Kurwa !. . Example 1: Women for status Example 2: Women for control Example 3: Women for control part deux 9 Months Later Example S: Most women can who and when
x

Kurwa !

Example 1: Women **** for status
Example 2: Women **** for control
Example 3: Women **** for control part deux
9 Months Later
Example S: Most women can **** who and when they want
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+91
Views: 12523
Favorited: 20
Submitted: 09/30/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to Mr unpopular submit to reddit

Comments(39):

[ 39 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
+10
#30 - colorparty **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#29 - flnonymousfive **User deleted account** (10/01/2013) [-]
dear ******* Christ, OP...
#14 - anon (10/01/2013) [-]
Does OP have issues he'd like to discuss with the rest of the group?
#1 - gogollori (09/30/2013) [-]
And another one of these dumb posts, that are absolutely generalizing, biased and simplified.   
   
Yes, there are women like that, no doubt. But there are also men like this. Man who only 			****		 the hottest chick, to show off their trophy. Men who marry women only for the wealth, men who talk the woman into having their child to be bound to them etc. etc. .   
Do you really 			*******		 expect me to believe that women are the only ones using sex and emotions as a weapon and thread in a relationship? Are you 			*******		 kidding me? This is making me so sick and tired.   
   
The are female assholes and there are male assholes. Does this explain why mostly women are entitled sluts if they sleep around? No. That's because of hundreds of years of historical background and suppression of sexuality.   
   
You know what? If a woman wants to 			****		 everything that moves, she should do that and if a guy wants the same, he should 			*******		 do that. And nobody should be judging them, because sex is 			*******		 awesome, let's face it and it doesn't always come with emotions.
And another one of these dumb posts, that are absolutely generalizing, biased and simplified.

Yes, there are women like that, no doubt. But there are also men like this. Man who only **** the hottest chick, to show off their trophy. Men who marry women only for the wealth, men who talk the woman into having their child to be bound to them etc. etc. .
Do you really ******* expect me to believe that women are the only ones using sex and emotions as a weapon and thread in a relationship? Are you ******* kidding me? This is making me so sick and tired.

The are female assholes and there are male assholes. Does this explain why mostly women are entitled sluts if they sleep around? No. That's because of hundreds of years of historical background and suppression of sexuality.

You know what? If a woman wants to **** everything that moves, she should do that and if a guy wants the same, he should ******* do that. And nobody should be judging them, because sex is ******* awesome, let's face it and it doesn't always come with emotions.
User avatar #2 to #1 - achimp (09/30/2013) [-]
On FJ there seems to be an eternal bitching about generalizations. How else do you suppose we should talk about society? Conversations would be nothing more than words and phrases like "on average" or "typically" or "usually." Everything would be made overly-complicated and hard to understand, simply because the speaker has to make sure he/she doesn't offend a certain group by making a generalization.

Yes, there are men assholes. Yes, men use sex as a tool. Yes, that happens. But typically, at least in pop-culture, women are manipulative; this is typically a womanly characteristic. It has happened to a lot of men, it happens to me every day.
Women are not the only sex using emotions as a weapon, that is true. But you have to understand generalizations allow concepts to be put across in a simple way, so the layman will understand.
There is also this campaign against "judging." Like generalizations, judging is not a bad thing. For example, if I were to be walking down a street at night, and came across a gentleman who is smoking a suspicious looking object, is wearing dark clothing, my judgement of him is that he's a drug dealer, dangerous, and probably an asshole. He might have a PhD in something, I have no ******* idea, but I made a judgement.
As for the slut thing, they have names for men like that - man whores. Just the way it is. Judging people is good. It tells you who to associate with and who not to associate with.
User avatar #24 to #2 - skaffanl (10/01/2013) [-]
Judging is good because it takes the time out of actually observing a person and making an opinion. It gives you the ability to quickly decide who to associate with in order to protect yourself and in order to find people who will offer something to you.

But what my experiences have taught me is that everyone has some lesson to teach you or something to offer you and by judging you can miss a lot of them. What I've learned is that nobody fits their stereotype and by judging you are just creating a false image of a personality, an image which can linger and alter your opinion about that person which you based on information you received on a very shallow basis.

I personally believe that judging can be good for some people, but I am better off without it. And no I am not saying I do not judge because this is an instinct but I have taught myself to recognize when I judge and once that has occurred I can choose not to follow this judgment.
User avatar #9 to #2 - gogollori (10/01/2013) [-]
So we should all be happy with generalizations because they make everything easier? Let me tell you what:
All muslims are terrorist, all priests are raping children, all men are chauvinistic pigs, all women who had an abortion are child murderers and terrible persons.
You see the problem?

