Cucking is worse fetish

I just read the "don't worry he knows" pasta and I'm so disgusted.
Not because of the content themselves, i just know in my heart that somewhere, sometimes something very similar happened.
Any beta male who enables this to happen should be made into a sissy and castrated.

Other urls found in this thread:

cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm
public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/socsex.html
books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=V-n71mc10B4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA105&dq=polygamy in primates&ots=zy1v9m8Dxt&sig=EVN2i6kfAv82Uhcil01YmsbkXYw#v=onepage&q=polygamy in primates&f=false
homeadvisor.com/cost/outdoor-living/install-asphalt-paving/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

They'd probably like getting castrated. They should instead be pitted against eachother over something like food or water so they understand the importance of competing with other people.

Study some evolutionary biology. Nature is very conservative; the cuckolding fetish is an evolved expression of sexual relations. Monogomy/monoamory is a social construct, in nature humans have a drive to fuck and therefore increase the likelihood to reproduce, by watching another person fucking *your* partner (your tribe all swaps partners so they all are shared and they don't "belong" solely to you like in marriage or having a gf) you increase the ability to reproduce and have more kids. More kids = tribe stronger = tribe survives. Watching someone get fucked increases the sexual and aggressive responses of the amygdala (remember: sex and aggression are both tied to the same area of the brain) so by watching others gets fucked, you start wanting to fuck as well. This made tribesman more aggressive and once someone starts fucking, they all start fucking. In short, watching people fuck is natural, just like we even have pornography now. However, what's wrong is that beta males aren't working the way they should, their amygdalas aren't up to par with normality: when they see women getting fucked it activates their sexual reception but not their aggression. That's how they derive pleasure from watching their girl getting fucked yet they do not join in as they are supposed to. In short, "cuckolding" AKA partner-swapping is not the problem, it's the timid beta males who aren't acting out the proper response, which is to join in on the fucking.

...

...

males have always wanted to defend their mates from other males
you are talking out of your ass

This.
If i know one thing of the human nature is that we are greedy, and we don't wanna share our women.
My blood boils just knowing other males breathe the same air as my gf.
If you don't feel the same, you have a testosterone lack most likely.

dude ..

You know, some day a group patriots are going to track you down on the day of the rope and ask you why you posted that image…

...

Good post.
In your opinion are there any modern drugs such as alcohol, weed, mdma, fluoride, trans fats, xeno oestrogens that may account for a deficit in the amygdala specifically? I don't think simple population variance can account for this behavioral response.

SHUT THE FUCK UP BITCH

I SWEAR TO FUCKING GOD, YOU THINK THIS IS A GAME?

THAT'S A GREAT FLAG AND YOU DISGRACED IT.

But I am a different user, user-kun.

Anyone with a modicum of intuition knows this is absolute bullshit

CUCKING IN THE NAME OF

Some of those who fuck horses

You kids will never understand true bravery.

Yeah, true bravery is opening up your borders and privatizing roads so travel is next to impossible without violating the NAP.

cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm


You should to get yourself checked for asperger's syndrome.

I am a libertarian too though, bro.

If I may derail this thread for a minute, he seems to be falling sway to a fairly common fallacy I see among the "muh social construct" crowd in that he assumes ancient peoples were somehow completely removed from the ideas we have floating around today. In his case, though, he's doing it in the opposite direction.

In his case, he's making the assertion that an idea we hold must not have existed in ancient times so the opposite must have been commonplace back then. He assumes monogamy is a somewhat recent invention and so concludes that polyamory was the norm. What I see a bit more often, though, is people taking tangible examples of historical behaviors and assuming these to be the natural state of things.

One good example of this which I hear come up every now and again goes something like this: "sexually egalitarian and even matriarchal societies have existed in ancient history so that must mean there is no natural inclination for men to take a leadership role or women to take a submissive one." You can probably recall similar examples of arguments like these involving societies where transgenderism was practiced, or homosexuality, or literally anything involving social issues today. These people have their head almost as far up their ass as the user you replied to.
They are completely ignorant to the intellectual capacities of our ancestors:
Feminism is, by no means, a new idea. Nor is communism. Nor are people who decided they'd like to fuck members of their own gender. Nor are people who decided they'd prefer to be the other gender. Polygamy/polyamory is even older than any of them. And the arguments against these ideas have persisted just as long as the ideas themselves.

There's a reason why one side consistently won the argument throughout history with few exceptions.

I just want to interject with something. Maybe people don't know or realize this, but marriage is older than christianity. It's older than religion.
Almost every single culture has a concept of marriage. It is secular in nature.

