Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

For example, a TnA thread was made in the OTF. Some regard that as sexist, but is objectification really sexist? Or does it stem from a more patriarchal society POV?

Originally posted by dadudemon
No.

Simply objectifying women is not enough to be "sexist." That's bullshit that feminists have invented.






Also, admiring the female form, as a male, could sometimes be the exact opposite of sexism (reverse-sexism). This is due to some men thinking, "Wow...women are so amazing. They are definitely the superior sex." I've heard that stated many many times by men. That's sexism...but the wrong kind you're thinking of.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, I would like to add that at the heart of fighting sexism is the notion that one sex does not consider the feelings of the other.

When a women gets dressed (or undressed) to look super sexy and posses for a camera, her explicit feelings is for others to view her as sexy. By refusing to indulge her feelings with a false sense of "self-righteousness", you fail to take her feelings into consideration and in fact, become sexist. I am not even kidding. This seems like "crazy talk" because we have been bombarded but idiotic feminist ideals for decades so we are conditioned to not think objectively (hah, almost pun) about these subjects. But let me explain this a different way...*

This same logic applies, equally, to a woman who is photographed, for sexual reasons, WITHOUT her consent. Viewing that content is sexist to the max. You did not consider her feelings when viewing the content: she probably doesn't want you to view them.


*This does not mean you have to view every last picture, ever, of any person who posses sexy for a camera. This just means not to balk and scorn at women who choose to do these things. This also means not to balk and scorn at other people who view these things for pleasure or admiration.

Edit - Holy shit. I sound like a feminist. An actual feminist. How dare I actually take into account a person's feelings and demand equality for both sexes. Who the hell am I?

Nope.

Objectification is an action. It's the motivation for an action that dictates whether it's sexist or not.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Nope.

Objectification is an action. It's the motivation for an action that dictates whether it's sexist or not.

Ahhh yes: see "mens rea" and "actus reus".

But, that would assume looking at the opposite sex in admiration (commonly viewed as objectification) is, fundamentally, wrong. I disagree with that notion, as well.

Sexual objectification of women is sexist, imo, yes.

I would also say that certain objectification of men is sexist as well. It seems to be less prevalent and less of an issue for men.

It would be interesting to get a female's point of view in this thread.

It would be great to get many women's POVs on many issues. though I can understand why so many women are wary of giving their opinion in public forums.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It would be great to get many women's POVs on many issues. agreed

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sexual objectification of women is sexist, imo, yes.

I would also say that certain objectification of men is sexist as well. It seems to be less prevalent and less of an issue for men. Idk, as a man, if I was objectified, I'd be embarrassed about the negative parts of my body and proud of the positive parts of my body. I'm sure some women feel the same way.

The experiences of a man growing up are very different to those of a women, especially when it comes to sexuality and being sexualized.

Sexual, not sexist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The experiences of a man growing up are very different to those of a women, especially when it comes to sexuality and being sexualized.

On this, we agree.


However, I'm noticing a trend where men are becoming more and more objectified. Equality, as I see it.


I don't think objectification is bad. I think the sexes should be able to equally objectify. However, women's brains and their sexuality work in slightly different ways than men (something that some posit is not possible to readily change). Men are more visually stimulated.


So if we created an environment where men and women were raised as equals and had equal opportunities once maturity is reached, there would still be significant differences in sexual behaviors.

Originally posted by Oneness
Sexual, not sexist.

That's an excellent way of putting it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The experiences of a man growing up are very different to those of a women, especially when it comes to sexuality and being sexualized. Very true, well done.

Saying that, if patriarchy wasn't a problem, objectification wouldn't be a problem.....hence why objectification isn't that much of a problem with men....

Objectification of a women isn't imo but when its all women and that is all you think about regarding them it is. So an individuals objectification it depends on the mindset behind it, but on a societal level it pretty much is sexist.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
Objectification of a women isn't imo but when its all women and that is all you think about regarding them it is. So an individuals objectification it depends on the mindset behind it, but on a societal level it pretty much is sexist.

The problem is that it is almost impossible to separate an individual objectification from the context of society.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The problem is that it is almost impossible to separate an individual objectification from the context of society.

True. But I mean focusing on one's appearance and sexual desirability itself doesn't make you exist even if it is shaped by the culture you live in. It's just not that simple to me. I think there are levels and ranges where it goes from simply a form of attraction and possibly misplaced admiration for form to full on sexism. Basically I'm saying objectionable by itself isn't automatically a problem as much as how important it is and the sheer scale.

