[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/R9K/ - Robot - 9000

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1655854016805.jpg ( 119.76 KB , 1280x720 , bimbotiktok.jpg )

 No.240

Is the bottom finally starting to fall out from 3rd and 4th wave feminism? Right now bimbos are trending on tik tok and the fully embracing the male gaze growing popular among zoomer women. Along with divine feminism, which is almost an anti-feminism ideology that encourages women to become stay-at-home moms and obedient housewives if they wish to, and assuages their fears about it being demeaning to themselves and women as 3rd and 4th wave feminists are so keen on proselytizing.

One prominent bimbo tiktoker describes the bimbo lifestyle as an "ego death". Where women stop trying to foster masculine traits in themselves and instead cultivate their natural vulnerability, gentleness, and hunger for the sexual desire of men. Bimbos claim these innate traits of most straight women have wrongly been maligned by feminist as naivete, weakness, and subjugation by the patriarchy.

I think women gravitating to the antithesis of feminism is primarily due to the deteriorating economy, having a committed husband or boyfriend is quickly becoming a necessity as it has been throughout most of captialism. And bimbos encapsulate in a extreme manner, the things women have always known men want. I think there's also other converging trends at work.

Millennial women are now hitting middle age in earnest, and zoomer generations are seeing the poisoned harvest of feminism. Many millennial women are alone and miserable as either single mothers, divorcees, or spinsters that were never wed and face a future devoid of companionship.

Women have also gotten to experience capitalist alienation first hand for 60 years and are realizing that as much as a eunuch a housewife can be, it's still far better than being a prole. Zoomer women are realizing what men have always known, that only a small percentage of workers ever find a fulfilling career, everyone else just works to make money until they die.

I think this bimbo trend is the beginning of a wider revolt among zoomer women against feminism. Feminism can no longer hide its failures, and zoomer women cannot be spooked by horror stories of past female oppression like not being able to open checking accounts, since they have no living memory of it. And even if rights like abortion are taken away, modern technology, like the nearly dozen birth control methods that are available now, will mitigate much of the harm and keep zoomer women from reradicalizing. What do you guys think?
>>

 No.241

>>240
*and fully embracing the male gaze is growing popular among zoomer women.
>>

 No.242

>>240
This feels like a pretty bad attempt at ideological subversion
capitalism won't give you a girl-friend or a wife. Capitalism worsens the material conditions and that makes it harder for people to pursue romance or start a family.

Also please don't use social media to find out about sociological trends, these things use algorithms to show you tailored content to make you engage more with the platform, it's not representative of society.
>>

 No.243

>>242
People didn't have issues finding partners under capitalism until as late as the 1990's. And this bimbo trend is being reported in places like "The Rolling Stone" and Buzzfeed so it's not just a case of an algorithm showing me what I want to see.

It's just hard to accept how much social media, which was a big proponent of femibism, has warped society. The current pro LGBT androgynous milieu goes so much against how people naturally are it could only held up by expolisive economic growth. Now that social media and the economy in general are in decline you're starting to see the booj's 2010's social engineering project crumble.
>>

 No.244

>>242
>Also please don't use social media to find out about sociological trends, these things use algorithms to show you tailored content to make you engage more with the platform, it's not representative of society.
Social media is very much representative of youth culture, like who do you think is making apps like TikTok the most used apps of all time.
>>

 No.245

in short they're coping hard, women are fascist, they will be completely subservient to the status quo as long as they can keep their womb safe short-term which is what their whole existence boils down to

dicks are the wheel of history
>>

 No.246

>>243
>People didn't have issues finding partners under capitalism until as late as the 1990's
That is only half true. During the period of social democracy capitalism was indeed less harmful to human beings and interfered less with social life. But the way it is today is basically just capitalism returning to the mean. The socdem period was the exception. The hundreds of years of capitalism prior to that, were more similar to today than you might think.

