotionally charged leaders make me raise my brow. Important decisions must be considered rationally. In any case, neither.
Posted by tiziani
Posted by Sn1p3r187
That and the selfish decision to carry upon themselves that they could do whatever they want with their power because their royalty and you have to agree. Same behavior noted in men, the only thing that stopped them were armed uprisings, people stabbing them in the back, and the senate/congress/council removing them of their power.
Well how you're going to separate hierarchy and the concept of "noblesse oblige" from royalty is going to be a neat trick, if you manage to pull that off.
click to expand
I'm sorry Tiz i didn't get your question. Could you re-phrase that man?
Patriarchal
Way back when we started off as a matriarchal society. Once cattle started to be used as property and for trade, it turned patriarchal since men wanted all the goods and property they were getting from this trade to be passed down. If they didn't do that, they wouldnt be able to pass their property down to their kin. After that, the roles switched and females couldn't pass down property. Just a little history.
Personally, an egalitarian society sounds better than either.
Posted by YourFavoriteDXPMember
You idiots need to remember the legendary words of the late great James Brown."This is a man's world."
And it's nothing without a woman
Posted by Jahlia
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by Jahlia
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by tiziani
Posted by Jahlia
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by SensitiveBlues
Matriarchal societies aren't anti men it's just that women get to make many of the decisions!This is healthy because women think of all men think of themselves
That is actually not true. I don't think you should make assumptions. Plenty of women who thought of themselves and did nothing but evil, for example- Queen Mary I of England, Magaret Thatcher (at least I think she was a bad leader), Empress Wu Zetian, Isabella I of Castile, Ranavalona I of Madagascar, Elizabeth Bathory. Must I go on?
Agreed. I'm really sick the selfless stereotype of women. It's just not true.
And we have patriarchy to blame for that
How can we blame a patriarchy for that? If anything is to blame it's royalty and no limitation of their powers at the time and what they could do.
Elaborate?
Going on from the abuse of powers of other people over time. Those who are suddenly given a position of power don't exactly know what to do with said power especially when you're given the power of millions lives in your hand. Most of them get their poor examples from the people who led before them or from a ruler who happened to do poorly and they sought to correct and right the wrongs, bring something new to the table, or do exactly as I said above and go crazy with the amount of power they have or have the potential to gain. Some even do it out of restoration of dominant ideas or religious faith in the case of Queen Mary I of England so they follow their own example on how they should be handled or do what everyone else does and kill them. A patriarchy isn't to blame. It's simple ill will, good intentions gone bad, or a simply having so much power they don't know what to do with it and in the end the power controls them. It's comes down to nature vs nurture. Not patriarchyclick to expand
But patriarchy was the flawed and dangerous idea that they created. It was pervasive and it contaminated most, if not all aspects of society. Even if abuse of power is the root problem, the fact remains that patriarchy is the destructive and sexist institution that was created. So I think tha
@Jahlia Okay I see your point, but how is it the dangerous idea they created? How could it have been created? What influenced it to take spread? Why did no one throw an armed uprising at three of England's Queens? Maybe there was a never a law in place in Renaissance era England that stopped women from becoming Queens. Maybe you can say a patriarchy fell apart when you have Elizabeth I there to prove how great of a leader she is with her leadership skills matched second to none, same can be said about Elizabeth II. Dammit why am I on about England? Anyway yeah
Posted by Rambunctious76
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by SensitiveBlues
Matriarchal societies aren't anti men it's just that women get to make many of the decisions!This is healthy because women think of all men think of themselves
That is actually not true. I don't think you should make assumptions. Plenty of women who thought of themselves and did nothing but evil, for example- Queen Mary I of England, Magaret Thatcher (at least I think she was a bad leader), Empress Wu Zetian, Isabella I of Castile, Ranavalona I of Madagascar, Elizabeth Bathory. Must I go on?
The list of male leaders who did just as much evil is twice as long. Let's start with the Roman Empire. Caligula, Nero...
On the one hand you have Elizabeth Bathory, on the other you have Gilles de Rais.
click to expand
Why the hell does it matter? Evil is evil. It doesn't matter how great it is or how long it is. The fact remains they were terrible leaders and the women in charge are no different than men when it comes to screwing up or being tyrannical monsters.
Posted by tiziani
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by tiziani
Posted by Sn1p3r187
That and the selfish decision to carry upon themselves that they could do whatever they want with their power because their royalty and you have to agree. Same behavior noted in men, the only thing that stopped them were armed uprisings, people stabbing them in the back, and the senate/congress/council removing them of their power.
Well how you're going to separate hierarchy and the concept of "noblesse oblige" from royalty is going to be a neat trick, if you manage to pull that off.
