Thread 82558090

If you believe that women should be property, aren't you admitting that you don't believe in true love?

After all a government provided gf program can't possibly be how people can find their soul mate.

Also the /pol/ janny is a fag for deleting women's rights discussion.

>>82558090 (OP)
dw I'm taking over the world soon we can discuss this in detail after i take over

>>82558090 (OP)
A moid admitted to me in a thread that he believed that men werent capable of loving children and only women can do this. So if they arent capable of loving children, what makes women any different if women are essentially children in mens eyes

Love at first sight is a meme. Love is something that is created over a long period of time. A government issue gf could learn to love and become my soulmate.

>>82558123
There's plenty of moids here who "love" children trust me. Epstein "loved" children a lot.

>>82558175
He didnt love children, only himself and the perversions in his mind.

>>82558142
If you consider Stockholm Syndrome "true love" then a government issued gf might learn to "love" you sure.

But would you really ever love her?

>>82558203
It's the same for the moids here that say they love children when what they really love is cunny.

Nobody actually believes that women are property other than goat-fucking mudslimes.

Incels pretend to hate women, but they actually worship the ground that women walk on.

>>82558204
Yes. Did you not read my post?

>>82558269
There's plenty of people who want to see women's rights done away with.

>>82558281
You said in your post "she" could learn to love. You forgot the part where you'd love her back.

>>82558090 (OP)
Women being housewives was never some pet play fantasy in the West. The wives controlled a lot.

>>82558090 (OP)
>believe in
It's either real or it's not. If it was real the word divorce wouldn't need to exist.

>>82558090 (OP)
True love is a storytelling trope create less than a thousand years ago. I dont think women should be property, but you're fooling yourself if you think love is all about destiny or whatever.

>>82558090 (OP)
99% of women are basically the same person anon, they are dull, boring, vain, herd-like creatures, they all act very similarly, there's no such thing as a soulmate anon, you are replaceable to them.

ask yourself this: what has a women ever done for you without expecting something in return? when has a woman ever done more for you than you did for her? and your mom doesnt count

>>82558090 (OP)
In an ideal world I don't think women should be property. However, it's a better solution than whatever the fuck is currently going on right now.

>>82558090 (OP)
No, in fact, I think owner/pet is the most romantic format for a heterosexual relationship. Possessive, trusting, without boundaries.

>>82558090 (OP)
>aren't you admitting that you don't believe in true love?
i dont know if i think females should be property or not, but i definitely dont believe in true love

at best id want to kinda fall in and out of love but just replacing her after a while. its hard to see me being with a forever girl unless she's like a super cuckquean and gets off on me being with lots of girls and wants to spoil me rotten with all of my fantasies and stuff

>>82559114
There's an upside to this... if you can pull one you can pull them all.

It is possible for someone to love their slave or someone lower status, not everyone has the same modern moral values

though I don't believe women should be property, few here actually do, it is just edgy bait, my ideal wife would be someone like margaret thatcher, why wouldn't I want an intelligent rich powerful wife who happens to be a chaste christian

>>82559114
Thats crazy because to me, incels are all the same person. The same neurosis, the same lack of curiosity, the wallowing self pity. You all have the same interests and you talk the same way, your grievances are the same. What sets you apart as an individual? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

>>82558090 (OP)
>If you believe that women should be property, aren't you admitting that you don't believe in true love?
It has become clear that women cannot love a non-Chad. They won't even fuck one now that fuck apps have let them go Chad-only.
>After all a government provided gf program can't possibly be how people can find their soul mate.
Still better than the bottom 50-90% of men going incel and dropping out of society because there really is no point to life without regular sex.
It is also now very clear that women's options have to be severely limited, or society goes to hell, as it is doing now.
>>82558123
He's wrong, bitch.
I would love my biological child. Due to inceldom, and globalism turning people into slaves, I will never get to have (or afford) one.
No, being a step-dad cuck is not desirable to any sane man with balls.

>>82558090 (OP)
the concept of wives is a joke. Women should be raffled off to adult males on reaching the age of 16 & registered to that male thereafter. She is his property & has no rights.

>>82558090 (OP)
Love is a manufactured emotion, completely fake. Put away your plastic hollywood toy fantasies and recycle that garbage into something useful.
Humans won't have rights at all with the way things are going, as disorganized as they are. This arguing is useless nigger shit.

>>82558090 (OP)
The cave dwellers in Bone Tomahawk had the right idea about women.

A feme couverte is less than a full member of the independent political class than a property owning, head of a family, husband and father, but that's not to say she is a field nigger

And no I don't believe in true love, do I look like I have subscription passes to Disneyland

>>82558269
shut the fuck up /pol/tard, i absolutely hate foids and think they are less than property, as when property is damaged restitution should be paid to the owner. also muslims believe foids have souls.

Actually I believe men should be the property of women
>dinner's ready

>>82558090 (OP)
When you're born into a family without your consent, do you love them, or do you grow to love them?

>>82558090 (OP)
*sigh* here we go again. Listen carefully:
>WOMEN.
>DO.
>NOT.
>LOVE.
period. Point blank. They are psychologically incapable of loving anything other than themselves. Women are not even aware of what the concept of love means, or what it requires of them. To women, "love" is just them feeling good.

>>82558281
No you wouldn't. You would only love that she either resigned to serving you or Stockholm syndrome kicked in and she bonded to you because, what else would she do for the rest of her life? Men do not actually love women and they prove it whenever they open their mouth. You just want someone to serve you.

>>82558090 (OP)
I would love my slave girls.

So men's love for their slave girls is real. But woman's love don't real?

Are you moids serious?