Well, I feel like there is a difference between desiring someone or appreciating someone's looks and objectifying them. To me objectifying is reducing a person to a sexual object, not viewing them as a person at all anymore. And that is, imo, always sexist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I feel like there is a difference between desiring someone or appreciating someone's looks and objectifying them. To me objectifying is reducing a person to a sexual object, not viewing them as a person at all anymore. And that is, imo, always sexist.

Well as example I don't think looking at porn is sexist, which in that situation you are basically doing just that or say making an erotic story or something that focuses on the sex and enticing you.

It could be me wanting to differentiate a sexist thought from a sexist person by some views though

Hmm, well I think there is pornography that is sexist and pornography that is not sexist. And I also think there are viewers of pornography that are sexist and those that are not. I can see differentiating it. However to me I would say it is sexist if you reduce the characters (in porn or an erotic story) to nothing but vehicles of sexual gratification. I don't think if you do that in the privacy of your own place, and you are aware of it, that it is a hugely terrible thing, we are all products of a sexist society after all, but I still think that it is sexist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I feel like there is a difference between desiring someone or appreciating someone's looks and objectifying them. To me objectifying is reducing a person to a sexual object, not viewing them as a person at all anymore. And that is, imo, always sexist.

Then that's just a word game on the word "objectification" rather than a substantive argument (I'm referring to the disagreement between you and I, earlier).


In your use of "objectification", I agree that you mean it to be sexist. I don't. Like others have pointed out, there are different levels of objectification. Like I pointed out, there is a line.

But I chose to define objectification more simply and, instead, prefer to use "dehumanizing" to mean what you mean.

For me, that avoids the word semantics and still gets the point across.

With certain exceptions if I look at or read porn, I don't really care about the death of characters and stories and focus pretty much on th sex and generally the woman as a vehicle for that. But I consider myself sexist and don't think the fact that I occasionally watch a video or something produced soley to turn men on, for that purpose (with the women's consent) devaulues my actual position and views on society. I just can't view something like that as an all or nothing situation

Originally posted by Bardock42
there is a difference between desiring someone or appreciating someone's looks and objectifying them. To me objectifying is reducing a person to a sexual object, not viewing them as a person at all anymore.


That about sums up what I was going to say.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
With certain exceptions if I look at or read porn, I don't really care about the death of characters and stories and focus pretty much on th sex and generally the woman as a vehicle for that. But I consider myself sexist and don't think the fact that I occasionally watch a video or something produced soley to turn men on, for that purpose (with the women's consent) devaulues my actual position and views on society. I just can't view something like that as an all or nothing situation

Yeah, I really don't think that a porn-star can be perfectly boiled down to "it's sexist to fap to this person because you're objectifying that person."


To make it more of a point, men who are enthralled with certain porn-stars don't dehumanize their favorite stars, at all. In fact, that idolize them. Perhaps placing them too high in regard. These are the types that travel thousands of miles to get an autograph of Butt-Jams 17 from their favorite actress.

Originally posted by dadudemon

To make it more of a point, men who are enthralled with certain porn-stars don't dehumanize their favorite stars, at all. In fact, that idolize them. Perhaps placing them too high in regard. These are the types that travel thousands of miles to get an autograph of Butt-Jams 17 from their favorite actress.

That is a form of objectification in which you deny a person agency by putting them on a pedestal. It is very common in extremely sexist men and chivalry is a form of it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is a form of objectification in which you deny a person agency by putting them on a pedestal.

I disagree, here. I believe the opposite. They deny themselves agency, not their idol. They may restrict their actions because they think too highly of a person (they cannot, for instance, do a good job at work because they are too buys planning their trip to meat (lol) their idol).


Originally posted by Bardock42
It is very common in extremely sexist men and chivalry is a form of it.

I consider that an erroneous parallel because Chivalry viewed women as weaker and dumber than men and, therefore, needed protection by the big strong mans.

How does your comparison fair for the men who view the dominatrix porn star females as idols? AHA! AHHHHHAAAA! lol

An elaboration on my porn star view. I don't know anything about her in real life life, and my focus is on the medium right there in which it is all about her and sex. I don't find it sexist to like it, not desire to research her entire real life history.

If I actually met her, or was in a discussion about her as a person I would treat her as just a tool to fap or sleep with. Which is where I find the difference. Isolated objectification such as that when well it's for that specific purpose and done with the consent of all involves shouldn't automatically equal being sexist. It's just liking something and seeing it.


