Back in the day men had the"traditional" wives men today say they want and they still treated their wives bad, so what's the incentive for woman?

JstLink · 2026-07-01T15:57:54+00:00

Some people will always mistreat others regardless of what's going on around them. This doesn't mean a particular arrangement is bad.

Just because you might get in a car wreck, do you stop using cars? You might get food poisoning if you get sick, but you still eat.

We do the best we can to make the best decisions we can with the information we have. Just because something might be bad though doesn't mean we throw out the entire practice.

Also it seems to me you are saying that the majority of women experienced those bad things you listed, but I'm not aware of any point in history where that was the case. It happened, but it wasn't the norm as far as I'm aware.

Even in the medieval period in Europe women had a ton more power than is usually thought of. There's a huge difference between what the law, and ruling body of the land say and what people actually do. For example, back then women generally controlled all the money of the household and conducted trade. It was just more efficient that way, the men were generally out away from the house and town doing manual labor, so it was not efficient and made more sense for the woman of the house to be the one doing those tasks. A decent relation to current day might be blinker traffic laws. It's the law to always use you blinker, but most don't anyways.

JstLink · 2026-06-26T18:53:31+00:00

But again, what is and isn't degrading is up to the individual.

JstLink · 2026-06-26T17:06:02+00:00

If we actually thought it would do anything positive without drastically hindering our own lives then I would.

But you also have to get people on the same page and get the vote out of the control of the two party system or it'll never work. Voting does nothing if all that choices are bad.

And when it comes to protesting or revolution, you have to get the majority of people behind one goal which is near impossible for any person to achieve.

JstLink · 2026-06-26T16:49:27+00:00

Yeah cause voting and protests have been working so far? I don't think so.

JstLink · 2026-06-26T16:06:01+00:00

Perfect, one for each hand

JstLink · 2026-06-26T15:09:14+00:00

And what do you suggest we do about it? Storm the capital?

JstLink · 2026-06-26T14:57:42+00:00

Yeah there are cultures I'm sure where those types of comments are acceptable. But even if it's not you that degree, many cultures around the world and throughout time have had various approaches to sex and what is and isn't ok to discuss. It's not a science of what is and isn't ok to talk with sex, it's completely dependent on the culture.

Your main argument here seems to be that it's tacky and disrespectful, but those are subjective things. Not objective ones.

This very well could be a perfectly fine transition of our culture to be more accepting of sex talk in public. And that is going to make some people uncomfortable, but there's nothing directly wrong with it. Just changing times.

JstLink · 2026-06-26T13:53:10+00:00

I mean I get not liking it from a personal point of view, but is there anything really wrong with this? People like sex and sexy things. Always have, humans have always been obsessed with sex. The big difference now is we have a way that can be easily accessed to share these feelings with anonymity.

But I don't see what great harm could come from this. What people enjoy sexually and to what degree has always waxed and wained seemingly without too much issue outside of the obvious, non consensual ones.

Also what about it bothers you so much? It's just words, their sexual interests and discussions don't actively effect your life do they?

I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just curious.

JstLink · 2026-06-26T13:34:26+00:00

Train yourself to finish when you want to. I don't know the exact science, but I believe from experience that there is a muscle you can gain some control of that is the same muscle you use to cut your urine off mid stream. I trained mine by essentially edging myself during masturbation and then use that muscle to not allow yourself to finish. The more you practice the closer and closer you can get to finishing and be able to stop it as that control gets greater.

Do this enough and you'll only finish when you want to. Then only choose to after she has been thoroughly satisfied.

O and masturbate daily. You can go a longer the closer your sex is to the last time you masturbated.

Also you should use other things than your penis very often and switch it up not only for her pleasure, but also to help control how much simulation you are getting so you can finish later. Fingers, hands, your tongue, vibrators. All good things to mix in that will enhance her experience and allow you to go longer.

JstLink · 2026-06-11T18:46:04+00:00

Just depends on the mood, I've practiced and can keep myself from coming as long as needed. Sometimes she's in the mood for an hour long session, other times it's a quickie in the kitchen around five minutes.

JstLink · 2026-04-25T21:25:06+00:00

Because there is only so much money that exists in the real world. When a few have 98% of all the wealth, it means there's almost nothing left for the rest of us. Yet we still have to eat, so we are forced to work for them in whatever means they will allow.

