zthis is why paternity tests are outlawednin more civilized countries like France

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/french-men-s-insecurity-over-paternity-of-offspring-creating-a-society-of-doubt-1.773569

It has long been said that the internet was made for porn. With so much of it available for free, it could be argued that the porn stars were the losers in this situation more than the men. But now we have Only Fans, a site where women are "empowered" to toy with the emotions of men for financial gain. And every porn star has an OF. Modern prostitutes can do their job without even having to deal with how ugly or smelly the guy is.

Other than OF, there's all kinds of lingo for the ways women exploit men. Pay pig, pig butchering, sugar daddy, fin dom, gold digging etc. Call it whatever you want, but lots of women are very knowingly and shamelessly targeting men's greatest weakness for financial gain. And then they're applauded for it by their feminist man-hating covens. Usually, there is a layer of deception where they pretend to like the guy, which means it's actually just scamming. Oftentimes, the person responding to the OF DMs isn't even the person the OF page is named for. And then there are the actual romance scams which are like half of online dating profiles.

When an elderly person gives away their life savings to a scammer over the phone it's sad and the police try to chase down the scammers, but when a man does it and s*x is involved, everyone just laughs because men get no sympathy and can never be victims in our society.

For those who say the OF prostitute is the victim. There aren't really OF pimps or human trafficking. Most women are doing this as an immoral shortcut in life because they heard debasing society can be very profitable, and it feeds their narcissism. A lot of these women were very attractive and even if they had no marketable skills, they could easily have gotten into a traditional relationship and provided real value to a man and her children.

In many cases, a woman isn't even involved anymore, it's an Instagram or Twitter AI bot. Maybe once women are cut out of this scamming industry by AI, our matriarchal society will finally regulate it.

Dear How to Do It,

I'm a 26-year-old, bisexual, cisgender man whose sexual experience has been mostly with men. I've been dating "Sam" for almost six months. Sam is the first trans man I've been with and the first person I've had complete peepee-in-vagina s*x with. At first, we seemed really sexually compatible, but as we've gotten more comfortable, Sam has opened up about some kinks of his.

Sam likes to pretend to be going into heat like a dog, and wants me to pretend to be an "alpha" male who is uncontrollably attracted to his smell and takes him as his conscious mind says no. I'm cool with the consensual non-consent aspect and even into it. The bestiality aspect weirded me out at first, but Sam assures me he is not sexually attracted to actual dogs, and anyway, neither of us has a dog. What I really don't love is that Sam persistently refers to this as "breeding." He begs me to "breed" him right as we're going for it and talks about how he's been "bred" afterward.

Even though it's obviously all a fantasy, it is really not for me. I 1000% do not ever want to be a father. I find pregnancy to be severely gross and unsexy. I'm not going to barf if I see a pregnant person out in public, but I don't want it to be any part of my s*x life aside from preventing it. If I'm not able to tune this out sufficiently, just the thought will sometimes make me go soft. Should I continue to try to be accommodating of this kink? Is there anything that could help make it less disturbing to me? Or would it be OK to ask Sam to keep the impregnation part of his fantasies to himself?

—No Pups Please

Dear No Pups,

I can't know for sure what could help make a breeding kink less disturbing to you, nor do I know what compromises might work for Sam, but the two of you should be able to have a conversation about this. It is absolutely OK to approach Sam and tell him that you're experiencing a squick (an uncomfortable and visceral reaction to a kink you're being asked to engage in). S*x should be fun for both partners, and if you're feeling disgusted about one part of what the two of you do together, you should be able to ask your partner for help navigating it or negotiate a way to avoid it.

Unless Sam has had his uterus or ovaries removed, or is using birth control, the risk of pregnancy looms in the background so you might use condoms to greatly reduce that risk. Reducing a real risk of pregnancy might make his breeding kink easier to bear. You also might consider a vasectomy, as you're certain you don't want to be a father, which could take some of the weight off of this dynamic with Sam and also any future partners you might have peepee-in-vagina s*x with. But if the two of you can't come up with ways to make the talk of breeding tolerable for you, it is more than acceptable to request that Sam refrain from vocalizing it. You can ask Sam to keep those fantasies to himself.