I sometimes do look at gifs that are just about a sexual act and don't care about the woman doing it. Because well i don't know who she is or anything about that. Not because she's a woman but because I wasn't looking to learn about a person. You've seen what I actually think about this stuff and where I place my banner. Sure some think I'm part of the problem and one day I likely will be. But for now despite my interest and contribution to stuff like that I don't think I'm on the wrong side.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree, here. I believe the opposite. They deny themselves agency, not their idol. They may restrict their actions because they think too highly of a person (they cannot, for instance, do a good job at work because they are too buys planning their trip to meat (lol) their idol).

Well it still treats this person as something other than a person. It really doesn't view them as someone who has their own interests. I do not consider it the opposite of objectification, just a different facet.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I consider that an erroneous parallel because Chivalry viewed women as weaker and dumber than men and, therefore, needed protection by the big strong mans.

You are right with that, the parallel is perhaps not warranted. It is again, another facet of objectification.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well it still treats this person as something other than a person. It really doesn't view them as someone who has their own interests. I do not consider it the opposite of objectification, just a different facet.



You are right with that, the parallel is perhaps not warranted. It is again, another facet of objectification.

Okay, we can agree on both of those points, then.


Yes, I view idolizing anyone, not just for sexual reasons, to be stupid. As you know, I find the whole "signature culture" to be dumb because it idolizes humans. I don't think any human is so great as to have a scribbling of their name worshiped and loved.

If people can understand that reasonably appreciating a nice butt isn't objectification, and that objectification is something far more damaging, then yes, it is sexist.

imo, anyway.

I'd sooner say that objectification, in its broadest sense, is dehumanizing, even if prompted by, say, adoration. I mean, that's the point, right? A person becomes an "object," sometimes more than human, sometimes less. S/he becomes a focus for indulging in one's hopes, desires, fears and so on.

Examples...
- Sex object: Marilyn Monroe
- Hope object: Obama (well, in 2008 anyway).
- Rage object: see Middle East

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think any human is so great as to have a scribbling of their name worshiped and loved. I have long since scratched off "Schwarzeneggar" from my notebook.

Originally posted by Mindship
I'd sooner say that objectification, in its broadest sense, is dehumanizing, even if prompted by, say, adoration. I mean, that's the point, right? A person becomes an "object," sometimes more than human, sometimes less. S/he becomes a focus for indulging in one's hopes, desires, fears and so on.

Examples...
- Sex object: Marilyn Monroe
- Hope object: Obama (well, in 2008 anyway).
- Rage object: see Middle East That's more or less my view as well. "Objectification" is dehumanizing. I think there's a distinction between dehumanization and sexism. Again, objectification is an action. Sexism is a motivation and a belief.

It's like, you know, shooting a brown person. Shooting a brown person is not not an inherently racist action. However, shooting a brown person because you believe that brown people don't have a right to existence would classify the action as racist, and subsequently a hate crime.

I don't think sexism and objectification are the same thing. I think most objectification is sexist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think sexism and objectification are the same thing. I think most objectification is sexist.

Not all peepee is poopoo but all poopoo is peepee.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not all peepee is poopoo but all poopoo is peepee.

Yes, sort of...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, sort of...

It doesn't really work at all for what you were saying.

I just wanted to say it because it bore a semblance to what you said.

I like saying it every time one of those statements come up. It happens more often at work during meetings. Oh boy.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It doesn't really work at all for what you were saying.

I just wanted to say it because it bore a semblance to what you said.

I like saying it every time one of those statements come up. It happens more often at work during meetings. Oh boy.

It does correspond with something I was thinking though. All objectification is dehumanising, but not all dehumanisation is objectification....

I think alot of objectification is motivated by sexism.

However I would argue that objectification plays a large part in Human mating biology, and therefore is predominantly not motivated by sexism.

Appreciation for the physical appearence is the first stage of attraction for men, in broad strokes, which is a biological thing, not social conditioning. When we see a woman for the first time we look over their bodies and our minds make a snap-decision on her worth in a relationship, completely independently of what their personality may be like, because fertility doesn't give a shit about your ph.D

Men may appreciate their personality later, but the initial phase of attraction for most men is basically objectification. In fact, you could say that we objectfy women, sub-conciously, dozens of times every single day.

This type of objectification is the most common form of all, and I would argue that it isn't sexist. Therefore on average, objectification is not motivated by sexism. Men just have a predisposition to make initial judgements based off of appearance.