The rest of your post is difficult for me to understand. I don't really understand what you mean with the bimbo vs androgynous dichotomy. I thought that bimbo meant using lots of product like hairspray and make up. How is it related to Sexual dimorphism ?
>>

 No.248

>>245
based
>>

 No.249

File: 1655973659674.jpg ( 147.53 KB , 600x850 , cherry.jpg )

>>246
>That is only half true. During the period of social democracy capitalism was indeed less harmful to human beings and interfered less with social life.
Dude, people got hitched at near 100% levels back in the Victorian era. The collapse of post WWII social democracy has nothing to do with why there's more incels now.
>The hundreds of years of capitalism prior to that, were more similar to today than you might think.
NO THEY WERE NOT
>I don't really understand what you mean with the bimbo vs androgynous dichotomy. I thought that bimbo meant using lots of product like hairspray and make up. How is it related to Sexual dimorphism ?
Bimbo, at least as the subculture is now, isn't simply a woman that applies too much makeup or wears clothes that are too revealing. It's a woman that solely focuses on being sexually attractive to men, often forgoing what's fashionable and socially acceptable to other women and society at large.

Since feminism posits that men are inherently oppressive of women via patriarchy androgyny, homosexuality and erotophobia are huge themes in this ideology and have since become fixtures in the cultural zeitgeist.

Bimbos are a loud rejection of all that. From their thick dick sucking lips, blonde teased hair, thin waists and big boobs, they are among the most extreme expressions of binary gender conformity.

The aesthetic is maximizing sexual attraction (often to a comical degree) for CIS Men. The garish look is repellent to lesbians and straight women since it's has zero subtlety. It completely demystifies female sexuality and makes it as base as a males, at least to a feminist's eyes. Something men appreciate and women see as being to their determent.

Obviously it's also the real or implied promiscuity of bimbos that anger feminists as well. You see, it's not that bimbos simply having a lot of partners, most modern feminist women also have body counts that are deep into double digit territory. It's that bimbos will sleep with ANY man. Their entire demeanor is again the antithesis of a feminist's. They're passive, speak softly, and are "dumb" or at least faint it and therefore are not challenging to a male's ego. They're also flirty, and submissive as to make it easy as possible for a male andy male to know that all he has to do to get sex is to ask. A bimbo does not make a male "work for it", or expect their male partner to first meet some sort of standard before considering him for a sexual tryst.

Bimbos in the past used to be reviled because they undermined women's ability to get commitment. "Why buy the cow if the milk is free" as they say, or why would the average Joe court and plain Jane when a bimbo will give him sexual gratification now. But that was women would wed early and often would have a partner count that could fit on a single hand.

Now a days they are hated because they undermine women's monopoly on sexual gratification for men. Access to sex is the greatest tool women in the West use to control men in and outside of relationships. This is why prostitution was banned, why homosexuality is promoted, and why there's endless moral panic about pornography and sex robots from the women's liberation movement.

So as you can see, bimbos are very loaded paradigm in the puritanical feminist US. So it's very interesting that they seem to be making a comeback, and it's very very significant politically.
>>

 No.250

>>248
i'd unironically be pro-feminist if it wasn't led by women. they are the very thing that needs to be fixed and you can't expect them to act abstractly so we get in these loopholes
>>

 No.260

>>249
>Dude, people got hitched at near 100% levels back in the Victorian era.
What makes you think that ?
In the victorian era most people couldn't even afford to rent more than a single room. How could they possibly afford raising a family. Also many people died very young, before they raised a family. You may have a very distorted view of how capitalism was before social democracy. It was truly awful. Neo-liberalism is a path back to that very shitty past.

