Proud enemy of the professionally offended

There is also zero discussion about how to be a good husband and father, it is all just about how to have relations with women with the least effort and about shaming those very women for their looks, age or whatever. Like, buddy, what will you do when tragedy inevitably knocks at your door? Do you know how to take care of your wife if she happens to get post partum depression after giving birth? What if she has a miscarriage? What if one of her parents die or get really ill? Are you a shoulder to cry on? A rock to lean on? Or just a dude who will "exercise his options" whenever push comes to shove?

It is all about beauty, they don't see women as people, they truly don't. And on top of that, they seem to think that the way they see the world is the way the world is, period. Apparently their "logic" and "reason" makes them able to see the world in a specially mysoginistic, disgusting and "realistic" way, and when somebody questions their world view, they call them "emotional" or "in their feelings".

Hell, an example is even in my personal life. One of my good friends of nearly 20 years has always been with guys much older than she is. Once she hit 22, I don't think she dated a guy that wasn't at least 20 years her senior, and the guys are just average dudes, so she was never looking to be a sugar baby. Is that common? Well, I wouldn't say the degree she takes it to is "common," but it's not "rare" either.

And if a woman does have the goal finding someone "financially secure" as we'll euphemistically phrase it, well, unless she's at least 40-something herself, she is going to have to expand her search into the could-be-her-father range because that's where the overwhelming majority of men in that category are. Could she find a well-to-do 20 or 30-something? Sure. She could win the Powerball, too, but she'd be a dumbass if she planned her future around that and wasted valuable years on gunning for it, especially to the exclusion of better strategies. And to be real, trying to get one period, of any age, is a hail mary play, even in her prime.

Now as for men considering a woman's value with age, if an older man is looking to have kids (perhaps because he has none yet), then a woman < 35 years old is going to be the best choice for making that happen, even with modern technology and taking on the additional expense that comes along with that. And the goal of having your own biological children with the woman you are with is powerful enough to blow everything else out of the water on its own. If merely having kids is the goal, and whether they are your biological children or not is not important, then you may be less strict on the age. Now while I'm a man, I can speak only for myself and how I approached things. Since I wanted to have kids (my own, biological children), but I also wanted to have a woman, not a girl inside of a woman's body, when I was still looking, those desires boxed me in with a hard upper and lower limit, and a pretty narrow range since I haven't met many below 25 I'd consider to be mature women, so that was my floor.

As far as beauty goes, both men and women weigh physical attractiveness heavily. Men have witnessed this first hand from women and vice versa; although, strangely, it seems very hard for one side to empathize with the other. Now I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that my looks don't play a large role in why my fiancee is with me. And I admit fully that hers are a large reason in why I am with her. The only reason? No, not even close, but that reason isn't insignificant. I'm sure both of us have come across many perfectly wonderful people who just weren't what we consider attractive in the way you need to think of someone as to move things beyond the friendship sphere.

The problem here is that this man wants women to be a blank canvas for a man to paint on, have the personality, hobbies and religion that a man expects them to, be willing to give up on their friendship and family relationships for the sake of a man and have sex on command with him. These are all elements of an abusive relationship.

His advice is not conducive to a healthy relationship. Asking a woman to put a man as the center of her world even above herself and her children is not conducive to a healthy relationship. Justifying cheating on her gaining weight, getting pregnant or not having sex on command is not conducive to a healthy relationship. Telling a woman to cut ties with friends and family and to only focus on her man is not conducive to a healthy relationship. There is virtually cero talk about how to deal with the issues that will arise in a relationship, what will you do when tragedy knocks at your door? When you or she looses a family member? When your wife gets postpartum depression? When you loose your job? Do you have a character to be able to be someone else's rock or will you cheat and exercise your options and not take care of your responsibilities?

He also goes as far as denying women's suffering by the hands of men, claiming that the feminists made that up or something, as well as compare women based on racial stereotypes older than the dinosaurs.

Kevin Samuels is one of those people who gives different reasons for what he says in different podcasts/shows/whatever, and this is one of the complications that is introduced when someone attempts to address what he says with why he says it. Kevin Samuels has cited the decline in fertility with age and the increase in health risks associated with geriatic pregnancy, which begins at age 35 according to medical standards. He certainly gives other reasons, some of which--as I alluded to before--are cringe to me, but as far as the child rearing argument, that is his strongest one by far. It's unfortunate that Kevin Samuels has to be one of the main people on YouTube today drawing attention to it, but that's a societal failure.