EDIT- And please don't mistake this as a form of deterministc argument. I'm not trying to justify any kind of behavior.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Men just have a predisposition to make initial judgements based off of appearance.

Women do just the same. Stop being sexist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It does correspond with something I was thinking though. All objectification is dehumanising, but not all dehumanisation is objectification....

Oh, nice. But I can't claim I was being that clever.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
With certain exceptions if I look at or read porn, I don't really care about the death of characters and stories and focus pretty much on the sex and generally the woman as a vehicle for that. But I consider myself sexist and don't think the fact that I occasionally watch a video or something produced soley to turn men on, for that purpose (with the women's consent) devaulues my actual position and views on society. I just can't view something like that as an all or nothing situation ...what kind of porn are you watching?

Originally posted by Robtard
Women do just the same. Stop being sexist. Are you imying that Women aren't oppressed and disadvantaged in our society, Rob?!?

BECAUSE IT KIND OF SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE BRO.

Originally posted by red g jacks
...what kind of porn are you watching?
Heh didn't notice that.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Are you imying that Women aren't oppressed and disadvantaged in our society, Rob?!?

BECAUSE IT KIND OF SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE BRO.

It seems like you're implying men don't have a say in their poor choice of actions, like how some cultures blame-shift the responsibility away from men by thinking: "meh, men can't help but molest a pretty girl if they see one, so we'll force the women in our society to dress like a ninja, it's for the betterment of all."

Are you a secret terrorist apologist, brah!?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
In fact, you could say that we objectfy women, sub-conciously, dozens of times every single day. Amen.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I think alot of objectification is motivated by sexism.

However I would argue that objectification plays a large part in Human mating biology, and therefore is predominantly not motivated by sexism.

Appreciation for the physical appearence is the first stage of attraction for men, in broad strokes, which is a biological thing, not social conditioning. When we see a woman for the first time we look over their bodies and our minds make a snap-decision on her worth in a relationship, completely independently of what their personality may be like, because fertility doesn't give a shit about your ph.D

Men may appreciate their personality later, but the initial phase of attraction for most men is basically objectification. In fact, you could say that we objectfy women, sub-conciously, dozens of times every single day.

This type of objectification is the most common form of all, and I would argue that it isn't sexist. Therefore on average, objectification is not motivated by sexism. Men just have a predisposition to make initial judgements based off of appearance.

EDIT- And please don't mistake this as a form of deterministc argument. I'm not trying to justify any kind of behavior.

Actually, what you say is backed up by real science.

Men also, in the same vein, label dumb women as being more attractive because they pick on up cues from women (as we are discussing it in this context, objectifying them in intuitive ways) that indicate that they would be more receptive to copulation.

The researchers said that not all men did this. It was the men that had less empathy (they measured for other personality traits) that were more likely to objectify women like that. They were also more successful in their sexual proliferation.

Believe it or not, but the Showtime TV series, Dexter, covered this is a much more poignant manner: back in the day, the psychopaths were the rulers (and still are, to this day) of their tribes because they could make quick, logical, non-sentimental decisions that benefited the tribe as a whole. It was the psychopaths, or the people that had at least some psychopathic behaviors, that allowed our species to not become extinct at at least a couple of points during our last 100,000 years of evolution (we were reduced to less than 10,000 members of our species, at one point).

Anyway, I said all that to say this: the people who have less empathy (leaning more towards psychopath than empath), seem to be more sexually successful because they can pick up on cues that others seem to be blind to. This also ties into another theory that some evolutionary biologists have about humans: rape has been central to the human species. So much so that women seem to have an evolutionary adaptation to rape due to natural selection. It should be no surprise that men also have "built in behavioral mechanisms" that seem to biologically feed the "rape loop."


When some feminists (extremists) whine and cry about men being natural rapists, they are not wholly wrong. Some men ARE naturally predispositioned towards rape (such as those that both have low empathy and can pick up on vulnerability cues in women...such as the study I am referring to). Some men give into those behaviors and some resist. I still hold that, no matter what you were born with (as far as behavioral predispositions), you still have the power to veto some actions and affirm others. Think about this for a moment: we wouldn't question these notions if the behavioral traits led to positive outcomes such as empathy and altruism (those things have been studied, too...and are generally seen as evolutionarily advantageous) but some like to question the notion that some of us are born with negative behavioral predispositions. They feel it removes responsibility from the individual. I don't. I think it just helps us better understand how to rehabilitate and reintegrate people back into society (criminals).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Men also, in the same vein, label dumb women as being more attractive


Idiocy isn't attractive to me. In fact, it's a turnoff when a woman acts or comes off as a dullard for attention.