>Since feminism posits that men are inherently oppressive of women

That's just sexism. Rich Bourgeois women hating on poor working class men. It's just class hatred behind a veil. People like that are really shit, you can go after them specifically, without making it into a conflict between all men and all women. Capitalism ruins everything by changing things into bourgeois versions, that reflect bourgeois class interests. If you look at early socialist feminism, they were just trying to establish man and women as equals, there was no beating each other down. A socialist lady from the early 20th centry called Rosa Luxemburg wrote a long rant about bourgeois feminism, maybe read that.

I'm not going to comment on things i consider sexual preference, that's just a recipe for creating unnecessary conflict.
I will say that strange stuff is going on, like some people appear to be implying that sexual dimorphism is bad for some reason. Maybe we should push back on that a little, because that seems reactionary.

You also have to beware of those that turn filth into theory.
Politics is exclusively about economics, if anybody tries to make politics about sex, they are most likely class traitors that are trying to distract you with sex from their reactionary politics. I think that somebody is trying to trick you to hand over your surplus to capitalists. They are just pretending you'll get a nicer girlfriend that way, but they won't deliver, Capitalism wants to make people atomized so they can turn social relations into commodities, they want to be middlemen for intimacy.
>>

 No.1153

himbos are where it's at
>>

 No.1316

>>260
>>Dude, people got hitched at near 100% levels back in the Victorian era.
>What makes you think that ?
Statistics, men and women not getting married is a new phenomenon, at least to the Christianized West. Being poor make people get Married more not less. Halving all your living expenses with a partner is a necessity for poor adult women. Only educated or Western women supported by a welfare state have the luxury of dilly dallying about when they get married.
>>

 No.1317

>>260
>I will say that strange stuff is going on, like some people appear to be implying that sexual dimorphism is bad for some reason.
Well yes it is because humans are aren't dimorphic ib4 hermaphrodite edge cases. So insisting that you are is just torturing material reality with your obtuse ideological overlay.
Also, it's clearly that more youths are turning to queerism as a form or rebellion. All generations of youth do that but the difference this time is that a tattoo won't warp your sexuality after you've grown out of it and make it challenging to find partners in the future.
>>

 No.1318

You can't turn a ho into a housewife

But you can turn a housewife into your own personal milf bdsm pornstar
>>

 No.3604

Would any of you lads say that stepfordization is like a reverse bimbofication? Or is it a specific type of Bimbofication?
>>

 No.3645

File: 1694580555373.webm ( 5.74 MB , 680x382 , chipmunks.webm )

>>3604
I feel like it's two sides of the same coin. What's the defining trait is the fulfillment of men's desires and fantasies.
A bimbo is the ultimate woman for a single man that's primarily concerned with sexual fulfillment. While a Stepford wife is the ultimate fulfillment of the expectations of a married man who needs someone to take care of a household and has a public reputation to maintain.
It should be noted the a Stepford wife is a mean spirited feminist parody a traditional housewife. Stepford wives were intended to show that a woman cannot fulfill their traditional role without relinquishing all their anatomy and becoming lobotomized robots.
>>

 No.3666

File: 1694847068970.jpg ( 516.2 KB , 1214x2126 , alunya housewife.jpg )

>>3645
>Stepford wives were intended to show that a woman cannot fulfill their traditional role without relinquishing all their anatomy and becoming lobotomized robots.
Good point. Of course that backfired and it just became a fetish.
>A bimbo is the ultimate woman for a single man that's primarily concerned with sexual fulfillment. While a Stepford wife is the ultimate fulfillment of the expectations of a married man who needs someone to take care of a household and has a public reputation to maintain.
Really good explanation m8.
>>

 No.3667

>>3666
That's a fucking Chad's bastard, Alunya, you whore!
>>

 No.4959

>>243
>muh social media is ruining realistic perception.

My friend, befire social media, it was TV.
Before TV, it was periodicals.

Also, the 1990s brought about stranger danger whoch is what contributed to decline of youth sexuality.

>>240
>muh bimboification is finally putting women in their place.

