>>214379457
It's completely pointless to listen to women on most topics. You say whatever to them to fuck them, you fuck them, and after you fuck them, their entire disposition changes and you can say almost anything after that and they'll warp their personalities to whatever fits best with you as long as you fuck them properly and don't give them the ick. A woman is at her absolute strongest before you have sex. She'll delay her texts. She'll lob war-crime tier shit tests at you. It's awful. After sex, they all turn into kittens until they get discontent and start to become pains in the ass again, but as long as they're afraid you can do better, even that will be soft or nonexistent. I honestly hate the way it works like this. It makes one of the most romanticized aspects of the human experience feel completely artificial, like some shitty vacation like a Carnival cruise.
>>214379505
You can use any analogy you'd like as long as it involves a misunderstanding of nature. If you want something a little more offensive to the right, you could say it's like abandoning medicine and using prayer instead and wondering why the mortality rates skyrocket. It's like thinking cake is good for you and wondering why suddenly the diabetes rate skyrockets. The modern left is ultra-ideological and dogmatic, bordering on a religion, but they're also secular. That puts them in a bind. They have to deliberately misinterpret, rationalize, or avoid any facts that violate their fundamental beliefs about the equality of nature between men and women. If you have a quasi-religion based on being a big fucking fat ass, you have to promote dogma that says, to use the example from above, that cake is good for you, being fat is beautiful, and so on. You can't warp nature without consequence. But again though, you can choose any analogy you like to make it more palatable. The fact remains women are not what Western civilization interprets them as.