IIRC even Catholic doctrine today says as much, because it's only a Union in life and it doesn't matter in heaven.

You can also look at Christian Spain. The Church wanted to involve itself more into the lives of people and over the years you could see how first the priests wanted to bless couples, untill it turned into a religious affair and you could only marry through the church.

Haha I never pay tolls. At some point I just started driving through them. If you look at the law books, every man has the right to travel on the highways and byways of this great nation. Only if you submit to their corporate agenda are you a traitor. The United States is a corporation but The United States of America is not.


I don't like your .jpg, it is too empowering to women.

he didn't make an appeal to tradition argument though
he made a biological one

Bullshit. Where do the laws state that you can just drive through a toll booth? You can't and it's against the law. You will get pulled the fuck over or sent a ticket in the mail after they review the security cam footage exposing your license plate.

That's my point. Assuming polyamory was commonplace in some ancient societies, that does not imply a natural inclination towards it.

It's not about paying tolls, dipshit. If a country was 100% libertarian, there wouldn't be a department of transportation or public roads. Everything would be owned by individual people. So if you're driving along a "highway", you run the risk of getting shot at because you are trespassing on private property. You wouldn't be able to travel as free as we can today because everything would be privatized. Libertarianism is retarded mainly because of this.

public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/socsex.html

Oh… You must be a drivers license cuck. LOL did you pay for that privilege, cuck? If you use a fake plate, where are they going to send the bill to?


Welcome to common law and The Constitution, bitch.


That's entirely a meme.

OK. Instead of just posting a link, provide what you believe to be the important bits of information so that I can address the parts you find important to your argument.

Tell me exactly how a public road can exist in a libertarian society.

How would the infrastructure be funded and maintained?

Who would own these public roads? It certainly can't be the government. And whoever owned them would have complete control over them and could make any kooky laws he wanted to.

You can't have taxes in a libertarian society, it violates the NAP.

You think too much, little man. Now fuck off.

They are building roads for the state, idiot. That's my entire point. The guys who build roads are paid by taxpayer money. They don't just do it privately.

Simple answer:
I might own the road. But it would be retarded for me to put toll booths on it because then no one would go to my business.

What's wrong with going after other women? Males are predators by nature.

Do you know how much that would cost? Even if point B was just a couple of miles away, it would cost a ridiculous amount of money. All in the name of being a libertarian.

Also, what if you want to travel across the country? Protip: you can't unless you are willing to violate the NAP

And who owns these roads? That's the main question.

a libertarian society would find cheaper ways of doing it.
how so? The entire road system would consist of segments of roads commissioned by the individuals who need them. If someone's at point C, right next to point A, they could connect their road to A's road so that those wanting to travel to A or C from B could follow what is essentially the same road.

books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=V-n71mc10B4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA105&dq=polygamy in primates&ots=zy1v9m8Dxt&sig=EVN2i6kfAv82Uhcil01YmsbkXYw#v=onepage&q=polygamy in primates&f=false


Your opinions have been disregarded.


Whoever owns the land?
also checked

It matters not who owns an empire of dust.

Who comes up with the price to use these roads? What potential manipulation will take place as far as location of building, and what possible strategies might they implement for economic control/manipulation whether it be zoning or tolls? Why do you think putting travel in the hands of the private sector would be a good idea? Could it maybe be that anarcho-capitalism is just a meme and that maybe small government is needed for some things?

How? You're just making an assertion here. Do natural resources become more abundant just because you are libertarian? I mean, they may become a little cheaper because of the lack of sales tax but it would still be a shitload of money.

You're implying that everyone would be compliant with this system. What if some schizo redneck owned a segment of road within this system and decided to shut it the fuck down. He is in his own right to do so and there is no one who could stop him, unless you violated the NAP. That's why libertarians are so fucking retarded, they just assume everyone will go along with the program when they fucking wont. That's why we have cops and a prison system.


see above

because the government does everything in the most inefficient way possible.
someone else would commission a bypass, retard.

By the way, the system you're describing is AnCap. Libertarians do believe in a limited government.

And private citizens are more efficient somehow? Please give me an example of this. I'm not even an authoritarian but I completely disagree. If we gave a bunch of random citizens power of the transportation system it would be chaos. The better option would be to have a taxpayer funded government organization that was highly regulated to take control of it. Do you want DIY hipsters building your roads, or do you want professionals building them?

I want a bridge to be holding on to it's structural integrity by a thread every time I cross it and only get fixed when it's most profitable to do so

The women will build the roads.