This is why you guys always end up getting fucked over. Ypu all come up with the most interesting strawmen.
>>

 No.4960

>>244
Not exactly.
Its represenetative of the current year culture.
Everyone over thirty uses social media as well.
>>

 No.4963

File: 1707890049167.gif ( 3.58 MB , 480x346 , 1706708229474028.gif )

>>4959
>muh bimboification is finally putting women in their place.
It's like you didn't read my post at all.
>>

 No.4967

>>4963
I read your post.
Ypure saying that bimboification is about women finally "realising" that "traditional femininity" was the better choice in life.

Have you ever considered that maybe theyre just using a differing tactic because the neon haired landwhale dyke look doesnt get them approval anymore?
>>

 No.4970

File: 1707971254956.jpg ( 80.96 KB , 707x1000 , 1704534672470072.jpg )

>>4967
>You're saying that bimboification is about women finally "realising" that "traditional femininity" was the better choice in life.
One, being a bimbo I.e. being not only promiscuous but being undiscerning about has never been traditional.
And yes, it objectively is if you want male attention. This is like kindergarten level socialization. If you want someone to like you you have to appeal to them.
>Have you ever considered that maybe theyre just using a differing tactic because the neon haired landwhale dyke look doesnt get them approval anymore?
It's not just a different tactic. Modern feminism is adversarial to CIS men. It challenges them to forego basic human desires like attraction to beauty in service to increasingly unhinged anti male ideology.
This bimbo trend is not just not oppositional, it's completely subservient to male sexuality and men.
>>

 No.4971

>>4970
>It's not just a different tactic. Modern feminism is adversarial to CIS men. It challenges them to forego basic human desires like attraction to beauty in service to increasingly unhinged anti male ideology.
This bimbo trend is not just not oppositional, it's completely subservient to male sexuality and men.

You really are naive. You are like those alt right retards whom fall for trad thots.

These millennial/zoomer bimbo trendsetters are just using a new tactic.
Theyre getting craftier.
Also, again, female youth lives on male adoration.

Young women whom are never seen romanticially / sexually in the eyes of men are often easily embittered or totally clueless which is kind of a turn off for men.
>>

 No.4972

>>4963
>spinning bowl of homemade potato fries
>forgets the ketchup
>forgets the homemade cheeseburger

No wonder why incels are always seen as incomplete men.
>>

 No.4973

>>243
>And this bimbo trend is being reported in places like "The Rolling Stone" and Buzzfeed so it's not just a case of an algorithm showing me what I want to see.


How is Rolling Stone amd Buzzfeed any different than TikTok in cultural reporting?

Damn, you really are shallow.

You deserve to get swindled and swayed by sashaying tradthots.
>>

 No.4974

File: 1707981268342.jpg ( 236.36 KB , 1115x831 , 1699496798652.jpg )

>>4971
>You really are naive. You are like those alt right retards whom fall for trad thots.
I think you need to travel more. Gender relations outside the west aren't this ridiculously strained.
You see subservience in females and immediately color it with your liberal feminist animosity.
I'd say you've never really satisfied a woman either. If you had you'd know once you have they'll eat out of your hand. It's called vulnerability, and it comes natural to everyone except indoctrinated eroticaphobic zombies like yourself.
A real relationship, even just a sexual one is always giving and forever taking. But what a woman wants from me comes natural to me as a man and vica versa.
Another think your socially stunted lens failed to see is that this bimbo trend is tongue in cheek.
It's a criticism of where modern feminism had brought current gender relations. These women feel to signal to men they're masculinity is welcome they can't be subtile lest they get drowned out by all the other women that implicitly accept misandirst feminism with their silence.
They are telling the world that in order to make men feel comfortable enough to do something as simple as express sexual interest they have to build indicators bright enough to guide an airliner in.
Their hyper femininity is as much an admonishment to people like you as it is an appeal to men.
>>

 No.4980

>>4974
The traditional women outisde of he west dont dress up so slutty.

Also, non-liberal countries arent some Edenic country.

