What can communism offer incels? And don't give me that "you're not entitled a vagina" bs...

Is love not one of mankind's most fundamental needs?

Under communism we as a society will artificially restrict the number of baby boys born each year in order to maintain the ideal ratio of 1 boy for every three girls. Basically we will turn the entire planet into Love Live.

Attached: ll movie342.jpg (1920x1080, 259.98K)

Shit taste, tbh

Agape isn't a real thing. There is sexual love, fraternal love, and familial love. I'd like to say that most people have familial love, but it's hard for me to tell.

I recognize that the current surge of inceldom is largely a result of the current material and cultural conditions. But it's true you are not entitled to another person's body, nor their love. Love, that is intimate love, is something to given for one's own impossible to define reasons. That said, idk, probably social services and therapy for socially fucked individuals.

How is a person's body not a form of property that's currently being unjustly hoarded? Getting tired of normie communism and all their normiesplaining. I think it's time for a new and better form of communism.

Female Women are not commodities.

As opposed to male women?

The human body is the ultimate manifestation of personal property, which Marxists accept.

dum dum pls

what makes it different from anything else?

You are the natural owner of your own body, it is your own means of production, thereby every prole has a right to the ownership of their own body.

Seems like common sense response to capitalism.

Socialism can adjust material conditions to disincentivize gold digging. The rest you're on your own.

Attached: 1485833334787.jpg (1594x2578, 303.05K)

then it should be for everyone

Im an incel, and you can fuck off, they’re more import things than an indvidual experiance sex and affection. I hate you reactionary fucktards you will not get any sympathy here, were incels too.

That's a nice opinion

we're actually ending the commodity form. It's opposite of what we want to do, dum dum

That's not how it works.
Workers own their own means of production and the products there-of are held in common.

Thereby each body is owned and controlled by itself as worker who then chooses what they wish to produce.

Are you not the natural owner of your body?

You're an Uncle Tom for the normies. Traitors hang the highest.

This is infantile, stop.

Tell me more about what you think you "own"

Attached: 1399853757436 (1).gif (420x315, 435.07K)

ifit works like that then its just capitalism though

incels are the scum of the earth i swear to god

this isnt an argument

No one cares about your waifu quest

Attached: faught_autism_and_won_chris_chan.png (460x545, 492.92K)

What about gay male incels? Do they get to objectify guys like you are doing to women?

Marxian thought clearly embraces the concept of rightful ownership, as he acknowledges the phenomena of theft.

Read that again and come back

Quite to the contrary, libertarians cannot believe in self ownership genuinely, as capitalism inherently violates and makes use of the physical beings of others as necessary practice

Gay male virgin here, every incel here is hereby required to suck me off

if he owns his own means of production then he could simply refuse to work, thus giving him ultimate control of the product
if you own the means of production you own its products user

You are in fact allowed to not work if you do not wish to under communism, obviously democratic oversight is required to hash out certain difficulties like an attempted creation of a market by that method, the stamping out thereof being justified as demonstrably leading to capitalism, which again, commits constant violation of individuals' rights to their own labor by definition

so he dosnt own his MOP, the some democratic council does now

This is the only correct answer to any of these people

Which he participates in. Again, you own your own body but this is true of everyone else, thereby infringing on them via commodity production is simply not allowable.

This is why I'll never support left-wing libertarians, they have no solution for the incel question. Ironically in such a society, hierarchy is going to exist the most in the sexual marketplace.
In right-wing libertarian societies, wealth can be used as leverage for reproduction.
In left-wing and right-wing authoritarian societies, the state can be used as leverage for reproduction.
In left-wing libertarian societies, nothing can be used. It's either you have a high gene quality in terms of physical looks, or you're fucked. The top 10% of men will get 90% of females in harems.

lmao

wew

Icky. Stinky winky post. Smelly. Very bad.

The problem with your sort is not that you want to fuck, but that you want to fuck people who do not want to fuck you.

Maybe this will be illumination for you.

so you dont own your own body but in fact it is held in common ownership
so why isnt someone entitled you your body for sex considering it is held in common ownership?

Communism abolishes the conditions that create incels. Prior to the late 20th century incels weren't really a major thing and they certainly weren't even a thing before the 18th century.

Without capitalism gold diggers can't exist and you won't have rich people hoarding masses of girls.