I'm sorry Tiz i didn't get your question. Could you re-phrase that man?
Let's say you have a society based on hierarchy like you want. How are you going to make sure the people at the very top of your hierarchy don't abuse their power? Or that anyone from below doesn't suddenly come into power themselves? That's a natural risk of hierarchy.
click to expand
There's no honest way to make sure no one does abuse their power but putting them through peer evaluation and limiting over just exactly what they have power over via checks and balances is a good way to limit the power abuse. And you can always engrave something in stone that says "this shit has to get by a council of ten people before it can be passed" which can guarantee that there won't be an override of power from the top. If the council don't approve then it's not happening. For below, they could always go through a process that puts them in line as a successor to the top dog via evaluation of their leadership skills and what they can handle. Damn I think I just described U.S congress lol
Posted by Scenic
Way back when we started off as a matriarchal society. Once cattle started to be used as property and for trade, it turned patriarchal since men wanted all the goods and property they were getting from this trade to be passed down. If they didn't do that, they wouldnt be able to pass their property down to their kin. After that, the roles switched and females couldn't pass down property. Just a little history.Personally, an egalitarian society sounds better than either.
Uh huh. What proof do you have?
Posted by tiziani
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by tiziani
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by tiziani
Posted by Sn1p3r187
That and the selfish decision to carry upon themselves that they could do whatever they want with their power because their royalty and you have to agree. Same behavior noted in men, the only thing that stopped them were armed uprisings, people stabbing them in the back, and the senate/congress/council removing them of their power.
Well how you're going to separate hierarchy and the concept of "noblesse oblige" from royalty is going to be a neat trick, if you manage to pull that off.
I'm sorry Tiz i didn't get your question. Could you re-phrase that man?
Let's say you have a society based on hierarchy like you want. How are you going to make sure the people at the very top of your hierarchy don't abuse their power? Or that anyone from below doesn't suddenly come into power themselves? That's a natural risk of hierarchy.
There's no honest way to make sure no one does abuse their power but putting them through peer evaluation and limiting over just exactly what they have power over via checks and balances is a good way to limit the power abuse. And you can always engrave something in stone that says "this shit has to get by a council of ten people before it can be passed" which can guarantee that there won't be an override of power from the top. If the council don't approve then it's not happening. For below, they could always go through a process that puts them in line as a successor to the top dog via evaluation of their leadership skills and what they can handle. Damn I think I just described U.S congress lol
As you said, there's a lot of dishonesty in that in reality. The law in countries that have a parliament or congress is built to be exploited through loopholes. Effectively it's not really hierarchy in it's purest form.
click to expand
But it's good enough that it works better than matriarchy or patriarchy. So why not let society stick with it,
Posted by tiziani
I'd have to disagree. Look at in in practice, where the law spends more time workings for criminals than working against them lol. It's clear "good enough" just isn't good enough imo.
That's not always the case. The Checks and balances have to be very heavy and everything would need to be micromanaged to work properly. France ain't too bad. They don't seem corrupt there,
Posted by YourFavoriteDXPMember
Posted by Listenlearnteach
Posted by YourFavoriteDXPMember
You idiots need to remember the legendary words of the late great James Brown."This is a man's world."
And it's nothing without a woman
Hmmm, maybe....
click to expand
No faxtural. It's the rest of the lyrics.
Posted by Listenlearnteach
Posted by YourFavoriteDXPMember
Posted by Listenlearnteach
Posted by YourFavoriteDXPMember
You idiots need to remember the legendary words of the late great James Brown."This is a man's world."
And it's nothing without a woman
Hmmm, maybe....
No faxtural. It's the rest of the lyrics.
click to expand
Factual
Posted by tiziani
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by tiziani
I'd have to disagree. Look at in in practice, where the law spends more time workings for criminals than working against them lol. It's clear "good enough" just isn't good enough imo.
That's not always the case. The Checks and balances have to be very heavy and everything would need to be micromanaged to work properly. France ain't too bad. They don't seem corrupt there,
Fair point.
click to expand
I know from experience. I could live anywhere else in Europe, it'd either be France, Scotland, England, or Switzerland
*If I could live anywhere else.
*puts the popcorn bowl aside*
We have a wise saying in Russia that goes something like "Man is the head, and woman is the neck", yet it is still traditoinally interpreted as patriarchal model of a man being the leader and provider, while woman keeps the hearth. In a way, Slav women let their men lead the way, but in such a way that if we need something done our way, we let men believe that it's them who are in charge. We don't practice range shooting at the male ego in public, nor even 1 to 1. It's an art of female subtlety of suggestion.
In biological and lengthy historical sense, it is the way to go.
As far as USA goes, I'd love to see it revert back to something close of the 60s society model, with perhaps some modernized concepts here and there.