This is hugely ageist, being that your reaction stems solely from his age rather than from any disrespect he has shown. If his approach was respectful and non-intrusive, feeling disgust purely because of his age leans into the stereotype that older people's interest is inherently inappropriate, unwanted, or even creepy, which is a form of ageism.

Of course, attraction and relationships involve personal preferences, and someone might simply not be interested in people of a different age group—that's valid. But outright disgust just because of a respectful expression of interest from an older person reflects ageist undertones. > Just as assumptions about younger people's lack of capability or older people's limitations are ageist, assuming that age alone makes someone's interest inherently unappealing also leans that way.

Please do him a favor by letting him know he can do much better.

Edit: reading comments, darn, so many f'd up people here. Amazing.

Edit: you all really want tfg re-elected? Because this is how you get tfg re-elected.

Just the memes:

Full post:

This week, actress Anna Kendrick went viral for saying that she wouldn't get involved with any man who hadn't been to therapy. Twitter promptly rushed to dunk on her, pointing out that men who go to therapy are, well…this:

Anna Kendrick's story is a bit more complicated than her randomly deciding to rule out men who haven't seen a therapist, which I know sounds enticingly cringe to the cohort of people whose worst nightmare is an "affluent white female liberal" or AWFL (I just found out about this today, I'm obsessed.) Apparently, for the past seven years she was in a relationship (privately, with an anonymous ex-boyfriend) who was emotionally abusive. But—and this feels almost too on the nose—she also said that her couple's therapist sided with her abusive ex through most of their sessions, up until the end of their relationship.

Anna Kendrick is also not alone in this belief. I've seen countless tweets and posts saying that only when someone has "fully healed" and been in therapy for some period of time (not clear how long) are they worthy of love. As someone with OCD, which I'll always have: lol.

I get where the fiercely pro-therapy contingent is coming from. When I was growing up in the '90s, therapy was kind of taboo. It was assumed that the only people who saw a therapist had serious mental illness. I was around seven when my parents took me to a therapist (the impetus was some uncharacteristically bad behavior on my part—I TP'ed the bathroom at a restaurant, which they saw was a cry for help) and I remember telling everyone at school that I had to go to the "eye doctor" instead. Arguably this made me seem even weirder—what could possibly be so wrong with my eyes that I needed to see a doctor for them every week? But a psychologist seemed much more embarrassing. When my mom told me it was nothing to be ashamed of, I said, "The word psycho is literally in the name."

Like many relics of the '90s—prioritization of carbs over fats, glorification of small butts, Trump being a funny and unthreatening media personality—we have overcorrected. Therapy went from being a shameful secret to a requirement for full humanhood, at least for a sizable chunk of people. This trend began with some normal and probably necessary shifts in perception. We started telling teenagers, a notoriously self-conscious and mentally ill cohort, that it was okay to talk about mental health. Celebrities began opening up about their anxiety and depression. OB-GYNs started talking to moms about the warning signs of postpartum depression. You could argue that this version of "mental health awareness" was overly sanitized and only accepting of "cute" mental illnesses (I've seen how people react to some of the more taboo OCD intrusive thoughts, or personality disorders, and it's not very accepting!) But in general, this shift was needed. People thinking too positively about therapy isn't as big of a problem as other people—especially young men—being afraid to seek help.

But there were, of course, downsides. One thing I noticed was the potential for dangerous social contagion as we "raised awareness" about various mental health struggles. When I watched Degrassi in the mid-2000s, there was a very dramatic plotline where a scene-girl character grapples with self-harm. She was hardly the only representation of this stereotype, but somewhere along the line, being "emo" or "scene" became synonymous with cutting yourself. All of the "raising awareness" seemed to create awareness in kids who otherwise wouldn't have considered doing this. At my school, there was a trend among the more "alt" girls to lightly imply self harm by hiding their arms in particularly conspicuous ways. Most if not all of these girls were not actually cutting. I have to ask: was it actually beneficial that Degrassi and similar teen media had this plotline? What was the ratio of "kids who got help for cutting" versus "kids who started cutting because they saw it, or were friends with someone who saw it?" I don't know! But it's worth examining.