Youll get to have the freedom to not be wpruledb

you're not just not entitled a vagina, you're not entitled jack shit.

sounds nazbol but ok

Do not twist my words, you have genuine ownership of your body and may do with it what you wish lest you exploit another's body.

As Kant put it, "emply that maxim that treats all mankind as not mere means but as ends to themselves"

Trying to force someone into being a sex slave does, you disgusting pile of shit.

if you own your body then you have total control over your labor which necessarily means you have total control over its products and can do with them as you wish
this is capitalism

Is it opposite day?

fuck of ayncrap

Yes, because I remember Adam Smith saying in wealth of nations that "if you own a body, you're a capitalism."

Attached: hayao miyazaki mistake.jpg (426x362, 26.62K)

he is right. it's the logical conclusion. Hence why self-ownership is stupid.

adam smith isnt a capitalist

The two become intertwined when there's millions of years of evolution to back it.

So what? If there isn't enough to go around, then people are going to go to desperate measures in order to fulfill their biological purpose. It's no different from when a starving person steals a loaf of bread in order to survive.
Homosexual incels are basically non-existent, since the gay community is hyper-sexual due to a defunct biological duty and typically very open due to interchangeability of sexual roles (e.g. short gay men can just be the sub, while short straight men rarely get a girl to begin with).

lol No they don't, I can take millions of years to take a shit, it's still not my purpose

this guy gets it, capitalism is the logical conclusion of self ownership

Im not an ancap fuck boi. I just thought the statement claimed in that post is the exact opposite of what happens in a capitalistic society.

so you just believe in anarcho capitalism but refuse to call it that because capitalism is icky and you need to fit in with Holla Forums, as I said
please go back to >>>/liberty/

I've refuted this, you're simply wrong.

Incorrect.

Would you object if I murdered and ate you? I know you probably will but there just isn't enough human flesh going around.

Hi. I exist, please fuck off.

This is pathetic and infantile, stop.

Attached: capitalism was a mistake adam smith.jpg (754x767, 100.12K)

What the fuck are you saying? Is:
a correct statement or is it the opposite of the truth?

There is no such thing as a "father of capitalism".

where did you refute it? you say a democratic process would come in which in fact means you would NOT own yourself

He was a liberal who began to be more "socialistic"

...

thats known as capitalism though

If you were taking a shit (due to it being instinctual) for millions of years though, it's not a stretch to say that it's your purpose.

If your instinctual biological purpose was to be a cannibal, then sure, I wouldn't blame you for trying.
I never said anything against objecting. You can object all you want lmao, it doesn't mean that incels aren't going to advocate for forcing/coercing you to do it.
Why are you an incel exactly?

He was stating that to explain why he's against it.
If you own yourself, as if your body were an object, although this implies voluntarism, it means that likewise you own your body to lend out, to sell in exchange for a wage. Ancaps talk about this all the time. Self-ownership is liberalism

You will not find a justification for sex-slavery through an immensely thick-headed interpretation of marxist property rights you fucking freak.

To be fair its a retarded statement whether it is for or against capitalism

You are tiresome.

Icky, stinky winky post, smelly, very bad.
I advocate for the purging of people who advocate for the exploitation of others, go to gulag.
I guess I'm technically not, I have a low sex drive and don't like people in general.

Body ownership statement I mean.

You mean, the idea of body ownership or the criticism of it?

Looks like incels are reactionary after all.
Sorry, I'm sure some of you are just confused. But it looks like you're all headed to the gulag.

Attached: Venezuelan-President-Hugo-002.jpg (400x519, 53.85K)

if you own yourself you own your labor you own the product, meaning you can do with your labor and product as you please
as long as you own yourself their will be wage labor and commodity production

The idea. It implies there is some inherent separation of the body and mind

Why are guys so obsessed with sex?

Attached: bath.jpg (169x369, 45.67K)

Nuclear takes in this thread

they are obsessed with what they cannot have, naturally as the poor are often obsessed with money

as long as there is self ownership then it is BY DEFINITION capitalism, you are a capitalist, this has nothing to do with rape
my original question was what makes someones body different expecting an answer and you came back with some fucking ayncrap shit

1. self exploitation is logically self contradictory
2. voluntary submission to exploitation is illegal under communism just as engaging in the exploitation itself.