Alot of those non-western women still meed to hitch onto a high prospect male.

Yes, women now realise that the neonhaired bulldyke persona is a turn off to men and are doing a 180 on their persona because now gender equality is going into technical/practical areas that they dont like.

(Selective service for women, competing for high prospect jobs, etc.)


Theyre trying to seduce men in order to get men to re-ignite chivalric impulses and save them from mutual civic responsibilities.
>>

 No.4981

>>260
everything you said is true especially the last part.
>>

 No.5064

>>4973
Bruh, over 100 million Americans have a Tik Tok account. It's so big Gen Z doesn't even use Google as a search engine anymore, they use Tik Tok.
>>

 No.5066

>>5064
So you mean it's AOL shit all over again?
>>

 No.5068

>>5064
Alot of people have accounts on FaceBook amd Twitter.

What difference dos it make?

>>5066
Everything comes full circle. It never ceases to amaze me that people still continue to create generational divides despite everyone using the same if not similar media in the past three decades.
>>

 No.5069

File: 1708843220182.jpg ( 76.27 KB , 680x621 , 1704566826899620.jpg )

>>5068
>Alot of people have accounts on FaceBook
Abandoned, no one but Boomers and lumpenproles use Facebook
>amd Twitter.
Twitter was never even close to the size of Facebook, and after Elon took over it's hemorrhaged users.
>>

 No.5070

>>5069
Again, what difference does it make?

FacwBook became more business-oriented. Employers and credit companies use FaceBook as a datamine.

Young people still use FaceBook but only as an employability license.

Twitter is more a beer hall.
>>

 No.5165

>>5070
>Again, what difference does it make?
You're talking about two social media sites irrelevant to the cultural zeigeist
>>

 No.5168

>>5165
>FaceBook and Twitter are irrlevant in the current zeitgeist.


Imageboards never cease to amaze with their autistic worldviews.
>>

 No.5173

>>5168
You're out of touch bro. Facebook is for boomers and Twitter is a dumpster fire. Instagram, and Tik Tok are what define culture.
>>

 No.5174

>>5173
Tictok isn't th cultural hub it once was either. Tictok has become rather shitty as of late as it's nothing but garbage content constantly flowing into the minds of Imbeciles.
>>

 No.5189

>>5173
>>5174
TikTok is one of the five main cultural hubs.

Also Boomers arent limited to FaceBook. They also go on Twitter.

You guys are seriously atomised in your worldview.

But then again, this is an imageboard.

Everything that imageboards claim to be: ("we are not like Reddit, Twitter, TikTok, FaceBook, and fbi.gov"), they show to be the opposite (theyre just like them)
>>

 No.5192

>>5189
You gotta be some Gen X'er of elder millennial. Popular culture is defined by 18-29 year olds. And Tik Tok Insta far and away had the demo locked down.
Does someone like Taylor Swift, Icy Spice, or Olivia Rodrigo even have a fucking Facebook account?
>>

 No.5193

>>5189
You're out of touch for reasons I explained above.

>>5192

You're confusing popular culture with youth culture. The cutting edge of under ground culture has typically been the real of youth but popular culture isn't defined souly by a certain age bracket that I contradictory to the concept of being popular, lol.
>>

 No.5195

File: 1710177812833.png ( 45.92 KB , 288x355 , 1704841410049247.png )

>>5193
>You're confusing popular culture with youth culture.
It's a distinction without a difference.
>The cutting edge of under ground culture has typically been the real of youth but popular culture isn't defined souly by a certain age bracket
Again just splitting hairs.

>that I contradictory to the concept of being popular, lol.


This is a cope that niche fashionistas like you tell themselves. That the substance of their culture carries them into the Zeitgeist. Nope, you're really really meaningful and thought out aesthetic is not a part of the conversation. You also live in the past and believe that you're niche because the mainstream can't see your vision. That might have been true 20 years ago but we live in an era where unknowns regularly go viral with overnight.
>>

 No.5207

>>5192
>you must be an out of touch boomer.