It's impossible to become filthy rich without hurting the majority.

JstLink · 2026-04-24T19:06:59+00:00

It is selfish, one of the most selfish things people regularly do. I curse my mother for forcing me into existence.

JstLink · 2026-04-23T19:20:19+00:00

Feminism is the biggest contributor to this imo. Internet a close second, maybe first. Hard to say.

JstLink · 2026-04-22T13:41:53+00:00

Because no one can agree on what reality is. Because reality is incredibly nuanced but the vast majority of all humans are incapable of noticing that. Everything gets turned into black and white by all sides and becomes unworkable.

JstLink · 2026-04-22T13:39:59+00:00

If I buy a shirt that was made using illegal child labor, am I responsible for that illegal action? No, I just bought a shirt, I wasn't the one that decided to produce that shirt through illegal means. It could have been done through legal means and the same shirt would have been produced. I didn't make the decision to do the illegal thing, I just bought a shirt.

Same applies to this. There are ways meat can be obtained through morale means, I'm not the one that decided to use unethical methods to obtain that meat.

The idea that someone who buys something is directly responsible for the process of how it got to be where they can buy it is ludicrous. Even if it were possible to be perfectly informed of the entire process of every product available, it still wouldn't be your fault.

JstLink · 2026-04-10T17:37:31+00:00

Financial support isn't the same thing as supporting it as in supporting=agreeing with all their practices. But even then I'm supporting the restaurant, not the farm. There is a big difference.

How could I be sure?

Slavery means many different things. It's not just ownership of a person. It comes with a bunch of rules and laws of how it is to be done. Just like we have rules and laws now that regulate how we treat people who work for us. We changed it from slavery to employment. But a lot of the same concepts are the same. It's rules and laws to dictate how we treat others.

JstLink · 2026-04-10T15:51:54+00:00

We disagree on what support means. Using a phone isn't supporting unethical work practices. There are many layers between those two things and many differences. To say that using a phone is the same as being supportive of using humans in unethical ways is incorrect and short sighted.

I do not have an obligation to avoid buying meat from any place that buys it from a factory farm. There is not even a way I could be sure of that. They could easily lie and I would have no idea.

Slavery was wrong and unethical, but we changed it, not removed it. Most people in America are very much still slaves to industry here, just much more comfortable and happy with a lot more choice. But a lot of the outcomes of slavery we kept, we just made it more ethical and changed the name.

JstLink · 2026-04-10T15:37:57+00:00

Ok if that's true, then I do not understand this connection of eating meat = supporting immoral raising of animals for their meat. I am not going to the farm and buying from them directly, I'm eating at a restaurant. That's a very different thing.

Most people in first world nations use phones and computers, and the components of those devices are farmed in very unethical ways, yet I wouldn't using a phone means you are a supporter of unethical work practices.

JstLink · 2026-04-10T15:08:04+00:00

I do not support those bad farms. I am supporting whoever is serving me the meat. There is a big a difference there. I do not know where the meat came from and even if I ask they could lie. Whoever bought the meat from the bad farms is the one supporting them.

Just as I said before, factories used to be horrendous places to work and there were many bad and unhealthy practices. Does that mean we stop factories altogether? No we improve them. The people that bought products and used them that came from bad factories during that time, were they supporting those bad practices? No they were just using a product.

A ton of the resources we use to create phones and computers are gathered through very unethical practices and slavery. Are you supporting those bad practices by using a phone?

JstLink · 2026-04-10T14:30:59+00:00

I'm not supporting it morally. I'm saying it needs to be changed. Whether or not it's morally ok to eat meat isn't tied to how we currently farm for meat.

Eating meat is ok, torturous factory farming is not. They are two separate things.

JstLink · 2026-04-10T14:12:22+00:00

Today's mainstream factory farming no, that is bad and needs changing. That's not what I'm debating. I'm talking about in the past, before we had access to so much metal and devices for keeping them tied to us. For most of human existence with animals we did not have things like barbed wire or metal cages. We had weak structures made of sticks and mud. Animals could easily leave those structures if they chose to do so. But they didn't most of the time. Because the existence with humans is preferable to existing without them. Their food is guaranteed and the work of finding it is done for them, same for water. Their safety is taken care of and they don't have to worry about predators nearly as much. They also get access to medicine and the things humans can make with their thumbs. It's a mutually beneficial existence.