Once again, to quote Kant "employ that maxim under which all mankind are treated not as mere means but as ends to themselves", you yourself are included in the genre of mankind, to submit yourself as mere means would be contradictory to this as perfect duty.

The naturalistic fallacy is bullshit.
If I were to advocate for solving world hunger through the use of magic and witchcraft, it would be stupid, but the objections to it would be in the form of an appeal to nature.
Not allowing incels to breed is exploitation in itself.
No shock there.

Evolution

then there is no self ownership

Then what would you call someone who was the foremost economist that developed the modern capitalism we have today?
Not a capitalist?

Christ, I hate dealing with lumpen. No, not everything is a socialism. Also,
Yeah, that's how capitalism came to spread throughout the world.

Attached: fuck reading.jpg (480x436, 66.96K)

No one wanting to fuck you is not exploitation.

You are objectively wrong.

Not even Aristotle would take this position, my apologies for your mind aids.
The demonstration of something to be physically impossible and self defeating is not an appeal to nature, to derive a moral ought from nature is.
1. naturalist fallacy yet again
2. avoiding exploitation BY exploiting is logically contradictory
You are tiresome

Universalizing the maxim of self ownership mandates a perfect duty not only not to exploit but to not be exploited.

A bullet.

this

wew

I dont agree with the man you are arguing with but you sound like a /liberty/ poster saying no one wanting to feed you is not exploitation

Bitch where, can you read?

No, it's not, It's a conflation due to a persons fixation on function. Same analogy works for Sisyphus. Pushing the boulder wasn't his purpose.

well now that ayncraps are btfo I can finally go to bed

You are tiresome and retarded.

Totally different relations though. The method of food production we exist in deprives people of their own labor and despite our absolute surplus of food, we still allow people to starve.
We don't necessarily have a surplus of consenting sexual partners though because sex is not so straightforward as food and tbh should not be considered a commodity.
The issue with incels demanding sex is that it requires that someone else fuck them. So if we acquiesce to their demand someone is being coerced into doing it if we can't find a willing partner, and clearly they can't, so the chances aren't great. That is actual exploitation.

I didn't mean to say socialist in the Marxist sense. Capitalism did not come about by liberals. It didn't arise from a group of people political philosophies. Smith is the found and theorist of modern economy. Why did you add the exclamation point. I'm not using "liberal" as per contemporary mainstream american use.

Yes it is.
Men spend their whole lives trying to gather resources, increase their status, etc. in order to appeal to females so that they can reproduce.
If you take their labour and contributions towards society with the false promise of reproduction, that's exploitation.

When did I talk about a moral ought (lol)? I was just saying that I won't advocate for left-wing libertarianism because it won't work practically.
Some degree of exploitation is always going to exist in a society.

You're using unpractical solipsism-tier logic. For example, I guess we shouldn't ever charge anyone for murder since you can't technically ever 100% prove the purpose behind the killing.

How's it like being the mirror image of Holla Forums? Nice spectacle, faggots.

boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/164021782

Attached: 1509758431040.jpg (1280x720, 124.57K)

When you implied incels OUGHT to have sex and OUGHT to have it from other humans regardless of consent

Even if we take this as true, which it isn't, in the comparison of "A few unattractive men do not have sex" vs "institutionalized rape" you still lose.

You are tiresome

Yes, for practical reasons, not moral ones.
lol. In a left-wing libertarian society, "A few unattractive men do not have sex" will become like 90% of straight men, who will likely overthrow the system because it doesn't appeal to their biological purpose. It's no different from how communist revolutions usually happened in poverty-stricken countries.

Here's some proof that there's going to be a massive disparity in the society.

Attached: proof2.png (764x313 43.25 KB, 31.24K)

Who said you couldn't prove intent?
I said it was a conflation between function and purpose. Keeping swinging at the strawman I guess, moron.

"Practical reasons" still imply underlying morality as they are part of a normative value system
This is a semi-retard level amount of historical illiteracy and lack of basic ability to reason but, as a left-authoritarian I don't really care about you being retarded towards anarkiddies

You have never been promised sex. Even in societies with arranged marriages the agreement is still complicit on the husband not being a piece of shit.

These graphs are derived from capitalist relation, they pertain not at all to other systems.

It doesn't even make sense in the Utopian sense that predated Marxism.

No, it was propagated by liberals to where we are at today.