Ah yes, the derogatory implications of being a Baby Boomer when youre not derogatorising Gen Z

Again, your autistic hyperspecific terms is just typical of imageboard.

>>5195
>image is ironically more describing of anon than he cares to admit

>>5193
YOURE OUT OF TOUCH
IM OUT OF TIME
BUT IM LOSING MY HEAD WHEN YOURE NOT AROUND
>>

 No.5208

>>5192
Explain MAGA. Thats mainly people iver thirty.

Also, lets be honest: whats the fundamental differencebetween Gen X, Millennials, amd Gen Z?

Everything in our popular culture has been roughly similar since 1986.
If anything, we are all rehashing Gen X.
Millennials didnt invent anything.
All the "OG Internet culture" millennials claim to be was given to them by Gen X
>>

 No.5209

File: 1710286771299-0.jpg ( 397.8 KB , 717x1803 , Screenshot_20240312_193842….jpg )

File: 1710286771299-1.jpg ( 380.08 KB , 715x1842 , Screenshot_20240312_193402….jpg )

File: 1710286771299-2.jpg ( 390.25 KB , 720x2021 , Screenshot_20240312_193225….jpg )

>>5192
>Does someone like Taylor Swift, Icy Spice, or Olivia Rodrigo even have a fucking Facebook account?


https://m.facebook.com/OliviaRodrigoOfficial

https://m.facebook.com/TaylorSwift

https://m.facebook.com/icespicemusic1
>>

 No.5220

>>5195
>>5192
Popular culture is defined by 21-45 year olds.


Also:
>This is a cope that niche fashionistas like you tell themselves. That the substance of their culture carries them into the Zeitgeist. Nope, you're really really meaningful and thought out aesthetic is not a part of the conversation. You also live in the past and believe that you're niche because the mainstream can't see your vision. That might have been true 20 years ago but we live in an era where unknowns regularly go viral with overnight.

Alot of those nobodies whom get "overnight success" got success gradually and had to depend on monetisation.
Theres more nobodies braodacsting than ever before with little to no views.
>>

 No.7458

Bumping for interest
>>

 No.7459

>>240
>almost an anti-feminism ideology that encourages women to become stay-at-home moms and obedient housewives if they wish to, and assuages their fears about it being demeaning to themselves and women as 3rd and 4th wave feminists are so keen on proselytizing.
this kind of thing has more to do with economics than meets the eye. as the petit-bourgeois-aspirationalist careerist woman of the 1st world is a less and less viable path for the average woman to take, and proletarianization into minimum wage manual labor jobs is miserable alongside motherhood, the path of seeking a financially stable male partner, embracing traditional roles, etc. become more appealing than individualism and careerism. Non-socialist feminism was never about what's good "for women," it was always about maximizing the social standing of the individual woman.
>>

 No.7460

>>7459
this.
Women should appreciate singlehood.
>>

 No.7467

>>5209
Bro I was being factitious, of course they have Facebook accounts. But it's obviously out of obligation. These artists aren't engaging with fans on there. Any professional social media expert will tell you the center of their universe is Insta and Tik Tok. The most popular feature on Facebook is marketplace which is just a glorified classified ad section. Artist and taste makers are not building followings on Facebook.
>>

 No.7481

ITT: leftists proving that leftism is a reactionary movement of the sexual bourgeoisie.
>>

 No.7483

>are trending on tik tok
Just like other sexual content of yesterweek, be it so-called goths (not goths), clown roleplay, or the last porn trend. Big fucking whoop. People gawk on TikTok.
>I think women gravitating to the antithesis of feminism is primarily due to the deteriorating economy, having a committed husband or boyfriend is quickly becoming a necessity as it has been throughout most of captialism.
haha imagine marrying a bimbo. ok retard
>And bimbos encapsulate in a extreme manner, the things women have always known men want.
why yes i want to give money to an infantile sex doll who will accidentally cook my child in a locked car! how could you tell!
>>

