blarghly

Ironically, this comment supports Rogan's point. Shaming people for using a particular word is pointless, because the word is just a word. The insult is being called mentally handicapped, regardless of the actual word used. The argument against using the word was to remove the stigma against people with mental disabilities - but people will just come up with a new word. If you are insulting Rogan by insinuating that it is bad to be mentally handicapped, then you are perpetuating that stigma regardless of the particular word.

I'm honestly wondering if this post isn't just missing the forest for the trees. Like, what if it really is all about just guys not getting laid?

Like, OOP goes to college, spends time with lots of women, goes to parties, and sleeps with some of them. His view is now that society is reasonably just, since he now has a reasonable expectation that he will be able to have sex.

I mean, we can think about the various manosphere spaces: the red pill - treat women badly to get sex; mgtow - give up on relationships with women and just do your own thing; incels - just give up, you were doomed to l be a virgin from the start; "male loneliness epidemic", aka, I can't get a girlfriend. And then we have Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson giving these men advice, which if you remove the toxicity, boils down to: stop caring about what women think of you, take care of yourself, work out, get hobbies, spend time with friends, do well in your career. Which is pretty good advice to follow if you are a man, looking for women!

And it's not like sex is some trivial thing, either. From an evolutionary point of view, if you can't have sex and have no expectation of being able to get it in the future, that's a death worse than death. It is the end of your genes, which are programmed to want to continue existing even more than any individual is.

So if you're looking to deradicalize young men, it's possible that the solution is to just give them a straightforward path to getting some pussy.

I'm confused as to what your objection is.

For all the reasons others have described, this is problematic. However, I propose a middle ground: develop permanent, reversible, side-effect-free birth control, and apply it to every child at 10 years old. When you turn 18, you can have it removed. You just need to show up at a government office, sign a form, and have the procedure completed. It is completely free, and you are out the door in an hour. The treatment can be reapplied at any time.

What happens? No more accidental pregnancies. No more getting knocked up in high school. No more scares after one night stands. No more becoming impregnated by a rapist. Everyone can fuck to their heart's content, but babies only get made if both people actually want a baby. Most of the problems you are talking about typically occur when either one or both of the parents don't want or weren't expecting a child. Make pregnancy opt-in, and you'll solve 90% of the problems.

Ooh, I'll beat your unpopularity here.

Cycling on the sidewalk in suburban areas is often safer than cycling on the road, and should not be discouraged.

I mean, why would anyone want to live in Venezuela as a life choice? Typically, those who would really like to leave don't have the means to, and those who have the means to leave don't have a real reason to. This current shake up is concerning, but you have to also understand that most people's lives don't revolve around the actions of the federal government. They revolve around the social connections they've made, the physical things they own or have built, and the places that they know and call home. Leaving means losing all of those things. And my perspective, as a blue tribe member in the US, is that most of my friends are watching this unfold with a worried grimace, but with an assumption that we'll oust the dumbass from office in the next election and begin the work of rebuilding what he broke. In the meantime, they are worried about raising their kids, fixing up their houses, building their businesses or advancing in their careers, going on dates and finding partners, staying fit and healthy, and all the other things people really tend to spend their time thinking about.

I said some, since I didn't feel comfortable giving even general statistics here.

Prostitution should be legal and regulated, which would significantly lessen incidents of abuse of women.

Do porn stars and prostitutes like their jobs? Some of them do. For some it is just a job. For some, they hate it, but it is their best option for making money. In all these cases, this is not different than any other job, and I don't see a problem with that. Only if there is real significant coersion does it become problematic to me.

There's a difference between "I wish I had the privileges and expectations of being a boy" and "I wish I had a penis"

An addiction is when your habit starts having significant negative impacts on your life. So, for example, if you are choosing to stay home and watch porn instead of going to work, buying groceries, go out with friends, or sleep with actual women, then yes, you have a porn addiction.

If you jerk off on a Tuesday night before you go to bed... that's fine. Watch porn, or don't, it doesn't matter. If you enjoy your life more when you don't watch porn for whatever reason, that's fine too. You do you. But regularly watching porn isn't an addiction any more than regularly grabbing a beer with friends on a Friday night makes you an alcoholic.

Also, yes, there is a problem of the exploitation of women in some porn. Some porn studios do take advantage of women. But women aren't "humiliated" simply by being in porn. There is nothing wrong with a woman willingly engaging in any kind of sexual act in front of a camera, whether it's plain ol missionary or an interracial CNC gangbang. Many women enjoy making porn and sharing it - just peruse FetLife and you can see tons of porn made completely for free, just for fun.

Like, really. Unless it's a problem, it's not a problem.