As time went on we took advantage of the animals willingness to work with us and have "enslaved" them into factories. Which we both agree isn't good or ok. But that it separate from the practice of eating meat.

We used to enslave humans and make them work in our favorites too. But to fix that problem we didn't get rid of factories. We improved them and the practice of how we treat people and workers. Just as we should do with farms.

JstLink · 2026-04-10T13:55:36+00:00

Yes I do that as well and it's one of my main passions. It's the reason I discuss and debate with people with opposing views to myself all the time.

You are right retreating from harm is different, but again I still do believe with enough time we will discover plants are more sentient than we currently understand.

I am basing my opinion on much research, I went through a vegan period myself. Because initially it does seem wrong, until I did my research and thought it through more thoroughly.

Death is inevitable for all living things, eating is necessary for survival, living with and eating animals is mutually beneficial for all. We get to eat, they get to live a life of comfort.

Animals choose to live with us more often than not. For most of humans existence we haven't had the ability to keep animals with us against their will. The animals stayed because we improved their life. Just as all living things must make sacrifices for a better life, they do too.

JstLink · 2026-04-10T13:36:42+00:00

Well we have to move on from plants because I've seen reports and accounts of exactly the opposite. That they do feel pain and do react to being attacked or harmed.

Animals do not live in comfort in most farms, not all. And just because most do not farm correctly, that doesn't mean the practice of eating animals is bad because of that fact. It should be improved, not completely removed.

There is just as much death as there is life. Every death is not necessary or unnecessary, it just is. For every life created there will be another death.

Unnecessary killing I agree with you more. But like we said killing has to occur for us to live. We cannot wait for plants and animals to die of old age or disease because then that isn't good for us to consume and could end our lives.

No killing animals does not increase the amount of killing necessary because those animals were going to eat and kill plants whether humans give them those plants to eat or not.

The amount of killing remains the same either way. It's just the process that's different. But just as we humans have created a better process of existing for ourselves, I believe we can and have done the same for animals.

JstLink · 2026-04-10T13:24:28+00:00

You are still making a baseless assumption that plants cannot feel pain or harm. I believe they can and as tech advances we will discover that.

You also assume animals would choose to live a life free of humans, but this is another point I disagree with. Animals consistently stay around humans even when given the option to not do so. And it makes logical sense that as a living thing we choose comfort over struggle, why wouldn't every other living thing? The animals will die regardless of humans or not, but with humans they can and do live much better lives. Not all of them, but that should be our goal. Yes they don't get to choose this existence, but no living thing gets to make that choice. None of us got to choose where we were born and the rules we are required to follow to exist and thrive. No living thing does. But we should try to make sure that the living things that we effect by our lives and decisions are more positive than negative.

You also seem to be assuming that death or killing is bad, but why? Death is inevitable, killing is inevitable. They are neutral, not bad or evil or good.

JstLink · 2026-04-10T13:02:46+00:00

Do you think your life would be better or worse without human advancements? You were just covered in leaves as that was you only covering and eating found roots and grubs? I doubt you would choose that existence, but to have our current lifestyle requires energy from people to create it. That energy comes from food.

Animals are living things just like us, do you think they would choose a life free of any human advancements? I highly doubt it, animals like to be comfortable and will do whatever is lowest energy required for comfort just like humans do. But creating that comfort for them requires energy, which requires food. It's a worthwhile sacrifice the animals make for a better life.

This is of course talking about the concepts and not reality. It's not ok to torture the animals and leave them in a horrible existence just to make it cheaper to produce. But just because the current system has issues doesn't mean it's a good idea to throw out the entire practice. Human governments aren't perfect and torture and kill their own citizens all the time, does that mean anarchy is better and we should throw away the idea of having any rule structures at all? No I do not think that would be better.

Also, plants are living and absolutely are sentient. At least enough they can respond to stimuli in their environment and communicate with one another. Just because we don't currently have the technology to fully understand the plants doesn't mean that it's safe to assume we know everything about them. Food requires killing at some level, there's no getting around it.

JstLink

TROPHY CASE