Stop blanketing. Thanks.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So much so that women seem to have an evolutionary adaptation to rape due to natural selection. It should be no surprise that men also have "built in behavioral mechanisms" that seem to biologically feed the "rape loop."

Originally posted by Robtard
Idiocy isn't attractive to me. In fact, it's a turnoff when a woman acts or comes off as a dullard for attention.

Stop blanketing. Thanks.

Guess what? Generalizations from studies like those have exceptions. Always.

That's why they are generalized studies: they seek to generalize a particular population demographic.



Originally posted by Robtard


Seems like crazy talk but it is not a new concept.

This is what I was talking about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiological_theories_of_rape#Women.E2.80.99s_defenses


The whole article covers rape adaptations and anti-rape adaptations and has links to external sources that are better reading.


While still controversial, I think I did a decent job of covering the differing views on this, in my previous post.

I clicked on the hyperlinks which should have lead me to the study/support for the "research claims" in that article and they both linked me to the wiki of "Weasel Word".

Originally posted by Robtard
I clicked on the hyperlinks which should have lead me to the study/support for the "research claims" in that article and they both linked me to the wiki of "Weasel Word".

I didn't research that entry very much at all (in fact, I didn't read much of it...maybe 2-3 sentences). But it provides a nice launching point that you can google search for stuff (lists some researcher names and studies you can google).


I'm not too big on the points presented nor do I give very many shits about it since they are partially unsubstantiated OR amount to speculation regarding some studies that are unsubstantiated (meaning, the researchers try to draw conclusions from their results but it is just speculation as to what the results mean). But, we are definitely getting closer in our scientific understanding of complex human behaviors.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I didn't research
Ha!

Originally posted by It's xyz!
I have a small penis.


Just a few short years ago, this type of childish trolling wasn't tolerated.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Just a few short years ago, this type of childish trolling wasn't tolerated. And unlike you I won't edit your post in retaliation or spam the report button.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
And unlike you I won't edit your post in retaliation or spam the report button.

Out of context quoting is the same thing as modifying a post, bro.


You should work for Fox News: you'd fit in quite well.


Besides, it's is not like I'm making anything up about you: you've stated that before on Bardock's chat.

Except my quote wasn't out of context.

When did I state I had a small penis? You really are clutching at straws here.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
With certain exceptions if I look at or read porn, I don't really care about the death of characters and stories and focus pretty much on th sex and generally the woman as a vehicle for that.

Well, it's a given that we're all going to kick someday, so it's only natural to concentrate on the pleasure the characters brought to others in the story (and us by extension). So let's not focus on how they died, let's focus on how they lived. That's and it's also just a story and not grounded in reality.



Originally posted by Lek Kuen But I consider myself sexist and don't think the fact that I occasionally watch a video or something produced soley to turn men on, for that purpose (with the women's consent) devaulues my actual position and views on society. I just can't view something like that as an all or nothing situation

That's a great point. If a video was made by a woman or women who consent to the behavior depicted in the video, it can hardly be seen as objectification on the part of the viewer based on the fact that the woman (or women) in the video are allowing themselves to be seen as objects of pleasure who are there for the sole purpose of fulfilling a basic human need based on a conscious decision to create material for that sole purpose.

This might lead to the old argument of "who's worse, the one who made it or the one who buys or watches it", but it all goes out the window when you're sitting back on the couch wishing those two hot-as-hell Asian girls were servicing you and not themselves...

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Except my quote wasn't out of context.

Yeah it was.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
When did I state I had a small penis? You really are clutching at straws here.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry...you clearly missed it:

"...you've stated that before on Bardock's chat."

I asked when.

The when is immaterial to the where. You would know that if you thought about your question even a little bit.


But if you have a dying need to know, sometime between 2009 and 2011.

What good did that do you? The chat scripts don't exist anymore where you whined about your small penis. Don't you remember Robtard and I telling/consoling you that size generally doesn't matter?

Don't recall this, but size matters. SIZE. Matters.

Though I would have told 2009-11 era XYZ that to be nice/console him.

No, DDM, I have a clear grasp of the English language, I asked when because I honestly don't remember this at all.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The when is immaterial to the where. You would know that if you thought about your question even a little bit.
Are you trying to say that because you don't understand the difference, that I don't? This is another classic case of you assuming your narrative is right and not even considering the fact that other people have basic reading skills.