Female dominance is a pretty disgusting concept, unless you're serious, and planning to go all the way and do the Mr(s) Jenner thang to solidify the statement.
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by Scenic
Way back when we started off as a matriarchal society. Once cattle started to be used as property and for trade, it turned patriarchal since men wanted all the goods and property they were getting from this trade to be passed down. If they didn't do that, they wouldnt be able to pass their property down to their kin. After that, the roles switched and females couldn't pass down property. Just a little history.Personally, an egalitarian society sounds better than either.
Uh huh. What proof do you have?click to expand
Proof? It's history. Just look it up
Posted by tiziani
Posted by GreyWiz
I can accept some women rulers who possess that great leadership ability or society can accept a women with great yang energy. However my default positions would still be patriarchy. it is much more natural and has lot more power behind it from multiple places. social acceptance of that woman will be tough though even from women. most people are so hung up on complete equality.Those people are hung up, in a patriarchal society.......
click to expand
Actually no, most hung up people like that are predominantly feminist women in modern matriarchal USA.
Posted by Scenic
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by Scenic
Way back when we started off as a matriarchal society. Once cattle started to be used as property and for trade, it turned patriarchal since men wanted all the goods and property they were getting from this trade to be passed down. If they didn't do that, they wouldnt be able to pass their property down to their kin. After that, the roles switched and females couldn't pass down property. Just a little history.Personally, an egalitarian society sounds better than either.
Uh huh. What proof do you have?
Proof? It's history. Just look it up
click to expand
Uh no. You either provide proof in the form of link or video or point is invalid.
Posted by tiziani
Posted by RamOfPeace
Posted by tiziani
Posted by GreyWiz
I can accept some women rulers who possess that great leadership ability or society can accept a women with great yang energy. However my default positions would still be patriarchy. it is much more natural and has lot more power behind it from multiple places. social acceptance of that woman will be tough though even from women. most people are so hung up on complete equality.Those people are hung up, in a patriarchal society.......
Actually no, most hung up people like that are predominantly feminist women in modern matriarchal USA.
Again, no... that is a patriarchal society.
click to expand
It used to be. With every passing year that I live here, it gets more and more matriarchal. And I mean I have something to compare it with, being raised in both soceities for approx 50% of my lifetime in each, at this point in time.
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by Scenic
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by Scenic
Way back when we started off as a matriarchal society. Once cattle started to be used as property and for trade, it turned patriarchal since men wanted all the goods and property they were getting from this trade to be passed down. If they didn't do that, they wouldnt be able to pass their property down to their kin. After that, the roles switched and females couldn't pass down property. Just a little history.Personally, an egalitarian society sounds better than either.
Uh huh. What proof do you have?
Proof? It's history. Just look it up
Uh no. You either provide proof in the form of link or video or point is invalid.click to expand
On my phone. If you want to learn you can do it yourself. I didn't make this post for you.
i like patriarchial society but hopefully the men who are leaders are good men. not corrupt and cruel.
i like that type of society because i like protection. Good, strong men can protect.
while women nurture and care-giving.
Posted by tiziani
Posted by RamOfPeace
Posted by tiziani
Posted by RamOfPeace
Posted by tiziani
Posted by GreyWiz
I can accept some women rulers who possess that great leadership ability or society can accept a women with great yang energy. However my default positions would still be patriarchy. it is much more natural and has lot more power behind it from multiple places. social acceptance of that woman will be tough though even from women. most people are so hung up on complete equality.Those people are hung up, in a patriarchal society.......
Actually no, most hung up people like that are predominantly feminist women in modern matriarchal USA.
Again, no... that is a patriarchal society.
It used to be. With every passing year that I live here, it gets more and more matriarchal. And I mean I have something to compare it with, being raised in both soceities for approx 50% of my lifetime in each, at this point in time.
Lol
you're comparing patriarchy vs patriarchy.
There's no logic in looking at years/centuries of patriarchy, identifying a few things about it that you don't like and saying "well this must be what matriarchy tastes like."
You'd have to actual look at the evidence of what a matriarchal society actually is like from the ground up. Like in regions of India or China that have been that way for millenia.
click to expand
Well okay then, shoot and compare the two lol. I'd like to see.
Posted by cuteboy
Matriarchal probably i dunno. whatever those two words mean.you could have suspect DonJohnson to derail this topic if not for him being banned.
I haven't met a more pretentious, feather-ruffling beta in my life tbh.
Posted by Scenic
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by Scenic
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by Scenic
Way back when we started off as a matriarchal society. Once cattle started to be used as property and for trade, it turned patriarchal since men wanted all the goods and property they were getting from this trade to be passed down. If they didn't do that, they wouldnt be able to pass their property down to their kin. After that, the roles switched and females couldn't pass down property. Just a little history.Personally, an egalitarian society sounds better than either.