The other downside, of course, is the fact that as therapy became more acceptable for people as part of "self care" instead of treatment for a specific diagnosed mental illness, it attracted people who previously would have just yapped the ears off their hair stylist or bartender. And the "therapy man" who accuses you of gaslamping for asking him not to text his ex-girlfriend is a prime example.

As you might be aware from reading my other articles, I have diagnosed OCD, which wasn't diagnosed until about seven years after I started experiencing symptoms. This was in part due to the fact that it took me that long to see a behavioral therapist. Perhaps I'm a little biased, because straightforward CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) especially paired with ERP (exposure response therapy) is the only thing that's ever helped my OCD, including medication (which did nothing, unless you count s*x drive suppression as "something.") Perhaps it's a radical (or, dare I say, "crazy") belief, but I actually don't think therapy is that helpful if it's not behavioral, or otherwise formulated to target symptoms of a particular mental illness. I don't see a lot of benefit to therapy that basically exists as a series of long expensive conversations.

I've known people who were very pro-therapy despite not actually suffering from a mental illness, who treated therapy like a regular part of self-care, akin to haircuts or workouts, and while I'm happy they aren't ashamed to seek therapy, they also (and I'm speaking generally here) tend to use therapy as an outlet for venting about their various nemeses, and concluding that they are the victims of every social interaction.

I say this as someone who is a bit narcissistic—there's something extremely enticing about a narrative in which you are the innocent party whose only fault was being too nice to people who wronged you. As Trump would say, "I've been treated so unfairly." I don't think Trump and I are alone in this. There's a reason that lots of people will talk about how they "always date buttholes" or "always date crazy girls." Usually, when someone says this, it's clear that they are, in fact, the problem. But I think this sort of subclinical pop therapy—which I'll call "green juice therapy"—is extremely tempting to people who are vaguely dissatisfied with their life, but who would probably derive more benefit from tedious manual labor in Siberia than continually examining their relationships on a CB2 couch in San Francisco.

Of course, if someone doesn't have a mental illness, they shouldn't be barred from seeking therapy. Perhaps therapy can help people become better communicators and develop more confidence, even if they aren't mentally ill. I know several couples who successfully attended, and graduated from, couple's counseling for some minor issues in their marriages. But whenever I hear someone talking about how therapy has worked out so well for them, and yet they have been in therapy for multiple years with no actual mental illness or any plan to stop—I'm sorry, I just don't think that's a success story for anyone except the therapist's new beach home. This dynamic creates a very tempting niche to fill. If you're a therapist, it's a pretty sweet gig to "treat" a patient who isn't actually sick, who just wants to talk about all the people who have wronged them and have you nod along with their narrative. And what's even more tempting isn't just to treat this type of person, but to keep this sweet deal going indefinitely.

It's also worth noting that there are many people who count as "therapists" who are not psychologists. This can be fine; one of my best CBT therapists was actually a clinical social worker. But I also think that all the various paths to becoming a "therapist" attract certain grifters who might otherwise become a life coach or dog chiropractor.

This type of therapy also enables the aforementioned "therapy men." No person better exemplifies the idea of a manipulative therapy man than Jonah Hill, who went viral after a breakup with his girlfriend because of the following texts he sent, using what many refer to as "therapy speak" to basically tell her he didn't feel comfortable with her posting photos of her in her swimsuit, as a professional surfer:

I'm not going to write about Jonah Hill very much, because he's hardly the only person to do this. It seems that if you sprinkle words like "boundaries" or "vulnerability" or "trauma response" into your comments, you can kind of justify anything. Take, for example, the viral tweet (now deleted, and I can't find it) about how autism and missed social cues are responsible for repeated infidelity (look, if you can find an neurodivergent guy who has enough rizz to pull multiple hoes by accident, I'll be very impressed.)

Because these buzzwords often mean nothing, they can be interpreted however anyone wants. I saw an interesting conflict go down on Twitter when someone referred to the trauma caused by being cheated on, and they were told that this couldn't be traumatic for anyone because "nobody owns another person's sexuality." Major undertones of "I don't want something to be traumatic if it conflicts with my particular beliefs about what is and isn't acceptable." All over the Internet, it seems like trauma is selectively used as a trump card to condemn or excuse behavior, usually behavior in which you have some kind of invested interest. I can't say how often this happens in real life, though, because I think the people who employ this tactic are rarely spotted outside. But I did have a coworker who described "finally escaping a toxic relationship with the help of my therapist," only to, after a few drinks, refer to her ex-boyfriend as having broken up with her.