2009-11? If that's the case are you really going back to a conversation over 4 years ago that didn't happen to troll me?

You really are clutching at straws.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
No, DDM, I have a clear grasp of the English language, I asked when because I honestly don't remember this at all.

Are you trying to say that because you don't understand the difference, that I don't? This is another classic case of you assuming your narrative is right and not even considering the fact that other people have basic reading skills.

2009-11? If that's the case are you really going back to a conversation over 4 years ago that didn't happen to troll me?

You really are clutching at straws.

You missed my point, entirely, which is not surprising. You actually asked me the wrong question. Go read my post, again, to see why "when" was not the correct question to ask me.

Edit - Surely you would realize something like that: you think I think I'm the best person ever. So why wouldn't I think you couldn't ask a proper question and then try to correct it?

What? "When" was the wrong question? The **** are you on about now?

I'll ask whatever question I want, thank you.

I haven't corrected anything, I asked a question, then I told you what question I asked. You're the one that has no understanding of this.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
What? "When" was the wrong question? The **** are you on about now?

I'll ask whatever question I want, thank you.

I haven't corrected anything, I asked a question, then I told you what question I asked. You're the one that has no understanding of this.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You missed my point, entirely, which is not surprising. You actually asked me the wrong question. Go read my post, again, to see why "when" was not the correct question to ask me.

Edit - Surely you would realize something like that: you think I think I'm the best person ever. So why wouldn't I think you couldn't ask a proper question and then try to correct it?

Originally posted by It's xyz!
What? "When" was the wrong question? The **** are you on about now?

I'll ask whatever question I want, thank you.

I haven't corrected anything, I asked a question, then I told you what question I asked. You're the one that has no understanding of this.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The chat scripts don't exist anymore

I think that's not technically true...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think that's not technically true... Give them to ddm.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think that's not technically true...

That'd be awesome if you could like...find his comments regarding his penis as he's very concerned about revealing that, now, for some reason.

Yes, Bardock, please reveal those comments, or at least give the 2009-11 chat log to DDM for him to own me.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Yes, Bardock, please reveal those comments, or at least give the 2009-11 chat log to DDM for him to own me.

Sounds like a good idea.

https://i.imgur.com/oyqh1Zs.png

Does this answer your question?

More sexist is pretending that there is no sexism and at the same time favoring guys.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
https://i.imgur.com/oyqh1Zs.png

Does this answer your question?

I don't get what you're trying to say, here. That's probably due to you not actually saying anything.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't get what you're trying to say, here. That's probably due to you not actually saying anything.



What I'm saying is that you're a rapist.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't get what you're trying to say, here. That's probably due to you not actually saying anything.

lol

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
What I'm saying is that you're a rapist.

****! I wish I would have known that.

Since I haven't raped anybody, does that mean double jeopardy applies?

What I usually do when I don't want to be objectified by women is that I wear a jacket or a long sleeved shirt.

But I know, I'm just as much a victim of objectification as the most attractive Hollywood actresses.

Originally posted by Astner
What I usually do when I don't want to be objectified by women is that I wear a jacket or a long sleeved shirt.

But I know, I'm just as much a victim of objectification as the most attractive Hollywood actresses.


Man, I know that feel. Women are always yelling obscene things at me such as "Show us your dickhole!" Tired of being only seen as a piece of meat.

Originally posted by dadudemon
****! I wish I would have known that.

Since I haven't raped anybody, does that mean double jeopardy applies?

No, not really. I was just shitposting. But actually it does apply.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Man, I know that feel. Women are always yelling obscene things at me such as "Show us your dickhole!" Tired of being only seen as a piece of meat.

Word.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Man, I know that feel. Women are always yelling obscene things at me such as "Show us your dickhole!" Tired of being only seen as a piece of meat. I like it when they buy me stuff though.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
No, not really. I was just shitposting. But actually it does apply.



Word.

You may already know this but I was joking in both of those posts of mine you quoted.

Originally posted by Astner
I like it when they buy me stuff though.

Stop leeching off your mother, you're a grown man now. Time to leave the nest and fly little bird. Fly.

Originally posted by Robtard
Stop leeching off your mother, you're a grown man now. Time to leave the nest and fly little bird. Fly. I've seen how that shit always wears on you
I'd wage war for your sake and be there for you
The next time you drop I want to carry you
Let me be your soldier

Crap