Uh huh. What proof do you have?
Proof? It's history. Just look it up
Uh no. You either provide proof in the form of link or video or point is invalid.
On my phone. If you want to learn you can do it yourself. I didn't make this post for you.
click to expand
and your points been rendered. Thank you for registering but your validity of your statement balance is 0.
Posted by tiziani
Yeah, well I was also thinking about the Chinese Mosuo tribe where women take a different man to bed every night. Like a big swingers club. It's amazing. No more jealous manlets and no bitter women. Both of the excuses and resentment you're highlighting from either gender in a system that still sees only bi-gender relations is a product of patriarchy as we've experienced it. Let's face it, when any section of society is made out to be helpless and passive then they are absolved of responsiblity and make excuses. The best example was that thread in relationships lately over Germany and legal sex workers. The hypocrisy was comical.
a bunch a swingers? Jesus I bet herpes and sysphilis were running rampant among their tribe.
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by Scenic
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by Scenic
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by Scenic
Way back when we started off as a matriarchal society. Once cattle started to be used as property and for trade, it turned patriarchal since men wanted all the goods and property they were getting from this trade to be passed down. If they didn't do that, they wouldnt be able to pass their property down to their kin. After that, the roles switched and females couldn't pass down property. Just a little history.Personally, an egalitarian society sounds better than either.
Uh huh. What proof do you have?
Proof? It's history. Just look it up
Uh no. You either provide proof in the form of link or video or point is invalid.
On my phone. If you want to learn you can do it yourself. I didn't make this post for you.
and your points been rendered. Thank you for registering but your validity of your statement balance is 0.click to expand
good for you?
Posted by tiziani
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by tiziani
Yeah, well I was also thinking about the Chinese Mosuo tribe where women take a different man to bed every night. Like a big swingers club. It's amazing. No more jealous manlets and no bitter women. Both of the excuses and resentment you're highlighting from either gender in a system that still sees only bi-gender relations is a product of patriarchy as we've experienced it. Let's face it, when any section of society is made out to be helpless and passive then they are absolved of responsiblity and make excuses. The best example was that thread in relationships lately over Germany and legal sex workers. The hypocrisy was comical.
a bunch a swingers? Jesus I bet herpes and sysphilis were running rampant among their tribe.
I really doubt it.
click to expand
Why? Jesus when you swing with that many people you're increasing the probability of catching an STD. Id really think there were some people with STDs and they just made it worse.
Posted by GreyWiz
aww cap guy and pisces girl fight. cute.
Hardly a fight. More of someone not wanting present evidence because theyre trying really hard to back up their idea by making someone go in loopholes instead obliging a simple request- show me a link or video and I will consider your point.
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by GreyWiz
aww cap guy and pisces girl fight. cute.
Hardly a fight. More of someone not wanting present evidence because theyre trying really hard to back up their idea by making someone go in loopholes instead obliging a simple request- show me a link or video and I will consider your point.click to expand
I haven't tried to back up my claim at all and I don't intend to. I didn't post it to argue over it. if you don't agree with it then I don't care. I didn't post it for you to agree with
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by GreyWiz
aww cap guy and pisces girl fight. cute.
Hardly a fight. More of someone not wanting present evidence because theyre trying really hard to back up their idea by making someone go in loopholes instead obliging a simple request- show me a link or video and I will consider your point.click to expand
Since I am all in favor of old school patriarchy, I'd have to support the Cap's message 😄
In reality tho, he's correct in a logical sense. If you have no personal experience or the main source to back up your words, you'd just better remain silent and observe.
Posted by RamOfPeace
Posted by Sn1p3r187
Posted by GreyWiz
aww cap guy and pisces girl fight. cute.
Hardly a fight. More of someone not wanting present evidence because theyre trying really hard to back up their idea by making someone go in loopholes instead obliging a simple request- show me a link or video and I will consider your point.
Since I am all in favor of old school patriarchy, I'd have to support the Cap's message 😄
In reality tho, he's correct in a logical sense. If you have no personal experience or the main source to back up your words, you'd just better remain silent and observe.
click to expand
no thanks
Posted by GreyWiz
*hugs scenic*
Thanks, I will gladly accept your hugs
Did this help you understand your situation?
dxpnet has hosted real conversations like this since 2000. If you value independent communities, you can support the site below.
Every contribution helps keep dxpnet independent and ad-light.
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →
Let's pretend that the middle ground does not exist.
Also, let's pretend we are not going to be talking about Muslim extremism of patriarchy.
So, which one would you prefer to live in?
Which type of household would you rather accept?