But anyway, this is how you get people who, with the help of a particularly compliant therapist, start leveraging "therapy speak" to excuse all their bad behavior and condemn bad behavior from people they don't like. One minute it's, "I need to seek therapy for my self-esteem," and the next minute it's, "Babe, my love language is receiving feet pics from OnlyFans girls."

I actually think this type of self-indulgent therapy is more popular with women than men, even though men get teased for it. That's not because women are more narcissistic or manipulative, but rather because therapy is more normalized among women in general so there's a larger sample size of women who seek therapy at all. As a result of this reality, men who behave this way may stand out more. But I do think that certain men discover this secret code language of boundaries and trauma responses, and use it to their advantage.

But where does that leave us—people who (at least I hope) care about mental health, including that of men? Therapy, even if you include the green juice stuff, is still a net positive overall. Some men view the ridicule of "manipulative therapy men" as ridicule of all men who go to therapy, and that's certainly not right. If you forced every man in the world to see a therapist for a few weeks, things would probably be better for men overall, and not because they got better at manipulating women into doing threesomes. But therapy is not mandated (at least not yet- just wait until Komrade Kamala takes office and forces men into therapy while she does transgender operations on illegal aliens in prison!!) so it feels especially silly to make blanket statements about how therapy "helps men become abusive," as many jeered at Anna Kendrick this week.

The answer to the manipulative therapy men isn't to condemn therapy, or to say that men who seek it are inherently worse. Some certainly are, but many others are doing the right thing for their mental health. And honestly, I don't even think that consumers of green juice therapy are necessarily doing anything wrong, even when they emerge from therapy with insufferable victimhood narratives. If anything, the therapist is to blame. The problem is that a lot of these people literally just need a group of friends, or even one friend. But the thing about friends is that if they're actually decent, they'll tell you when you're being an butthole. Ironically, sometimes people like this will cut friends out of their life if their therapist, who suspiciously agrees with everything they say, believes their friend is "toxic." And the self-perpetuating cycle continues.

There isn't much to do about this problem, but I don't think shaming men for seeking therapy is the way to go (yes, I joked about it, but I did clarify in my next tweet that I was joking! Hopefully that counts!) And anyway, even if I wasn't just joking about men who get therapy, humor is literally my trauma response and criticizing me for it is violating a really important boundary.

Its not enough to be able to force your scrote to pay child support, its not rnough to get welfare and subsidies from the government. The child tax credit is not enough!

Remember ladies to vote Kamala in November

Although many women report being victimized by gossip, fewer report spreading negative gossip. Female gossipers might be unaware they are gossiping if they disclose such statements out of concern for targets. Four studies (N = 1709) investigated whether women believe their gossip is motivated by concern and whether expressing concern for targets insulates female gossipers against social costs, while simultaneously impairing targets' reputations.

Male participants reported lower romantic interest in female gossip targets when they learned concern (versus malicious or no) gossip, suggesting concerned gossip can harm female targets' romantic prospects. Study 4 revealed these patterns extend to face-to-face interactions. A female gossiper was preferred as a social partner when she phrased her gossip with concern versus maliciously. Moreover, concerned gossip harmed perceptions of the female target as effectively as malicious gossip. Altogether, findings suggest that negative gossip delivered with concern effectively harms female targets' reputations, while also protecting gossipers' reputations, indicating a viable strategy in female intrasexual competition.

Female green and golden bell frogs in Australia will eat their male counterparts when the males' mating call displeases them.

Breeding seasons can be dangerous for male frogs that attempt to impress a potential mate: They can quickly find themselves being dragged off and eaten by an unimpressed female, researchers have discovered.

For the first time, scientists in Kooragang Island in New South Wales, Australia have observed adult female green and golden bell frogs (Litoria aurea) preying on their male counterparts during breeding season. They detailed their findings in a study published June 12 in the journal Ecology and Evolution.

The researchers first observed this behavior during a survey when they heard a high-pitched squeal.

"You hear it sometimes in the field, and it's often a frog that's being predated upon," study lead author John Gould, a postdoctoral researcher in population ecology at the University of Newcastle, Australia, told Live Science.

After following the screams, Gould discovered the distress noises were coming from a male with its thigh almost completely ingested by a larger female. She was dragging him into a hole by the bank of a pond.

"The male frog really did try to stop this from occurring, so it was grabbing onto anything around it, like sticks in the ground, to stop itself from being dragged in," Gould said.

The male eventually managed to escape. The observation prompted Gould and his team to compare their nocturnal field observations of three consecutive breeding seasons with other studies that reported instances of sexual cannibalism.

Scientists spotted a female green frog (like the one on the right) biting the hind leg of a male of the same species.

Cannibalism is well-documented in amphibians, but most reported cases involve either adults cannibalizing juveniles that were emerging from the water or tadpoles cannibalizing each other, Gould said.

Amphibian cannibalism typically occurs when large numbers of the animals congregate in the same area, such as when tadpoles emerge from eggs, and when there are notable size differences between predator and prey.

Many species of frogs are sexually dimorphic — adult females are often significantly larger than males.

"There's a very good opportunity that females can exploit their male counterparts, not only as breeding partners, but potentially as prey," Gould said.

The researchers speculated that this cannibalism may act as a natural selection process.

Females may differentiate between potential mates or prey depending on the quality of their calls during breeding season. Larger males with deeper calls may be seen as better breeding partners, leaving smaller, inferior males as potential meals.

However, Gould suggested that the superior mates may not escape predation either. Instead, once females have dumped all their eggs after breeding, they may choose to eat their mate — similar to female praying mantises, which decapitate and eat their mates during or after mating.

"It's risky for male frogs out there. They're calling their little hearts out to find a mate, but they just have to take on this extra risk of maybe being used as prey," Gould said.

Scientists still don't know for sure what influences these cannibalistic behaviors. Observations of sexual cannibalism are rare because they occur quickly. However, this may not mean that they are infrequent, Gould said.

Gould points out that field observations of amplexus — when a male frog mounts a female to fertilize her eggs — are also relatively rare, even though scientists know it is necessary for breeding.

Further research is needed to establish how frequent these cannibalistic events are and how they impact the local populations of green and golden bell frogs, the team said.

When you hit it off with a chick she'll go down on you within 3 hours of meeting. You know what I'm talking about. And yes these are urban, liberal women but still.

She doesn't know when you last showered, or if you just fricked another chick earlier that day. They just go for it.

I'm talking totally unprompted; I've literally never asked for a blowjob, they always initiate. Most egregiously I had a chick ask to go down on me when we were smoking cigarettes on the front porch of a house party on a residential street (at 3AM, thoughbeit still). I'm no player but it just happens, with such a frequency I had to confirm with my friends who said "yeah that's just what they do".

Why is this? How much of it is wanting to please him ("Guys love this, I'll do it for him because I'm that into him"), versus them getting off on the skanky/risk-seeking behavior? (I think it's mostly this one)

Maybe they like putting themselves in a submissive role? Other factors I'm missing?

What do you think? And how many of the women you've fricked went down on you within 3 hours of meeting?

I can't talk about the peel yet cuz I've just gone through the motions and my face hasn't melted off yet. I went in for IPL but my face doesn't have much sun damage since I've done it twice before and got good results. Had one freckle I wanted to get rid of but she suggested a peel instead. I wanted to try a peel so I went with that but I got another day or two before I look like the walking dead.

I got IPL on my arms though. I thought for sure it would be way easier than face, but man o' man it feels like you got the worst sunburn of your life. I walked out looking like ginger arms with a sunburn. Aloe helped but only for about 5 mins. The goal is to see really dark freckles, and I do. They are starting to fade (yay!).

My advice if you get IPL anywhere other than face is to have lots of aloe on hand. It feels just like a sunburn and hurts to shower, but aloe helps. It's just that you need to apply it a lot.

I'll talk about my peel when I'm done. I gotta do a bunch of things every day but you peel on day 3 and I got it done on Thursday.

queen shit