I can see how one could say that he recommends younger women because they are more malleable, but it's harder for me--at least for what I've heard him say--to see him as recommending younger women because they're more easily manipulated. I've seen a lot of his content (mainly to check whether what his supporters or critics are saying is accurate in context), but I think both of these are less accurate than "agreeable." To me, this is different from "easily manipulated." You can be agreeable, but still have hard boundaries for what is truly important to you. This is especially important when you're in the role of selector. Sure, easily manipulated people often often agreeable, but generally extremes in either direction can make you easily manipulated by someone who knows what they're doing. It's quite easy to use a highly disagreeable person's nature against them as well.

The problem here is that this man wants women to be a blank canvas for a man to paint on, have the personality, hobbies and religion that a man expects them to, be willing to give up on their friendship and family relationships for the sake of a man and have sex on command with him. These are all elements of an abusive relationship.

While he at times comes close to this, I think that's a bit more extreme that what he has stated. However, to me the more damaging aspect is that he pushes that this is what "high value men" want. I don't know what circles he travels in, but it's not an accurate picture of what I have seen is commonly wanted. There are some things he gets right, and the rest is handwaved away. I don't know any who wants his wife/fiancee/girlfriend to give up on her friendships (even male friends), unless there's something negative going on. I suppose I'd be considered a "high value man" by his standards, as would many of my friends, and none of us takes this position with the women we are with. We look for "helpmates" sure, but not robots. Also, I'm an atheist, so his religous arguments fall flat with me anyway, and it all smells more like something rooted in religious fundamentalism rather than gender and being a "high value man."

His advice is not conducive to a healthy relationship. Asking a woman to put a man as the center of her world even above herself and her children is not conducive to a healthy relationship.

Some is most certainly unhealthy, sometimes even on the face of it. And you have to consider each piece of advice in isolation (something that should be done anyway, regardless of who is giving it). Kevin Samuels says a lot of crazy shit on his show, but it's this lack of filter that also allows him sometimes to say the truths that most are afraid to say in these times, along with all the bullshit of course. It's unfortunate, but making these observations taboo is what allows people like Kevin Samuels to thrive, and the uncomfortable truths become trojan horses for all of the ridiculous shit. When you create a society where it's considered an insult to call someone "average" or a breach of social decorum to suggest that someone could be delusional for thinking they're a 10, then you create an environment for Kevin Samuels and similar people to be seen as rebellious truth-tellers fighting for sanity. Being realistic about these things has become an extremist position, and now the extremists are in charge of the delivering the message.

There is virtually cero talk about how to deal with the issues that will arise in a relationship, what will you do when tragedy knocks at your door? When you or she looses a family member? When your wife gets postpartum depression? When you loose your job? Do you have a character to be able to be someone else's rock or will you cheat and exercise your options and not take care of your responsibilities?

I think Kevin Samuels has intentionally limited his scope, and honestly I am glad for it. Is having him speak on these really what is wanted? I would say, that is not the type of education that should be outsourced to "influencers" anyway. You're better off finding a mentor in the offline world who can advise you and show you through practice instead of listening to people chasing internet clout as a "guru."

He also goes as far as denying women's suffering by the hands of men, claiming that the feminists made that up or something, as well as compare women based on racial stereotypes older than the dinosaurs.

While I've heard him be skeptical of the scale of abuse claims, I, personally, haven't heard him deny women have suffered at the hands of men. Maybe he did, and I haven't seen it. If he did, I'd love to give that show a watch through.

There is also zero discussion about how to be a good husband and father, it is all just about how to have relations with women with the least effort and about shaming those very women for their looks, age or whatever. Like, buddy, what will you do when tragedy inevitably knocks at your door? Do you know how to take care of your wife if she happens to get post partum depression after giving birth? What if she has a miscarriage? What if one of her parents die or get really ill? Are you a shoulder to cry on? A rock to lean on? Or just a dude who will "exercise his options" whenever push comes to shove?

It is all about beauty, they don't see women as people, they truly don't. And on top of that, they seem to think that the way they see the world is the way the world is, period. Apparently their "logic" and "reason" makes them able to see the world in a specially mysoginistic, disgusting and "realistic" way, and when somebody questions their world view, they call them "emotional" or "in their feelings".

Hell, an example is even in my personal life. One of my good friends of nearly 20 years has always been with guys much older than she is. Once she hit 22, I don't think she dated a guy that wasn't at least 20 years her senior, and the guys are just average dudes, so she was never looking to be a sugar baby. Is that common? Well, I wouldn't say the degree she takes it to is "common," but it's not "rare" either.

And if a woman does have the goal finding someone "financially secure" as we'll euphemistically phrase it, well, unless she's at least 40-something herself, she is going to have to expand her search into the could-be-her-father range because that's where the overwhelming majority of men in that category are. Could she find a well-to-do 20 or 30-something? Sure. She could win the Powerball, too, but she'd be a dumbass if she planned her future around that and wasted valuable years on gunning for it, especially to the exclusion of better strategies. And to be real, trying to get one period, of any age, is a hail mary play, even in her prime.

Now as for men considering a woman's value with age, if an older man is looking to have kids (perhaps because he has none yet), then a woman < 35 years old is going to be the best choice for making that happen, even with modern technology and taking on the additional expense that comes along with that. And the goal of having your own biological children with the woman you are with is powerful enough to blow everything else out of the water on its own. If merely having kids is the goal, and whether they are your biological children or not is not important, then you may be less strict on the age. Now while I'm a man, I can speak only for myself and how I approached things. Since I wanted to have kids (my own, biological children), but I also wanted to have a woman, not a girl inside of a woman's body, when I was still looking, those desires boxed me in with a hard upper and lower limit, and a pretty narrow range since I haven't met many below 25 I'd consider to be mature women, so that was my floor.

As far as beauty goes, both men and women weigh physical attractiveness heavily. Men have witnessed this first hand from women and vice versa; although, strangely, it seems very hard for one side to empathize with the other. Now I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that my looks don't play a large role in why my fiancee is with me. And I admit fully that hers are a large reason in why I am with her. The only reason? No, not even close, but that reason isn't insignificant. I'm sure both of us have come across many perfectly wonderful people who just weren't what we consider attractive in the way you need to think of someone as to move things beyond the friendship sphere.

Says the anon peddling the absolute horseshit narrative that a bed-shitting batshit bitch like Amber Turd is a victim of abuse.

Isn't it interesting that the people who decry "identity politics" are always the first to get so hilariously wounded over anything which threatens their own identities?

I'm fairly emotionally reserved, but I can understand how someone could, if they were actually huge fans of a character, not want the character to be changed in anyway (including but not limited to ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and so forth) and possibly be upset if the character was. Now if it's a new character or character where that facet of themselves hasn't been made clear, then yeah, bitching about it is pretty silly.

I was once a virgin with rage. I am still a virgin, and I still have an anger problem, but they are not linked anymore. I am a virgin at peace, and one day, when I am with my future wife, I will become a sexually active person at peace, with her alone, and no one else.

There are no direct routes between virginity with rage and sexual activity as peace. Virgins with rage who become sexually active do not lose their rage, because the fact that their virginity was a source of rage indicates that they were not mature enough to have fulfilling sexual relations. They become sexually active people with rage, jumping between partners until they contract STDs or become disgusting perverts whom even prostitutes have no interest in indulging.

Become virgins at peace, and the rest will follow.

Because of the environment I grew up in and the people from that environment I had unfortunately chosen to follow as a young teen, I ended up losing my virginity at a pretty young age, so it had been hard for me to relate to guys who seemed to be so focused on it. But it does give guys complexes, I've seen.

Once again if your argument is that 'We HaVe To DeFeND AnD SuPPoRT FREe SpEech INcLuding tHe RiGhTS TO OppRess MInOrity AnD tHe OppResseD' you are not a good person, you are not moral nor you are an intellectual.

It's not actually about free speech, you just want to use it as an excuse to be a bigot.

Yes, no country has truly free speech, not in the idealized sense anyway. Different countries have made different practical trade-offs. For instance, a few limitations in the U.S. are: You cannot call for acts of violence or insurrection, cannot defraud others, cannot make false reports of crimes, you cannot reveal privileged/classified information, cannot make false claims or representations to the U.S. government, cannot use your speech with peace officer in such a way that it obstructs their investigation, etc.

Fucking chuds

Allowing someone to speak is not the same as tolerating, let alone accepting, their ideas. The conflation is disingenuous at best and seems to be made only by people who wish to blend them for political expediency. Those of us who have matured beyond child-like black & white thinking realize that there are not only two options: endorsement and censorship. There are myriad people who are able to allow others to express ideas and hold those ideas within the mind without immediately accepting them. In fact, it wasn't until coming to Tumblr that I found people who considered this ability unusual.