If you are not in the top 7 or 8 percent of men you are average to ugly. Damn son.

I would like to see their incomes. However you can just lie about it when you register on that site.

How would you if billions of organisms completing a function on an instinctual basis for millions of years doesn't provide a purpose?

The most laughable projection in this entire thread. It's pretty common knowledge that disenfranchised people are the most likely to topple existing systems.

Not too many people put their income on their profile.
Also, if you think personality matters (lol), picture related.

Attached: 0 S-8DsgmWHAqjAPoL.png (432x330, 18.95K)

Second part for:

These graphs are derived from capitalist relation, they pertain not at all to other systems.

I'm aspie as fuck and have a loving gf.

Stop being an entitled faggot and grow a personality and maybe some one will let you fuck them.

Our brains have evolved to see it that way though. In tribal communities, if men were to complete labour tasks (hunting, protecting, etc.) for women, the reward they would get in return is labour and sex. We have a instinctual expectation that if we benefit the community through labour, then we will get sex, which is a result of evolutionary "shortcuts" made in our brains. If we don't get sex, we stop providing for the community and potentially lash out.

Personality doesn't matter, that's why you have a "loving gf". See chart here:

Under Socialism it'll be far easier to, well, socialize and not be an incel. Socialization venues will be universally accessible, workplaces will offer more socialization options, there'll be clubs and unions where you can find people to connect to and so on. With less working hours there'll be more time to socialize, one of the main reasons why I am socially maladjusted is that I simply have no free time to maintain meaningful relationships. Without wealth inequality and with abolition of capitalist cults of success, fashion etc people will connect based on their interests or work if nothing else.

Not how it works

hope you find a gf in the re-education gulag

Icky. Stinky winky post. Smelly. Very bad.

sex is for gays and losers

Good non-solution that ignores the actual problem. Posting that was pointless lmao.

Without the "naturalistic fallacy", you can't have a functioning society.

H E J U S T K E E P S C O M M I T T I N G T H E S A M E F U C K I N G F A L L A C Y

You are pulling these conceptions about what you were promised from society out of your ass with the most bullshit evo-psych hokum I've ever seen. It's very clear you'll find any justification for this grievance.
Stop this nebulous theorizing and go try talking to girls.

Why wouldn't what we already do work? Why are you trying dichotomize the situation?

Attached: Umaru chan popsicle.png (424x412, 275.75K)

Wow my dude that is some complete bullshit.
logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/131/Naturalistic-Fallacy

Read this as many times as it takes to get it through your head.
You cannot derive an ought from an is. You need to justify your oughts.

In capitalism we have very little time for meaningful relationships. In communism such interactions will be able to experienced to their fullest and close family and community ties will help to alleviate allienation. In capitalism it is hard to find the time necessary to find meaning in and to oneself self and worth in ones community given the limited time and stratification of society, but in communism we are given the chance to investigate and find ourselves truly in terms of our existence.

Attached: Relationships.png (1488x426, 170.64K)

lmao maybe go read a book on human evolutionary psychology or something sometime? This is fairly basic shit, our whole society is based on the principle of reproduction. Also, go look up the mouse utopia experiment, that's what will result from a left-wing libertarian society for similar reasons.
Even Lenin knew this shit, hence why he legalised rape. Watch the attached .webm.

It wouldn't work because determining "purpose" in murder trials works somewhat on guesswork, just like evolutionary psychology does.

Morality is a spook to begin with. It's just used as an insincere justification for self-interest most of the time anyway.

Attached: Secret_history_of_sex_in_….webm (312x238, 11.01M)

How do you dress yourself everyday?

Good non-argument.

Attached: 1512815654842.jpg (971x565, 141.16K)

Good job spotting the obvious, it isn't an argument it is a mocking of your retardation.

No it doesn't lol
Unless you think finding evidence to support conclusions is the same as "guesswork".
I mean, that's still besides the point. You're still not showing how this is a problem when courts don't conflate function with purpose.

Attached: umaru chan corporate slave.png (1920x1080, 1.75M)

From what literature did you arrive upon this idea? Obviously sex is important but your idea is that the foundation of society is based on someway on sex slavery. This is the conclusion of your ideas, since men are entitled to sex through participation in society, the woman's opinion be damned. Despite the fact that we haven't functioned in this way, if I want to be generous to your fucked up perspective and ignore how matchmaking was done throughout history, at least the past 300 years.
I've seen this study used to justify just about any point the presenter wants to make. Despite the scientist who conducted the experiment himself considering it an issue, first and foremost, regarding living space. As well as the study not being thorough enough. I can't even imagine how it's supposed to fit your narrative since it was the male mice who willingly abstained from sex during that experiment.