 No.7485

>>7467
Still, FaceBook is an important cultural hub
>>

 No.7489

>>7485
No it's not ya boomer. Name some culture touchstone that's come out of Facebook in the last 5 years.
The only cultural products out of Facebook I've seen are people reporting on high value obviously stolen goods like Ferraris selling for a fraction of their value with no title.
>>

 No.7490

>>7483
>Just like other sexual content of yesterweek, be it so-called goths (not goths), clown roleplay, or the last porn trend. Big fucking whoop. People gawk on TikTok.
Sure it's a trend and most likely many of these women won't maintain this lifestyle into the far future. But the fact that it's so violently antithetical to feminism which is a sacred cow in the US, still indicates a significant cultural shift. 10 years ago this wouldn't have been and wasn't a trend.
>haha imagine marrying a bimbo. ok retard
Yeah, imagine marrying someone that actually wants to make you happy and fulfill your sexual desires. How foolish!
>why yes i want to give money to an infantile sex doll
Why do some many simps like you think being in a relationship with no or poor sex is a badge of honor. Absolutely boomer tier
>who will accidentally cook my child in a locked car!
Do you think being a Bimbo means you have dementia. You know that you can be a perfectly functional adult without being particularly bright.
This whole post screams repressed sexuality
>>

 No.7492

>>7483
>haha imagine marrying a bimbo
It's better than marrying some empowered feminist wahmyn who don't need no man. Why is it so hard for modern women to grasp that men like nice girls and not judgmental, unpleasable whores with body counts bigger than Trump's bank account?
>>

 No.7509

>>7490
>Do you think being a Bimbo means you have dementia. You know that you can be a perfectly functional adult without being particularly bright.

why dont we extend this logic to children?

>Why do some many simps like you think being in a relationship with no or poor sex is a badge of honor. Absolutely boomer tier


This. Most adult males have no self-value. Theyre always too eager to cash it in for female affirmation.

>Sure it's a trend and most likely many of these women won't maintain this lifestyle into the far future. But the fact that it's so violently antithetical to feminism which is a sacred cow in the US, still indicates a significant cultural shift. 10 years ago this wouldn't have been and wasn't a trend.


Hard disagree with the last couple sentences.

>>7489
>lives in a bubble were TikTok and Instagram are the only hot places in town due to excessive sideline viewing from imageboards.

>>7492
Its not hard. Its just that women dont care about appealing to male affirmation.

Just the same way men should stop caring so much about female affirmation.
>>

 No.7513

>>7509
>lives in a bubble were TikTok and Instagram are the only hot places in town due to excessive sideline viewing from imageboards.
Bro, nearly ever person in the US has a TikTok account. Gen Z uses it as a search engine instead of google. It is the only game in town.
>>

 No.7514

>>7509
>Hard disagree with the last couple sentences.
Why?
>>

 No.7524

>>7513
Case in point: >>7509
>>

 No.7525

>>7514
Explain how bimboification is antithetical/novelty to feminism.
Because I dont see how its any idfferent.
>>

 No.7526

>>7525
Feminism posits male sexuality is oppressive to women. Bimbos cater to male sexuality at the expense of social norms.
Bimbos are differential to men, which again feminism says is patriarchal oppression.
Bimbos celebrate male sexuality for it's own sake and do not require any prerequisites like looks, money or status before having intercourse with men which feminism says is debasing since men subjugate women.
The supporting arguments are in the OP
>>

 No.7532

>>7526
Again, bimbos were a thing in the bourgeois feminist denomination.


Yes its objectifying women, but bourgeois feminism used it as andrological bait.
Alot of the bimbos were either portrayed as doms or power bottoms.

The submission was a lie.

Unique IPs: 38

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome