MGTOWs think it’s hilarious that Charlie Sheen may have given HIV to “hypergamous” women

“Also, dipshit MRAs–sleeping with Charlie Sheen (or any other celebrity) doesn’t make these women “hypergamous” even by your own horribly twisted definition, unless the women were in relationships at the time with men who were unaware of their dalliance with Sheen. I strongly suspect that most of Sheen’s encounters have been with women who were not, in fact, involved with anyone else in particular.”

They mean those women passed up “indicators of interest” from “regular Joe’s” for Charlie. But let’s examine this idea that women trade up. If that were the case we’d see women en masse divorcing every 2 years or so for someone “more alpha” than the previous husband. So most women would be married and divorced dozens of times before old age and death.

… I see lambskin all the time sold as latex free. I was kind of weirded out the first time I saw them, but they certainly exist. I don’t know why you would use them unless you couldn’t wear latex though, since they’re supposed to reduce feeling even more and not prevent STDs

There’s no way MEN would sleep with an attractive popular movie star given a chance.

There’s no double standard, no unreasonable expectations for men, no nothing other than them being judgmental pricks.

Ugh. I’d say these people are repellent, but… I mean, this is the behaviour I expect from them. I can’t rouse an appropriate level of anger at it, just a sort of cynical ‘that’s what I figured you’d say’ feeling of disgust.

Need a vacation from the human species for awhile. Any suggestions?

OT: Some high school kid stabbed a girl in the neck after she refused to go to prom with him because she was going with her boyfriend. He brought the knife to school the day he stabbed her so it was premptive. :/

The article is also terrible.

Virtually,
Some people have thin lips. I’m not sure why you needed to bring that up. There’s a lot of villainy to go around. No need to mock a physical feature that plenty of non-assholes have.

@WWTH

I must not have read the date correctly then wth. Sorry.

I’m just relieved it didn’t happen again!

Ew. I just read in the news about a suuuuper creepy case of a 40 year old dude who paid a 14 year old girl for sex, but was not convicted of statutory rape because he claimed not to know her real age (she looked older! she seemed sexually experienced!). Even though she had told him in a text she was 14! She had literally told him straight up: “I’m 14”, and he’s still getting away with saying he didn’t know she was 14. The trick? He thought she was “age playing”. Not kidding. What the fuck, society.

I checked. It turns out Lambskins are sold country but only with the very specific warning they do not protect against STDs. Other latexfree Condoms do protect against STDs so why these things are even sold is beyond me.
Polyurethane, polyisoprene or other synthetic materials are all cheaper than lambskin and there is less loss of sensation.

I’m tired of the whole hypergamy argument. It’s nonsensical to me; like men don’t dump women everyday for someone “better”. As a matter of fact, other men would consider them out of their minds for not going for it, so they can just stick their resentment that women have choices where the sun don’t shine.

lambskin condoms, which prevent pregnancy but do jack against STDs. So it isn’t like there was no attempt at using protection.If I understand the science correctly, that’s a gross exaggeration. It’s a common misconception that PP and Trojan are relatively happy to let stand because it’s safer to just steer everyone away from lambskin than to have a nuanced conversation about it. I don’t blame them, honestly. However:

The truth is that we don’t know how effective lambskin is against STIs. Tons and tons of studies have shown that latex and polyurethane are extremely effective; therefore, health educators and doctors focus on convincing patients to use the ones we already know to be both cheap and safe. Lambskin isn’t widely used and we don’t have many big longterm studies on users.

The key phrase you see on a lot of product descriptions or health websites is “”lambskin should not be used to prevent STIs”, not “lambskin provides no protection at all against STIs.” The idea is that if there are well-studied, extremely-reliable options, you should use those rather than gambling on an unknown quantity — which is a totally reasonable point. I would also not recommend switching to lambskin if you have serious concern about STIs.

However, the reality is that lambskin is almost certainly more than 0% protection — maybe a lot more. Maybe as good or nearly as good as latex. I’m told that the idea that lambskin was dangerous didn’t come from studies of users, but from lab tests on the condoms themselves, and that the condoms were subjected to some pretty extreme conditions. Researchers demonstrated that HIV can pass through a lambskin condom by doing like mixing up some water with a very high concentration of HIV, filling the condom with liquid, letting it sit for several hours, and then checking the outside to see if any of the virus had passed through. It failed that test, while latex passed, so that’s definitely a point for latex. On the other hand, people rarely fill a condom with semen and leave it there for hours, so it’s not clear how big a problem this is.

I was under the impression that HIV transmission via lambskin was like pregnancy via pre-ejaculate, or HIV transmission via oral — there a physical mechanism by which it could happen, so doctors tell you not to take the risk, but we’re not sure that it ever actually does happen.

http://img41.glitterfy.com/13245/glitterfy3072320T629B81.gif

Assuming that embeds, I leave it here without further comment.