Here is a case of the “double-standard” in reverse.
yahoo.com/gma/luke-bryan-de … music.html
Reply comments:
That last comment speaks volumes.
If a man would have done it, then he would have been fired.
So you can’t accuse me of double-standards when they are this obvious. If you don’t know the “double-standard” by now then you’re just out of touch with reality.
Why is it socially forgivable for an adult woman to have sex with a young male, but not an adult man to have sex with a young female?
What does this trend represent, biologically? Why are young women “off-limits” to older men? What kind of danger or threat to greater society does it represent, that young women are ‘taken’ by older men? And why is this danger one-sided? Why is it forgivable that an older woman seduces a young man?
Or he thinks he does…
dw.com/en/virginity-surgery-is-o … a-14881879
Actually, I think it’s some kind of sick fetish for men, which may even incentivize men to “deflower” women at a younger age, in other words, it may actually encourage pedophilia.
Taking a girl’s virginity is like licking your mouth all over a pie, or any dish. Who wants to eat it after that?
Do you want to eat your dinner at a restaurant if the chef licked it? No, you don’t.
Aristotle wished women to marry at 18, men at 37: they were then in the prime of life respectively, and the decline in the powers of both would coincide.
No, men do not care. I knew a women who fucked “guitar guy” in the morning, “construction guy” in the afternoon, then “college guy” in the evening and they all knew of each other and then she tried to make me feel judgmental for not wanting any part of it. She didn’t want to be like that though; she just wanted one man, but couldn’t find one man who only wanted her, apparently. She was compensating somehow with that behavior… it filled some kind of void. I was surprised she couldn’t see it as nasty and even more surprised that the guys couldn’t.
This reminds me of a certain David Allan Coe tune that I’m sure I’m not allowed to post here 
This is also why men with such super possessive mindset, like in Islam, and who see females as their own property, also began to endorse pedophilia and child marriage. Just so they can be the first and only. This view doesn’t even recognize females as equal human beings. Again, this is about the men, and their needs and their own insecurities. The women are things to them.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LE3QARjIZg[/youtube]
So your argument is that women are okay with a stranger, a chef spitting in their food at a restaurant?
You’re gross, Pandora.
Urwrongx1000 wrote:
It seems to me Ur you have experienced some hard times and great deprivation, but managed to survive it.
I have great admiration for a man who can ‘resist’ the casual fuck, they are rare indeed.
There is nothing attractive about a man who is a philanderer, they never change, or a woman who thinks they should bed a man simply because he takes her out for dinner.
Up yours, dyke. 
That is just what a ‘pussy’ would say. 
I’ve never, in my entire life, seen a woman defend the ideal of chastity and reducing female promiscuity. Not once.
Not once.
This signals to me that females are naturally promiscuous, as dominant males are, and that women gain natural advantages through promiscuity. A woman wants to think of herself as retaining her original value, even after been through a dozen guys. A woman wants to believe she is pristine, after being run through the gauntlet. She does not think less of herself. And she will be offended at anybody bringing up the idea that she has less value than before. “How dare you judge me?” Furthermore she will attempt to shame, humiliate, and ostracize any man who disparages female promiscuity, as seen in this thread.
Pandora wants to draw-parallel that “you must be an Islamic Radical Muslim” if you don’t want sloppy-tenths. That’s her best argument.
It’s not convincing. Yes I would rather be a Radical Muslim than receive sloppy-tenths. You’re right. Well done.
Perish the thought.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G43Grbgupds[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze69ySTnBA8[/youtube]
. It’s not about some purity or chastity or whatnot, it’s about a group of mediocre men having complete control over women’s sexuality and choices, or eliminating it completely. It’s about men looking after men. The man’s best argument is, if you save yourself for me I will value you more, as if a woman’s value naturally comes from a man’s opinion of her. These men treat women as glorified chattel, with a grading system. As for Radical Muslim argument, the underlying insecurity and need is the same, except in Islam it has reached its full outward expression. It could also be Christian, or Sikh, or Hindu. The men excuse themselves by pointing to God, god said this or god said that, but who are we kidding? Some lonely and horny dudes were probably sitting in a desert, staring at their goats and thinking of all the different ways to get laid, and ensuring all their friends get laid too, so they invent and enforce a system of trading and sharing females, and in defense, pointing to some Devine edict as its justification. But then imagine you’re a child born for the purpose of being sold to some family because of some business deal or agreement that was made by family members. Children born as working or trading material to be used and bought/sold. I don’t care how rich or respected you are, you were still created to be a trading chattel. And that child has, by some twisted logic, the highest bidding value, but not as his own agent, because as an individual he does not even exist, or has a zero value.