111
then. I have seen them mending the roads in Epirus with good success. Why not, as well as haymaking and milking?"

I've grown tired of watching cucked minds attempt to outwit one another. Goodbye.

yes, actually, yes they are.
literally any time anything has been privatized ever.

btw. the reason roads cost so much isn't the raw materials. Pic related is why they cost so much. They'd be cheaper than dirt if we didn't insist on all this spaghetti being buried under them. But "muh health regulations" mean you can't just have your sewer pipes running above ground.

So can you give me an example of a private company that builds roads more efficiently. Hell, give me an example of a private company doing a public service that is more efficient than the government. You can't because private companies don't service public land, the state does, so shut the fuck up about that.

The same spaghetti that provides you with clean tap water and gas to power your utilities. It also allows you to flush your toilet and watch your toxic waste go down a drain and never have to deal with it again. You should just move to India if you think this shit doesn't matter.

Also, you are moving the goalposts, the things under the road aren't part of the road itself. I'm talking about labor and the asphalt it takes to build an actual road. Not all of the other things underneath. If you want to lay a thick coat of asphalt on a road for a mile or so, you are looking at shitloads of money. Not to mention all of the labor.

a

the same spaghetti which could be build above ground for much cheaper.

and all of that is dirt cheap.
lol. bullshit.

what do ancaps think about flammable tap water?

Yeah, why not build natural gas lines above ground next to roads. What could go wrong, right? It's not like a car might crash into it and cause a massive explosion.

It costs around 3K to 6K just to install an asphalt driveway. Imagine the cost when you pave a road for 5 miles.
homeadvisor.com/cost/outdoor-living/install-asphalt-paving/
You think private citizens are willingly going to pay for this shit on their own?

it's a good thing. Methane isn't water soluble so with some clever plumbing techniques they can harvest it for personal use.


it's a given that safety basically goes out the window in ancapistan. you should know this.

because of lack of competition. Go ahead and do a search on the raw materials.

Libertarians support a free market, that's a 100% competitive market. There is no regulation, therefore there is a lot of competition. I think you are confusing libertarianism with socialism.

THAT'S MY POINT RETARD

I never said we were a pair bonding species, I did say males don't want their mates to fuck other males while in the relationship, because they don't want to get stuck with taking care of another dude's kids
the statistics you provided prove nothing but that people sleep around. Wo-fucking-ho that doesn't prove that the cuck fetish is normal
btw you seem to think swinging is the samething as cucking, it isn't and I don't like swinging either, it is better then cucking

reminder this whole cuckolding thing is a (((merchant))) meme

Dunno, I'm no doc. We don't have any statistics to tell us just what percentage of people are cucks or have anything to compare it to to my knowledge. I'd say it's just a consequence of the internet making things more apparent. Vocal minority and all that.


Sorry if the truth triggers you. By the way, this may be a bad time to mention, but a woman moaning during sex is a sort-of "mating call" that's designed to attract nearby males to join in on fucking her. You're welcome.

How could I forget, when we crawled out of the ocean one of the first things we did was establish marriage. Thanks for letting me know.

And polyamory was around longer than that. Just how long do you think humans have existed?

You can cloud your mind with all the soial mores you want but you cannot escape yourself nor your genetics. Unless you want to be a tranny any time soon?

everything that is not monogamous =/= polyamory

Some beta cucks like to tell themselves that they are living polyamorous, but just because you let your gf sleep around, doesn't mean that you are in a polyamorous relationship. baka

There's no other way about it; you're either celibate, monogamous or polyamorous. What fucking reality do you live in? What other options are there?

I think there are 2 ways to look at polyamory. Either you see it as a sort of "organized relationship". Like for example Muslims who have multiple wives. They wives typcially aren't expected to fuck each other, their only bond is with the husband. It's not an equal fuck party.

Or it actually is an equal fuck party and you are only fucking each other.

Then there are unorganized relationships. Like a husband who cheats on his wife. Technically still monogamy. The wife doesn't even know. Or you are single and have multiple fuckbuddies. Or you are a beta male and you and your couple decided """together""" (only she did) that you are now polyamorous, which means she gets to fuck other guys.

If you think this is polyamorous, then fine, call it that, but then you just robbed me of a way to define "organized" polyamorous relationships. And you probably have an agenda. Either you want to show how humans are naturally polyamorous or you want to go on about muh degeneracy.

there's a fuckton more evidence suggesting early humans were monogamous, retard.
polygamy is the newcomer, not monogamy.

THIS ENTIRE THREAD

How did a thread about cucking being a shit fetish become a thread about libertarianism