...

...

Stop

What can incels offer communism?

A reactionary element.
You know what to do.

Attached: 61b21a3073287250a81c5d24ef662c1bb590d34381dc9f66c9e9f5c26b4b9f82.jpg (640x433, 29.66K)

Watch the .webm. His only criticism of the system after it was implemented was that it worked on a polygamy basis.
lmao

Impossible to reliably do when speaking in terms of intent.
They do, otherwise intent wouldn't be considered at all if the two were unrelated.
Anyway, if reproduction is not our instinctual purpose, then why have we reliably done it for millions of years?

Reading some of David Buss's work is a good start.
That's not true at all. There are many solutions that a state can provided towards the problem, like banning polygamy. Sex slavery is not necessary.
I know, we also haven't been living under left-wing libertarianism either.
It was both living space and an abundance of resources.
They also grew to have more violent tendencies as time went on.
This behaviour pattern still lead to the society collapsing lol.

Yeah I know. But all of the content in it is factual, you can look it up independently if you wish.

Pre-revolution:
Foot soldiers. Every revolution needs disenfranchised people willing to prop it up.
After-revolution:
Given that anyone can technically become an incel, supporting people in their sexual needs will prevent them from starting another revolution that tears down the propped up system.

God people do we have anything better to discuss than wheter revolution will get your dick wet or not?

Attached: b70306f4401d9dd16d6c7bc71e9b6b47b896f8fc8963162538de84889c7409a6.gif (408x410, 46.67K)

More like armchair soldiers who will sit at home talking about how nasty sluts are tearing the society down again lmao.

Thus far all the solutions you've offered have been encouraging or facilitating some level of coercion. Even going so far as stating that legalizing rape would be a sensible solution to the problem. It seems to me that sex slavery is just cutting to the chase with you.
Nah, there were pockets of mice who lived normal lives when they were able to isolate and live in a decent amount of space. The degenerative behavior was only seen in the densest areas of the utopia. Mice don't mind having unlimited access to food and water, they don't mind much of anything because they're fucking mice, but that's besides the point. Calhoun did not consider the problem to be a surplus of resources, but a lack of living space. The study was done first and foremost to investigate the effects of population density. Again, not free resources.
So what point are you arguing? Previously you were arguing that lack of access to sex would end with incel men (a minority by all accounts) violently revolting against society. The mouse experiments don't really prove that though. Since the violence wasn't due to a lack of copulation and the celibate males were the least violent.

Point wasn't that it was 100% reliable, it's that it wasn't "guesswork".

No they don't. Normally they need prior evidence before they can even treat you as a suspect.

Because it's a biological function.
That's how biological functions work.

Attached: umaru chan dancing.gif (540x300, 1.93M)

Can we stop talking of that experiment? It's unscientific garbage.

Attached: stefan_molyneux_by_neetsfagging322297-dafckkk.png (640x360, 122.85K)

Yeah but if you're going to use it for proofs at least be consistent.

Sexual liebration under communism ensures no one will be a virgin.
That doesn't mean you get a vagina though.
*Whips out dick.*
Put that cat girl cosplay on boy, time to participate in the commune.

This tbh. If you're gonna have a "right" to sex with a woman whether they are willing to fuck you or not, I'll also have a right to violate your tender boipucci.

Elliot Rodger and Nikolas Cruz

Coercion is required in just about all forms of group interactions. Without social norms, laws, etc. you can't have a society.
Nope, I'm not a Leninist.
That's great, thankfully humanity hasn't being condensing itself within small areas of land-space in the last 200 years lol. If everyone lived in tribes or even villages, inceldom wouldn't even exist, I'll admit that much.
Why else did it occur then?
Not 100% reliable = guesswork in terms of use for a verdict.
If they see you stabbing the person and arrest you at the scene, I'm pretty sure you are immediately the suspect.
So you were just arguing semantics? Okay then I concede lol.

Unscientific because?

Correct

Attached: 1422038475546.png (1000x796 1.26 MB, 685.08K)

Thank you for pointing out exactly who we DON'T want on board. Revolution =/= breaking shit or chimping out and shooting up a bunch of defenceless people. Aimless and pointless terror is counter-productive. We want people who can organize, work with revolutionary cells and carry out political objectives, not school shooters.

Read Lenin on the SR policy of terror.

Attached: 2a346845fbf9a750d4755909b88e7378a169a14a.png (680x684, 330.72K)

In other words, you are cucked.
No wonder the SA kicked the asses of anti-fascist groups in the Weimar Republic, they didn't mind doing any of that.

Population density, as I've repeated a few times now. In fact most of the violence was actually dominant males beating the shit out of the celibate ones and brutalizing the females. Eventually the celibate ones were all that remained and STILL didn't fuck the female mice.
If you want to use that to doomsay about the future of civilization go ahead, but it has very little link to inceldom.
A lot of reasons. The main one being that while humans and mice are comparable in many ways, complex social behaviors is one area where they differ drastically.
A similar study was done with actual humans that showed no negative emotional or cognitive effects when space was properly partitioned even when the density is technically kept the same.
this. One such study compared students living
in two different styles of college dormitory—corridor
versus a suite style. Those in the
corridor perceived the environment as crowded
and exhibited increased stress levels. Those in
the suite style, where the dormitory was partitioned
into a series of separate communal areas,
fared better, even though the level of density
was similar, Ramsden said. “By comparing the
two, [researchers] were able to provide evidence
both of pathology and its amelioration through
more effective design.

Mouse bullshit will not prove your point. Inceldom is not discussed in any of the literature surrounding it. The opposite tendency was actually noted during the behavioral sink. Most of them started fucking all the time.

Are you really going to try and argue this point? Fascists do not actually have a good track record.
No successful revolution is built purely on aimless looting and gunning down innocents. That's just a fucking riot.

Attached: Soviet_flag_on_the_Reichstag_roof_Khaldei.jpg (400x323, 29.1K)

Even if the mouse utopia experiment can't reliably be linked to human behaviour, there are several other studies that back me up.
Read:
Conflict between the sexes: strategic interference and the evocation of anger and upset
Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind.
From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate retention in American undergraduates
All by David Buss.

Not the experiment itself. His conclusions were unscientific and ideologically charged.

No, that's why the Bolsheviks won and the SRs were left in the dustbin of history. While SRs were throwing bombs at random policemen hoping that enough dead policemen = socialist revolution, the Bolsheviks organized and agitated.

Revolutionary terror is a necessity, but aimless terror is just chimping out.

I agree, they didn't agree with my viewpoints on inceldom enough lmao, focusing on population density and all.

The fucking status of this retort. How about you specify? That's an entire continent you just used as a reference.

I was using Holla Forums humor, sorry.

Summary of my arguments:

Attached: robot_minion_lack_of_pussy_sex_females_will_pay_for_this.jpg (640x504, 30.21K)

That also still fails to address the central thrust of his argument, dodging it with "well this is different".

I mean, I don't disagree with you but on paper you're still losing pretty badly.

Did I hear "state mandated spouses"? Going once, going twice, sold to this user.

More free time, better mental health help, state mandated socialization.

This

There are losers and there are winners in life user.

This. I too see no wrong with pedos in our society as they can do wrong if we shunned them. They are fit to be babysitters just like a murderer could make a fine butcher.

But you aren't. You are free to go out into the world and charm women into giving it freely, that's it. And vice versa, no woman is entitled to the D, they also have to find a man who will give it to them freely. What more do you want, someone forcing women and men to fuck? That sounds horrifying for all parties involved.

A program with social workers could be devised to help out people with poor social skills though.

Adam Smith didn't "develop" modern capitalism, capitalism had already been developing for two centuries in England when he finished writing the Wealth of Nations in 1176. If anyone, Locke was the first to articulate an elaborate defense of capitalism.

Because they are different. General maxims applied to all situations will result in stupid bullshit like equating free access to food with sex.
There isn't any thrust to his argument besides making this false equivalence.

...

Yes

I don't even want to read this thread because i'm sure there's at least one sexual capitalist / elitist / alpha making 50 posts in here and it's going to trigger the fuck outta me

we like you incels, we apologize for the kinda male feminism that doesn't here

Attached: randroid.jpg (600x745, 44.07K)