Inserting a web comic and an appeal to "authority" by referencing Karl Popper is not an argument, especially when this web comic just makes an assertion without substantiating it. In fact, when I read it, I can imagine its view easily becoming an extremely slippery slope as ever less extreme statements appear comparatively extreme against what's allowed until all discussion is shut down. Perhaps you may be content to live in an ideologically pure dystopia, but I am not.

But oppression LGBT people and refused to respect our basic human rights will lead to the suffering and even death of LGBT people.

You are one of those insecure guys who is fit to be the poster child of r/iamverysmart

Don't tell me that you are bitter as well because no woman wanted to lay with you lmao

You're so far away from anything I have said in your response, I don't even know if I could call it wrong, just nonsense. Basically you've written a 5 paragraph temper tantrum. If anything, I'm the one embarrassed for you.

I know word of the day calendars are great and all, but when you've finished overusing "oppression" like it actually is argument unto itself for anything, feel free to try again.

Once again if your argument is that 'We HaVe To DeFeND AnD SuPPoRT FREe SpEech INcLuding tHe RiGhTS TO OppRess MInOrity AnD tHe OppResseD' you are not a good person, you are not moral nor you are an intellectual.

It's not actually about free speech, you just want to use it as an excuse to be a bigot.

Yes, no country has truly free speech, not in the idealized sense anyway. Different countries have made different practical trade-offs. For instance, a few limitations in the U.S. are: You cannot call for acts of violence or insurrection, cannot defraud others, cannot make false reports of crimes, you cannot reveal privileged/classified information, cannot make false claims or representations to the U.S. government, cannot use your speech with peace officer in such a way that it obstructs their investigation, etc.

Fucking chuds

Allowing someone to speak is not the same as tolerating, let alone accepting, their ideas. The conflation is disingenuous at best and seems to be made only by people who wish to blend them for political expediency. Those of us who have matured beyond child-like black & white thinking realize that there are not only two options: endorsement and censorship. There are myriad people who are able to allow others to express ideas and hold those ideas within the mind without immediately accepting them. In fact, it wasn't until coming to Tumblr that I found people who considered this ability unusual.

Inserting a web comic and an appeal to "authority" by referencing Karl Popper is not an argument, especially when this web comic just makes an assertion without substantiating it. In fact, when I read it, I can imagine its view easily becoming an extremely slippery slope as ever less extreme statements appear comparatively extreme against what's allowed until all discussion is shut down. Perhaps you may be content to live in an ideologically pure dystopia, but I am not.

Once again if your argument is that 'We HaVe To DeFeND AnD SuPPoRT FREe SpEech INcLuding tHe RiGhTS TO OppRess MInOrity AnD tHe OppResseD' you are not a good person, you are not moral nor you are an intellectual.

It's not actually about free speech, you just want to use it as an excuse to be a bigot.

Yes, no country has truly free speech, not in the idealized sense anyway. Different countries have made different practical trade-offs. For instance, a few limitations in the U.S. are: You cannot call for acts of violence or insurrection, cannot defraud others, cannot make false reports of crimes, you cannot reveal privileged/classified information, cannot make false claims or representations to the U.S. government, cannot use your speech with peace officer in such a way that it obstructs their investigation, etc.

Radical anti racist training SHOULD ALWAYS BE FUNDED BY THE STATE FOR YOUR CHILDREN AND THE WORKFORCE.

RACISM HARMS INNOCENT PPL.

The attitudes and behaviors we call racism are themselves largely result of learned behavior (social "training" if you will), and some of the more extreme forms of behavioral racism are the result of indoctrination/brainwashing. I'm not sure creating a kind of brainwashing to combat brainwashing is going to lead to the best outcome.

There are way too many uncomfortable questions. Who decides this "anti-racist training" comprises? What would qualify such people to judge? How will the effectiveness of this training be measured? Who decides even what these criteria are? What steps will be put into place to make sure data is not cooked to manipulate the measured outcome by ether side? If it is deemed not effective, how will it be changed? How are any changes decided? Will this training focus on regional problems? If so, how will the regional problems be determined? If not, how can we be sure that this training is one-size-fits all? How can we ensure that the program, even if unintentionally, is not causing people to become even more entrenched in racism? And these are only the beginning.