@Braineack , we've talked about this. You can't past the image URL from a google photo. Copy-n-paste the actual image itself into the uploader, or we can't see whoever you're mocking.

 

I dont need those micro aggressions.

 

We don't need no thought control!

 

https://babylonbee.com/news/fun-new-...r-climate-sins

 

read this headline, then paint a picture in your head.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-new...-LJFLa8jmEo3MQ









is this what you pictured?























nearly spot on for me.

 

Gross.

 

Honest question: what is the deal with small, physically delicate men and large, obese women? This is a trend that seems to extend from urban blacks, to rural whites, to weird hipstery youths, as seen above. Is it a self confidence issue? A mommy-ing issue? I assume self confidence must be a large part of it. I've been personal friends with several men in the 5'4"-5'6" range who were in law enforcement and military careers, and they had no trouble dating and mating women who were taller and more attractive than them, but they were capable, self-assured guys.

Discuss.

 

Presupposing that you include neckbeards in the former category (as evidenced by the above photos), these two broad generalizations represent the bottom tier of the social strata from a dating and relationship standpoint.

If you add to this the social prejudices and stigmas which they harbor (eg: a sense of artificial enlightenment in the face of "haters" (people who are neither physically nor emotionally disabled, and are thus able to participate in and conform to social norms)), then it seems obvious that these two groups should gravitate towards one another.

They both hate a common enemy: people who are intellectually and emotionally functional.

 

https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/san...mXmfPfM_cb8rPM


I don't actually believe this story, but at the same time, maybe i do?

 

Damn carnies.

 

Well, ****! I didn't even get an invite

 

 

Because of reasons, I have a basic understanding of the market-value of semen. Doesn't really matter the type (human, horse, cow, etc), it's all about the same when you're dealing at the mammal level.

This is no way in hell that those folks gathered 50 gallons of semen all together in one place.

Also, the tagline of the site which hosts that article is literally "World News Dailiy Report: Where Facts Don't Matter."

Given that you traditionally get most of your opinions from Fox News, I can see how this would not be an immediately obvious warning sign to you.

 

This is an insightful take on the topic, but I think there's a cultural aspect to it as well. Twentieth century American culture, I think we can basically agree, was aspirational. The idea that you could improve your station in life was central to the American dream. This applied to mating as well, of course - if you were in the bottom tier of the social strata from a dating standpoint, the attitude was, you'd better do something about it to make yourself a more attractive proposition. Lose weight, make more money, have an engaging personality, increase your social standing in the community by other means, etc. A subset of the cultural idea that if you're not getting what you want, you can and should do something about it.

It seems that we have mostly lost that aspirational attitude in modern American culture. We treat dysfunction, disability, and misfortune, not as hurdles that must be overcome in order to get more from life (in the case of this topic, a more evolutionarily valuable mate), but inexorable curses, dooming us to our station and nothing more. And, as you referenced, there is a hate and resentment of those who would dare suggest that such things are surmountable.

It's an odd time, when an idea as basic as, "If you improve your person, your circumstances will improve as well," is considered radical.

 

we as in leftists, right?


https://www.facebook.com/LeoPiagneri/videos/10158103463098783/
https://www.facebook.com/fox11la/videos/442974879950587/

 

Interesting.


My intuitive reaction was actually to presuppose the opposite of what is implied here. Specifically, that the chemically-altered person at the left was not sufficiently competant to attend to her own contraceptive needs, whereas the wholesome and responsible-looking person at the right was.


Obviously, the possibility exists that you are Catholic. This is not something which we have discussed previously, and if true, it largely negates this specific conversation.

 

I'm not religious. But there's nothing wrong with decent people, with strong family values and morals.

 

While I have no comment on wholesomeness of someone on or off BC, I will say that I've never had a girlfriend or wife (just the one) that has used the pill or any other hormonal contraceptive with any regularity. Every single one of them has suffered from very apparent side effects. Specifically, it generally killed their libido and general mood. Some of them experienced weight gain and skin issues. I managed not to get any of them pregnant without it.

 

And this is why men who are of a certain moral conviction elect to undergo a 25 minute outpatient procedure which entirely nullifies this question.

 

Since the subject of guys getting fixed came up I do have something I have been wondering about.
It is my understanding that the official stand by the Catholic religion is that birth control is wrong.
Does a guy getting a vasectomy count in that regard?

Not being religious I am simply curious.

From a scientific perspective I cannot see where guys getting clipped would make any difference as you can still get plenty of women pregnant even if 3/4 of the men have been fixed.