Typically women are manipulativ. I am not even disaggreeing that there are women like this, who really SEVERLY do their best to manipulate everyone around them, for the sake of more money or what not, but you are saying that it is the majority of the modern culture.
You know what? EVERYONE is manipulativ, and it doesn't even have to be concious, or on purpose. You want to tell me that pretty men don't use the effect they have on women in the ways they want to? Does it make a waitress a slut if she smiles at her male customer to get more tip? I don't think so.

And there are different kinds of judging, you know?
Should you avoid the person on a dark street? Probably, at least if you wanna live a long and healthy life. But should you judge people based on their decisions they make in life, that do not affect you in any way?
I understand that there is a limit to everything, but if a woman or a man chooses to have multiple sexual partners, because he or she can and they like it, then what buisness is that of yours?

I am "bitching" about generalization especially here, because this post says that men can simply not be sluts and women permanently use sex as a weapon for their own good and against men. I bet 10 Dollar, that OP is a big hater of feminazis, but with this post he proved to be just as bad.

Life is never black and white and even if generalizations make it much easier to go through your day, you should reconsider using them as a tool "because it brings a concept across".
But they don't have the saying for nothing: Ignorance is bliss.
User avatar #10 to #9 - achimp (10/01/2013) [-]
(Give me a few hours to come up with a better response. I'm exhausted).
Yeah, we should be happy that generalizations make our world better. The trick is, determining the bias behind the generalization.

You're absolutely right, however, women are more obviously manipulative. It's almost conscious manipulation, which is worse than unconscious manipulation, no?

Once again, you are taking a generalization too seriously, or word for word. Surely you don't believe that OP believes that all women are sluts, or that all men can't be sluts? To do so would just be silly. When making a generalization, there is an understanding - take for example, this post. Consider the statement "all women are sluts." Now, because humans have bias, we can add a few things to this statement, making it: "in my experience, most women are sluts." OP didn't need to say this, because we have half a ******* brain and can figure it out.


You're right, ignorance is bliss. Like ignorance of a plainly obvious fact.
I'm not going to go around every ******* day and say "Well, typically Marsha takes four or five cocks up her ass every so often" just so I don't make a generalization; I'll say "Wow, Marsha's a huge slut." It's simply an opinionated observation. And how does it affect me? Suppose Marsha goes "Chimp, you sexy beast, you wanna bang?" Now, since I know Marsha's a huge slut, I can determine whether or not getting a chance to bone is worth the risk of STDs.

If you want, I can make a correction to my statement: Generalizations are good, but only when your audience is smart enough to work out that you don't actually believe "all zyx are xyz."
User avatar #12 to #10 - gogollori (10/01/2013) [-]
Generalizations are almost never good and if you count on your audience to be smart enough to figure out what you mean, you are always risking that a couple of them will misinterpret your words.

I don't even see that women are the ones that are mostly obviously manipulativ, again, not saying that there arent ANY.
I think you are talking from personal experience here and this is not a reasonable source at all.

And I disaggree, I think I am taking generalizations as serious as everyone should, because they are a main reason for a lot of trouble in this world. People believe **** like that and are not smart enough to figure it own on their own.

And really, if you don't believe in what you post, why would you post it then? This post makes me assume that OP is believing that, and wouldn't it even make it worse if he would post it, spread this ******* retarded ******** and then don't even stand behind it?

Not everyone who sleeps around sleeps with anybody. "Marsha" sounds like a whore, but mainly because you described her as such. And if you don't wanna risk STDs I recommend condoms.

Generalizations are 90% of the time not good, they lead to biased hatred, mobbing and prejudices. Give me only one generalization that is actually good.
And I don't mean something like: All gays are nice persons!
Because that is not ******* true either.

(I keep on confusing the reply and the leave a comment button, hence my two deleted comments at the top...)
User avatar #13 to #12 - achimp (10/01/2013) [-]
You, me, or anyone else should not have to make sure everyone their piece of content or literary work isn't misinterpreted by some douchebag who wants to be offended. It's a waste of time.

That's the point of a personal opinion, there bud. If I were to say "Man, all women are manipulative," you'd know that "chimp holds the opinion that most women are manipulative, probably based on some personal experience." I'm not asking you to take it as a fact; just an opinion. When you assume someone is trying to change your worldview and not just expressing a personal opinion you run into issues.

You have had to constantly present both sides of an argument "I haven't seen much of it, but I'm not saying there aren't any" in order to not come across as making general statements. This doesn't help me. This doesn't help you. it's okay to make generalizations, it saves time.

As for the "one generalization" that is actually good, take for example, this one: People in New York City are rude.
How is this a good thing, you might ask? Well, if you were to go to NYC, you could understand that typically people will not try to help you - more often than not, they'll try to hurt you. Therefore, it's logical to be more wary than you would have been going to New York - thus, the generalization is helpful.
How about this? Suppose, because of pop culture and the media, young girls start to have sex at a younger and younger age. Noticing this, I believe there needs to be a discussion on why the moral fabric of the world is breaking apart. I hold a convention, and start out my speech with "Young girls are having sex at younger and younger ages!.." Only to be interrupted by someone shouting "but Chimp, not ALL young girls are having sex and younger and younger ages!"
I'd be forced the concede the point, because yes, not all young girls were having sex. But my purpose was to address the ones that were; now, my time is wasted.
User avatar #17 to #13 - gogollori (10/01/2013) [-]
According to several sources that I just looked up on google, the average age of the first sex of girls, was 17.3 years at 2002 and is now at 18.1 years. This are statistic from the USA, but European statistics weren't significantly different, so yeah...

You see, that is the problem with personal experiences and generalization. You are not open to anything new and are stuck with your worldview, which might be utterly wrong.

And I think you should at least try and make sure that your point comes across in a discussion, for everyone. Just saying, "Well, I am going to throw my opinion out there and everybody should get it, if not then it is there problem." sounds a bit stupid to me.

If you are posting **** like that: "Why women can be sluts and men can't!" you better are prepared for the **** you will get.

If everything would be that easy, I would be glad, but it isn't. I will stop that discussion now because I don't think that it will go somewhere and if you chose to generalize everything and live on believing the most woman are manipulativ sluts, so be it.

Have a good day.
User avatar #26 to #17 - achimp (10/01/2013) [-]
Okay, you are getting confused. I am giving hypothetical examples. I thought that was implied.
Realize that I don't necessarily agree with the post, just that I am arguing against this incessant campaign against generalizing. I'll say it again.** I am making up hypothetical arguments (women are having sex and younger ages) to prove a point - not that the arguments themselves are true, but rather that generalization is a not bad thing. I DO NOT NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THIS POST. Please, I am not here to argue with you on the post, JUST on your statement regarding generalizing. In addition, ALL of the examples I gave are HYPOTHETICAL.** This seemed very clear to me, which leads me to my conclusion that you don't understand for reasons unknown, or you are intentionally taking my "arguments" as true because you can't defend your point any longer.
#16 to #1 - ThekidsTEN (10/01/2013) [-]
The point of this is it is easy for a woman to **** , she can ask any male and there is a 90% chance she will be getting the **** .
#37 to #1 - idontbetrollin (10/01/2013) [-]
Or just chill out and laugh at the post, I mean the point of the image is to make fun of women right? So it is a joke? If it's not then i'm sorry you feel this way about posts like these and couldn't find the urge to laugh or find this post funny at all.  I just wanted to share some insight of what I thought.
Or just chill out and laugh at the post, I mean the point of the image is to make fun of women right? So it is a joke? If it's not then i'm sorry you feel this way about posts like these and couldn't find the urge to laugh or find this post funny at all. I just wanted to share some insight of what I thought.
#32 - hargleblarg (10/01/2013) [-]
No please, let's continue to generalise an entire gender that equates to roughly half of the human population. I'm sure this wont be horrifically misrepresentative or taken out of context at all.
User avatar #15 - sunnyrain (10/01/2013) [-]
This is ******* ********
User avatar #7 - numaniod (10/01/2013) [-]
Ouch this is stupid.
User avatar #3 - badgerclan (10/01/2013) [-]
1: Women **** for status. And men don't? Am I incorrect in my understanding that the quantity and hotness of a man's sexual conquests determines like 90% of his status in high school, college, and in many cases for some time after, even the rest of his life in some cases? No, it must just be women who **** for status, because some women will have sex with rich guys who they wouldn't normally have sex with if he had no money.

2: Women **** for control. Men do too, but this is a lot less ridiculous a reason for different treatment than the first one.

3: Women **** for control part 2. So women intentionally have "unwanted" pregnancies so they can be burdened with all the fun sickness and discomfort of pregnancy, pain of birth, and at least 18 years of basically no free time and drastically increased costs of living, as well as ******* up their own bodies and possibly having a slut reputation, all so they can emotionally torture some guy and ruin his life? There's the money motivation, but unless he's pretty damn rich that's not gonna leave you better off than before the pregnancy, especially if you're young when you do it. Another good reason for a universal double standard.

4: Women pretend they wanna **** for various reasons. Date=/= **** . And I like the "nice guy" label and "lie" about considering dating him. Sets up all men as good guys who just want love (and not sex, as the title of the example seems to be suggesting) and all women as villains who are just out to hurt the men. Yes, this is definitely a rational reason for the double standard and not just a bitter straw man.

5: Most women can **** who and when they want. Unless she's fat, or ugly, annoying, or has a reputation as a slut, or all the men around her all think that if a woman wants to have sex with him she's going to intentionally get pregnant she can soak him for child support payments that don't even cover the cost of raising a child.
User avatar #4 to #3 - badgerclan (10/01/2013) [-]
#5 part 2, since there wasn't enough space in the first post. #5 says that most women can have sex with whoever they want whenever they want. For this to be a reason, it's assumed that it's much more difficult or even impossible for a man to be able to do the same thing. I don't disagree that it's harder at any given time for a man to find somebody who wants to have sex with him than the reverse, but how does the idea of a slut make any sense if that's true? Women primarily have sex with men, and vice versa. If it's difficult for men to find women who want to have sex with them, how does making and perpetuating a double standard that demonizes women for having sex help the situation? If a woman doesn't want to deal with being considered a slut and decides not to have sex because of that, doesn't that make it a little harder for the men around her to find a sex partner, thus making the problem worse? Isn't the problem that #5 talks about the lack of willing female sex partners and the abundance of male sex partners who are desperate for sex as a result?

tl;dr the "slut" double standard is at best counterproductive to the problems it supposedly exists as a reaction to and at worst just pointless sexism.
#6 to #4 - quiescat (10/01/2013) [-]
i agree most of this is just butt hurt from not wrapping it and, or not getting all the one night stands they wanted.
theirs no concept of relationship or attachment here. sex is great but ********* it can only stays hard for so long then you gotta talk to her
#35 - deadmansdope (10/01/2013) [-]
<- Op
User avatar #22 - trollmobile (10/01/2013) [-]
doesn't this mean... that all us men are sluts?
and it's just so normal to be a male slut, that it's accepted?
User avatar #21 - DmOnZ (10/01/2013) [-]
Look, I'm tired of this girls can have sex whenever they want because all guys are always willing to "jump on dat". I'm not trying to sound like one of those "hurrr durrr I get offered so much pussy I have to turn it down" retards, but I have (and many of my friends as-well) had countless moments at parties where some girl you barely know comes waltzing up and tries to jump your bone. It's ******* stupid as hell that there's this weird paradigm that all guys are sex slaved maniacs who can't say no to getting their dick wet. Hell, I'm 19 and still a virgin for the sole reason I haven't met a girl who I feel compelled enough to have sex with... The truth is, when it comes to sex, most guys are just as reserved, if not even more so reserved than people make girls out to be (which is also ******** but I divulge).
User avatar #38 - thedumbledore (10/01/2013) [-]
My my OP, did you just get rejected or something? This content radiates bitterness.

Generalizing half the population is never a sign of someone thinking intelligently
User avatar #31 - nervaaurelius (10/01/2013) [-]
I though we were already done with this whole "woman are evil bitches" phase a long time ago.
User avatar #18 - formerlyaceseleven **User deleted account** (10/01/2013) [-]
I am a man, but i am more than that. I am; a ho, a hoe, a tramp, a whore, a floozy, a harlot, a hussy, a tart, a skank, a sperm bank, a cum dumpster, a hose wrangler, a semen herder, a last call stalker, a garage, and a one eyed weasel squeezer.
User avatar #19 to #18 - formerlyaceseleven **User deleted account** (10/01/2013) [-]
AND a slut!
User avatar #27 to #19 - drvalentine (10/01/2013) [-]
Ah, cool. Me too.
#5 - anon (10/01/2013) [-]
YESSSSSSSSSS, feed me your butthurt!
******* faggot whioteknights/SRS
**** off back 2 leddit.
#20 - anon (10/01/2013) [-]
Girls; Like it or not, this is true for many women. They will **** for power, they will **** for control and they will **** with your life.

Guys; While many might, it isn't fair to say "women do this" because a lot of them abhor the idea of manipulating people. While many might do this, many more want to tear their eyes out for defaming women and being so morally bankrupt, these are the girls worth spend time on.

Everyone; Manipulative assholes are in every gender, race and form. Like it or not, there are many people in the world who will exploit any asset they are blessed with to further themselves. This table shows the EXCEPTIONS, not the RULES. Keep your wits about you but never be afraid to trust someone of you see good in them.
User avatar #39 - youarenotspecial (10/02/2013) [-]
Because, you know, ALL women only have sex because they're manipulative. TOTALLY not because they like it. God forbid people be allowed to exercise sexual freedom and not be treated like dirt for it- or, I'm sorry, godforbid women do that.

And no man has ever been manipulative about sex ever- that's just silly.
#36 - traveltech ONLINE (10/01/2013) [-]
Wow, sounds like a serious problem
Wow, sounds like a serious problem
#34 - flnonymousfive **User deleted account** (10/01/2013) [-]
the light bulb got it's **** together for this one...
User avatar #25 - spior (10/01/2013) [-]
A year ago you faggots wouldn't be so high up in your ******** calling out OP for this. But since big brother 4chan started doing it you have no choice, right?
Think for your own for once.
[ 39 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)